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

[Archie Bunker]

Let's say you are in this position 100 times.

#1) If as a coach you are behind 14 points late 100 times, you won't have a job.#2) You would have to coach for 50+ years to be in this situation 100 times.So there is basically a 3% advantage (win 53 times vs 50 times by kicking). But kicking the XPs gives you only a 1-2% chance of losing in regulation as opposed to a 34% chance of losing in regulation by failing two conversion attempts. As others have said, playing to tie keeps coaching jobs and flat out losing casues coaching vacancies.

The point is, that it is all about perception, not about doing the right thing. You are saying that the coach makes the decision to protect his ###, not because it gives him the best chance of winning. The fans & media would hang him because the general population runs on emotion and has very little, if any, sense of probability & statistics.

 

[Marc Levin]

Let's say you are in this position 100 times.

#1) If as a coach you are behind 14 points late 100 times, you won't have a job.#2) You would have to coach for 50+ years to be in this situation 100 times.

So there is basically a 3% advantage (win 53 times vs 50 times by kicking). But kicking the XPs gives you only a 1-2% chance of losing in regulation as opposed to a 34% chance of losing in regulation by failing two conversion attempts. As others have said, playing to tie keeps coaching jobs and flat out losing casues coaching vacancies.

The point is, that it is all about perception, not about doing the right thing. You are saying that the coach makes the decision to protect his ###, not because it gives him the best chance of winning. The fans & media would hang him because the general population runs on emotion and has very little, if any, sense of probability & statistics.

Exactly correct. By the same token, David, makes an excellent point - no coach would ever be able to use the strategy enough to prove it mathematically correct, and any coach with a team able to overcome 14 in the fourth is, hopefull;y, only in the situation a handful of times in his career - when you drop the number of incidents down to 3 or 4 in a 4 year career, every coach in his right mind (and looking to keep his job) would kick the XP.

 

[Archie Bunker]

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

No - I always admitted it was an emotional decision.Gamblor's response - whatever, dude.

I didn't even come close to saying my way is right because I said so - I said I' be pissed if the HC of my favorite team did it.

You didn't say your way was right but you said the other way made no sense.I use statisitics regularly and have been known to play casino blackjack for an hour or two (or 8). People get buried playing blackjack by betting emotionally, e.g. not doubling down because you already have a $20 bet down, instead of playign the statistics.

 

[Miscellaneous]

The math is fine, but it's still actually wrong. You're assuming that any offense in the NFL, against any defense, in any situation, will be successful at the same rate. That's stupid.

Cleveland Browns, down 14 to the Chicago Bears, better kick the XPs.

I very clearly stated that it assumes no other variables are involved. As for your example, I think quite the opposite may be the right decision. Assuming Cleveland is about average in converting, they have about a 40% chance of winning (assuming they score twice). If they take the PATs and go to OT, do you think they have a 40% chance of beating the Bears? If not, go for two. If Cleveland is well below average but has a kicker that can regularly boot a 50+ yard FG (for OT), then take the PATs. Now, that's just one variable. Home vs. away is probably a consideration as well.

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

Oh, sorry - you wanted this:[gasp] That's the first time I've ever seen percentages used! That's astonishing! Truly, a game played out by computer in a theoretical universe should be played differently than the way the NFL works!

In real life, Cleveland is not 'about average' in converting, just as Chicago is not 'about average' in defending the 2 point conversion. Poof, no more argument. 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.

 

[Marc Levin]

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

No - I always admitted it was an emotional decision.Gamblor's response - whatever, dude.

I didn't even come close to saying my way is right because I said so - I said I' be pissed if the HC of my favorite team did it.

You didn't say your way was right but you said the other way made no sense.I use statisitics regularly and have been known to play casino blackjack for an hour or two (or 8). People get buried playing blackjack by betting emotionally, e.g. not doubling down because you already have a $20 bet down, instead of playign the statistics.

