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

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

 

[humpback]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

 

[coolnerd]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

This. While there are legtimate math reasons to go for two first coaches are not math guys and are largely more conservative (worried about the failure more than the success) than fans.

 

[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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

Outside of the imaginary effects of grown men feeling hopelessly defeated after missing a two-point with seven minutes left, there is substantial benefit from going for it early and knowing how to properly plan the rest of the game. From a logical perspective, there is no debate. The only arguments for waiting until the end to go for two are purely emotional.

 

[humpback]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

Outside of the imaginary effects of grown men feeling hopelessly defeated after missing a two-point with seven minutes left, there is substantial benefit from going for it early and knowing how to properly plan the rest of the game. From a logical perspective, there is no debate. The only arguments for waiting until the end to go for two are purely emotional.

Well, if you say there is no debate, it must be so....

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

Outside of the imaginary effects of grown men feeling hopelessly defeated after missing a two-point with seven minutes left, there is substantial benefit from going for it early and knowing how to properly plan the rest of the game. From a logical perspective, there is no debate. The only arguments for waiting until the end to go for two are purely emotional.

Well, if you say there is no debate, it must be so....

There really isn't. Going for two is the correct play.

 

[Liquid Tension]

This is a classic example of the "SABR" guys fighting the "scout" guys in baseball. The SABR guys are breaking it all down mathematically/statistically and the scouting guys are using their eyes and feel of what they "know" is right because they have always done it that way.

As I stated in post #5 of this thread and a bunch of times afterward (and more eloquently presented by CalBear and many others) the bottom line is if you are going to make the 2 point conversion it probably does not make a big difference whether you make it earlier or later, but if you are going to miss it, then it is without question better to know earlier so that you have the knowledge that you can't waste any seconds and then have a better chance to overcome the miss then you can with very little time on the clock.

Like Sabermetrics, the masses will come around to how much more accurate they are then the "feel" guys.

Anyone who has any clue about baseball rarely even talks about batting average anymore because it is a stat that has very little meaning. OPS is becoming much more mainstream and the people "in the know" barely even acknowledge batting average because it doesn't mean much unless it translates into OPS. Just as an example to the folks who don't know what I am talking about...is a guy who hit .297 better than a guy who hit .248? The answer used to be yes, "I would much rather the guy who hit .297 because I know he get more hits in the same amount of AB's as the other guy." The correct answer is it depends on how many walks and how much power they have. Jeter hit .297 but with a .355 on base % and a .388 slugging % which gave him an OPS (on base + slug) of .743 while Mark Teixeira hit only .248 but had an on base % of .341 and a slug % of .494 for an OPS of .835. Mark was significantly more productive.

Jeter BA .297 OPS=.743

Mark BA .248 OPS=.835

Granderson BA .262 OPS=.916

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape over using baseball as an example instead of football, I recognize that stats work better in baseball because it is an individual sport compared to the team sport in football, but my point was only to point out that this argument is exactly the same scout vs. stat guy discussion that has already been played out with a winner. I have read almost every post in this thread (twice now) and I don't understand how people can't see how much worse it is to miss later than it is earlier, but that is why this crazy world has so many different views. All I ask is that one doesn't use the argument that if "this" is correct why wouldn't more coaches or even the masses believe/follow it? That has a simple answer but I won't be inflammatory.

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

 

[humpback]

Question for the "the math is irrefutable" camp- exactly what "math" are you using to prove this? Can you show your work please?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Question for the "the math is irrefutable" camp- exactly what "math" are you using to prove this? Can you show your work please?

2 > 1QED

 

[jon_mx]

Question for the "the math is irrefutable" camp- exactly what "math" are you using to prove this? Can you show your work please?

