You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

No, he's saying that you should be better off down 15 than 17, but by making the wrong decision regarding two point conversions, coaches are actually hurting their teams' chances to win. The data reflects what has happened- coaches generally kick extra points when they shouldn't- not what should happen.

This chart really should end the conversation. It shows pretty clearly that the conventional wisdom regarding making it a "one possession game"- which is what most coaches follow- is wrong.

How does that data show anything is wrong or right? How does it show whether a two point conversion was even attempted in any of these games? How does it show that going for two earlier would give you higher stats instead of lower ones? If anything, ALL this data shows is that it's more difficult to win when you need a two point conversion than when you don't.

What it shows is that being down 9 is better than being down 8, being down 12 is better than being down 11, and being down 17 is better than being down 15 or 16.I think we can all agree that this is counterintuitive. So the question is why has this happened? It's possible that it's just happenstance. But when you consider that the only significant bumps in the data are centered around two point conversion numbers (8, 11, 16), the obvious conclusion is that coaches are making incorrect decisions about strategy related to two point conversions.; namely, that they are assuming their team will convert or adjusting their decisions to ensure a one or two possession game rather than maximizing their chances of winning. Unless you've got another explanation for why the hiccups in the data come at 8, 11 and 15/16?

We'd have to compare the same numbers using only pre-1994 data to know if the two point conversions have anything to do with it. When you look at post-1994 and post-Super Bowl era numbers, they appear almost identical. That would imply that two point conversions have nothing to do with it. But have to compare pre and post-1994 to really see.

Good point. I agree with you 100%. If the pre-1994 data doesn't show similar dips around the key two-point conversion numbers, would you agree that going for 2 early is the right move?

 

[jackdubl]

No, he's saying that you should be better off down 15 than 17, but by making the wrong decision regarding two point conversions, coaches are actually hurting their teams' chances to win. The data reflects what has happened- coaches generally kick extra points when they shouldn't- not what should happen.

This chart really should end the conversation. It shows pretty clearly that the conventional wisdom regarding making it a "one possession game"- which is what most coaches follow- is wrong.

How does that data show anything is wrong or right? How does it show whether a two point conversion was even attempted in any of these games? How does it show that going for two earlier would give you higher stats instead of lower ones? If anything, ALL this data shows is that it's more difficult to win when you need a two point conversion than when you don't.

What it shows is that being down 9 is better than being down 8, being down 12 is better than being down 11, and being down 17 is better than being down 15 or 16.I think we can all agree that this is counterintuitive. So the question is why has this happened? It's possible that it's just happenstance. But when you consider that the only significant bumps in the data are centered around two point conversion numbers (8, 11, 16), the obvious conclusion is that coaches are making incorrect decisions about strategy related to two point conversions.; namely, that they are assuming their team will convert or adjusting their decisions to ensure a one or two possession game rather than maximizing their chances of winning. Unless you've got another explanation for why the hiccups in the data come at 8, 11 and 15/16?

We'd have to compare the same numbers using only pre-1994 data to know if the two point conversions have anything to do with it. When you look at post-1994 and post-Super Bowl era numbers, they appear almost identical. That would imply that two point conversions have nothing to do with it. But have to compare pre and post-1994 to really see.

Good point. I agree with you 100%. If the pre-1994 data doesn't show similar dips around the key two-point conversion numbers, would you agree that going for 2 early is the right move?

I might in fact have to do that.

 

[dollarbill13]

I think the point that most of the "Go for 2 first" crowd is getting at is that if you are down by 8 with 7 minutes left, you should play with more of a sense of urgency as there's a pretty good chance that you'll need another score after the next TD. It seems like most NFL coaches treat those situations like they only need one TD and often use up just about all the clock before getting in the end zone. If you score the 2nd TD with 5 seconds left, there's a 60% chance that you're screwed. However, if you score the 2nd TD with more time on the clock, you'll have the opportunity to force a third possession with a stop or onside kick.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You REALLY believe that you have a greater chance of winning down by 9 then down by 8? Didn't think so. ...

Those who understand this? Or, an average coached NFL team?

 

[Sam Quentin]

You REALLY believe that you have a greater chance of winning down by 9 then down by 8? Didn't think so. Hey, I could pull up some historical data showing heads if favored over tails in Super Bowl coin flips. Doesn't make it so.

