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

[CalBear]

Mathematically, the logical argument is a more compelling argument. As impressive as those stats appear, if you calculate the MoE, the difference between those results are not outside margin of error.

Certainly the sample sizes are small. We only have the data we have to work with. It might be interesting to see if I can pull NCAA fourth-quarter score data, since the same fallacious thinking is seen there, and there are a lot more games.It is certainly worth noting, though, that the data we do have seem to directly contradict the null hypothesis, which is that it's always better to be down by fewer points. The finding for 17 vs. 15/16 is very small in terms of sample sizes, but the finding for down by 11 vs. 10 is statistically significant. The difference between 12 and 11 is probably not significant, but it's enough to say that 11 is a lot worse than 10, and 12 doesn't look any worse than 11, which is not what we would intuitively expect. Also, 15 looks worse than 14 to an unexpected degree.

 

[jon_mx]

Mathematically, the logical argument is a more compelling argument. As impressive as those stats appear, if you calculate the MoE, the difference between those results are not outside margin of error.

Certainly the sample sizes are small. We only have the data we have to work with. It might be interesting to see if I can pull NCAA fourth-quarter score data, since the same fallacious thinking is seen there, and there are a lot more games.It is certainly worth noting, though, that the data we do have seem to directly contradict the null hypothesis, which is that it's always better to be down by fewer points. The finding for 17 vs. 15/16 is very small in terms of sample sizes, but the finding for down by 11 vs. 10 is statistically significant. The difference between 12 and 11 is probably not significant, but it's enough to say that 11 is a lot worse than 10, and 12 doesn't look any worse than 11, which is not what we would intuitively expect. Also, 15 looks worse than 14 to an unexpected degree.

The numbers like 11 or 15 give coaches a false sense of the situation. They look at it as being down a touchdown and a FG or two touchdowns. This incorrect perception leads them to evaluate their position incorrectly. An 11-point deficit will only be erased by a touchdown and FG 50% of the time. A 15-point deficit will only be erased by two touchdowns 50% of the time. Their false sense of reality causes them to make terrible decisions. I don't see anything surprising in those numbers.

 

[CalBear]

Mathematically, the logical argument is a more compelling argument. As impressive as those stats appear, if you calculate the MoE, the difference between those results are not outside margin of error.

Certainly the sample sizes are small. We only have the data we have to work with. It might be interesting to see if I can pull NCAA fourth-quarter score data, since the same fallacious thinking is seen there, and there are a lot more games.It is certainly worth noting, though, that the data we do have seem to directly contradict the null hypothesis, which is that it's always better to be down by fewer points. The finding for 17 vs. 15/16 is very small in terms of sample sizes, but the finding for down by 11 vs. 10 is statistically significant. The difference between 12 and 11 is probably not significant, but it's enough to say that 11 is a lot worse than 10, and 12 doesn't look any worse than 11, which is not what we would intuitively expect. Also, 15 looks worse than 14 to an unexpected degree.

The numbers like 11 or 15 give coaches a false sense of the situation. They look at it as being down a touchdown and a FG or two touchdowns. This incorrect perception leads them to evaluate their position incorrectly. An 11-point deficit will only be erased by a touchdown and FG 50% of the time. A 15-point deficit will only be erased by two touchdowns 50% of the time. Their false sense of reality causes them to make terrible decisions. I don't see anything surprising in those numbers.

I agree with you as to why the numbers look the way they do, but I would say they are surprising in a sense. Given perfect decision-making, it should always be better to be down by fewer points. There are some difference which are probably negligible (i.e., being down by 1 isn't a lot different than being down by 2), and others which should be significant (i.e., being down by 8 is clearly worse than being down by 7), but the direction of the curve should remain the same. Finding that teams may actually be doing better when they're further behind is statistically surprising, even if it's not surprising given the way decisions are actually made on the field.

 

[SacramentoBob]

CalBear, I dunno what type of database you're working from, but do you have access to how often teams win games when down by "X" at halftime? Might want to break it down to teams that are receiving and teams that are kicking off. Kind of a sidetrack I know.

 

[CalBear]

CalBear, I dunno what type of database you're working from, but do you have access to how often teams win games when down by "X" at halftime? Might want to break it down to teams that are receiving and teams that are kicking off. Kind of a sidetrack I know.

I'm using the PFR "Team Game Finder": http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgiIt has halftime scores but not whether a team is kicking off or not. Since 1994, teams are 89-23 (.795) when leading by 8 at halftime. They are 35-9 (.795) when leading by 9 and 403-126 (.762) when leading by 7.

