Should I have used the phrase "statistically significant" instead? I posit that they are 10-25% worse than the rest of the league on average. That would put them at a 39%-43% conversion rate
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TakiToki
- Start date
Short Corner
Footballguy
The rest of the league is over 60% so the 10-25% drop would put them 45-55%.
Take into consideration that Rosas is sub 90% on PATs for his career, even an obscenely low conversion rate of 33% makes going for 2 +ev (42.77% vs 42.16% rounding Rosas up to 90% for simplicity)
Also factor in that ATL is notoriously bad at stopping it (57.9% against) since 2016, I think the actually conversion rate is somewhere around .5 but it, doesn't have to be anywhere that effective to make it the correct decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
If they're 39% to make a 2pt conversion, it's definitely the right move to go for 2. They'd have to be much worse than that for it to be the wrong decision.
Please show your work, I'm not sure I follow. Statistically, what's the cut-off?
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
With a 39% success rate (and 95% for PAT), if you go for 2:
- 37.1% Win (make 2pt then make PAT)
- 25.7% Tie (make 2pt then miss PAT, or miss 2pt then make 2pt)
- 37.2% Lose (miss 2pt then miss 2pt)
- 92.2% Tie (make PAT then make PAT, or miss PAT then make 2pt)
- 7.8% Lose (make PAT then miss PAT, or miss PAT then miss 2pt)
DropKick
Footballguy
Haven't visited this thread in years but imagine the longer extra point changes the math some... I like going for two there and positioning yourself to win.
No problem with the play call.
I'll add the 2 point conversion (that wouldn't have happened actually cost me a game) and I'm still OK with the strategy.
No problem with the play call.
I'll add the 2 point conversion (that wouldn't have happened actually cost me a game) and I'm still OK with the strategy.
Had no problem at all with what the Giants did Monday Night.
The decision that really gets me, is late in games, if a team is up by 4, say 21-17 and scores a TD to make it 27-17, why they never go for 2 there? You miss, its still a TD and FG to tie, you make it, the other team needs two TD's. Also applies with 1 point leads late in games as well. 21-20 lead, go for 2, if you get it, its a 2 score game, and scoring twice is much harder than scoring once and getting a 2-point conversion, and again, even if you miss, its still a 7 point lead.
The decision that really gets me, is late in games, if a team is up by 4, say 21-17 and scores a TD to make it 27-17, why they never go for 2 there? You miss, its still a TD and FG to tie, you make it, the other team needs two TD's. Also applies with 1 point leads late in games as well. 21-20 lead, go for 2, if you get it, its a 2 score game, and scoring twice is much harder than scoring once and getting a 2-point conversion, and again, even if you miss, its still a 7 point lead.
Deamon
Footballguy
Confused here. Being up 11 is far better than being up 10. You think Opponent FG+Opponent TD+Opponent 2 Point Convert is that much easier than Opponent TD+Opponent TD? In Scenario 2, you also LOSE the game outright. Scenario 1, they have to convert on all three of those things, just to TIE and go to OT where you have a 50% chance to win. Plus if you miss it, then they don't even need that 2 point convert.
Let's modestly call the chances of other team scoring a FG on a drive 60% and a TD on a drive 20%. (the point is proven even more so if FG odds are dropped and/or TD odds increased)
Scenario A (You make 2 pointer)= .20 (td)*.20 (td)*.95 (xp) = 3.80% chance other team wins game
Scenario B (You miss 2 pointer)= .60 (fg) * .20 (td) * .95 (xp) * .50 (odds other team wins in OT) = 5.70% chance other team wins game
Scenario C (You make XP)= .60 (fg)*.20 (td)*.50 (2point) * .50 (odds other team wins in OT) = 3.80% chance other team wins game
Not to mention how much easier it is for YOU to hit the xp.
CalBear
Footballguy
I think the point is that most opposing coaches, being risk averse, when down by 8 or 11 will go for 2 after a TD, but when down by 7 or 10 will go for 1. So missing the 2-point conversion doesn't put you at risk of losing, only of being tied. You give up the possibility of requiring them to make a FG and a 2-point conversion to tie (by kicking the XP), in exchange for requiring them to get two TDs to win (by making the 2PC).
Assuming the opposing coach doesn't go for a 2PC for the win and instead opts for the XP for the tie, you're probably better off going for 2 if your success probability is above 50%.(Similarly, the opposing coach is better off going for 2 for the win if their success probability is above 50%. But they usually don't.)
