Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TakiToki
- Start date
Skyryder222
Footballguy
I voted no, 100%. I think if it failed it would deflate the emotion. By getting the point you can tie easier, and with a good defensive stop or two kick a FG to win it.
DawgPoundNJ
Footballguy
0/10 attempt...pee pee in the shark pool again
What? No way you go for 2 in this situation. Unless getting fired is your goal...
....and it should stay in the poker forum
DropKick
Footballguy
I posted this a few weeks back and people acted like it was insane.If you score 2 TDs and kick XPs, you get a 50/50 shot in OT.
Or, you could go for two and then have the choice of
- kicking an XP for the win (if you convert)
- going for 2 (again) and the tie (if you don't convert)
You can work the "math" and prove the odds of scoring at least 2 points is greater than the 50/50 chance in OT.
SSOG
Moderator
Assume a 40% conversion percentage on 2pcs and a 95% conversion percentage on XPs (both assumptions are conservative). Also assume that you will score a second TD (because otherwise the entire discussion is irrelevant). Finally, assume that overtime is a 50/50 proposition. Here are all the possible outcomes:1. Make the 2pc, kick the XP on the 2nd TD (38% probability)2. Make the 2pc, miss the XP on the 2nd TD (2% probability)3. Miss the 2pc, make the 2nd 2pc (24% probability)4. Miss the 2pc, miss the 2nd 2pc (36% probability)Scenario 1 results in victory (38%), scenario 4 results in defeat (36%), and scenarios 2 and 3 result in overtime (26%). Of those 26% of scenarios that result in overtime, 13% will result in a win and 13% will result in a loss. Overall, given our assumptions (that you score the second TD), going for 2 early gives you a 51% chance of winning and a 49% chance of losing.Here are the outcomes if you kick the XP after the first TD:1. Make the XP, make the 2nd XP (90.25% probability)2. Make the XP, miss the second XP (4.75% probability)3. Miss the first XP, make the 2pc on the 2nd TD (2% probability)4. Miss the first XP, miss the 2pc on the 2nd TD (3% probability)Scenarios 2 and 4 result in outright defeat (7.75%). Scenarios 1 and 3 result in overtime (92.25%). Of those 92.25% of scenarios that result in overtime, 46.125% will result in a win and 46.125% will result in a loss. Overall, given our assumptions (that you score the second TD), going for the XP early gives you a 46.125% chance of winning and a 53.875% chance of losing.By those numbers, it's clear that the smart play is going for 2 after you score a TD when down by 14.Now, you can get into the assumptions a bit and discuss the possibility of both teams getting extra possessions, but it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you'd think, and the math isn't nearly as obvious as it first appears.
footballnerd
Footballguy
Pretty sure the owner will march down and fire you before the next kick off if you go for 2
ZWK
Footballguy
Imagine a game where you have two choices:
Option 1: go to overtime
Option 2: go for a two point conversion. If you make it, you win. If you fail, you get another chance at a two point conversion. If you make that one, you go to overtime. If you fail again, you lose.
That's basically the choice you're facing when you're down 14 and you score a touchdown, if we assume that your two touchdowns are the only scores and that extra points are automatic. You have three chances - the first two point attempt, the second two point attempt, and overtime. If you succeed on the first chance then you win, and if you fail on the first chance you get to call "best two out of three."
So I'd go for it, unless I had an unusual team (great at overtime or terrible at two point conversions).
Option 1: go to overtime
Option 2: go for a two point conversion. If you make it, you win. If you fail, you get another chance at a two point conversion. If you make that one, you go to overtime. If you fail again, you lose.
That's basically the choice you're facing when you're down 14 and you score a touchdown, if we assume that your two touchdowns are the only scores and that extra points are automatic. You have three chances - the first two point attempt, the second two point attempt, and overtime. If you succeed on the first chance then you win, and if you fail on the first chance you get to call "best two out of three."
So I'd go for it, unless I had an unusual team (great at overtime or terrible at two point conversions).