You could do the math, but it would be filled with assumptions about all the possible outcomes which everyone would nit pick apart and not agree on. But what you would come down with is that if "X" is the probability of winning by waiting for two, "X + some increase Y" would be the probability of winning by going for it early. It doesn't matter what 100 assumptions you make about the probability of each possible outcome, you can improve your chances by knowing that you made or missed the extra point and altering your strategy to maximize your probability of winning. Things you will know by going for it early:- Do I need two possessions or do I need three possessions? Knowing this changes if it you are desperate enough to have to try an on-side kick or not. Whether to go for a 4th and long or whether you have time to kick and stop them. When to use your timeouts. Whether you need to score quickly and get the ball back or whether you should eat up the clock and tie the game in the last second.If you don't know, every decision you make you are guessing on, and you have a 50-50 chance of being wrong. Every decision you make which is wrong lowers the chances of you producing a winning outcome. It doesn't even matter what the percentages are, any numbers you assume for any of the possible outcomes will be reduced because you don't know what your optimal strategy is. Give me what you think the possible outcomes are and what the probability and each one is, and it is easily shown an advantage by going for it early. But we could easily spend months on coming up with agreement on these assumptions.

 

[humpback]

Question for the "the math is irrefutable" camp- exactly what "math" are you using to prove this? Can you show your work please?

You could do the math, but it would be filled with assumptions about all the possible outcomes which everyone would nit pick apart and not agree on. But what you would come down with is that if "X" is the probability of winning by waiting for two, "X + some increase Y" would be the probability of winning by going for it early. It doesn't matter what 100 assumptions you make about the probability of each possible outcome, you can improve your chances by knowing that you made or missed the extra point and altering your strategy to maximize your probability of winning. Things you will know by going for it early:- Do I need two possessions or do I need three possessions? Knowing this changes if it you are desperate enough to have to try an on-side kick or not. Whether to go for a 4th and long or whether you have time to kick and stop them. When to use your timeouts. Whether you need to score quickly and get the ball back or whether you should eat up the clock and tie the game in the last second.If you don't know, every decision you make you are guessing on, and you have a 50-50 chance of being wrong. Every decision you make which is wrong lowers the chances of you producing a winning outcome. It doesn't even matter what the percentages are, any numbers you assume for any of the possible outcomes will be reduced because you don't know what your optimal strategy is. Give me what you think the possible outcomes are and what the probability and each one is, and it is easily shown an advantage by going for it early. But we could easily spend months on coming up with agreement on these assumptions.

So, again, it isn't able to be proven by math? Just trying to find some consistency here.I'll even take a random example, since you said every single set of assumptions you can make going for it 2 improves your chances at winning.

 

[jon_mx]

So, again, it isn't able to be proven by math? Just trying to find some consistency here.I'll even take a random example, since you said every single set of assumptions you can make going for it 2 improves your chances at winning.

I said it is provable by math, but we need an agreed to set of assumptions. Overly Simple assumptions: There is a 25% chance you will be successful on an on-side kick (A)There is a 50% chance to successfully score 2 point conversion (B)There is a 100% chance to kick extra point ©There is a 50% chance you win in OT (D)On an opponents possession: - There is a 33% chance you will stop them but they will run off 2:00 from the clock (E) - There is a 33% chance you will stop them but they will run off 4:30 from the clock (F) - There is a 33% chance they score a TD and end the game (G) - If you tie the game and leave more than 0:30, there is a 50% chance they kick FG and win (H)On your possessions: - You can choose to score TD quickly in a 1:30 and be successful 50% of the time (I) - You can choose to score TD slowly and run out the clock and be successful 50% of the time (J) - You can chose to kick a FG in 0:30 and be successful 50% of the time (K) - You can chose to kick a FG and run out the clock and be successful 50% of the time (L) - You fail to score 50% of the time and lose the game (M) If those assumptions are OK, we can proceed. They are not by any means complete and precise, but are only for illustration purposes. Even with these overly simplified assumptions, it will be a bit time consuming to go through every possible outcome and determine the overall probability of winning and the effects decisions will make. We will have to make a few more assumptions on the probability that a coach will make a certain choice, but we will get to that later when we see what situations we come up with.

 

[humpback]

You can argue it back and forth all you want, but the proof is in the pudding; and the stat that showed that teams trailing by nine win more often than teams trailing eight says it all

Honestly, CalBear's stuff about teams winning from down 9 more than 8 and from down 16 or 17 more than 15 pretty much ended this discussion. I'm not sure why we're still having it.