Over the course of 200 hands of blackack, stats rule.In a "one-of" decision on a football field when down by 14, emotion rules and you kick the XP. You may find a thousand stats guys agreeing with you, but rank and file football fans, and sports reporters, players, and most coaches, will think you are goofy going for 2 when down by 14 - like I saidm they will respect the "going for a win" going for 2 after scoring the second TD rather than leaving a point on the ground when still down by 8.

And you definitely can NOT eliminate variables and still make a rationale argument here - there are nowhere near the variables in blackjack that there are on a football field.

Not sure what you are arguing - that the math makes sense or the decision makes sense? They are not the same thing in football.

 

[Miscellaneous]

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

No - I always admitted it was an emotional decision.Gamblor's response - whatever, dude.

I didn't even come close to saying my way is right because I said so - I said I' be pissed if the HC of my favorite team did it.

You didn't say your way was right but you said the other way made no sense.I use statisitics regularly and have been known to play casino blackjack for an hour or two (or 8). People get buried playing blackjack by betting emotionally, e.g. not doubling down because you already have a $20 bet down, instead of playign the statistics.

If you honestly think the NFL in any way resembles blackjack in the way percentages can be used, then my involvement in this is over.

 

[Archie Bunker]

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

No - I always admitted it was an emotional decision.Gamblor's response - whatever, dude.

I didn't even come close to saying my way is right because I said so - I said I' be pissed if the HC of my favorite team did it.

You didn't say your way was right but you said the other way made no sense.I use statisitics regularly and have been known to play casino blackjack for an hour or two (or 8). People get buried playing blackjack by betting emotionally, e.g. not doubling down because you already have a $20 bet down, instead of playign the statistics.

If you honestly think the NFL in any way resembles blackjack in the way percentages can be used, then my involvement in this is over.

I'm talking about probability & statistics. My point is that people, including coaches, sometimes let emotion get the better of them for fear of losing.

In reference to Marc's post above, he is are right about other variables being involved. I've repeatedly said this. AND, based on these variables, a coach shold be in a position to make the right decision. The right decision, in terms of giving his team the best chance to win, is not always taking the PATs. The right decision, in terms of protecting his ###, is to always take the PATs.

 

[Thorpe]

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.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

The score is 38-30 and the losing team scores a TD with 3 seconds left on the clock. According to your "math", you advocate going for the extra point. This is clearly ridiculous, so your argument is also ridiculous.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

The score is 38-30 and the losing team scores a TD with 3 seconds left on the clock. According to your "math", you advocate going for the extra point. This is clearly ridiculous, so your argument is also ridiculous.

The point was that over time kicking extra points will score more points than attempting two point conversions.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

The score is 38-30 and the losing team scores a TD with 3 seconds left on the clock. According to your "math", you advocate going for the extra point. This is clearly ridiculous, so your argument is also ridiculous.

 

[DropKick]

Here is my take at the math. I focus on "expected points" for the strategy.

In the conventional strategy, you have a 98% change of success at the PAT (expected value .98). Then depending on the result of the first PAT, you either have a 98% chance of the second PAT (.98 * .98 * 1) or, if the first PAT was missed, a 42% chance at 2 points (.02 * .42 * 2). Expected points of the strategy are almost 2 at 1.96 - In contrast, the expected value of the 2 point conversion strategy is just 1.74.

| Expected Points

| PAT First Score 98.00% 1 0.9800

| Second Score 98.00% 98.00% 1 0.9604

| 2.00% 42.00% 2 0.0168

| 1.9572

|

| Go for 2! First Score 42.00% 2 0.8400

| Second Score 42.00% 98.00% 1 0.4116

| 58.00% 42.00% 2 0.4872

| 1.7388

Another point with less math - based on your percentages you lose 1/3 of the time where the PATs are practically automatic.

 

[CalBear]

Here is my take at the math. I focus on "expected points" for the strategy.

In the conventional startegy, you have a 98% change of success at the PAT (expected value .98). Then depending on the result of the first PAT, you either have a 98% chance of the second PAT (.98 * .98 * 1) or, if the first PAT was missed, a 42% chance at 2 points (.02 * .42 * 2). Expected points of the strategy are almost 2 at 1.96 - In contrast, the expected value of the 2 point conversion strategy is just 1.74.