Heard an interesting counterargument to this last year. It's basically the same logic as for why you should go for two if you score a TD down 15: the value of information. If you score to go up 7 and go for two, whether or not you convert your opponent will know what they need to do going forward. If you make it, then they need two scores, if you miss, they only need one. But if you kick to go up 8, you're leaving them somewhat in limbo.
Imagine that, after you kick the XP to go up 8, your opponent drives down and gets 1st and goal with 1:30 left. Should they try to score right away, since they might miss the 2PC and need another possession? But what if they do that, convert the 2PC and then leave you with enough time to drive for a game-winning FG?
Anyway, that's the theory. Personally, I think the better way to look at that situation is, do you feel more confident in your offense scoring a 2PC or your defense stopping one? If you're KC or NE, you probably want to go for it and put the game away. If you're Jax, you'd rather trust your defense not to give up the TD + 2PC. If it's a wash, then I would default to the logic above and kick the XP.
Deamon
Footballguy
Not really. In this case the math says go for 1. The opposing team will win more often if you go for 2 there. Having a 50% shot to make them turn that FG into a TD, isn't worth it. Especially when they have to convert too. There's no logic in going for 2 when you're up 10. Making the other team convert their 2 pointer cuts their chances to win in half.
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
8 years later, I still say no.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Since 1994, when teams have scored a TD in the 4th quarter while trailing by 14, they have gone on to eventually win the game 11.5% of the time when they kick the PAT, and 12.5% of the time when they go for 2.
Chaka
Footballguy
It's a game of inches, clearly you should go for 2 according to this data.
How many instances of going for 2 in this data?
cloppbeast
Footballguy
either way, pretty sure it only changes your chances of winning by .6% or something.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Short Corner
Footballguy
cloppbeast
Footballguy
Actually, no. It only increases your chances by 2% using the assumption you make the 2nd td. Throw in other factors, like you don't make it or the other teams scores again, and we're talking about a 6% chance of winning vs. a 5.6% chance.
Short Corner
Footballguy
If you score two Tds and get a stop you are 12-15% more likely to win if you go for two.
eta---using this years conversion rates of xp and 2xp that number is actually 23.74%
Last edited by a moderator:
Caesar
Footballguy
Only problem with your logic is the fans were calling for ML to be fired after his 4th playoff loss. Fans have nothing to do with it. Stupid owners, now that I can agree with.
And since this isn't a hijack. I like the idea of going for 2. Makes the next decision a no-brainer no matter what the outcome.
cloppbeast
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Honest question: Can you think of a coach who got fired because he was seen as being too aggressive with his play calls? I think you're more on target with the second bolded part: Coaches who make unconventional calls are far more likely to get roasted in the press than they are to get fired; the latter has far more to do with win-loss record and/or interpersonal relationships (Chip Kelly, Jim Harbaugh, Belichick in Cleveland, etc.)
But I mostly chalk it up to the coaching profession selecting for temperamental conservatism. The way you rise the ranks in the NFL is by keeping your head down, doing what you're told, not disrupting the hierarchy. By the time you make it to the top, it's barely even a conscious decision anymore to do the "safe" thing; that's kind of just who you are.
The one counterexample I can think of is Mike Martz; I don't know that he was more likely to go for two as a HC, but he was definitely seen as a different kind of cat, and I think that probably limited his opportunities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't have the time to dive into it at the moment but I'd be relatively confident in saying that using PFR win probabilities (based on my understanding of how they're derived) is not the right way to approach this. You are right that, having been down by 14 in the fourth quarter, you're probably going to lose anyway (I posted earlier that teams actually in that situation have ended up winning ~12% of the time since 1994, data also pulled from PFR). I don't think anyone would disagree with that. And if you don't get a defensive stop, or if you don't score a 2nd TD, it doesn't really matter whether you went for 2 or kicked a PAT except maybe to bettors. It really only matters in the case when you do get a stop, and do score another TD. And in those cases, going for 2 makes a more substantial difference in your chances of winning the game.
cloppbeast
Footballguy
This article (written before the XP line was moved back) calculates that it improves your odds by 12.5% in the event that you score an additional TD and the other team doesn't score. Given that XP% has gone down since the rule change, that would presumably make it slightly higher than 12.5%.