Being down by 8 is certainly better than being down by 9 and yet coaches down by 9 have had a higher success rate? That's fascinating. Why would you have a higher success rate down by more? It seems to indicate that conventional thinking and strategy for being down 8, 11 15-16 etc is flawed. The flaw is being down 1.6 possessons and playing it like you are down 1. The information about how many times you need to score and how to manage the clock has tangible value.

 

[Sudsy]

Utimately I don't think there is a one size fits all answer. The effectivenes of your ofense that night against their defense has to be factored, as does the range of your kicker on that evening under those conditions, and the faith you have in your defense.

On Monday when Houston was doing what it pleased on offense in the fourth quarter, when it has been perfect this season on third and one (yes I know the 2 point conversion is from further out than the one), etc., etc. was there any serious reason to believe (other than the actual 2pt play) that this was not much greater than a 50-50 proposition for Houston. San Diego a week earlier was more iffy, but Houston on Monday?

My subjective impression of Houston at that time, removed as I was from the sidelines and the game by the distance of T.V., was that they were finally moving the ball at will, and that Baltimore was gassed. They could have danced with the Ravens dates, taken their lunch money, or kicked their dogs, and there wasn't a thing the Ravens were going to be able to do about it.

 

[rick6668]

So cool, kicking the extra point gives you

.98 x .16 + .02 x .1875 = .16055 (Notice how missing the extra point improves the chances of winning?)

Going for two gives you

.40 x .1941 + .60 x .1875 = .19014

(I used the 40-60 ration repeated often in this thread even though I think it is better than that. I also used the .98 for conversions used earlier since the lower this percentage is the better the out come.)

19% is greater than 16%.

Which is why you can't use simple statistics to explain so many variables. I'm sure if coaches knew of this data, they'd miss the extra point on purpose.

No, they'd go for 2 first so they'd know whether they need 2 scores or 1. Being up 8 doesn't give the coach that info. As a result of the data above, he has a greater chance of winning if he is down 7 or 9 instead of 8.

You REALLY believe that you have a greater chance of winning down by 9 then down by 8? Didn't think so. Hey, I could pull up some historical data showing heads if favored over tails in Super Bowl coin flips. Doesn't make it so.

Tobias said it best above

I think we can all agree that this is counterintuitive. So the question is why has this happened? It's possible that it's just happenstance. But when you consider that the only significant bumps in the data are centered around two point conversion numbers (8, 11, 16), the obvious conclusion is that coaches are making incorrect decisions about strategy related to two point conversions.; namely, that they are assuming their team will convert or adjusting their decisions to ensure a one or two possession game rather than maximizing their chances of winning. Unless you've got another explanation for why the hiccups in the data come at 8, 11 and 15/16?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Utimately I don't think there is a one size fits all answer. The effectivenes of your ofense that night against their defense has to be factored, as does the range of your kicker on that evening under those conditions, and the faith you have in your defense.

On Monday when Houston was doing what it pleased on offense in the fourth quarter, when it has been perfect this season on third and one (yes I know the 2 point conversion is from further out than the one), etc., etc. was there any serious reason to believe (other than the actual 2pt play) that this was not much greater than a 50-50 proposition for Houston. San Diego a week earlier was more iffy, but Houston on Monday?

My subjective impression of Houston at that time, removed as I was from the sidelines and the game by the distance of T.V., was that they were finally moving the ball at will, and that Baltimore was gassed. They could have danced with the Ravens dates, taken their lunch money, or kicked their dogs, and there wasn't a thing the Ravens were going to be able to do about it.

So you agree they should have went for two twice and walked away with a win in regulation rather than risk bad luck in overtime?

 

[humpback]

I think the point that most of the "Go for 2 first" crowd is getting at is that if you are down by 8 with 7 minutes left, you should play with more of a sense of urgency as there's a pretty good chance that you'll need another score after the next TD. It seems like most NFL coaches treat those situations like they only need one TD and often use up just about all the clock before getting in the end zone. If you score the 2nd TD with 5 seconds left, there's a 60% chance that you're screwed. However, if you score the 2nd TD with more time on the clock, you'll have the opportunity to force a third possession with a stop or onside kick.