The answer is twofold:1) People don't read2) People who do read, ignore facts which challenge their thinking framesTo be fully accurate, teams down by 17 win more often than teams down by 15 or 16. In 125 games since the advent of the 2-point conversion, teams down by 15 or 16 won only once, while teams down by 17 won 5 times out of 182 games. Also relevant is that teams down by 12 won more often than teams down by 11. (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).http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=566723&st=750&p=12701592entry12701592

These are the types of comments I'm talking about- people think that because more teams have won when they were behind by 9 than by 8, and 17 rather than 15 or 16, that proves that you should always go for 2 early?

 

[Jersey35]

You can argue it back and forth all you want, but the proof is in the pudding; and the stat that showed that teams trailing by nine win more often than teams trailing eight says it all

Honestly, CalBear's stuff about teams winning from down 9 more than 8 and from down 16 or 17 more than 15 pretty much ended this discussion. I'm not sure why we're still having it.

The answer is twofold:1) People don't read2) People who do read, ignore facts which challenge their thinking framesTo be fully accurate, teams down by 17 win more often than teams down by 15 or 16. In 125 games since the advent of the 2-point conversion, teams down by 15 or 16 won only once, while teams down by 17 won 5 times out of 182 games. Also relevant is that teams down by 12 won more often than teams down by 11. (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).http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=566723&st=750&p=12701592entry12701592

These are the types of comments I'm talking about- people think that because more teams have won when they were behind by 9 than by 8, and 17 rather than 15 or 16, that proves that you should always go for 2 early?

Not necessarily. This data counters the argument that NFL coaches never go for two early because they know something we don't. Common practice in this thread has been to claim that someone arguing that going for two early is the right call doesn't know football because coaches go for two later (implying that if coaches do it, it must be correct). This data shows that CLEARLY coaches are doing SOMETHING wrong.The decision to postpone going for two is simply one if the possible explanations. Can you think of any other possible explanations?

 

[SteelerMurf]

The rule is don't go for two unless you gave to. Keep it a one possession game. Things can happen in seven minutes where you wont need that extra pt

 

[David Yudkin]

The rule is don't go for two unless you gave to. Keep it a one possession game. Things can happen in seven minutes where you wont need that extra pt

Like the Dolphins yesterday. They didn't go for two in the second half yesterday to try to give themselves a 7 point lead . . . except by the end of the game they needed that extra point.

 

[humpback]

Not necessarily. This data counters the argument that NFL coaches never go for two early because they know something we don't. Common practice in this thread has been to claim that someone arguing that going for two early is the right call doesn't know football because coaches go for two later (implying that if coaches do it, it must be correct). This data shows that CLEARLY coaches are doing SOMETHING wrong.

The decision to postpone going for two is simply one if the possible explanations. Can you think of any other possible explanations?

I disagree that the data shows that the coaches are clearly doing something wrong- again, there are many variables that the data doesn't consider, so we don't really know what the data shows. All it considers is time remaining and lead/deficit- we don't know which team has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc. Those things could have a huge impact on the results, especially when dealing with relatively small sample sizes. A team down 9 with a 1st and goal obviously should have a much better chance at winning than a team down 8, but their opponent has a first and goal (an extreme example, but even just possession of the ball could skew the results quite a bit). I'm not saying that's the explanation because we don't know this information, but it is a possibility.ETA- so you don't think it proves that going for it early is always the correct strategy, but it seems pretty clear the posters who wrote those comments do.

 

[jon_mx]

The rule is don't go for two unless you gave to. Keep it a one possession game. Things can happen in seven minutes where you wont need that extra pt

I agree that is the rule, but it is a dumb one.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The rule is don't go for two unless you gave to. Keep it a one possession game. Things can happen in seven minutes where you wont need that extra pt

Past the midway point in the 4th, you really want to think about your end game....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

Exactly right. Coaching a big time football game is all about not making decisions that the ignorant masses will second guess. Whether or not the decision improves your chances to win is completely irrelevant.

Has this been proven yet, or are we still arguing back and forth about something that has no correct answer?

No it has not been proven that going for one and then two is the proper choice despite every head coach in the NFL in every situation using that strategy. And, unless I have missed a recent example only one team has ever been successful (Denver over Miami this year) but that example didn't really meet the criteria offered.If you look at my answers throughout the various years in this thread I'm in the "almost always go for two" court with the possibilities that there could be game situations that dictate going for one is the better option. Such an example might be that the score was defensive and your QB is still being taped up. Or your RB can't find his helmet. But watching games it seems like the most common situation is that the head coach is not prepared to even consider the option as he impulsively raises one finger after the score.