Yes, that's different than saying it increases your overall win expectancy. Honestly, I mostly see the math argument as back-up for the logical argument, which is that it increases your chances of winning in regulation without decreasing your chances of going to OT.
CalBear
Footballguy
The difference between 6.8 and 6.4 is 9.4%, which is pretty significant. And that's usually the way language is used. Going from a 10% chance to a 20% chance "doubles your chances"; it doesn't raise them by 10%.
No. 6.4 is 94% of 6.8, a 6% difference.
6.8 is a hair under 8% more than 6.4
ETA - ####, I calculated the difference between 6.4 and 6.9...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As far as I can tell, 6.8 is 6.25% more than 6.4. Feel like I'm taking crazy pills, not sure how you guys are coming up with these other numbers. /tangent
Short Corner
Footballguy
If you apply this year's conversion rates his numbers come out to 7.4626% vs 6.3556% for an increase of 17.4%
cloppbeast
Footballguy
We're not arguing.
6.8 - 6.4 = .04
6.8/6.4 = 1.06
So, in summary: 6.8 is .04 more than 6.4, but also 6% more. One is a ratio, the other is a difference. Subtraction vs. division.
6.8 - 6.4 = .04
6.8/6.4 = 1.06
So, in summary: 6.8 is .04 more than 6.4, but also 6% more. One is a ratio, the other is a difference. Subtraction vs. division.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Back on topic, I don't think the argument that "it only improves your chances by a little" is very compelling. I don't think 6.4% and 6.8% are really the right numbers to be using, but even if they are, a 6.25% improvement in win probability is meaningful and it's certainly not a strong case against going for two. (I realize the risk-aversion argument can be made, that a small improvement in win probability is outweighed by a greater risk of job loss or whatever, and I'm aware that in reality most coaches will continue to kick the PAT for precisely that reason. I just think that's dumb.)
I have an issue with the probabilities that are being used. This isn't a strict mathematical situation that has no outside influences. It's not like a roll of a dice or a flip of coin that all participants are equal and match the probabilities. Every team is different. Offenses are better or worse as are the defenses. That particular game may have a weakness found because of an in game injury making it harder or easier to succeed in a two point conversion. There are way too many variables to take strict historical data of every NFL team going for two to calculate a win probability if you go for two or if you don't go for to. All things aren't equal which is a huge assumption when trying to argue for or against this situation. There is no one size fits all.
If this was about playing craps and rolling dice then it would make sense to say always do X because it gives you a better chance at Y. For a football game that have 22 players influencing a particular play, along with coaches, referees, weather, etc there is no correct answer that should always be followed. The math isn't absolute with this many variables.
If this was about playing craps and rolling dice then it would make sense to say always do X because it gives you a better chance at Y. For a football game that have 22 players influencing a particular play, along with coaches, referees, weather, etc there is no correct answer that should always be followed. The math isn't absolute with this many variables.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Agree to an extent but again, this isn't even really a complicated mathematical analysis. When you're down by 14 and you score a TD, you need 9 more points to win. The simplest way to get those 9 is a TD, a PAT, and a 2pt conversion (6+1+2) You can attempt either the PAT or the 2 point try right now, and it's pretty straightforward that going for 2 now is clearly better. Sure, it's possible that your team is such an outlier, or the circumstances are so unusual, that your chances of making a 2pt conversion are so low that you're literally better off playing for a tie and forcing yourself to go on an additional scoring drive. But that's going to be a pretty exceptional case I think, not the norm that really needs to be weighed on a regular basis.
Like, when you're down by 2, and you have the ball at your opponent's 5 yard line with 5 seconds left, you obviously kick the FG, right? It would be kind of silly to say "It's not that simple, what if your placekicker just had a heart attack?" Sure, obviously there could be some bizarre situation where it makes sense to deviate from the "right" way, but those are rare and don't add much to the discussion of the generally correct strategy.
Deamon
Footballguy
This is true and a point I brought up back when I was against it a few years ago. I think now with the leagues changes though, I would definitely go for 2.
That being said you're right about the scenarios. Maybe your team sucks at 2 point conversions and you don't. Maybe you already used 2 2point conversions earlier in the game and used your best 2 plays. Maybe your top 2 OL got injured on the previous play.
There's definitely lots of factors you have to think about, but I think for the point of this thread its more looking at the mathematics of it maybe. If the average situation occurs with injuries/weather/the above things mentioned, it makes sense to go for 2 there in todays league.
