Down by 14 in the 4th Quarter (1 Viewer)

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

I don't think you read the post. Even at a 38% conversion rate this makes sense if it's the end of the game and you're down 14... Reread it.

There's more than 1 post in here. I read yours as well..........I disagree with it but don't know the math to figure it out.I just know in football that if you are down by 14 points you should kick the extra point if you score a TD. A couple are:If it's 42 percent chance that you'll make the two point conversion........that means there's a 58 percent chance you won't make it, meaning odds are you won't. That means you probably will have to go for 2 points when you get the next TD just to tie the game.Also, there is an emotional part to the game, it's just the way it is. If you score a TD in the 4th quarter to potentially come within 7 points....you do not stop the momentum by going for 2 points with a 58 percent chance of it not working.Can it work out........sure. Is it the way to go, not by me.

 

[Gamblor]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

I don't think you read the post. Even at a 38% conversion rate this makes sense if it's the end of the game and you're down 14... Reread it.

There's more than 1 post in here. I read yours as well..........I disagree with it but don't know the math to figure it out.I just know in football that if you are down by 14 points you should kick the extra point if you score a TD.

Careful you are starting to sound like Levin.

 

[parasaurolophus]

this has been a pretty enjoyable thread. I really enjoy hearing different theories about standard football operating procedures. There are just too many coaches, and fans for that matter, that just think "well thats the way it is, and always should be".

So many times you here an announcer say "you just have to punt here" or "you have to put points on the board, you have to kick the field goal"

blah blah blah.

Look at Bill Belichek. Most people these days consider him to be the best, or at least top 3 for coaching in the NFL. The man is constantly reinventing his defense, offense, and moves an endless stream of average players into the "winners" category. How many coaches would have been as aggressive as he at the endo fo teh first super bowl. Who else would have told his players to hold Faulk until they call it?

 

[thayman]

this has been a pretty enjoyable thread. I really enjoy hearing different theories about standard football operating procedures. There are just too many coaches, and fans for that matter, that just think "well thats the way it is, and always should be". So many times you here an announcer say "you just have to punt here" or "you have to put points on the board, you have to kick the field goal"blah blah blah.Look at Bill Belichek. Most people these days consider him to be the best, or at least top 3 for coaching in the NFL. The man is constantly reinventing his defense, offense, and moves an endless stream of average players into the "winners" category. How many coaches would have been as aggressive as he at the endo fo teh first super bowl. Who else would have told his players to hold Faulk until they call it?

I see your point but this example is completely different. What Belichek does is things that are beyond your average fans intrest/comprehension of the game. If Belichek came out this week and just said "F it, no more extra points we only go for two point conversions." As soon as he started to lose a game or two by missing them, he would be out of a job. The fans/media would be screaming for his head.

 

[Hawthorne]

Not ignoring game situation at all. Down 14, Get the game into OT. At that point, momentum is on my side.Given a choice between:41% chance of winning24% chance of OT (tie)34% chance of losingor99% chance OT (tie) An NFL coach will take the latter even though you can debate percentages (53% - 47%) all night.

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

 

[CalBear]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

 

[Marc Levin]

Careful you are starting to sound like Levin.

I would think at least a few people would take that as a compliment.I am with ya CalBear - rejecting it out of hand is not mathemtacically defensible. Whether you would ever see a coach taking it to heart as a viable strategy is another concept. Since he doesn't know the math, Iwannbeacowboybaby! hit on the exact reason why the strategy would never catch on in the NFL. A 42% chance of making it is a 58% chance of missing it while a 98% chance of making the XP is only a 2% chance of missing it. It would be really hard to convince an NFL head coach to give up what is essentially a gimmee point to take a less than 50% chance on only one extra point.And, as I have said MANY MANY times now, there is no way it makes football sense if there is sufficient time on the clock to score a few more times. If there is less than 5 minutes left in the game and you are down by 14, going for two might be the right decision - then you are looking at a drive for a FG and a FG to tie - or a drive for a TD to win. If there are 10 minutes or more in the game, why go for two? I expect I will have 3 or 4 more offensive possessions (unless my D is REALLY bad and their run game is REALLY good).