As long as I'm over there, let me check my 2-point conversion hypothesis (which is that prior to the adoption of the 2-point conversion in 1994, teams down by 8 in the fourth quarter won more often):

From 1970-1993, teams down by 8 at the start of the 4th quarter were 17-98 (.148). From 1994-2011, they are 20-107 (.156). That's a statistical tie, so, the hypothesis is not confirmed, but it does seem that the existence of the 2-point conversion does not make it significantly more likely for a team down by 8 to win.

 

[humpback]

Mathematically, the logical argument is a more compelling argument. As impressive as those stats appear, if you calculate the MoE, the difference between those results are not outside margin of error.

Certainly the sample sizes are small. We only have the data we have to work with. It might be interesting to see if I can pull NCAA fourth-quarter score data, since the same fallacious thinking is seen there, and there are a lot more games.It is certainly worth noting, though, that the data we do have seem to directly contradict the null hypothesis, which is that it's always better to be down by fewer points. The finding for 17 vs. 15/16 is very small in terms of sample sizes, but the finding for down by 11 vs. 10 is statistically significant. The difference between 12 and 11 is probably not significant, but it's enough to say that 11 is a lot worse than 10, and 12 doesn't look any worse than 11, which is not what we would intuitively expect. Also, 15 looks worse than 14 to an unexpected degree.

The numbers like 11 or 15 give coaches a false sense of the situation. They look at it as being down a touchdown and a FG or two touchdowns. This incorrect perception leads them to evaluate their position incorrectly. An 11-point deficit will only be erased by a touchdown and FG 50% of the time. A 15-point deficit will only be erased by two touchdowns 50% of the time. Their false sense of reality causes them to make terrible decisions. I don't see anything surprising in those numbers.

I agree with you as to why the numbers look the way they do, but I would say they are surprising in a sense. Given perfect decision-making, it should always be better to be down by fewer points. There are some difference which are probably negligible (i.e., being down by 1 isn't a lot different than being down by 2), and others which should be significant (i.e., being down by 8 is clearly worse than being down by 7), but the direction of the curve should remain the same. Finding that teams may actually be doing better when they're further behind is statistically surprising, even if it's not surprising given the way decisions are actually made on the field.

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

(Numbers date to last year, but I'm pretty sure no other teams down 15-16 in the fourth have won. I would have noticed).

Other than the Broncos over Miami. But 2:44 in that game is not really the same as the 7 minutes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I've already explained it several times in this thread. But since you've repeatedly cluttered this thread with posts that have zero value to anyone else reading, then I can see how people might have missed it. So I'll explain it again for anyone who doesn't just like to hear his own voice talking.- A defense with a lead late in the game has two goals: (1) Keep the other team from scoring; (2) Keep the clock running. - If the defense has a 9 point lead, it can balance both goals (e.g. by covering more sideline and deep patterns and allowing the other team to complete easy passes in the middle of the field that don't stop the clock). Eventually, goal (2) can become even more important than goal (1), and the defense can adjust accordingly. Basically, the team has two ways to win: prevent a TD, or allow a TD too late for the other team to score again.- If the defense has a 7 point lead, there is only one way to win: prevent a TD. Only in the last ten or twenty seconds would a team consider softening up the middile of its defense to try and keep the closck rolling. Basically, it's all the same advantages that people have ascribed to the trailing team, but in reverse.

So there could be better opportunities to move the ball against a defense if they chose to play prevent when you are down by 9 versus being down by 7? And that is an advantage to the defense when it comes to preventing a score?

 

[SacramentoBob]

CalBear, I dunno what type of database you're working from, but do you have access to how often teams win games when down by "X" at halftime? Might want to break it down to teams that are receiving and teams that are kicking off. Kind of a sidetrack I know.

I'm using the PFR "Team Game Finder": http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgiIt has halftime scores but not whether a team is kicking off or not. Since 1994, teams are 89-23 (.795) when leading by 8 at halftime. They are 35-9 (.795) when leading by 9 and 403-126 (.762) when leading by 7.

As long as I'm over there, let me check my 2-point conversion hypothesis (which is that prior to the adoption of the 2-point conversion in 1994, teams down by 8 in the fourth quarter won more often):

From 1970-1993, teams down by 8 at the start of the 4th quarter were 17-98 (.148). From 1994-2011, they are 20-107 (.156). That's a statistical tie, so, the hypothesis is not confirmed, but it does seem that the existence of the 2-point conversion does not make it significantly more likely for a team down by 8 to win.