Expected Points

PAT First Score 98.00% 1 0.9800

Second Score 98.00% 98.00% 1 0.9604

2.00% 42.00% 2 0.0168

1.9572

Go for 2! First Score 42.00% 2 0.8400

Second Score 42.00% 98.00% 1 0.4116

58.00% 42.00% 2 0.4872

1.7388

Yes, but this ignores the game situation. In the given game situation, the likelihood that you score three points on your two attempts is larger than the likelihood that you score zero points. Scoring 3 points (and thereby winning the game in regulation) is about a 40% chance, while losing the game in regulation by going for two twice is about a 30% chance. (If you miss the first and make the second, you wind up in OT, same as if you kicked two PATs).You don't need to do this 100 times to recognize the benefit. It is odd how people only see the down side of going for 2 and missing, and not the upside of going for 2 and making it. 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.

 

[Marc Levin]

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!

 

[Marc Levin]

Plus, I'd rather see them kick TWO PATs!!!!!!!

Thanks for the troll, but no bite.

 

[DropKick]

Here is my take at the math. I focus on "expected points" for the strategy.

In the conventional startegy, you have a 98% change of success at the PAT (expected value .98). Then depending on the result of the first PAT, you either have a 98% chance of the second PAT (.98 * .98 * 1) or, if the first PAT was missed, a 42% chance at 2 points (.02 * .42 * 2). Expected points of the strategy are almost 2 at 1.96 - In contrast, the expected value of the 2 point conversion strategy is just 1.74.

Expected Points

PAT First Score 98.00% 1 0.9800

Second Score 98.00% 98.00% 1 0.9604

2.00% 42.00% 2 0.0168

1.9572

Go for 2! First Score 42.00% 2 0.8400

Second Score 42.00% 98.00% 1 0.4116

58.00% 42.00% 2 0.4872

1.7388

Yes, but this ignores the game situation. In the given game situation, the likelihood that you score three points on your two attempts is larger than the likelihood that you score zero points. Scoring 3 points (and thereby winning the game in regulation) is about a 40% chance, while losing the game in regulation by going for two twice is about a 30% chance. (If you miss the first and make the second, you wind up in OT, same as if you kicked two PATs).You don't need to do this 100 times to recognize the benefit. It is odd how people only see the down side of going for 2 and missing, and not the upside of going for 2 and making it. 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.

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 winning

24% chance of OT (tie)

34% chance of losing

or

99% chance OT (tie)

An NFL coach will take the latter even though you can debate percentages (53% - 47%) all night.

 

[CalBear]

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!

No, it's not. If you go for two on the first and miss, you can still go for two on the second and tie the game. If you kick a PAT and then go for two, you're betting the whole game on that one 2-point conversion; the PAT doesn't help you if you miss the second try.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW, why are we saying "down by 14?"

It is down by 8. We are assuming the TD and we are debating what to do with the point after.

Most coaches get to that sitch and do NOT think percentages the way statistician's do - they think about this sitch like us simple people do:

If I go for 2, and I don;t get it, I have to go for two if I am lucky enough to get another TD.

BTW - what point in the 4th are we talking about? If there are 10 minutes left when I ge the TD, I might go for two b/c two FGs tie the game.

If there are less than 5 minutes left and my offensive possessions are limited, there is NO WAY I go for two.

 

[Gamblor]

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.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

The score is 38-30 and the losing team scores a TD with 3 seconds left on the clock. According to your "math", you advocate going for the extra point. This is clearly ridiculous, so your argument is also ridiculous.

The point was that over time kicking extra points will score more points than attempting two point conversions.

And the thread point is that over time kicking extra points will result in fewer wins than attempting two point conversions in this situation.Whats more important, wins or points?

 

[CalBear]

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 winning

24% chance of OT (tie)

34% chance of losing

or

99% chance OT (tie)

An NFL coach will take the latter even though you can debate percentages (53% - 47%) all night.