Michael Brown
Footballguy
This likely occurrence doesn't mean it's the incorrect call -- it just explains why nobody does it.Football is eventually going to see a widespread statistical revolution (Belichick is already trying) similar to the Moneyball-era baseball days where everything we thought to be true, isn't.
hutchins929
Footballguy
Perfect Tommy
Footballguy
That is what is amazing to me. Any coach taking advantage of the proper mathematical plays on when to punt, bypass FGs, go for 2pt conversions and so on would have a big advantage every Sunday. The Patriots are the best in the league but even they could improve in this area quite a lot. Some of these owners are millionaires or billionaires. They must know about trusting experts. They must know about mathematics. So how can one of the smart owners not sit down the coach and have some statistics professor teach him a little football math? I have never understood why professional teams make so many mistakes.
renesauz
IBL Representative
I must say that after looking closer. I'm far less certain about my initial position.
But the numbers are close. Far from clear cut. IN fact, the numbers are close enough that I'm not sure there really is a correct answer here...and lacking a clear answer, the traditional "safe" play stands...kick it.
But the numbers are close. Far from clear cut. IN fact, the numbers are close enough that I'm not sure there really is a correct answer here...and lacking a clear answer, the traditional "safe" play stands...kick it.
Hawk Fan
Footballguy
I would love to see this done in a game. This a great example of how conventional wisdom can be wrong and is almost more interesting than the debate about whether or not to go for 2 when down by 15. Your objective is to win the game, not just make it to overtime. Go for 2 here (and when down by 15!).
wickster33
Footballguy
Thats why mathemeticians don't become football coaches. The number 1 priority is to get within one score as soon as possible. Big difference between down 8 and down 9, not just in the way your team feels, but in how the opponents play.
CalBear
Footballguy
You're in the wrong thread; you can't be down 9 in this scenario.And as the sabermetricians have shown, mathematicians have a lot to teach coaches.
wickster33
Footballguy
Oops, absolutely right. Gotta start improving my reading comprehension... My Bad
SSOG
Moderator
The reason why mathematicians don't become football coaches is because the football coaching professions is extremely nepotistic. Still, there's a pretty strong history of success for teams that put lawyers with no real sports experience in positions of power...wickster33 said:
CalBear
Footballguy
What has been done occasionally is going for two after scoring a TD at the end of the game, to avoid overtime; make the 2-point conversion and you win, miss and you lose. If anyone thinks that's acceptable at all (which I do), it clearly makes more sense to go for it on the first TD when down by 14 than on the last TD.
Fensalk
Footballguy
There was one game where a team kept going for two. October 15th, 2000. Falcons @ Rams. Rams K Jeff Wilkins got hurt, and so Martz decided to go for 2 after every TD.First Quarter
Atl--D.Vaughn 96 kickoff return (M.Andersen kick), 0:16. ATL 7-0
StL--T.Horne 103 kickoff return (J.Wilkins kick), 0:36. 7-7
Atl--T.Mathis 16 pass from C.Chandler (M.Andersen kick), 4:46. ATL 14-7
Second Quarter
StL--T.Horne 3 pass from K.Warner (L.Fletcher pass from K.Lyle), 0:05. STL 15-14
StL--J.Watson 2 run (conversion failed), 11:44. STL 21-14
Atl--J.Anderson 4 run (M.Andersen kick), 13:04. 21-21
StL--A.Hakim 30 pass from K.Warner (M.Faulk run), 14:57. STL 29-21
Third Quarter
StL--R.Holcombe 12 pass from K.Warner (M.Faulk run), 8:03. STL 37-21
Fourth Quarter
Atl--T.Dwight 16 pass from C.Chandler (J.Anderson run), 10:33. STL 37-29
StL--M.Faulk 3 run (R.Williams pass from K.Warner), 13:51. STL 45-29
A--66,019.
The Rams made 4 of 5 tries. That got them 8 instead of 5 points, or basically a bonus field goal. The Falcons were actually compelled to start going for 2 as well to compensate. Atlanta converted their only 2-point try.
If I were a coach, I would go for two during regulation and not go into overtime especially if I had confidence in my offense. Otherwise you risk losing the coin toss and never touching the ball. Winning the coin toss gives improves the team's chance of winning by about 10 percentage points. Win the game on the field and not rely on a coin toss.
Yeah, go for two.
Fensalk
Footballguy
He didn't specify what the overtime rules are. These could be NFL or college rules. Its unclear.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)
Fensalk
Footballguy
There's plenty of college talk in here. Heck, there's been plenty of talk about implementing the college rules in the NFL in here. Do a search TIA.
The Doctor
Footballguy
id go for 3. why settle for 2
I could have sworn there was a really long thread about this, but this was the closest I could find.
Anyway, Benjamin Morris is right.