This really is more due to poor coaching/clock management than the timing of the 2 pt. conversion. I said much earlier in the thread that you should play as if you're going to need 2 more possessions regardless. Even if you go for 2 early and make it, you're still going to have to score another TD. You have a better chance at scoring another TD with 2 possessions than you do with 1 obviously, so you should try and give yourselves 2 more shots at it (if feasible) instead of milking the clock down and only giving yourself one chance.Playing for 1 more possession whether down 7 or 8 is poor clock management either way.

 

[CalBear]

You REALLY believe that you have a greater chance of winning down by 9 then down by 8? Didn't think so. Hey, I could pull up some historical data showing heads if favored over tails in Super Bowl coin flips. Doesn't make it so.

I think what is happening is that a team that is down by 8 plays as if it's a one-possession game, and they would be more likely to win if they played as if it were a two-possession game. Teams that are down 9 play as if it's a two-possession game, so they win more often.

 

[CalBear]

My subjective impression of Houston at that time, removed as I was from the sidelines and the game by the distance of T.V., was that they were finally moving the ball at will, and that Baltimore was gassed. They could have danced with the Ravens dates, taken their lunch money, or kicked their dogs, and there wasn't a thing the Ravens were going to be able to do about it.

So why did they lose?

 

[humpback]

You REALLY believe that you have a greater chance of winning down by 9 then down by 8? Didn't think so. Hey, I could pull up some historical data showing heads if favored over tails in Super Bowl coin flips. Doesn't make it so.

I think what is happening is that a team that is down by 8 plays as if it's a one-possession game, and they would be more likely to win if they played as if it were a two-possession game. Teams that are down 9 play as if it's a two-possession game, so they win more often.

That may very well be so- but again, that comes back to poor coaching/clock management, not timing of the 2 pt. conversion.

 

[CalBear]

If the pre-1994 data doesn't show similar dips around the key two-point conversion numbers, would you agree that going for 2 early is the right move?

I might in fact have to do that.

OK, here is the data for 1974-1994 (1974 is the year OT was first implemented):

Up	Gm	   W	  L	T	Loss%7	 492	382	105	5	21.85%8	 101	 85	 16	0	15.84%9	 104	 81	 23	0	22.12%10	295	270	 25	0	8.47%11	182	163	 19	0	10.44%12	 45	 39	  6	0	13.33%13	161	145	 16	0	9.94%14	265	247	 18	0	6.79%15	 48	 47	  1	0	2.08%16	 62	 60	  2	0	3.23%17	188	183	  5	0	2.66%18	 76	 75	  1	0	1.32%19	 23	 22	  1	0	4.35%20	102	101	  1	0	0.98%21	146	145	  1	0	0.68%22	 17	 17	  0	0	0.00%23	 30	 29	  1	0	3.33%

There's still a dip at 8, which is interesting. But the dips at 11 and 15-16 are pretty much gone, and the dip at 18 is also pretty much gone, except there's a spike at 19 due to small sample size. The most interesting piece of this data is the dip at 10, which probably speaks to other inefficient decision processes (possibly kicking FGs in situations where going for it on fourth down has higher expected value). Here's an unintuitive finding; since the inception of the 2-point conversion, teams down 8 at the beginning of the fourth quarter won pretty much the same percentage of games than they did before the 2-point conversion existed. You would think that the existence of the 2-point conversion would improve their chances, but the change appears to have had little effect. Teams down 11 did better before the 2-point conversion existed, as did teams down 15 or 16.

 

[RudeDog]

Haven't we done this before?The obvious answer is that you go for two immediately. The obvious reason is that knowledge is power. Didn't you guys watch Schoolhouse Rock during Saturday morning cartoons?By the way, any coach or analyst who doesn't know this should be fired on the spot.

All NFL coaches should be fired on the spot then.

 

[CalBear]

All NFL coaches should be fired on the spot then.

It's interesting that fantasy football players are quite willing to question coaches' decisions in areas where the coaches actually have expertise (like draft picks, or how to use Thomas Jones and Jamal Charles), but seem unwilling to question coaches' decisions in areas outside the coaches' expertise (like whether to go for fourth down and two-point attempts).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's an unintuitive finding; since the inception of the 2-point conversion, teams down 8 at the beginning of the fourth quarter won pretty much the same percentage of games than they did before the 2-point conversion existed. You would think that the existence of the 2-point conversion would improve their chances, but the change appears to have had little effect. Teams down 11 did better before the 2-point conversion existed, as did teams down 15 or 16.