I'm not buying this at all. Just about any situation outside of a lab has outside influences. Yes, every case is different. That's the whole idea behind using averages. By your logic, teams should never bother using any sort of quantitative analysis at all, because every situation is unique. "Should we go for it on 4th and inches? Well, there's no way to tell, because the current wind speed is 2MPH faster than average, so we have to throw out the entire data set."
The fact is, every day across different industries, people make quantitative decisions based on incomplete data. Financial analysts try to predict stock price movements. Fivethirtyeight.com is attempting to predict every House, Senate and governor's race, which is an act of pure hubris. Will they get plenty of things wrong? Of course (assuming, that is, that you believe the occurrence of a result to which a model assigned a 30% probability counts as being "wrong"). But do those models tell us more than we might know from pure guessing? Generally speaking, yes.
Going for two in this situation won't always turn out well. And sure, there may be scenarios where it makes less sense. But on average, teams that do it will fare better than teams that kick the XP. And when you consider that, prior to two weeks ago, there had only been one instance in this century of teams going for two there, that suggests that the persistence of XP attempts in that scenario is not because coaches were carefully considering variables unique to each situation, but rather because certain biases were causing them to make sub-optimal decisions.
Let's turn this around: Can anyone make the positive case for kicking the XP? Because throughout this entire thread, all I've heard is "something-something-take-the-points-blah-blah-can't-trust-math-durrrrr-momentum." None of those arguments offer any evidence, quantitatively or qualitatively, that kicking the XP makes you more likely to win the game. Absent that, and given the presence of an estimate suggesting you should go for two, what rationale is there for kicking?
If you're applying quantitative analysis to craps and haven't figured out that the house always wins, you should get out of the casino before you lose your kids' college funds.
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/695573-post-here-when-coaches-do-something-obviously-stupid
And yes, kicking a FG down 15 on 4th and 4 from the 28 is idiotic.
I think your math is off. When you are down 14 and score a TD you are now down 8 pts. The easiest way is a PAT, TD, and PAT. I agree when down 15 going for two makes sense from a strict how many points down.
Eight points won't win the game.
You're falling into the trap of thinking that the goal is to tie it up. But a tie game just sends it to OT, where your odds are 50/50 (give or take).
Ultimately, you will need to score more than 8 to win. Mathematically, you're better off trying to get that ninth point from a 2PC after you score the first TD, especially since even if you miss it, you will still have a chance to tie it up by going for two after the second TD.
I never said teams should not go for two. I said I don't think using generic NFL averages is the proper way to evaluate. There are too many factors across the NFL that makes those numbers incorrect for your situation.
I think teams should evaluate themselves on their percentages and situations and use data applicable to their own team and the specific opponent for deciding whether to go for two or not.
I just don't think a statement of "the math says you should always go for two when you score a TD down 14 late in a game" is always correct because generic NFL teams do x. That isn't good enough. If you have data for your team and other teams tenancies there are times it would make sense.
As for the craps, i know the odds. Casinos are built to make money. Why do you assume by my example that I don't understand that? I never said anything about beating the house.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Straw man. No one is saying it is always correct. But the math is a pretty strong data point supporting the argument that most teams should go for two there. And yet, prior to this year, zero teams were going for two. Why do you think that is?
Besides, as others have pointed out, the math is just a back-stop for the logical argument as to why you should go for two (it increases the chance that you can win in regulation). Do you disagree with that logic?
Relax, it was a joke.
I stand corrected on the math to win. I was looking at trying to send it to overtime. I get what you are saying in trying to win outright.
I still think every team is too different to use league averages to figure out if you should go for two or not. Some teams are really good (those should go for it) at 2 pt plays, some are terrible (those teams should not go for two). I think it's to team specific (both offensively and defensively to use "league averages" to calculate if you should go for it or not.
jdkapow
Footballguy
That's as may be, but the default position, in the absence of specific information, should be to go for 2 there. If you then say, well, I'm going for 1 because we stink at 2-pointers, or the other team has an unusually great goal-line D, or some other reason, then you can make that argument. But usually you won't have enough information to know how much to stray from the averages with any certainty. The upshot is that most teams should go for 2 most of the time, and they should be questioned when they don't. The current state of affairs is the exact opposite.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
You don't have to use league averages. You can use whatever percentage likelihood you think you have at making a 2-point conversion, or successfully kicking a 32-yard field goal (PAT). Your chances of making the 2-point conversion have to be spectacularly bad, to make going for 1 the odds-on play.