 

[Marc Levin]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

Yup.The only thing that matters in OT is the coin toss. I think the team that wins the coin toss and takes the ball first wins 55% of the time - that's the number I recall seeing last year. I am unsure how often that occurs on the first drive, however.

 

[parasaurolophus]

this has been a pretty enjoyable thread. I really enjoy hearing different theories about standard football operating procedures. There are just too many coaches, and fans for that matter, that just think "well thats the way it is, and always should be". So many times you here an announcer say "you just have to punt here" or "you have to put points on the board, you have to kick the field goal"blah blah blah.Look at Bill Belichek. Most people these days consider him to be the best, or at least top 3 for coaching in the NFL. The man is constantly reinventing his defense, offense, and moves an endless stream of average players into the "winners" category. How many coaches would have been as aggressive as he at the endo fo teh first super bowl. Who else would have told his players to hold Faulk until they call it?

I see your point but this example is completely different. What Belichek does is things that are beyond your average fans intrest/comprehension of the game. If Belichek came out this week and just said "F it, no more extra points we only go for two point conversions." As soon as he started to lose a game or two by missing them, he would be out of a job. The fans/media would be screaming for his head.

I think belichek would get away with losing quite a few games right now and keep his job just fine. Plus if it was actually the right decision and he won some games with it, then he would be fine. Lets say his team can convert 2pt conv. 60% of the time, then he would be making the right decision more often than not and would put some extra points on the board. A rookie head coach who does it and loses a game or two might lose his job. A coach losing his job doesnt make it the right or wrong decision though. It means it went against the "right" perception. Well the fact that some NFL perceptions may very well be incorrect is kinda the point of this thread.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think belichek would get away with losing quite a few games right now and keep his job just fine. Plus if it was actually the right decision and he won some games with it, then he would be fine. Lets say his team can convert 2pt conv. 60% of the time, then he would be making the right decision more often than not and would put some extra points on the board.

Wouldn't you agree that, this year, LT's been scoring from inside the five more than 60% of the time? He has 18 rush attempts, 13 TDs - that is a 72.2% conversion rate - Michael Turner's got 3 dshots, and has 1 TD.LJ has converted 20 rush attempts inside the 5 into 12 TDs - 60% conversion rate.I think we have a couple teams that could easily employ the strategy and have a better than 50% chance of getting it EVERY time they tried.Not sure if that matters to you, just saying there are examples out there of teams that could probably count on scoring 2 PC over 1 XP more than 50% of the time.

 

[Marc Levin]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

Yup.The only thing that matters in OT is the coin toss. I think the team that wins the coin toss and takes the ball first wins 55% of the time - that's the number I recall seeing last year. I am unsure how often that occurs on the first drive, however.

BTW - I think the reason Hawthorne asked has to do with Momentum/Emotion - if so, there's that pesky non-mathematical thing creeping into a football discussion again.He coul dalso be asking b/c a team that scores 14 points inthe last quarter of a game is usually working the opposing defense pretty well, and that defense might be a bit more tired than their opponent's D heading into the OT period.

 

[CalBear]

BTW - I think the reason Hawthorne asked has to do with Momentum/Emotion - if so, there's that pesky non-mathematical thing creeping into a football discussion again.

Frankly, I think momentum is just a measure of what happened in the past; it has no predictive value.

 

[toppshelff]

There is no situation where a football coach should pull out the 'league averages' at doing something, and base their response on that. Because their team is not the league average, and the team they're opposing is not the league average, and the situation they find themselves in is not the league average. That's why mathematicians would get eaten alive trying to coach in the NFL.