Maybe because the availability of the two-point conversion causes coaches to think it's an x possession game when, more often than not, it's really an x+1 possession game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's an unintuitive finding; since the inception of the 2-point conversion, teams down 8 at the beginning of the fourth quarter won pretty much the same percentage of games than they did before the 2-point conversion existed. You would think that the existence of the 2-point conversion would improve their chances, but the change appears to have had little effect. Teams down 11 did better before the 2-point conversion existed, as did teams down 15 or 16.

Maybe because the availability of the two-point conversion causes coaches to think it's an x possession game when, more often than not, it's really an x+1 possession game.

If only there was some way to find out sooner whether or not it's an x possession game, rather than an x+1 possession game. Any coach who figures out a way to get that information sooner in the game would clearly put his team in a much better position to win.

 

[Choke]

You would think that the existence of the 2-point conversion would improve their chances,

Not if it caused the the Brad Childress-esque types to do something stupid ... you know, like go for 2 when down 15 with 7 minutes remaining.

 

[I was in the pool]

Every time I see more responses in this silly thread I am dumbfounded - what discuss could possibly be going on in here????

You avoid going for 2 as long as possible in the game because missing it early could leave you 2 possessions down in the final minutes. Down 8 leaves you still within reach.

Now, let's end this thread....jeez.

 

[CalBear]

Every time I see more responses in this silly thread I am dumbfounded - what discuss could possibly be going on in here????You avoid going for 2 as long as possible in the game because missing it early could leave you 2 possessions down in the final minutes. Down 8 leaves you still within reach. Now, let's end this thread....jeez.

Wow, what an amazing idea! I'm sure no one has made that assertion in the 17 pages of this thread, and no one has responded to it! Let's close the thread now that we've heard from fdctrumpet, the clear authority on the matter!

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Every time I see more responses in this silly thread I am dumbfounded - what discuss could possibly be going on in here????You avoid going for 2 as long as possible in the game because missing it early could leave you 2 possessions down in the final minutes. Down 8 leaves you still within reach. Now, let's end this thread....jeez.

I had never thought of it this way. Up until now I thought going for two is correct but now I see that going for one is correct. Thank you.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You have to go for 2 first, because then you're only down 7.

If you wait until the 2nd TD and miss the two-point conversion, you won't have enough time left to get the ball back and drive for another score.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Every time I see more responses in this silly thread I am dumbfounded - what discuss could possibly be going on in here????You avoid going for 2 as long as possible in the game because missing it early could leave you 2 possessions down in the final minutes. Down 8 leaves you still within reach. Now, let's end this thread....jeez.

Yep, if you delay making actual stratigic decisions long enough, the game may take care of itself that you never actually make a decision that could give you a marginally better chance of winning.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You have to go for 2 first, because then you're only down 7.If you wait until the 2nd TD and miss the two-point conversion, you won't have enough time left to get the ball back and drive for another score.

How do you have enough time if you miss it the first time?

 

[Man In The Box]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

 

[GloryDaze]

1. Pretend you are the trailing team's special teams coach and have ESP. You know for certain that your next 2 point conversion attempt will fail. The head coach calls you over after the first TD and asks whether or not he should go for 2. He's cracking under the pressure and needs advice, what do you tell him?

2. Now pretend you are the trailing team's special teams coach and have ESP. You know for certain that your next 2 point conversion attempt will succeed. The head coach calls you over after the first TD and asks whether or not he should go for 2. He's cracking under the pressure and needs advice, what do you tell him?

2. It doesn't matter. The game's tied either way.

Conclusion: Scenario 1: Way better to go for two first. Scenario 2: Equally successful options. Advantage: Kicking the coach in the groin. It covers both situations.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[coolnerd]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration in the 'REAL' world.

 

[K8!]

My subjective impression of Houston at that time, removed as I was from the sidelines and the game by the distance of T.V., was that they were finally moving the ball at will, and that Baltimore was gassed. They could have danced with the Ravens dates, taken their lunch money, or kicked their dogs, and there wasn't a thing the Ravens were going to be able to do about it.

So why did they lose?