I think you're right that an NFL coach will take the latter, but the point is they probably should take the former.

 

[Marc Levin]

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!

No, it's not. If you go for two on the first and miss, you can still go for two on the second and tie the game. If you kick a PAT and then go for two, you're betting the whole game on that one 2-point conversion; the PAT doesn't help you if you miss the second try.

The point of going for two on the FIRST is to win the game with an XP on the second - it is the same decision.

 

[Marc Levin]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

 

[Gamblor]

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!

Not even close to the same.

 

[Marc Levin]

Mathematically? Sure it is.

 

[CalBear]

BTW, why are we saying "down by 14?"

It is down by 8. We are assuming the TD and we are debating what to do with the point after.

BTW, most coaches get to that sitch and do NOT thini percentages the way statistician's do - they think about this sitch like us simple people do:

If I go for 2, and I don;t get it, I have to go for two if I am lucky enough to get another TD.

Simple people can't see that if you go for two and get it, you can win with a TD and PAT instead of having to go into overtime?Note: There is an entire discipline of economic research devoted to how and why people make sub-optimal decisions. This is just one example, but it comes up in all kinds of contexts, particularly in markets, where people value $1 lost differently than $1 gained.

 

[Gamblor]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

Why cant you focus on the topic, instead of deciding to fire the coach? I didnt think mods were allowed to fish?

 

[CalBear]

No, it's not. If you go for two on the first and miss, you can still go for two on the second and tie the game. If you kick a PAT and then go for two, you're betting the whole game on that one 2-point conversion; the PAT doesn't help you if you miss the second try.

The point of going for two on the FIRST is to win the game with an XP on the second - it is the same decision.

No, it's not the same decision. If you kick a PAT on the first score, you have eliminated the possibility of tying the game with exactly one two-point conversion. You have a 42% (or whatever) chance of winning with a 2-point conversion on the second TD, and a 58% chance of losing by missing it. That is lower than your probability going to OT. Whereas if you go for two on the first score, you still have that 42% chance of winning, but now you also have the chance of tying on the second attempt if you missed the first one. It is that chance of tying which makes the decision lean in favor of going for two the first time.

 

[Marc Levin]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

Why cant you focus on the topic, instead of deciding to fire the coach? I didnt think mods were allowed to fish?

Where's the fishing?This is ON TOPIC - the topic is whether to go for 2 or 1 when down by 14.

 

[CalBear]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

It only takes one game to prove yourself right.

 

[Marc Levin]

No, it's not. If you go for two on the first and miss, you can still go for two on the second and tie the game. If you kick a PAT and then go for two, you're betting the whole game on that one 2-point conversion; the PAT doesn't help you if you miss the second try.

The point of going for two on the FIRST is to win the game with an XP on the second - it is the same decision.

No, it's not the same decision. If you kick a PAT on the first score, you have eliminated the possibility of tying the game with exactly one two-point conversion. You have a 42% (or whatever) chance of winning with a 2-point conversion on the second TD, and a 58% chance of losing by missing it. That is lower than your probability going to OT. Whereas if you go for two on the first score, you still have that 42% chance of winning, but now you also have the chance of tying on the second attempt if you missed the first one. It is that chance of tying which makes the decision lean in favor of going for two the first time.

Butif I value the chance of trying, I am going to do what I have been saying all along - kick the XP both times.Finally, like I said, the time left in the game when the first TD is scored is CRUCIAL - if there are 10 minutes left when I score the first one and i have a lot of offensive momentum, going for two might make sense. Like I said earlier - b/c I can still tie the game with two FGs, or win it with a TD and a XPIf there are 5 minutes left, I should be fired if I go for two.

 

[CalBear]

Butif I value the chance of trying, I am going to do what I have been saying all along - kick the XP both times.