This kind of confirms my suspiciouns that teams losing at halftime by a TD tend to lose a lot of games. Which is more evidence that teams should go for it on 4th down when trailing. What really scared me was I checked teams who were trailing by 7 after the first quarter. They only win 27% of the time, which is only a 4% increase over trailing by 7 at halftime. I would bet that if you surveyed coaches and ask them what they thought their chances were, they'd say closer to 50%.

 

[jon_mx]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

 

[jon_mx]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

I said earlier the mathematical logic is a much more compelling argument than these stats. These stats aren't the best, but they are the best that are readily available. Anyone with a good background in statistics would understand the logic of going for the two-point conversion earlier. The strategy from a mathematical standpoint is irrefutable, but not easily grasp.

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

I said earlier the mathematical logic is a much more compelling argument than these stats. These stats aren't the best, but they are the best that are readily available. Anyone with a good background in statistics would understand the logic of going for the two-point conversion earlier. The strategy from a mathematical standpoint is irrefutable, but not easily grasp.

 

[SacramentoBob]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

Not at all- all I'm saying is the data doesn't take into account many important factors, so we have no way of knowing whether it's surprising or not. Either way, it isn't really relevant to the question.

 

[jon_mx]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

I said earlier the mathematical logic is a much more compelling argument than these stats. These stats aren't the best, but they are the best that are readily available. Anyone with a good background in statistics would understand the logic of going for the two-point conversion earlier. The strategy from a mathematical standpoint is irrefutable, but not easily grasp.

I am pretty sure IE is a math professor who agrees with the logic, and I even more certain I graduated from the top undergrad engineering school in the country. I am completely confident in my position on which strategy gives the better probability of victory. It may give a head coach a warm and fuzzy to wait and try for the 2-point conversion at the end of the game, but that is definitely not the smartest approach.

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

I said earlier the mathematical logic is a much more compelling argument than these stats. These stats aren't the best, but they are the best that are readily available. Anyone with a good background in statistics would understand the logic of going for the two-point conversion earlier. The strategy from a mathematical standpoint is irrefutable, but not easily grasp.

I am pretty sure IE is a math professor who agrees with the logic, and I even more certain I graduated from the top undergrad engineering school in the country. I am completely confident in my position on which strategy gives the better probability of victory. It may give a head coach a warm and fuzzy to wait and try for the 2-point conversion at the end of the game, but that is definitely not the smartest approach.

Kindly prove how the strategy is mathematically irrefutable. TIA.

 

[jon_mx]

post='13772549']Kindly prove how the strategy is mathematically irrefutable. TIA.

The logic has been explained a half dozen times on the last few pages. Now I could model this making some reasonable assumptions and using empirical data to model the outcome of series of events to give an approximation of just how much advantage is derived by going for it early, but it would be a waste of time because people would not follow why the assumptions were reasonable and would want to overly complicate it by calculating every possibly chain of events. Besides it is bed time and this dead horse has been beaten enough.

 

[dparker713]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

I said earlier the mathematical logic is a much more compelling argument than these stats. These stats aren't the best, but they are the best that are readily available. Anyone with a good background in statistics would understand the logic of going for the two-point conversion earlier. The strategy from a mathematical standpoint is irrefutable, but not easily grasp.

I am pretty sure IE is a math professor who agrees with the logic, and I even more certain I graduated from the top undergrad engineering school in the country. I am completely confident in my position on which strategy gives the better probability of victory. It may give a head coach a warm and fuzzy to wait and try for the 2-point conversion at the end of the game, but that is definitely not the smartest approach.

Undergrad is for sissies.

 

[humpback]

post='13772549']

Kindly prove how the strategy is mathematically irrefutable. TIA.

The logic has been explained a half dozen times on the last few pages. Now I could model this making some reasonable assumptions and using empirical data to model the outcome of series of events to give an approximation of just how much advantage is derived by going for it early, but it would be a waste of time because people would not follow why the assumptions were reasonable and would want to overly complicate it by calculating every possibly chain of events. Besides it is bed time and this dead horse has been beaten enough.

So it isn't mathematically irrefutable. Got it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

Either way, it isn't really relevant to the question.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

Either way, it isn't really relevant to the question.

Then why did you bring it up?

To show that these statistics don't account for many important variables which could possibly explain some of the "surprising" results.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Mathematically, the logical argument is a more compelling argument. As impressive as those stats appear, if you calculate the MoE, the difference between those results are not outside margin of error.

