But why is there an absence of specific information? A team would be very stupid if they didn't keep track of their specific results as well as their opponents results. There is no need to go to league averages. My point was using league averages gives you incorrect information that is too generic because there are too many specific factors that affect that math. Each team should use their specific information (as well as current game information - injuries, tendencies seen that day, etc) to decide the best approach to win. Which may or may not be to go for two. There is no absolute mathematically proven answer but you have a better opportunity to be closer using team specific and game specific information to decide.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TakiToki
- Start date
Rove!
Footballguy
you guys have won me over to the minority side on this one...in most cases...not sure it works for a team with a poor offense, but I ran a spreadsheet with the following assumptions:
1. Trailing team scores two TDS (counting the current one) while other team does not score
2. Success rate for XP is .95 (I can change numbers on request)
3. Success rate for 2 pt conversion is .4 (may be higher or lower depending on how good your team is, how good the D is, injuries etc.)
4. if the game goes to OT, your chances of winning are 50%
using those numbers, going for 2 gives you a 51% chance of victory, where kicking only gives you a 46.125% chance of victory
I can run with different numbers, but I think these assumptions are fair for most situations (some teams like the Titans excluded)
ETA: the break even point is at around a 36% chance to convert a two
at that rate it would be a 46.62% chance to win by going for it and 46.125% chance to win by kicking
at 35% it goes to 45.5% v 46.125
change any assumption and it changes the math, but I think my numbers are fair enough to say that most teams in most situations will improve their chances to win by going for 2
1. Trailing team scores two TDS (counting the current one) while other team does not score
2. Success rate for XP is .95 (I can change numbers on request)
3. Success rate for 2 pt conversion is .4 (may be higher or lower depending on how good your team is, how good the D is, injuries etc.)
4. if the game goes to OT, your chances of winning are 50%
using those numbers, going for 2 gives you a 51% chance of victory, where kicking only gives you a 46.125% chance of victory
I can run with different numbers, but I think these assumptions are fair for most situations (some teams like the Titans excluded)
ETA: the break even point is at around a 36% chance to convert a two
at that rate it would be a 46.62% chance to win by going for it and 46.125% chance to win by kicking
at 35% it goes to 45.5% v 46.125
change any assumption and it changes the math, but I think my numbers are fair enough to say that most teams in most situations will improve their chances to win by going for 2
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
It's about setting a baseline. The correct move is to go for two, unless there are specific circumstances that make you so much worse than average at 2 point conversions (but not at anything else?) that you're somehow better off playing for OT. I made this analogy earlier, but it would be silly to assert that there's no "right" answer to what you should do if you're down by 2 with 5 seconds left and the ball at your opponent's 10 yard line. We all know you should kick a FG there. "Oh but what if your kicker broke his leg? It depends on your specific circumstances," is not really a useful rebuttal. Obviously there will occasionally be specific circumstances that force you to do something other than the "right" action, but those are exceptions. We're all aware that exceptions exist, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion to belabor that point. They are exceptions to a rule, and the rule in this case should be go for two.
cloppbeast
Footballguy
Increases your chances of winning and increases your chances of losing. Tie is unlikely when going for two.
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose that would technically be true if you're only talking about your chances in regulation, but overall that's not really accurate. Yes, if you kick the XP both times it is highly unlikely you will lose in regulation, though your chances in OT remain 50/50. But in terms of your overall win percentage, as has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout this thread, going for two increases your chance of winning and decreases your chance of losing.
I used to work in direct marketing, and we would frequently set up spreadsheets projecting how a campaign would perform. Whenever we felt unsure about an estimated conversion rate, it was always helpful to do a break-even analysis. So let's say we projected a certain creative to convert at 4%, but were worried that might be too aggressive. So we'd run B/E and determine it only needed to hit 2% to be successful. Then we'd ask ourselves whether that number seemed realistic. If so, it made sense to move forward with the campaign.
Same deal here. Maybe you don't think the league average is accurate, or responsive to a specific situation. So then the question to ask yourself is, "In this situation, do I feel like we have at least a 36% chance of converting this 2PC?" It's basically just a way of reframing the decision.