Finally, like I said, the time left in the game when the first TD is scored is CRUCIAL - if there are 10 minutes left when I score the first one and i have a lot of offensive momentum, going for two might make sense. Like I said earlier - b/c I can still tie the game with two FGs, or win it with a TD and a XP

If there are 5 minutes left, I should be fired if I go for two.

The point is you can combine the chance of winning with some of the chance of tying. By combining the two chances, you give yourself an overall better chance.I do agree that there are a lot of variables in a real-game situation which are hard to measure. In particular, you don't know if there will be a field goal scored, which would change the math entirely (no matter who scores it).

I think the purest situation is if you score your first TD with 30 seconds left and no timeouts. You know you're going to kick an on-sides kick, and you lose if you don't recover it. There won't be time for any field goals. I think mathematically, these numbers would indicate that you should go for two on the first TD.

 

[DropKick]

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 winning

24% chance of OT (tie)

34% chance of losing

or

99% chance OT (tie)

An NFL coach will take the latter even though you can debate percentages (53% - 47%) all night.

I think you're right that an NFL coach will take the latter, but the point is they probably should take the former.

Assuming for a moment that the differences percentage wise are 50%-50% (PAT Strategy) and 53%-47% (conversion), from a purely mathematical standpoint the conversion strategy is better. (I don't think its as cut and dry as simple percentages. Yes, NFL coaches are conservative. But who wants to be the coach that blew a big comeback (2 late TDs) by going for 2 when he could have tied the game?

Put your players in a position to win (in OT).

That is a tinder box! Management, fans, media, player emotions....

 

[Doug Drinen]

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.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think the purest situation is if you score your first TD with 30 seconds left and no timeouts. You know you're going to kick an on-sides kick, and you lose if you don't recover it. There won't be time for any field goals. I think mathematically, these numbers would indicate that you should go for two on the first TD.

Hmmm, interesting - I think you are correct. I would at least understand the strategy.

 

[Marc Levin]

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

Now you guys are in trouble. The doctor is in.All *I* know, as a foo fan, is that if my coach goes for 2 after being down by 14, and there are a limited number of offensive possessions left, I'm gonna be upset with him if we don't get it.I'll be if we get it and then go on to win the game, however.The real problem is that each team knows its own strengths and weaknesses, and the league averages of 98% versus 42% are, really, irrelevant.The only relevant factor is how confident I am in MY team both getting the 2 pointer and getting another TD on offense. The Colts might be in the right to go for 2 after being down by 14 - the Broncos, probably not.

 

[Archie Bunker]

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

Now you guys are in trouble. The doctor is in.All *I* know, as a foo fan, is that if my coach goes for 2 after being down by 14, and there are a limited number of offensive possessions left, I'm gonna be upset with him if we don't get it.I'll be if we get it and then go on to win the game, however.The real problem is that each team knows its own strengths and weaknesses, and the league averages of 98% versus 42% are, really, irrelevant.The only relevant factor is how confident I am in MY team both getting the 2 pointer and getting another TD on offense. The Colts might be in the right to go for 2 after being down by 14 - the Broncos, probably not.

Doug stated it very well.League averages are not completely irrelevent. They are a good calibration point for a coach to make his decision. The decision is very team dependent. And, as Doug expressed mathematically, is not only about confidence in getting the conversion. It is about the confidence of winning in OT.The Colts might not be right to go for two. They have an offense that can move the ball, they don't turn the ball over much, and they have one of the most clutch kickers in thei history of the game.The Raiders, however, might opt to go for it. Brooks' scrambling, arguably, might give them a better chance of converting vs. relying on Brooks not to commit a turnover deep in Raiders territory during OT.Generally, underdogs should go for it because their chances of winning in OT are low.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

The math is fine, but it's still actually wrong. You're assuming that any offense in the NFL, against any defense, in any situation, will be successful at the same rate. That's stupid.

Cleveland Browns, down 14 to the Chicago Bears, better kick the XPs.

Good point.That's why football = way better than baseball. When you have 160 games, you can play the stats. When you have 1/10 as many games, you play it safe.

Safe IS boring!!