Certainly the sample sizes are small. We only have the data we have to work with. It might be interesting to see if I can pull NCAA fourth-quarter score data, since the same fallacious thinking is seen there, and there are a lot more games.It is certainly worth noting, though, that the data we do have seem to directly contradict the null hypothesis, which is that it's always better to be down by fewer points. The finding for 17 vs. 15/16 is very small in terms of sample sizes, but the finding for down by 11 vs. 10 is statistically significant. The difference between 12 and 11 is probably not significant, but it's enough to say that 11 is a lot worse than 10, and 12 doesn't look any worse than 11, which is not what we would intuitively expect. Also, 15 looks worse than 14 to an unexpected degree.

The numbers like 11 or 15 give coaches a false sense of the situation. They look at it as being down a touchdown and a FG or two touchdowns. This incorrect perception leads them to evaluate their position incorrectly. An 11-point deficit will only be erased by a touchdown and FG 50% of the time. A 15-point deficit will only be erased by two touchdowns 50% of the time. Their false sense of reality causes them to make terrible decisions. I don't see anything surprising in those numbers.

Yah, this isn't too surprising. Lets consider another scenerio: Up 3 with 3 minutes left, 4th&goal from the 2. How many coaches kick there to "force them to score a TD"? A lot. How many announcers condescendingly scoff at the fans for booing a FG? A lot. Does it make any sense mathematically? Not really. The yardage the other team needs to travel from their 2 to FG range is about the same as their 20 (after a kickoff/touchback) to the endzone. But that's just how coaches roll because they can't stand to be criticized on radio shows; and announcers are just too bland and stupid to think for themselves. Nobody on talk radio ever rips the coach when they kick the PAT down 9 and miss a game-tying 2pt conversion with 5 seconds left (that would invariably be the offensive coordinators fault for calling the wrong play); but heaven forbid they miss the 2pter with 7 minutes left and lose by 2 - FIRE THE HEAD COACH!!

 

[jon_mx]

Two possible scenerios with those who want to wait and try the two point conversion at the end:

1. The coach decides to try to score as quickly as possible and successfully ties the game, but leaves two minutes on the clock for the other team to win the game.

2. The coach decides to let the clock run down and scores the TD with almost no time on the clock, but then misses the two point conversion and even if they do manange to recover an onside kick, there is virtually no possible way to score with the time remaining.

Question: If the coach knew ahead of time whether the 2 point conversion was successful, could the coach have changed his strategy to significantly improve his chances of winning?

Once you answer yes to that question, no matter what probability you assign to those, it must follow that waiting until the end reduces your probability of winning.

 

[jon_mx]

The only problem with the 4th and 2 scenerio above is not all yardage is created equal. Getting into the end zone is tougher than picking up your standard first down. Not that I disagree with the strategy, but you need data to show what the probability of scoring a TD vs. a FG and compare that to the probability of you scoring from the 2 and putting the game out of reach. The later probability is about 50%. I seriously doubt the advantage gained by kicking the FG can overcome that 50% of locking up the game.

 

[SacramentoBob]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

Either way, it isn't really relevant to the question.

Then why did you bring it up?

To show that these statistics don't account for many important variables which could possibly explain some of the "surprising" results.

So you do think the stats are biased in some fashion with respect to field position?

 

[Bills_Fan11]

The only problem with the 4th and 2 scenerio above is not all yardage is created equal. Getting into the end zone is tougher than picking up your standard first down. Not that I disagree with the strategy, but you need data to show what the probability of scoring a TD vs. a FG and compare that to the probability of you scoring from the 2 and putting the game out of reach. The later probability is about 50%. I seriously doubt the advantage gained by kicking the FG can overcome that 50% of locking up the game.

That is a fair point. Also the average field position after a kickoff is worse now with the new rule this year. Still you have to consider a FG only ties you where as a TD beats you, and also that the other team gets 4 downs instead of 3 to get in the endzone, so that counts for something too. Perhaps that's not the most clear-cut example but I don't think there's any arguing that coaches like to err on the side of avoiding criticism rather than maximizing their %'s.

 

[humpback]

All it really shows is that these stats are nice and all, but they don't prove anything with regards to the question.

Would you rather be down 7 with your opponent having a 1st and goal, or down 8 with your team having a 1st and goal? The data only accounts for the score at the end of the 3rd quarter, it doesn't take into consideration who has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc.

And that question has nothing to do with anything about this situation.

