What? No way you go for 2 in this situation. Unless getting fired is your goal...This is completely serious. I got this from David Sklansky on the big poker forum. The math says you should go for 2.
....and it should stay in the poker forumThis is completely serious. I got this from David Sklansky on the big poker forum. The math says you should go for 2.
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.This is completely serious. I got this from David Sklansky on the big poker forum. The math says you should go for 2.
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.What? No way you go for 2 in this situation. Unless getting fired is your goal...This is completely serious. I got this from David Sklansky on the big poker forum. The math says you should go for 2.
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.Pretty sure the owner will march down and fire you before the next kick off if you go for 2
Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!Imagine a game where you have two choices:Option 1: go to overtimeOption 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).
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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
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.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.
Oops, absolutely right. Gotta start improving my reading comprehension... My BadYou'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.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.
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:Thats why mathemeticians don't become football coaches.
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.I would love to see this done in a game. I think this one is harder to wrap your head around than the down 15 debate, but going for 2 is the right call in both.
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 QuarterI would love to see this done in a game. I think this one is harder to wrap your head around than the down 15 debate, but going for 2 is the right call in both.
He didn't specify what the overtime rules are. These could be NFL or college rules. Its unclear.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.
The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)He didn't specify what the overtime rules are. These could be NFL or college rules. Its unclear.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.
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 Shark Pool (NFL Talk)He didn't specify what the overtime rules are. These could be NFL or college rules. Its unclear.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.
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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
This type of misunderstanding of math is partly to blame for a lot of non-optimal NFL coaching decisions.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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
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.This type of misunderstanding of math is partly to blame for a lot of non-optimal NFL coaching decisions.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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
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.
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.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.
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.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.This type of misunderstanding of math is partly to blame for a lot of non-optimal NFL coaching decisions.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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
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.
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.
Dynasty and SSOG (although his numbers are low) have the math pretty close.This type of misunderstanding of math is partly to blame for a lot of non-optimal NFL coaching decisions.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.Wow, I guess you have a point. Although, I can't think of any NFL head coach that has done this!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).
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.
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.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.