 

[Gamblor]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

Why cant you focus on the topic, instead of deciding to fire the coach? I didnt think mods were allowed to fish?

Where's the fishing?This is ON TOPIC - the topic is whether to go for 2 or 1 when down by 14.

The topic is to go for one or 2 when down by 14, and your response is math doesnt take emotion into account - fire the coach.

 

[Z-Dog]

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 winning

24% chance of OT (tie)

34% chance of losing

or

99% chance OT (tie)

An NFL coach will take the latter even though you can debate percentages (53% - 47%) all night.

I think you're right that an NFL coach will take the latter, but the point is they probably should take the former.

Assuming for a moment that the differences percentage wise are 50%-50% (PAT Strategy) and 53%-47% (conversion), from a purely mathematical standpoint the conversion strategy is better. (I don't think its as cut and dry as simple percentages. Yes, NFL coaches are conservative. But who wants to be the coach that blew a big comeback (2 late TDs) by going for 2 when he could have tied the game?

Put your players in a position to win (in OT).

That is a tinder box! Management, fans, media, player emotions....

The real underlying mathematical argument is the win % in OT, which is guaranteed to be lower than 50%, since some games end in ties. But even beyond that, the chances of winning in OT are not 50-50. If I were the Jets and I was playing the Bears, say, I'd bet my chances of winning, whether in OT or any other time, were much lower than 50%. Down by 14 in the 4th I might very well go for that 2-point conversion in the hopes of giving myself a chance to win before I got to OT. I might take more risks in general (like Mangini actually did against the Bears, by opening the 2nd half with an onside kick and playing the relatively high percentage of recovery for unexpected onside kicks). Of course, the worse you are as a team relative to the other team, the worse you 2-point conversion % is likely to be. Plaing "the percentages" doesn't make sense in this particular context b/c you don't have enough time to overcome an unlucky start. If the percentages break against you the first three or four times, you get fired at the end of the season.If you are the better team, it makes even more sense to play conservatively, since your chances in OT are much higher than 50%, so getting to OT is the better payoff.

 

[Marc Levin]

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

Now you guys are in trouble. The doctor is in.All *I* know, as a foo fan, is that if my coach goes for 2 after being down by 14, and there are a limited number of offensive possessions left, I'm gonna be upset with him if we don't get it.I'll be if we get it and then go on to win the game, however.The real problem is that each team knows its own strengths and weaknesses, and the league averages of 98% versus 42% are, really, irrelevant.The only relevant factor is how confident I am in MY team both getting the 2 pointer and getting another TD on offense. The Colts might be in the right to go for 2 after being down by 14 - the Broncos, probably not.

Doug stated it very well.League averages are not completely irrelevent. They are a good calibration point for a coach to make his decision.

Isn't his own team's percentages/offensive ability much more relevant than the league's averages?

 

[Marc Levin]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

Why cant you focus on the topic, instead of deciding to fire the coach? I didnt think mods were allowed to fish?

Where's the fishing?This is ON TOPIC - the topic is whether to go for 2 or 1 when down by 14.

The topic is to go for one or 2 when down by 14, and your response is math doesnt take emotion into account - fire the coach.

Really? That's what I said?No bite on this latest troll either.

 

[Marc Levin]

There is math supporting 2 versus 1. I don't think that was really debatable.

As an "always go for 2 when down by 14 in thje fourth" - nope - doesn't make good football sense. The variables and EMOTION (sorry gamblor -we are talking about the momentum driven game of football, not a cold chalkboard)

Time remaining in the fourth, ability of the defense I am facing, offensive capability of my football team to score inside the 5, skill of my onside unit, skill of my punt return unit, ability of my defense to stop their offense, ability of my offense to move the ball - plus a ton more variables - are way more important than the stats of the league's averages for converting XPs v. 2PCs.

This decision is not a math decision - it is a variable driven decision. And is ALWAYS gonna be a one-of decision.

This is not the same as scoring a TD when down by 11 - in that scenario you ALWAYS go for two.