Just like these statistics.

So you think the data are biased in favor of teams having possession close to the GL in some form or fashion?

Either way, it isn't really relevant to the question.

Then why did you bring it up?

To show that these statistics don't account for many important variables which could possibly explain some of the "surprising" results.

So you do think the stats are biased in some fashion with respect to field position?

Again, not at all. I'm saying we don't know that information, so we have no idea why teams down by 17 have won more games than teams down by 15 or 16.Regardless, it isn't really relevant because those statistics are for an entirely different set of circumstances than the question in the OP.

 

[jon_mx]

Yes, having a 3 point lead in that scenerio significantly make it a worse decision vs. having a 2 point lead. Having a 2 point lead probably makes it a close call, but I still think the math would support going for it with a 2 point lead. Having a 3 point lead, I would guess it is a slam dunk you should go for the TD.

 

[firstseason1988]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

Because that would be silly.

 

[coolnerd]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

An extra point in the NFL is something near like 99% to score one point versus 2 point conversions being less than 50%.

 

[elshagon]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

Exactly. I'm normally all about statistical decision-making, but I think you need to factor in momentum here. Keeping it a one-score game keeps the players' spirits up and the game feels well within reach. We score again and the momentum is totally in our favor and the defense is deflated - increasing our chances of getting the 2 pts

What are your odds of converting the 2-point attempt when down by 9 (following touchdown #1)? What are your odds of converting when down by 2 (following touchdown #1/XP and then touchdown #2)? Exactly what sort of increase in probability are we talking about here?

I think if you wait to go for two odds can also increase due to the fact the opposing defense is more tired then if you'd gone for it earlier. Going for two later assumes your defense has stopped the other team or you got an onside kick. Either scenario would lead you to believe the opposing defense being tired after you've driven down and scored yet another touchdown, thus making the two point conversion easier.

 

[jon_mx]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

An extra point in the NFL is something near like 99% to score one point versus 2 point conversions being less than 50%.

Which makes the expected outcome identical. If you thought you could convert the two-point attempt greater than 50% of the time, then by all means you should go for it most the time. Of course if you only need one point to win a ball game, then it would be stupid to go for two.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

Because the expected value of a 2-pt conversion is less than the expected value of a PAT. Whether 2-pt conversions become more attractive options than PATs is determined solely by game conditions, not because they're "more points."

 

[dparker713]

Link

Anyone have more recent data on 2 point conversion success rates?

 

[shnikies]

I think teams should always go for 2 no matter what the score. You gotta chance to get more points, why not take them?

An extra point in the NFL is something near like 99% to score one point versus 2 point conversions being less than 50%.

Which makes the expected outcome identical. If you thought you could convert the two-point attempt greater than 50% of the time, then by all means you should go for it most the time. Of course if you only need one point to win a ball game, then it would be stupid to go for two.

Game theory.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have not read any of this thread recently (and probably only some of it initially), so my apologies if this has been suggested.

But I would line up to kick the XP but run a fake by the holder or kicker. I doubt the defense would be that concerned and focused, as they still would be up by 9 points and likely ill-prepared. IMO, that would be the best way to get the score back on a more even keel (down to 7 points).

Lining up to go for two would likely be better defended and many times would get a timeout called from the defense if they were not fully prepared. I don't know if there is any way to even find out what the success rate is on fakes for two point conversions, but I would think it would have a better success rate than straight two point conversion formations and attempts.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have not read any of this thread recently (and probably only some of it initially), so my apologies if this has been suggested.But I would line up to kick the XP but run a fake by the holder or kicker. I doubt the defense would be that concerned and focused, as they still would be up by 9 points and likely ill-prepared. IMO, that would be the best way to get the score back on a more even keel (down to 7 points).Lining up to go for two would likely be better defended and many times would get a timeout called from the defense if they were not fully prepared. I don't know if there is any way to even find out what the success rate is on fakes for two point conversions, but I would think it would have a better success rate than straight two point conversion formations and attempts.

This is a great idea as long as you have a well-designed and practiced fake PAT drawn up and you can get the right personnel on the field. You'd have the definite advantage due to the element of surprise, but I think you'd also be giving up some of that advantage by having specials teams players, including your kicker, on the field who might not be properly equipped to execute a goal-line offensive play. But if done correctly, this is a great way to go and would likely work at least a few times before teams finally caught on.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I have not read any of this thread recently (and probably only some of it initially), so my apologies if this has been suggested.