There are many, many reasons why mathematicians would get eaten alive trying to coach in the NFL, but that is most certainly not one of them. Mathematicians are in general very meticulous about being aware of the limitations of their models. The David Romer paper, oft-criticized for eggheadedness, contains lots of discussion about the appropriateness of the assumptions made.But more to the point, in this case there is no reason to restrict yourself to a league average assumption. Assume your probability of getting a 2-pointer is p2 and your probability of making the kick is p1 (a coach, on the field at the time, could make reasonable estimates of p1 and p2, yes?).

The Math:

Combos In Going For 2

Succeed on 1st, Make XP on 2nd (AHEAD 1) = p1 * p2

Succeed on 1st, Miss XP on 2nd (EVEN) = p2 * (1 - p1)

Fail on 1st, Succeed on 2nd (EVEN) = (1 - p2) * p2

Fail on 1st, Fail on 2nd (BEHIND 2) = (1 - p2) * (1 - p2)

I'll save you the math on going for 1 but it works out to being even p1^2 + p2 * (1 - p1) of the time, and behind 1 - (p1^2 + p2*(1 - p1)) of the time. Assuming OT is a 50/50 p3 proposition you win p3 * (p1^2 + p2*(1-p1)) of the time going for 1 after the first TD.

By Going for 2 after the first TD, you win p1*p2 + p3*p2*(1-p1) + p3*p2*(1-p2) of the time (again assuming 50/50 p3 for OT)

That simplifies to p1*p2 + p2*p3*(2 - p1 - p2). If that number is bigger than p3*(p1^2+p2*(1-p1)), then going for two is a good call. If not, it's not. The point of a model like this is not to proclaim that mathematicians are smart and football coaches are dumb. It's to build a framework that allows the coach to use all the information at his disposal to make smart decisions.

Coach: knows probabilities.

Mathematician: tells him, given those probabilities, what the "percentage" move is.

These sorts of things are often presented with assumptions of averageness, but that's just a starting point.

[NOTE: I hope there are no errors in the math above. I did it quick. Even if there are, I hope my point is clear.]

ETA: CalBear makes solid points about the many other factors that come into play. My point here was just about the fact that averageness assumptions shouldn't affect your opinion of this computation.

The momentum discussion of going into overtime is interesting. I'm sure there are enough cases of teams coming back from 14 to force overtime to calculate the "real" average in OT. From what I know, the coin flip is the biggest determinant of overtime wins, and the last I checked, coins don't always "flow with momentum". To continue with the "averages" argument, p3 can be calculated given a 14 point comeback. Bottom line of all of this is that if your offense is "better than average" in goal-line situations and the defense is "lesser than average" in defending goal-line situations, you should go for two. Unless you are more worried about your ### than winning.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW - I think the reason Hawthorne asked has to do with Momentum/Emotion - if so, there's that pesky non-mathematical thing creeping into a football discussion again.

Frankly, I think momentum is just a measure of what happened in the past; it has no predictive value.

Statistically, of course it has no predictive value - in the game of football, I think you are deluding yourself to minimize the effect of momentum on a football game. Momentum also has no measurable statistic to latch onto - it would be EXTREMELY difficult to find what play constituted the swing in momentum of a game, but you can watch it happen when you watch the game. Esp. since your name and avatar have a college football team on them, and considering momentum can be one of the most important factors of a college football game, I'm surprised by your statement - how MANY times have you see the team that makes a 4 down GL stand go on to come back and win the game? Many Many Many times - that is shifting momentum and you can SEE it happen on the field.Of course momentum has no place in a statistical or mathematical discussion - but it has a firmly established chair in the boardroom of a football discussion.

 

[The Duff Man]

Another thing to consider is what are the chances of scoring a MEANINGFUL 2 point conversion.

Of all the 2 point conversions attempted in the league, I wonder how many actually have a bearing on the win, and how many are attempted by teams trailing by 16 with 1 minute left to play?