ZWK
Footballguy
College football overtime. Each team gets one possession starting from the opponent's 25 yard-line.
Consider this scenario: the home team gets the ball first in the opening period of college football overtime and they score a TD. Should they go for 2 or kick the XP?
I think pretty much everyone would kick the XP, and there's a pretty overwhelming case for kicking it.
To simplify things, let's assume that the visitor does get a TD on their possession (since otherwise the XP vs. 2-pointer decision doesn't matter) and that XPs are automatic (since they're close enough to not make a huge difference).
If the home team goes for 2 then they need two different things to work in their favor to win in the first overtime: they need to make their 2-point conversion and they need to stop the visitor's 2-point conversion. But they lose if just one thing goes wrong: if they miss their 2-point conversion then the visitor just kicks the XP to win the game.
You could also do the whole calculation and it would come out the same way (even if the home team is really good at 2-point conversions and makes 60% of them). The basic problem with going for 2 is that the visitor gets to know in advance precisely how aggressive they need to be (depending on whether they get the ball down 6 or 8). They get to decide whether to kick the XP or go for 2 depending on the result of the previous 2-point attempt. If the home team succeeds at their 2 point conversion then the visiting team can tie it by succeeding at something equally difficult, and if the home team fails at their 2 point conversion then the visiting team can win by succeeding at something much easier.
The reason that I bring this up is that it's the mirror image of the original scenario in this thread of being down 14 and then scoring a TD. If the visitor is down by 14 and then scores a TD, the visitor gets to decide whether to be down 7 (by kicking the XP) or to be down by either 6 or 8 (by going for 2). Assuming that they get the second TD and those are the only scores, if the visitor goes for 2 then they need two different things to go wrong in order to lose in regulation: they need to miss their first 2-point conversion and then miss their second 2-point conversion. But they win if just one thing goes right: if they make their first 2-point conversion then after their second TD they just kick the XP to win the game. They get to decide whether to kick the XP or go for 2 after the second touchdown depending on the result of the previous 2-point attempt.
If you are down 14 late in the game and score a TD then you should go for 2, for the exact same reason why a college team that gets the ball first in an overtime period should kick the XP.
Consider this scenario: the home team gets the ball first in the opening period of college football overtime and they score a TD. Should they go for 2 or kick the XP?
I think pretty much everyone would kick the XP, and there's a pretty overwhelming case for kicking it.
To simplify things, let's assume that the visitor does get a TD on their possession (since otherwise the XP vs. 2-pointer decision doesn't matter) and that XPs are automatic (since they're close enough to not make a huge difference).
If the home team goes for 2 then they need two different things to work in their favor to win in the first overtime: they need to make their 2-point conversion and they need to stop the visitor's 2-point conversion. But they lose if just one thing goes wrong: if they miss their 2-point conversion then the visitor just kicks the XP to win the game.
You could also do the whole calculation and it would come out the same way (even if the home team is really good at 2-point conversions and makes 60% of them). The basic problem with going for 2 is that the visitor gets to know in advance precisely how aggressive they need to be (depending on whether they get the ball down 6 or 8). They get to decide whether to kick the XP or go for 2 depending on the result of the previous 2-point attempt. If the home team succeeds at their 2 point conversion then the visiting team can tie it by succeeding at something equally difficult, and if the home team fails at their 2 point conversion then the visiting team can win by succeeding at something much easier.
The reason that I bring this up is that it's the mirror image of the original scenario in this thread of being down 14 and then scoring a TD. If the visitor is down by 14 and then scores a TD, the visitor gets to decide whether to be down 7 (by kicking the XP) or to be down by either 6 or 8 (by going for 2). Assuming that they get the second TD and those are the only scores, if the visitor goes for 2 then they need two different things to go wrong in order to lose in regulation: they need to miss their first 2-point conversion and then miss their second 2-point conversion. But they win if just one thing goes right: if they make their first 2-point conversion then after their second TD they just kick the XP to win the game. They get to decide whether to kick the XP or go for 2 after the second touchdown depending on the result of the previous 2-point attempt.
If you are down 14 late in the game and score a TD then you should go for 2, for the exact same reason why a college team that gets the ball first in an overtime period should kick the XP.
Similar threads