Small sample variance?The whole argument has left me flat. Attacking the problem of makng up a point differential by presuming that the team good enough to get that far ahead will not score at all again strikes me as poor planning. Yes it would be nice to shut the thus far superior team out, from here on out, but I think you have to allow that they may at least manage a field goal on you. I think your best expectancy in the scenario, absent unreal good fortune is to score two T.D.'s and a field goal. I think you are hoping for only needing 15 points to tie or 16 to win, but you should at least allow some room for needing 18 to tie or 19 to win.

 

[VaTerp]

This thread can go on, and has, for pages, months, years, etc. Those advocating going for 2 first can talk all they want about math being on their side (it's not) or that NFL coaches are coaching to not get fired (to a large extent they are). But at the end of the day, virutally all coaches and an overwhelming majority of people here agree that you kick the extra point first. This doesnt mean that side of the argument is right either but the case for going for 2 first is not anywhere near compelling as people seem to believe.

Two of the fundamental things I disagee with:

1) I think people are failing to take into account the importance of possessions. An 8 pt game means that you have the CHANCE to win on ONE possession. Yes, you have to convert the 2pt conversion but you still have the CHANCE to tie on ONE possession, which kicking off with 7 minutes left very well me be all that you get. I agree that the odds of converting the 2pter are the same no matter when you go for it but to go for 2 first means that you are taking a more than 50% risk that you won't have the CHANCE to tie the game with one possession. And down 15 with less than half of the 4th quarter remaining, all you can ask for is a chance since you are already digging out of a hole. This leads to the 2nd point.

2) I think people are significantly overstating how differently teams will play down by 8 or 9. If it's under 7:00 in a ball game I am trying to score as quickly as possible and get stops as quickly as possible. PERIOD. I don't buy at all that teams will take significantly more time to score in this situation of they are down 8 as opposed to 9. If you want to have a conversation about teams being down 8 should be playing more aggressively and looking to score more quickly then fine. But that's another discussion and I don't sense that's the case.

I'm not gonna bother with the rest ... but can you explain how possessions are relevant? The goal is to win, not to minimize the number of possessions necessary to tie the game. What you say in #1 is completely true. It's also completely irrelevant.

Once you realize this- that what you say in #1 may be true but it doesn't impact the debate at all- I think you'll start to see why the argument being made by the "kick the extra point" crowd is based on a fallacy.

Consider my John Riggins hypo above- maybe that will help you see why making it a "X possession game" should not factor into the decisionmaking process.

Possessions are completely relevant because kicking off with 7 minutes left means you may only get one more opportunity to score. So I'm going to ensure that if I do only get one more possession I have a CHANCE to tie the game with it. I have seen NOTHING in 17 pages of this thread that changes my mind on that.We can have a different conversation about whether coaches down 8 should be playing as if they are still down two possessions. I will concede that Calbear's data MAY show that to be the case moreso than I thought. But it does not change my mind one bit about the importance of possessions. People act as if the conversion attempt earlier in the game is somehow linked to the attempt at the end of the game and that if you were to fail earlier then it means you would have failed later. Obviously that's not the case. The chances of converting are the same but if you wait then you ensure (unless you are the Skins of 2010) your team a CHANCE to tie the game if you do only get one more possession.

Your Riggins example is apples to oranges. The chances of converting 4th and inches on the goaline w/ Riggins of 83' are MUCH greater than converting a 2 pt attempt. If 2 pt attempts were from inside the 1 then hell yeah, go for 2 every time.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,

Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

...and then this was written.

....and this.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

Yeah only a fool would think an outsider that never really played that plays with stats would know anything about a real world game. Look at the mistake in baseball when the Red Sox thought Bill James might have a role.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,

Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

...and then this was written.

....and this.

But the "Outsiders" is in the '84 Abstract

And for football we have this and this a year earlier.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was once on the fence and then I went to the "Go for 2" camp.

I asked my 10-yr old son this same question and he said "Go for 2" as his first answer, with the reasoning of "if you wait to go for 2 with a minute left in the game, you probably won't get the ball back with time to go get a field goal if you miss."

Sounds right to me.

 

[coolnerd]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,

Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

...and then this was written.

....and this.

ya know I almost put a (not baseball) thing in that sentence

 

[coolnerd]

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

Yeah only a fool would think an outsider that never really played that plays with stats would know anything about a real world game. Look at the mistake in baseball when the Red Sox thought Bill James might have a role.