But I would line up to kick the XP but run a fake by the holder or kicker. I doubt the defense would be that concerned and focused, as they still would be up by 9 points and likely ill-prepared. IMO, that would be the best way to get the score back on a more even keel (down to 7 points).

Lining up to go for two would likely be better defended and many times would get a timeout called from the defense if they were not fully prepared. I don't know if there is any way to even find out what the success rate is on fakes for two point conversions, but I would think it would have a better success rate than straight two point conversion formations and attempts.

This is a great idea as long as you have a well-designed and practiced fake PAT drawn up and you can get the right personnel on the field. You'd have the definite advantage due to the element of surprise, but I think you'd also be giving up some of that advantage by having specials teams players, including your kicker, on the field who might not be properly equipped to execute a goal-line offensive play. But if done correctly, this is a great way to go and would likely work at least a few times before teams finally caught on.

Yeah, you don't want to look like the Eagles.

 

[shnikies]

I have not read any of this thread recently (and probably only some of it initially), so my apologies if this has been suggested.But I would line up to kick the XP but run a fake by the holder or kicker. I doubt the defense would be that concerned and focused, as they still would be up by 9 points and likely ill-prepared. IMO, that would be the best way to get the score back on a more even keel (down to 7 points).Lining up to go for two would likely be better defended and many times would get a timeout called from the defense if they were not fully prepared. I don't know if there is any way to even find out what the success rate is on fakes for two point conversions, but I would think it would have a better success rate than straight two point conversion formations and attempts.

I guess it really depends on your holder but I've always felt in a situation as important as this one you'd want to avoid the cute stuff and keep the ball in your quarterback's hands. Could the fake field goal really be a better play than a regular offensive plays using the best offensive players on your team? It's also not safe to doubt the defense would be prepared for it especially when you're going to need a 2-point conversion at some point.

 

[CalBear]

Cal got this right against Stanfraud; after just having scored a TD in the early part of the fourth quarter, we went for 2 and completed a pass to cut the lead to 7. It turned out not to matter, as Stanfraud later got a field goal to go up by 10, and won by 3.

 

[bonesman]

Cal got this right against Stanfraud; after just having scored a TD in the early part of the fourth quarter, we went for 2 and completed a pass to cut the lead to 7. It turned out not to matter, as Stanfraud later got a field goal to go up by 10, and won by 3.

Same thing happened with TB @ GB but Tampa couldn't convert the 2.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Cal got this right against Stanfraud; after just having scored a TD in the early part of the fourth quarter, we went for 2 and completed a pass to cut the lead to 7. It turned out not to matter, as Stanfraud later got a field goal to go up by 10, and won by 3.

Same thing happened with TB @ GB but Tampa couldn't convert the 2.

 

[cvnpoka]

wow raheem morris is one of the last coaches i would expect to employ this strategy

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Cal got this right against Stanfraud; after just having scored a TD in the early part of the fourth quarter, we went for 2 and completed a pass to cut the lead to 7. It turned out not to matter, as Stanfraud later got a field goal to go up by 10, and won by 3.

Same thing happened with TB @ GB but Tampa couldn't convert the 2.

They were down by 8, scored a TD, and went for 2. That's not the same situation.

 

[kegger]

As the pole shows,

The correct play is to kick the extra point which will keep it a 1 score chance game.

If my team went for 2, I'd be worried of not making it, then if you didn't, be deflated.

If you wait you got nothing to loose going for 2 if you scored an second touchdown, less

stress on your decision making and what you HAVE to do, still giving you a chance as well.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

As the pole shows, The correct play is to kick the extra point which will keep it a 1 score chance game. If my team went for 2, I'd be worried of not making it, then if you didn't, be deflated. If you wait you got nothing to loose going for 2 if you scored an second touchdown, less stress on your decision making and what you HAVE to do, still giving you a chance as well.

When you sober up, don't forget to come back and delete this.

 

[jon_mx]

As the pole shows, The correct play is to kick the extra point which will keep it a 1 score chance game. If my team went for 2, I'd be worried of not making it, then if you didn't, be deflated. If you wait you got nothing to loose going for 2 if you scored an second touchdown, less stress on your decision making and what you HAVE to do, still giving you a chance as well.

I am not sure how making the wrong decision is less stressful, but OK....

 

[jon_mx]

This is exactly like the 90% of the people who do not switch their pick in the Let's Make a Deal game, despite the chance to improve their odds of winning from 33% to 67%. Just because most people don't understand why, doesn't make it the incorrect move.