In any case it is inconceivable to believe that there has never been a case where the situation suggested going for two. It is not the "go for two" side that believes that there has been proven strategy that you should never deviate from. It is the "go for one" side.

That being said, I believe that going for two is almost always the correct strategy. There are not enough possessions left in the game to not know if you need two more scores or one.

 

[humpback]

No it has not been proven that going for one and then two is the proper choice despite every head coach in the NFL in every situation using that strategy. And, unless I have missed a recent example only one team has ever been successful (Denver over Miami this year) but that example didn't really meet the criteria offered.

If you look at my answers throughout the various years in this thread I'm in the "almost always go for two" court with the possibilities that there could be game situations that dictate going for one is the better option. Such an example might be that the score was defensive and your QB is still being taped up. Or your RB can't find his helmet. But watching games it seems like the most common situation is that the head coach is not prepared to even consider the option as he impulsively raises one finger after the score.

In any case it is inconceivable to believe that there has never been a case where the situation suggested going for two. It is not the "go for two" side that believes that there has been proven strategy that you should never deviate from. It is the "go for one" side.

That being said, I believe that going for two is almost always the correct strategy. There are not enough possessions left in the game to not know if you need two more scores or one.

I've been in the camp that believes that anyone (the vast majority in this thread) who picked either always go for 1 or 2 is making that decision without considering a ton of valuable information. How can the bolded be true? Plenty of people from both sides have argued that "there is only one right answer", and the results of the poll confirm that. Most of my posts in here have been refuting that "it's mathematically proven" that either strategy is without a doubt the right one (IIRC, most of which has been argued by the go for 2 first crowd). Just look at the quotes above- some people believe that the discussion should be over because more teams have won when trailing by 9 than by 8.

 

[Jersey35]

Not necessarily. This data counters the argument that NFL coaches never go for two early because they know something we don't. Common practice in this thread has been to claim that someone arguing that going for two early is the right call doesn't know football because coaches go for two later (implying that if coaches do it, it must be correct). This data shows that CLEARLY coaches are doing SOMETHING wrong.

The decision to postpone going for two is simply one if the possible explanations. Can you think of any other possible explanations?

I disagree that the data shows that the coaches are clearly doing something wrong- again, there are many variables that the data doesn't consider, so we don't really know what the data shows. All it considers is time remaining and lead/deficit- we don't know which team has the ball, field position, down and distance, etc. Those things could have a huge impact on the results, especially when dealing with relatively small sample sizes. A team down 9 with a 1st and goal obviously should have a much better chance at winning than a team down 8, but their opponent has a first and goal (an extreme example, but even just possession of the ball could skew the results quite a bit). I'm not saying that's the explanation because we don't know this information, but it is a possibility.ETA- so you don't think it proves that going for it early is always the correct strategy, but it seems pretty clear the posters who wrote those comments do.

If you consider the data provided, you'll envision a pretty neat (and expected) win/loss curve that ramps up on the loss side as the number of points required by the trailing team increases in the 4th quarter. Except where there would be a two-point conversion involved (8pts, 13pts, 15pts, etc).Though we haven't looked at the data, I'm willing to bet that if we looked at teams' chances of winning a game when up by a certain percentage follow a similar (but reversed) curve when up by the same values - except where the team is up by an amount where a two-point coversion would be required by the opposing team. In those cases, I would lay easy money that the chance of winning makes a big bump (i.e. a better chance of winning when up by 8 versus up by 9).

These results make no sense unless you conclude that coaches are mishandling something revolving around 2-point conversions.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.

Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.

Go for two

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No it has not been proven that going for one and then two is the proper choice despite every head coach in the NFL in every situation using that strategy. And, unless I have missed a recent example only one team has ever been successful (Denver over Miami this year) but that example didn't really meet the criteria offered.

If you look at my answers throughout the various years in this thread I'm in the "almost always go for two" court with the possibilities that there could be game situations that dictate going for one is the better option. Such an example might be that the score was defensive and your QB is still being taped up. Or your RB can't find his helmet. But watching games it seems like the most common situation is that the head coach is not prepared to even consider the option as he impulsively raises one finger after the score.