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

Yeah only a fool would think an outsider that never really played that plays with stats would know anything about a real world game. Look at the mistake in baseball when the Red Sox thought Bill James might have a role.

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Teams practice trick plays during the preseason, knowing that they may only call them once a year - if that. Just because the probability of occurrence is low doesn't mean that you shouldn't prepare for it.

 

[CalBear]

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Look, this isn't some massive statistical argument like showing that clutch hitting doesn't exist, or that stealing bases is a waste of time. This is very straightforward game theory; get as much information as you can as early as you can. No one on the PAT side has even presented a counter-argument, other than to make meaningless assertions (like "you want to keep it a one possession game"), or to quote "the book." Well, the book is wrong on this one, as it's wrong on a lot of things, and I still see no argument coming from the PAT side.

 

[humpback]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,

Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

...and then this was written.

....and this.

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?And Jeff, did you ask your son why he was making the assumption that the next time you'd get a chance to go for 2 would be with 1 minute left? Or why that would be any different if you went for 2 early or late? Rhetorical question obviously, but that's the crux of the issue- making the assumption that you're going to convert the 2 pter is the mistake, not when you attempt it.

 

[coolnerd]

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Look, this isn't some massive statistical argument like showing that clutch hitting doesn't exist, or that stealing bases is a waste of time. This is very straightforward game theory; get as much information as you can as early as you can. No one on the PAT side has even presented a counter-argument, other than to make meaningless assertions (like "you want to keep it a one possession game"), or to quote "the book." Well, the book is wrong on this one, as it's wrong on a lot of things, and I still see no argument coming from the PAT side.

I will go back to my post what ever and again say no new arguments have been made since page 1...i.e. point was made then by both sides and really has not changed much through 16 additional pages,

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,

Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

...and then this was written.

....and this.

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?And Jeff, did you ask your son why he was making the assumption that the next time you'd get a chance to go for 2 would be with 1 minute left? Or why that would be any different if you went for 2 early or late? Rhetorical question obviously, but that's the crux of the issue- making the assumption that you're going to convert the 2 pter is the mistake, not when you attempt it.

No, I didn't because (A) he didn't make that assumption and (B) that isn't the crux of the argument at all. He did as how much time was left in the game when you score the first touchdown. Once he heard that you have time to play, he wanted to know if you made the 2 or not.I asked him why he chose the 2-pointer early, and he wanted to know up front so he could have time to get an extra field goal if he needed it. That's the real crux of the argument: With several minutes to go, do you want to proceed in the game knowing that you need 7 points or 9 points to tie, and play the rest of the game accordingly?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

So? Being only stubbornly, demonstratively wrong every once in a while makes it OK? Choosing to cowardly avoid second guessers over taking a small increase in the teams chances of winning is what we want leading our favorite teams?

 

[humpback]

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Look, this isn't some massive statistical argument like showing that clutch hitting doesn't exist, or that stealing bases is a waste of time. This is very straightforward game theory; get as much information as you can as early as you can. No one on the PAT side has even presented a counter-argument, other than to make meaningless assertions (like "you want to keep it a one possession game"), or to quote "the book." Well, the book is wrong on this one, as it's wrong on a lot of things, and I still see no argument coming from the PAT side.

Actually, the counter-argument has been presented plenty of times- it isn't clear that the information gained by going for 2 early provides the trailing team with any quantifiable advantage over the leading team. Both teams gain the same exact information, and have the same opportunity to adjust their gameplans accordingly. Sure, if you go for 2 early and miss, you now know you need at least 2 more possessions, but so does the other team. It's impossible to say for sure who benefits more from that information.Regardless, the only reason I began posting in this thread again was because a couple of posters said it's been mathematically proven that going for 2 early is the right call. It has not, nor can it be (either way). We can continue to debate back and forth the pro's and con's, but there isn't a single "one size fits all" correct answer here.

 

[coolnerd]

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

Yeah only a fool would think an outsider that never really played that plays with stats would know anything about a real world game. Look at the mistake in baseball when the Red Sox thought Bill James might have a role.

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Teams practice trick plays during the preseason, knowing that they may only call them once a year - if that. Just because the probability of occurrence is low doesn't mean that you shouldn't prepare for it.