Anyway, Benjamin Morris is right.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Lets say you do this, get it, score again, and you are up 1 point with 45 seconds left.
Now the other team is going to come out guns blazing to try and win rather than be content and conservative to play not to lose and go into overtime, meaning their chances of scoring when down 1 will be higher than if the score is tied.
There is a lot more math to this than just the odds of scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 on conversion attempts.
As for just going for two, I think the "bad" teams should go for 2 a hell of a lot more than they do
Now the other team is going to come out guns blazing to try and win rather than be content and conservative to play not to lose and go into overtime, meaning their chances of scoring when down 1 will be higher than if the score is tied.
There is a lot more math to this than just the odds of scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 on conversion attempts.
As for just going for two, I think the "bad" teams should go for 2 a hell of a lot more than they do
I would like it if teams went for 2 more often.
But it seems unlikely that it will happen, even with the math backing it up.
It reminds me of the high school coach who never punts and always kicks onsides. He was very successful at the high school level. But I have not seen even college coaches move to this even though (again) the math backs it up. If you fail you look silly, if you succeed, you probably still look silly unless you can do it over and over again.
But it seems unlikely that it will happen, even with the math backing it up.
It reminds me of the high school coach who never punts and always kicks onsides. He was very successful at the high school level. But I have not seen even college coaches move to this even though (again) the math backs it up. If you fail you look silly, if you succeed, you probably still look silly unless you can do it over and over again.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
Poorly worded question. I'm assuming you mean after the first of 2 TDs.... would I go for 2?
Yes, without question. You have 2 score 2 TDs and hold them to 0 points. If you connect on the 2 points then you win the game on the next TD with extra point. If you miss, you still can tie with a 2 point conversion on the 2nd TD.
Yes, without question. You have 2 score 2 TDs and hold them to 0 points. If you connect on the 2 points then you win the game on the next TD with extra point. If you miss, you still can tie with a 2 point conversion on the 2nd TD.
Deamon
Footballguy
Except for that the conversion rate is under 50%. Meaning you are more likely to miss BOTH, then to make one of the 2 chances.
AngryPatriot
Footballguy
The best thing you can do here is start running the ball, killing clock, keep your timeout. Get the clock WAY down, so you can score multiple touchdowns at the end and leave almost no clock for the opponent.
Andy Reid
Andy Reid
Dynasty
Footballguy
This type of misunderstanding of math is partly to blame for a lot of non-optimal NFL coaching decisions.
If we assume the chance of converting a two point conversion is 47.2% (from the 538 article), then:
On the first attempt: You convert 47.2% of the time (and then kick the XP on a second TD). You fail to convert 52.8% of the time (and are forced to try a second attempt)
On the second attempt: You convert 24.9% of the time (.472 * .528). You fail to convert 27.9% (.528 * .528) of the time.
So, you complete at least one two point conversion attempt 72.1% of the time.
The end result is:
47.2% of the time, you a make the first two point conversion and can win the game with a second TD and kicked XP.
24.9% of the time, you make the second two point conversion and send the game into overtime.
27.9% of the time, you miss both two point conversions and are down two points after scoring the second TD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
I'm curious what the OT victory rate is of a team that came back from down 2 TDs is though. I'd guess with that momentum (or maybe it was the opponent losing a key player to injury, etc), your chances of winning that OT are higher then 50%. In this situation, I'd rather take the 100% chance that you go to overtime then take this risk.
You aren't going to even go for the 2nd 2 point conversion if you make the first one, so you can't use odds that you'll make "one of the two attempts tried" by using this math. Each situation is completely independent from the other. But if you miss the first conversion (like you likely will), and then 7 minutes passes and you score another Touchdown, your odds of completing that 2nd attempt is still 47.2%, not 72.1%.
If you're going to simply throw out momentum and risk factors and use only odds, then shouldn't you always go for 2 if you score on the final play of the game when down 7?? 47.2% of the time you win the game on the conversion, and only 47.05% of the time you'll hit the extra point (94.1% this year) multiplied by the 50% that you'll win the game in OT.
Borden
Footballguy
I will address this first. The coach that you're referring to in not on a level playing field. A close friend and former roommate of mine (who has since moved up in the coaching ranks) played against this guy. I asked him about this strategy. Here is basically the answer the answer I got.
"Yeah if you the horses to do it. The build a program by pushing the rules to the limit, to say the least, and now he had talent over flowing. I'm jealous of the talent he weaselled but his game plan is garbage and over inflated. If like saying "Oh look how smart this coach is" as his NFL team runs over a high school team."