As previously stated in the mathematical model, all the chances of success should be team/situational based (not based on league averages) but this is another thing that would play into determining these probabilities.

In general it is probably easier to score a 2 point conversion when trailing by 16 with a minute left than it is when trailing by 2 (to tie the game)

 

[Gamblor]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

Yup.The only thing that matters in OT is the coin toss. I think the team that wins the coin toss and takes the ball first wins 55% of the time - that's the number I recall seeing last year. I am unsure how often that occurs on the first drive, however.

I thought the number was actually higher then 55%. Looking into it a bit I find this data up to the 2003 season.

Going into this season (2003), there had been 342 overtime games in NFL history. Of those games, 177 times (51.8%) the team that won the toss won the game, 149 times (43.6%) the team that lost the toss won the game, and 16 games (4.7%) ended tied.

 

[Gamblor]

Of all the 2 point conversions attempted in the league, I wonder how many actually have a bearing on the win, and how many are attempted by teams trailing by 16 with 1 minute left to play?

Without any evidence, I would argue most of the attempts are significant. I rarely see a team attempt a 2 point conversion, unless the attempt would have a bearing on the win.

 

[Marc Levin]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

Yup.The only thing that matters in OT is the coin toss. I think the team that wins the coin toss and takes the ball first wins 55% of the time - that's the number I recall seeing last year. I am unsure how often that occurs on the first drive, however.

I thought the number was actually higher then 55%. Looking into it a bit I find this data up to the 2003 season.

Going into this season (2003), there had been 342 overtime games in NFL history. Of those games, 177 times (51.8%) the team that won the toss won the game, 149 times (43.6%) the team that lost the toss won the game, and 16 games (4.7%) ended tied.

I recall some announcer b*tching REALLY hard about the NFL's current OT system and how unfair it is compared to college - and then they cited that figure as an indication if how unfair it was that the other teamn didn't get a shot to win or re-tie the game. I was pretty sure it was 55% versus 45% and I had to that some stupiud announcer used that stat swing as a good reason to ditch sudden death.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i guess one argument against momentum would be burnout. Couldnt it be argued that the team that had to overcome such a huge obstacle is more likely to be burned out going into overtime and the other team would have an advantage?

I really dont agree with either, i am just bringing it up for discussion.

 

[Hawthorne]

The momentum discussion of going into overtime is interesting. I'm sure there are enough cases of teams coming back from 14 to force overtime to calculate the "real" average in OT. From what I know, the coin flip is the biggest determinant of overtime wins, and the last I checked, coins don't always "flow with momentum". To continue with the "averages" argument, p3 can be calculated given a 14 point comeback.

Yes, coins don't always "flow with momentum", but let's say a team has just scored 14 straight points. Doesn't that also imply that -- generally -- both offenses and defenses are playing well? So, technically, if you believe in the elusive concept of "momentum" in football, it shouldn't matter who gets the ball first in OT.

 

[Marc Levin]

i guess one argument against momentum would be burnout. Couldnt it be argued that the team that had to overcome such a huge obstacle is more likely to be burned out going into overtime and the other team would have an advantage? I really dont agree with either, i am just bringing it up for discussion.

I don't think so - I think the team that forced a tie is not "burnt out" - they are amped up. They did the hardest part of what they needed to do to win the game and the light at the end of the tunnel is right in front of themIt is similar to a marathon runner who comes from behind - he doesn't get burnt out in the last mile - the LEADER gets burnt out, though, after seeing his lead evaporate.

 

[Archie Bunker]

BTW - I think the reason Hawthorne asked has to do with Momentum/Emotion - if so, there's that pesky non-mathematical thing creeping into a football discussion again.

Frankly, I think momentum is just a measure of what happened in the past; it has no predictive value.