Right. The problem here is that even in Shark Pool relative terms you are practicing trick plays and situations 10-12 pages longer than the debate ws useful and/or entertaining. Seriously, how many threads on any subject get to 17 pages? It is like a team practing a week of trick plays and unusual situations for an entire week. I have become part of the problem so I am ejecting.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?

A book published in 1988 demonstrated that going for 4th and 1 was almost always the correct choice everywhere on the field. (The only exceptions were late in the game where kicking a FG would win the game.) With a couple of noted exceptions, every NFL coach goes against these odds in most cases. These numbers have been reaffirmed since by several other studies. Yet almost no one in the NFL plays the odds. There has also been a few studies that suggest going for 2 every time would be statistically advantageous, but who does that? So why should we believe that someone would have tried this by now? And since we are talking about small advantages with high risk of second guessing, so why do we think the non stats guy head coaches are going to think that the small advantages in a short season are worth the hassels?

 

[humpback]

No, I didn't because (A) he didn't make that assumption and (B) that isn't the crux of the argument at all. He did as how much time was left in the game when you score the first touchdown. Once he heard that you have time to play, he wanted to know if you made the 2 or not.I asked him why he chose the 2-pointer early, and he wanted to know up front so he could have time to get an extra field goal if he needed it. That's the real crux of the argument: With several minutes to go, do you want to proceed in the game knowing that you need 7 points or 9 points to tie, and play the rest of the game accordingly?

It sounded to me like he made that assumption, from the quote you gave- "If you wait to go for 2 with a minute left in the game...".Counter point- as the team in the lead, wouldn't you rather proceed knowing that information as well? Who is it more valuable to? I think that is the very crux of the argument- the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Regardless, the only reason I began posting in this thread again was because a couple of posters said it's been mathematically proven that going for 2 early is the right call. It has not, nor can it be (either way). We can continue to debate back and forth the pro's and con's, but there isn't a single "one size fits all" correct answer here.

Why are there are these "intangibles" that make a statistical approach to demonstrating the correct choice impossible, but those "intangibles" aren't relevant for the line in the book that says "never go for two until absolutely necessary"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

 

[humpback]

Regardless, the only reason I began posting in this thread again was because a couple of posters said it's been mathematically proven that going for 2 early is the right call. It has not, nor can it be (either way). We can continue to debate back and forth the pro's and con's, but there isn't a single "one size fits all" correct answer here.

Why are there are these "intangibles" that make a statistical approach to demonstrating the correct choice impossible, but those "intangibles" aren't relevant for the line in the book that says "never go for two until absolutely necessary"?

I'm not sure that's what the "book" says, and that's not my position- I'm not in the camp for "100% always kick" in this situation, I think we should consider many more variable besides time and point differential, at least when there are still 7 minutes to play. If the book says "never go for 2 until absolutely necessary", then I disagree with the book.

 

[humpback]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

Again, that's a mistake in the use of the information, not in the timing of it. Even if you go for 2 early and make it, it is a mistake IMO to play for only 1 more possession- the odds are you aren't going to score a TD on your next possession, you'd improve your odds by giving yourselves 2 chances at it, if feasible.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Yep not been a new argument placed since page 1 and it was entertaining for about five pages.Overalll,Even if the stat guys are statistically correct, it is obvious that the game of football is not played and coached by stat guys. While intersting for a bit, this thread is well overworked considering this happens a handful of times a year and basically ALL NFL teams play it the exact way (whether they should or not). Otherwords, nice message board chatter, but not even a consideration is the 'REAL' world.

Yeah only a fool would think an outsider that never really played that plays with stats would know anything about a real world game. Look at the mistake in baseball when the Red Sox thought Bill James might have a role.

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

It is much more common than you might think that teams fail to correctly decide when to go for the 2pt conversion. There are three scores where the anti-intuitive play gains.1) Down by 152) Down by 14 - If you make it the an XP wins the game. If you miss, you can still try another 2pt conversion to go to overtime.3) Down by 10 - If you go for the 2pt conversion, you now know whether a FG wins or you need a TD.In all three of these cases it is correct to go for the 2pt conversion depending on the time remaining. In the latter two cases are both more common and more important to make the correct call and I have never seen a single team do it right.