Borden
Footballguy
So to the real point of asking if it's better to go for two to win the game (on the road) or to kick the PAT and play for OT.
This is where analytics fall apart Become you need to account for so many variables. The coin toss to start is in theory a 50/50 chance. After that is wind direction, field conditions, momentum, injury situations, one teams kicking percentage vs the others, defensive ratings vs the offensive takings, and on and on.
Really I don't care about the coaches view vs the analitics views but it gets under my skin when people just spew numbers and think that wherever they stop is where they stop is where the stops. There's lots of this that should not happen but the do and if football there is a long list. From Jeremy Hill to the Bills and on and on. Football might be a game that can be broken down and won by the numbers but right now we don't have nearly the appropriate amount of data or proper judgement numbers. So stop, just stop trying to bend hindsight numbers to the "correct call" situations.
This is where analytics fall apart Become you need to account for so many variables. The coin toss to start is in theory a 50/50 chance. After that is wind direction, field conditions, momentum, injury situations, one teams kicking percentage vs the others, defensive ratings vs the offensive takings, and on and on.
Really I don't care about the coaches view vs the analitics views but it gets under my skin when people just spew numbers and think that wherever they stop is where they stop is where the stops. There's lots of this that should not happen but the do and if football there is a long list. From Jeremy Hill to the Bills and on and on. Football might be a game that can be broken down and won by the numbers but right now we don't have nearly the appropriate amount of data or proper judgement numbers. So stop, just stop trying to bend hindsight numbers to the "correct call" situations.
CalBear
Footballguy
It would actually be shocking if the OT result is significantly different than 50/50 regardless of the previous game conditions. Momentum doesn't exist, not in a predictive way.
There of course isn't a huge amount of data to work with. In regular-season games, since 1978 there have been 51 cases where the game wound up going to OT when one team was behind by 14 or more points at the end of the third quarter. The OT results for the team that came from behind are 26-25-1. I think it's safe to call that a 50/50 toss-up.
And yes, if you make 2-point conversions at 47.2% at more than double the rate you make one-point conversions, you should go for 2 in that situation (and in fact, in almost every situation). But for the amount of data we have, 2*47.2% and 94.0% are statistically equivalent, so that's a toss-up decision. But it wouldn't at all be a bad choice to go for two there, especially if you're a team that's good at going for two (like Pittsburgh, not so much like Green Bay in 2015).
Catbird
Footballguy
Dynasty and SSOG (although his numbers are low) have the math pretty close.
If you score both TDs and the opponent doesn't score again, going for 2 the first time gives you a 47.2% chance of having to only kick an XP to win. The XP is around 95%, so 47.2% likelihood of making the 2 X 95% chance on the XP means if you go for 2, in 45% (48.4%) of the situations you make the 2 pointer and kick the XP, and so win. In the other 2% of the time when you make the 2 pointer but then miss the XP, you are tied and go to overtime.
In the 52.8% of the situations where you fail on the first 2 pointer and then attempt the second 2 pointer, the math says you will again make it 47.2% of the time. That's 47.2% X 52.8%, or a 25% (24.9%) chance of going to overtime. On the times you fail on the first 2 point try and then fail again on the second try (52.8% X 52.8% = 27.88% so 28%) you lose by 2.
That means 45% of the time you win outright by scoring the 2 pointer and then making the XP. 28% of the time you fail on both attempts and lose. In the other 27% of the situations, (25% of the time when you miss the first 2 pointer and then make the second and 2% of the time when you make the first 2 pointer and then miss the XP) you tie and go to overtime. Of those ties, I would have said the last scoring team has a strong momentum advantage, but CalBears' stats show empirically that its a 50/50 proposition. So, in that 27% of the situations which go to overtime, you'll win half and lose half, so 13.5% of the time you'll win and 13.5% of the time lose.
Overall (recognizing this is based on averages over time and not taking into account individual team strengths and kicking abilities or defenses faced or whatever) a team down 14, scoring both TDs with the opponent scoring none, when going for 2 points, will win 58.5% (45% + 13.5%) of the time and lose 41.5% (28% + 13.5%) of the time.