Statistically, of course it has no predictive value - in the game of football, I think you are deluding yourself to minimize the effect of momentum on a football game. Momentum also has no measurable statistic to latch onto - it would be EXTREMELY difficult to find what play constituted the swing in momentum of a game, but you can watch it happen when you watch the game. Esp. since your name and avatar have a college football team on them, and considering momentum can be one of the most important factors of a college football game, I'm surprised by your statement - how MANY time shave you see the team that makes a 4 down GL stand go on to come back and win the game? Many Many Many times - that is shifting momentum and you can SEE it happen on the field.Of course momentum has no place in a statistical or mathematical discussion - but it has a firmly established chair in the boardroom of a football discussion.

So far, all the emotional/psychological discussion has been around the trailing team. What about the leading team? If they are down by 6 instead of 7, that could change the way they play the final minutes of a game, possibly throwing where they would normally just run & punt. A team probably doesn't treat an 8 point lead much different than a 7 point lead. Either way, they figure the trailing team is going for a tie. They probably treat a 6 point lead different than a 7 point lead. Now they're playing to keep the other team from having a shot at winning.

 

[Hawthorne]

BTW - I think the reason Hawthorne asked has to do with Momentum/Emotion - if so, there's that pesky non-mathematical thing creeping into a football discussion again.He coul dalso be asking b/c a team that scores 14 points inthe last quarter of a game is usually working the opposing defense pretty well, and that defense might be a bit more tired than their opponent's D heading into the OT period.

To be honest, I was just asking because 1) I was curious. 2) The original poster could then fill out the additional statistics on his model.Personally, I like the idea of mathematical modeling in football analysis. No, it should never be a final barometer in determining whether a coach made a good call or a bad call, but I think that in cases like this, that it can give you additional insight into theoretical success ratios of historical situations.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Has anyone ever broken down OT win/loss ratio by the team that was leading before OT vs. the team that was trailing before OT? That would put an interesting little cap on this discussion with regards to a statistical look at "momentum".

That's an interesting question, but I would be surprised if the difference had any real statistical significance.

Yup.The only thing that matters in OT is the coin toss. I think the team that wins the coin toss and takes the ball first wins 55% of the time - that's the number I recall seeing last year. I am unsure how often that occurs on the first drive, however.

I thought the number was actually higher then 55%. Looking into it a bit I find this data up to the 2003 season.

Going into this season (2003), there had been 342 overtime games in NFL history. Of those games, 177 times (51.8%) the team that won the toss won the game, 149 times (43.6%) the team that lost the toss won the game, and 16 games (4.7%) ended tied.

this is a misleading stat btw. The kickoff used to be at the 40. then the 35 and now the 30. The percentages from the last 7-8 years are really the only fair ones to use.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm still not buying the math argument.If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

Count the wins, not the points.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There is no doubt that teams screw this up all the time. And I don't buy the argument that coaches are afraid of facing the press. It would be easy. Just smile and say "I am a gambler" or some such thing. It would make the coach appear macho. What coaches really hate is losing, and their refusal to make the correct gaming decision promotes losing. It is just stupid. A statistician was on one of the NFL shows a couple of seasons ago and commented on going for it on 4th and 1, which is usually correct. He said that there may be other considerations at times which make punting or going for the FG a better play, but the mathematically correct play has to be right SOMETIMES. It can't always be right to make the mathematically incorrect play.

I agree with this.

 

[sinatravolta]

You skeptics (football coaches would have figured this out by now) need to read Moneyball by Michael Lewis. I don't like baseball but it's a very good book.

Basically shows that baseball managers and scouts have been picking the wrong players because they have gone by conventional wisdom - e.g. batting average is a great stat, guys who are super-athletic are better picks than guys who aren't, but put up better numbers in college, etc.

The Oakland A's manage to be a winning team in baseball despite spending a small fraction of what teams like the Yankees and Red Sox do - because Billy Beane exploited the use of statistics to make better decisions about which players to pick - and what plays to make during games.