In any case it is inconceivable to believe that there has never been a case where the situation suggested going for two. It is not the "go for two" side that believes that there has been proven strategy that you should never deviate from. It is the "go for one" side.

That being said, I believe that going for two is almost always the correct strategy. There are not enough possessions left in the game to not know if you need two more scores or one.

I've been in the camp that believes that anyone (the vast majority in this thread) who picked either always go for 1 or 2 is making that decision without considering a ton of valuable information. How can the bolded be true? Plenty of people from both sides have argued that "there is only one right answer", and the results of the poll confirm that. Most of my posts in here have been refuting that "it's mathematically proven" that either strategy is without a doubt the right one (IIRC, most of which has been argued by the go for 2 first crowd). Just look at the quotes above- some people believe that the discussion should be over because more teams have won when trailing by 9 than by 8.

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

By the way the success rate of going for two might be 48% overall, but rushing plays are successful 57% of the time.

 

[shnikies]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.Go for two

Whatever historical data you have found may be based on human error. It's illogical if a coach uses dominant strategies for both cases, where he down by 9 as well as down by 8, would result in more wins for the teams down by 9. If we're using game theory and/or probabilities for deciding whether going for 1 or 2 is correct then you can't use historical data that might include situations where the coaches didn't. Whether historical data shows it's better to be down by 9 that by 8 or not has no effect on the question. I'm not saying going for one is better, I'm just saying what you said isn't a valid reason.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.Go for two

Whatever historical data you have found may be based on human error. It's illogical if a coach uses dominant strategies for both cases, where he down by 9 as well as down by 8, would result in more wins for the teams down by 9. If we're using game theory and/or probabilities for deciding whether going for 1 or 2 is correct then you can't use historical data that might include situations where the coaches didn't. Whether historical data shows it's better to be down by 9 that by 8 or not has no effect on the question. I'm not saying going for one is better, I'm just saying what you said isn't a valid reason.

Down by 9 takes away the strategic decision as to whether you play the rest of the game as if down one possession or two.Is it not telling that when you take away decisions from NFL coaches, take away the opportunity for the coach to make a strategic difference they are more successful?

 

[jon_mx]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.Go for two

Whatever historical data you have found may be based on human error. It's illogical if a coach uses dominant strategies for both cases, where he down by 9 as well as down by 8, would result in more wins for the teams down by 9. If we're using game theory and/or probabilities for deciding whether going for 1 or 2 is correct then you can't use historical data that might include situations where the coaches didn't. Whether historical data shows it's better to be down by 9 that by 8 or not has no effect on the question. I'm not saying going for one is better, I'm just saying what you said isn't a valid reason.

When you are down by eight you playing for a 50% chance to tie the game. And you better not have left any time on the clock or the other team will have a chance to kick a FG. So even after all this, you then only have a 50% chance to win in overtime. When you are down by 9, you are playing to win the game. You don't have to worry about making the two point conversion or losing in overtime. You may have to make some riskier plays to get there, but if you are successful, you win.

 

[humpback]

I just ran the numbers for pre-2 pt. conversion, and guess what? They show nearly the same exact results as post 2 pt. conversion- teams down by 9 pts. won much more often than teams down by 8, and teams down 17 won more often than teams down 16 or 15. So, blaming these counter-intuitive results on poor strategy or coaching decisions because of the option to go for 2 is completely bunk- the same things happened before going for 2 was even an option.

 

[kutta]

I am not seeing much discussion of how these choices affect the other team. Most of the thread is dedicated to how it affects our team.

If you go for two and miss, you are now down by two scores and the opposing team has many more options at its disposal (i.e. they can take a few more chances with the ball, or they can stay conservative). If they take chances and they don't pan out, we still have to score twice, so one mistake will not kill them. It is much harder on us defensively to stop an unpredictable team from moving the ball.

If we kick the extra point and make it, we are down by one score and now the other team has to become a little more conservative because one mistake and the game could be tied. This scenario is really no different for the opposing team than if we went for two and made it. Either way it is a one score game, and they must play it as such.

I get the "math guys" argument that we have more information earlier if we go for two. But so does the other team. And we can't discount how that affects the way they will play.