Just kicking the XPs, teams will make the first kick 95% of the time and then make the second 95% of the time, and so will score the 14 points to tie 92.5% of the time. Of the 5% of times they miss the first kick, they will make the 2 pointer 47.2% of their chances, and miss it 52.8%, which is about 2.5% of the time they miss the initial XP and make the 2 pointer. That's a 97.5% chance of making it to overtime, or a 48.75% chance of winning.
So, completely on scoring averages, going for 2 will get you a 58.5% likelihood of winning and going for 1 will get you a 48.75% probability. To that, however, I think you have to take into account the possible motivation let down in nearly 50% of the situations for missing the first 2 pointer and having to make the next one just to tie versus the 95% likelihood of making the first XP which builds momentum toward the second. Also playing in is the good point raised that the opposing teams may well play for the tie too if they see you going there, but play harder or take more risks to score again if you have made the first 2 pointer.
In all, I think going for 2 should give you a 10% better chance to win than going for one, but that can be offset by other considerations, like facing a great defense, having a spotty kicking game, having lots of time for other scoring to occur, etc. I would, however, spend a LOT of time with my bosses making this all very clear and be sure they are solidly on board before I'd risk losing a game on 2 failed 2 point attempts where two 'automatic' kicks would have sent us to overtime.
SWC
Bromigo
well you left out quite a few options you could go for an onside extra point kick which is one of the greatest trick plays ever invented by the old swcer what you do is onside kick the extra point that is how it works or you could go for a little thing i like to call the flying dutchman extra point which was also invented by none other than the trickmaster swc the way that one works is you have a really short guy maybe like four feet tall and you give him the ball and then the kicker kicks him and the ball through the uprights for a touchdown it is like a quadrupal sowcow right now because of a lot of teams have tried it but no one has made it yet so when it does happen i am sure it will be on the news and probably cbs sportsline and tmz take that to the bank brohans
CalBear
Footballguy
Again, I think it's extremely likely that OT is a 50/50 proposition no matter what the game situation was before OT, given sufficient sample size.
There's not an easy way on PFR to look at which team scored last in regulation, but if you look at the team that was ahead at the start of the fourth quarter in games that went to OT, their record is 214-228 (48.4%) That suggests a slight advantage for the team that came from behind, but it's within the margin of error.
Whenever anyone's looked at momentum effects statistically, they haven't found much of note.
Deamon
Footballguy
Like others said, too many other factors.
- What are the weather conditions? Most 2 point attempts are throws.... is it raining/windy/etc? This could drop the percentage of conversion drastically.
- How good is the other teams goalline defense?
- How good is your kicker/the kicking conditions? If you have a kicker with a big leg then your OT percentage may be SLIGHTLY higher then 50% and change things.
- Are there any injuries? To your receivers, or to their DBs?
- Would a tie benefit you? THere's always the chance of a tie and maybe said game occurs where a tie or a win will get you into the playoffs.
- How successful is YOUR team at 2 point conversions? Maybe you're a team like Seattle or Jacksonville who both converted 1 of 5 conversions this year. Maybe it's personnel, or maybe they don't have the same amount of time each week devoted to practicing 2 point plays. These teams may have a smaller percentage chance then 47% and the above math may not factor in for these teams (while others like Pittsburgh may be a no brainer to do it)
- Are you at home or away? I would imagine that the completion percentage of road teams, with a win on the line and no time left, would be on the lower - side of 47% with a ramped up loud crowd.
Too many factors to say that every team should go for 2 in this situation.
- What are the weather conditions? Most 2 point attempts are throws.... is it raining/windy/etc? This could drop the percentage of conversion drastically.
- How good is the other teams goalline defense?
- How good is your kicker/the kicking conditions? If you have a kicker with a big leg then your OT percentage may be SLIGHTLY higher then 50% and change things.
- Are there any injuries? To your receivers, or to their DBs?
- Would a tie benefit you? THere's always the chance of a tie and maybe said game occurs where a tie or a win will get you into the playoffs.
- How successful is YOUR team at 2 point conversions? Maybe you're a team like Seattle or Jacksonville who both converted 1 of 5 conversions this year. Maybe it's personnel, or maybe they don't have the same amount of time each week devoted to practicing 2 point plays. These teams may have a smaller percentage chance then 47% and the above math may not factor in for these teams (while others like Pittsburgh may be a no brainer to do it)
- Are you at home or away? I would imagine that the completion percentage of road teams, with a win on the line and no time left, would be on the lower - side of 47% with a ramped up loud crowd.
Too many factors to say that every team should go for 2 in this situation.
Similar threads