So for example - during games, the A's rarely try to steal bases or hit-and-run, basically risking outs to try to get 1 run in. The conventional wisdom is to do these things. But the A's figured out that you're better off on average in the long run doing as much as you can to avoid outs, and winding up with more huge innings where you go off for 5 or 6 runs instead of trying to have a lot of 1 or 2 run innings.

The Red Sox started using a lot of these stats too a number of years ago - and that's part of why they finally won a World Series. As for why the A's haven't - it's still tough to compete with the best teams when you can't afford the best players.

Anyway - don't even bother with the 162-game comment. Yes - it's more likely that doing something with a 53% positive expectation will work out better if you get to face this situation many times, but even on a one-time basis - 53% is better than 48%!!

Also - obviously you don't just go by the averages. You should be more likely to go for 2 if:

- You think you are the worse team (more likely to lose in OT)

- Your offense is better than average - especially in short-yardage situations

- The defense is worse than aveage - especially in short-yardage situations

Obviously you're more likely to stick with the XP if the opposite of these are true.

So - if you are Kansas City against the Colts or something - that's probably a good time to go for 2 down by 14 with 8 minutes to play.

One last thought - if I were a coach - I'd probably tell my team about this notion sometime in a meeting - so there would be more calm about the plan if/when you try it. Most players like anything that makes the team more likely to win.

 

[Archie Bunker]

There is no doubt that teams screw this up all the time. And I don't buy the argument that coaches are afraid of facing the press. It would be easy. Just smile and say "I am a gambler" or some such thing. It would make the coach appear macho. What coaches really hate is losing, and their refusal to make the correct gaming decision promotes losing. It is just stupid. A statistician was on one of the NFL shows a couple of seasons ago and commented on going for it on 4th and 1, which is usually correct. He said that there may be other considerations at times which make punting or going for the FG a better play, but the mathematically correct play has to be right SOMETIMES. It can't always be right to make the mathematically incorrect play.

I agree with this.

It is interesting how coaches, players, announcers always talk about "playing to win" yet, in practice, they make decisions "not to lose."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's especially odd how Marc Levin would rather see his team kick one PAT and then go for 2, which is an obviously losing move given the probabilities being kicked around here.

How is going for two on the first TD a good move but going for two on the second not?It's the same darned thing!

It's not at all the same thing.Going for one the first time and two the second time gives you (assuming a 42% two-point conversion rate and a 99% one-point conversion rate, and a 50% win-rate in overtime) a (.99)(.42)+(.01)(.68)(.5) = 41.92% chance of winning.Going for two the first time (and then one the second time if successful and two the second time if unsuccessful) gives you a (.42)(.99) + (.42)(.01)(.5) + (.68)(.42)(.5) = 56.07% chance of winning.(Going for one the fist time and then trying to tie gives you a (.99)(.99)(.5) + (.01)(.42)(.05) = 49.5% chance of winning.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you were a coach and someone presented the math to you that you would win 3 more times out of 100 by going for two with all factors being constant (basically you'd win 53 times going for 2 vs 50 wins by kicking the XPs) but there was a 34% chance you'd LOSE by not making either 2-point conversion, WHICH IS A BETTER RISK MANAGEMENT CHOICE?

That is an easy question. Given those assumptions, going for two is the play with the lesser risk of losing, and is therefore the better risk-management choice.

 

[Hawthorne]

That is an easy question. Given those assumptions, going for two is the play with the lesser risk of losing, and is therefore the better risk-management choice.

I think where people are having a hard time understanding this is their unwillingness to see the fact that 99% chance of tying is not necessarily more valuable than a 34% chance of losing in regular game time, since you still have a medium probability of losing in OT.

 

[sinatravolta]

Maybe some of those who are having difficulty understanding the math should have gone to one of these schools:

Fantasy football adds up for students

 

[BigRed]

Thoughts?

I think this is yet another example of people putting too much stock in stats. IMO going for 2 unless you really need to is stupid. When you're down by 2 TDs you don't get cute.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is a cross-post of sorts from 2plus2.