 

[David Yudkin]

Going back to the numbers I posted earlier . . .

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?

 

[CalBear]

Going back to the numbers I posted earlier . . .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?

The one that makes it more likely you'll win the game you're currently playing--going for 2.

 

[Dt's Mules]

See above as in I don't like the callQuote all the math you want - emotionally, and as a sports fan, I would be pissed at my team's HC for going for two when down by 14.I'd have MoRE respect for him as a "gambler" if he went for two on the following TD.

My way is RigHT cause I say so!

no kidding that is the worst of ALL the scenarios

 

[Dt's Mules]

there is some really bad understanding of expected value going on in this thread

 

[Doug Drinen]

Going back to the numbers I posted earlier . . .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?

You seem to not realize that if you kick twice, there is a good chance you'll LOSE in overtime.

 

[Gamblor]

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

Why cant you focus on the topic, instead of deciding to fire the coach? I didnt think mods were allowed to fish?

Where's the fishing?This is ON TOPIC - the topic is whether to go for 2 or 1 when down by 14.

The topic is to go for one or 2 when down by 14, and your response is math doesnt take emotion into account - fire the coach.

Really? That's what I said?

Yep - thats what you said.

Quote all the math you want - emotionally, and as a sports fan, I would be pissed at my team's HC for going for two when down by 14.I'd have MoRE respect for him as a "gambler" if he went for two on the following TD.

If there are 5 minutes left, I should be fired if I go for two.

Whats more important, wins or points?

Wins - so I will fire any coach who has me down by 14 in the fourth enough times to prove himself right about 2pts versus XPs.

 

[secretid]

The lack of understanding of this very simple math makes me apprehensive about spending time on this board. The theoretical problem is not really up for argument, it's just fact.

In real life, Cleveland is not 'about average' in converting, just as Chicago is not 'about average' in defending the 2 point conversion. Poof, no more argument. 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.

You understand this proves the point as much as it disproves it? Yeah, any given match-up of 2 teams will yield a different conversion rate, and a different OT rate. This means that for some teams it would be unwise to go for 2 on the first TD but there will be just as many teams for which the match-up makes it an EVEN BETTER decision to go for 2 than our numbers indicate. In general, accouting for match-ups, it's more likely to be correct to go for 2 than it is to not.Now if you want to argue about coach's protetcting their jobs, effects of momentum, etc, then that's all valid. But if you're not addressing an external issue like that then saying going for 2 is wrong is just moronic.

 

[Archie Bunker]

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

Now you guys are in trouble. The doctor is in.All *I* know, as a foo fan, is that if my coach goes for 2 after being down by 14, and there are a limited number of offensive possessions left, I'm gonna be upset with him if we don't get it.I'll be if we get it and then go on to win the game, however.The real problem is that each team knows its own strengths and weaknesses, and the league averages of 98% versus 42% are, really, irrelevant.The only relevant factor is how confident I am in MY team both getting the 2 pointer and getting another TD on offense. The Colts might be in the right to go for 2 after being down by 14 - the Broncos, probably not.

Doug stated it very well.League averages are not completely irrelevent. They are a good calibration point for a coach to make his decision.

Isn't his own team's percentages/offensive ability much more relevant than the league's averages?

Yes, it is, but I'm guessing a coach, in this situation isn't going to sit down & run the numbers. He's going to go through a quick assessment. Is my offense better than average? Is the defense better then average? What are my chances if I do tie and go into OT? The coach can probably make a decent decision calibrating his team and the opposing team to the league average. To you rother point about it being a variable driven decision, you're absolutely right. I never said (and didn't mean to imply) that it was a no brainer. I continually said there were other variables that would come into play. I am merely defending the concept vs. flatly disregarding it in all cases.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

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.

Without weighing in on the general topic, I strongly disagree with this assertion. Coaches in all sports make decisions which are incorrect in terms of expected value, all the time.

Sure they do.......but not on something like this. This isn't a decision about going full court press or just dropping back in zone or putting out a nickel defense instead of a dime in a certain situation.