Here is the original thread. I've only read Sklansky's initial post so far. Others here should read it as well.

 

[CalBear]

Esp. since your name and avatar have a college football team on them, and considering momentum can be one of the most important factors of a college football game, I'm surprised by your statement - how MANY times have you see the team that makes a 4 down GL stand go on to come back and win the game? Many Many Many times - that is shifting momentum and you can SEE it happen on the field.

Of course momentum has no place in a statistical or mathematical discussion - but it has a firmly established chair in the boardroom of a football discussion.

I think you can see momentum happen the way you can see a "hot" slot machine or a "cold" roulette table; we as humans look for patterns where none exist. Since it's time for another Big Game, let me point out an example of one of the greatest refutations of the idea of momentum: The Play. (6:46 YouTube video--includes go-ahead Stanford drive)

Cal took the lead 19-17 with less than 2 minutes to play. They had Elway and Stanford at fourth and 17 on their own 13 yard line. Cal had all the momentum, right? But Elway completed a pass in the deep middle (very similar to McNabb's fourth-and-26 pass to Freddie Mitchell a couple years ago). If momentum existed, Stanford would not have gotten out of that situation.

Stanford then drove down the field to the 18 and kicked a field goal with 4 seconds left on the clock to go up 20-19. Clearly, Stanford had all the momentum, right? Cal's players on the sideline looked totally dejected.

If momentum existed, The Play would not have happened, and college football would be the lesser for it.

(Note: Elway screwed up, calling Stanford's last timeout with 8 seconds left. If he had let the clock run down, The Play would never have happened.)

Another example was this year's Cal-Washington game. Cal had driven down the field to take the lead with less than 2 minutes left, and scored a 2-point conversion to go up by 7. Momentum to Cal, right? On the ensuing drive, Cal had Washington in fourth down situations twice, and they converted first downs both times. On the final play of regulation, Cal nearly sacked the QB, who threw up a Hail Mary of a Hail Mary pass. Cal had three defenders on the ball, but they knocked the ball away from each other and into the arms of a Washington player, who scored a TD to tie the game with no time on the clock. Momentum to Washington, right? Then on the second play of OT, Marshawn Lynch ran in a 22-yard TD, and on Washington's second play, Desmond Bishop intercepted a pass to seal the victory.

Any play can happen at any time. The results of the next play are not determined by the results of the previous play, nor are they determined by some mystical force called "momentum."

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I think if there is such a thing as momentum after getting the PAT, it is only because players have been conditioned to believe it is important. It has to do with expectations, not some inherent facet about the game or human nature.

In other words, if the coach sat everyone down at the start of the season and said, "look, we are going to do some unconventional things that will score us more points and win us more games over the course of the season, even if it means -- on occassion -- that we'll come up empty when you might expect otherwise..." you'd obviate much of this problem.

I don't think momentum is a valid argument against the mathematical problem at hand. Rather it is the assumptions and statistics underlying the situation that are unrealistic, as others have mentioned.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Since it's time for another Big Game, let me point out an example of one of the greatest refutations of the idea of momentum: The Play.

I think the concept of momentum relies on the fallacy that playing well in the present means one will play well in the future. Or in other words, the opponent continues to play badly because it has played badly in the past.The term has just been warped and overused. After the fact, one can make a sensible argument that "momentum" played a role in the victory, because the term simply embodies the very obvious notion that -- at times -- the opposition can be emotionally beaten down from constant good play by the victor --once some threshold has been surpassed, victory becomes easier and easier to achieve.

But to use it on the fly to describe the present flow of the game opens up the language to valid ridicule given that "good play" can stop at any time (or the opponent starts to play well) simply because the emotional damage alluded to above is not present. In so doing, it waters down the correct meaning of the term.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think momentum is a valid argument against the mathematical problem at hand. Rather it is the assumptions and statistics underlying the situation that are unrealistic, as others have mentioned.

The assumptions made in the original post are close to league averages, I believe. League averages won't always be approximately correct for every matchup. Sometimes they will be close enough; sometimes they will not be close and the correct decision in a particular situation will be reversed; sometimes they will not be close and the correct decision in a particular situation will be even more correct.But if going for two is when down by 8 with a few minutes left is always correct based on league averages, it should be correct more than 50% of the time in individual matchups.

 

[toppshelff]

So... if every coach with an "above average" goal-line offense started going for 2 when they were down' 14 points in the 4th, then shouldn't the team that goes up by 2 TDs start going for 2 point conversions to make the lead 15? If so, should they try for 2 when they go up by 1 TD so that if they miss, they can always get the 2 pointer the next time?

 

[Ice Cream Man]

But if going for two is when down by 8 with a few minutes left is always correct based on league averages, it should be correct more than 50% of the time in individual matchups

No. The assumptions I was referring to are these:The opponent plays no differently up by 6 or up by 7.

The average probabilities are precisely the same in all game situations.

People are risk neutral.

It's a very contrived situation, regardless. The scenario is assuming "all things equal" and then criticizes coaches for not following its logic when, of course, all things are not equal.

 

[videoguy505]

I think you can see momentum happen the way you can see a "hot" slot machine or a "cold" roulette table; we as humans look for patterns where none exist.

Since it's time for another Big Game, let me point out an example of one of the greatest refutations of the idea of momentum: The Play. (6:46 YouTube video--includes go-ahead Stanford drive)

Cal took the lead 19-17 with less than 2 minutes to play. They had Elway and Stanford at fourth and 17 on their own 13 yard line. Cal had all the momentum, right? But Elway completed a pass in the deep middle (very similar to McNabb's fourth-and-26 pass to Freddie Mitchell a couple years ago). If momentum existed, Stanford would not have gotten out of that situation.

Stanford then drove down the field to the 18 and kicked a field goal with 4 seconds left on the clock to go up 20-19. Clearly, Stanford had all the momentum, right? Cal's players on the sideline looked totally dejected.

If momentum existed, The Play would not have happened, and college football would be the lesser for it.

(Note: Elway screwed up, calling Stanford's last timeout with 8 seconds left. If he had let the clock run down, The Play would never have happened.)

Another example was this year's Cal-Washington game. Cal had driven down the field to take the lead with less than 2 minutes left, and scored a 2-point conversion to go up by 7. Momentum to Cal, right? On the ensuing drive, Cal had Washington in fourth down situations twice, and they converted first downs both times. On the final play of regulation, Cal nearly sacked the QB, who threw up a Hail Mary of a Hail Mary pass. Cal had three defenders on the ball, but they knocked the ball away from each other and into the arms of a Washington player, who scored a TD to tie the game with no time on the clock. Momentum to Washington, right? Then on the second play of OT, Marshawn Lynch ran in a 22-yard TD, and on Washington's second play, Desmond Bishop intercepted a pass to seal the victory.

Any play can happen at any time. The results of the next play are not determined by the results of the previous play, nor are they determined by some mystical force called "momentum."

I agree sometimes "momentum" is used in a way that it sounds too much like superstition... and anything can happen in football. Such as the

1994, Plano East high school, down 41-17 with three minutes to go. The result? A great argument against the power of momentum.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if going for two is when down by 8 with a few minutes left is always correct based on league averages, it should be correct more than 50% of the time in individual matchups

No. The assumptions I was referring to are these:The opponent plays no differently up by 6 or up by 7.

I think that one is true.

The average probabilities are precisely the same in all game situations.

I don't know what this one means.

People are risk neutral.

This is not an assumption made in the original post, nor is it relevant to the question the original post seeks to answer.

It's a very contrived situation, regardless. The scenario is assuming "all things equal" and then criticizes coaches for not following its logic when, of course, all things are not equal.

The original post doesn't say "all things equal," and I'm not sure what you mean by it here.