 

[kegger]

I am not seeing much discussion of how these choices affect the other team. Most of the thread is dedicated to how it affects our team.If you go for two and miss, you are now down by two scores and the opposing team has many more options at its disposal (i.e. they can take a few more chances with the ball, or they can stay conservative). If they take chances and they don't pan out, we still have to score twice, so one mistake will not kill them. It is much harder on us defensively to stop an unpredictable team from moving the ball. If we kick the extra point and make it, we are down by one score and now the other team has to become a little more conservative because one mistake and the game could be tied. This scenario is really no different for the opposing team than if we went for two and made it. Either way it is a one score game, and they must play it as such.I get the "math guys" argument that we have more information earlier if we go for two. But so does the other team. And we can't discount how that affects the way they will play.

Yep you got it!If you make it a 1 score game(by just kicking the extra point) it puts more pressure on the nextpossession for the other team, so it makes logical sense that the correct call is going for a kickfrom just that perspective, let alone your team is still in better shape to, rather then going/missing.So they can run all the numbers they want and "think" the correct call is go for 2 early, while the most used, and thought correct call is keep it a 1 score game and go for 2 only when you HAVE TO. So yah the overwhelming majority say the Correct call is kick it in that scenario. I'll agree with the coaches!(just makes more sense all the way around)

 

[griff321]

This thread is proof that the shark pool is weak-tight.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not seeing much discussion of how these choices affect the other team. Most of the thread is dedicated to how it affects our team.If you go for two and miss, you are now down by two scores and the opposing team has many more options at its disposal (i.e. they can take a few more chances with the ball, or they can stay conservative). If they take chances and they don't pan out, we still have to score twice, so one mistake will not kill them. It is much harder on us defensively to stop an unpredictable team from moving the ball. If we kick the extra point and make it, we are down by one score and now the other team has to become a little more conservative because one mistake and the game could be tied. This scenario is really no different for the opposing team than if we went for two and made it. Either way it is a one score game, and they must play it as such.I get the "math guys" argument that we have more information earlier if we go for two. But so does the other team. And we can't discount how that affects the way they will play.

Except your logic is backwards. If the other team is up by two scores, they would be more conservative and less likely to do something which would stop the clock or lead to a turnover. The more secure the game is, the more conservative teams get.

 

[humpback]

No it has not been proven that going for one and then two is the proper choice despite every head coach in the NFL in every situation using that strategy. And, unless I have missed a recent example only one team has ever been successful (Denver over Miami this year) but that example didn't really meet the criteria offered.

If you look at my answers throughout the various years in this thread I'm in the "almost always go for two" court with the possibilities that there could be game situations that dictate going for one is the better option. Such an example might be that the score was defensive and your QB is still being taped up. Or your RB can't find his helmet. But watching games it seems like the most common situation is that the head coach is not prepared to even consider the option as he impulsively raises one finger after the score.

In any case it is inconceivable to believe that there has never been a case where the situation suggested going for two. It is not the "go for two" side that believes that there has been proven strategy that you should never deviate from. It is the "go for one" side.

That being said, I believe that going for two is almost always the correct strategy. There are not enough possessions left in the game to not know if you need two more scores or one.

I've been in the camp that believes that anyone (the vast majority in this thread) who picked either always go for 1 or 2 is making that decision without considering a ton of valuable information. How can the bolded be true? Plenty of people from both sides have argued that "there is only one right answer", and the results of the poll confirm that. Most of my posts in here have been refuting that "it's mathematically proven" that either strategy is without a doubt the right one (IIRC, most of which has been argued by the go for 2 first crowd). Just look at the quotes above- some people believe that the discussion should be over because more teams have won when trailing by 9 than by 8.

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

 

[jon_mx]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

 

[humpback]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

I agree, which is why this can't be proven by math, or by using statistics that aren't even the same set of circumstances as the question in the OP.I was just asking because it seems quite a few people think that those stats completely settle the conversation, when they clearly do not.

 

[jon_mx]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

I agree, which is why this can't be proven by math, or by using statistics that aren't even the same set of circumstances as the question in the OP.I was just asking because it seems quite a few people think that those stats completely settle the conversation, when they clearly do not.

But it is provable. Given ANY set of assumption. ANY. It will come out going for it early is better. Knowing information and optimizing strategy based upon that allows you to improve the likelihood of winning. Using math in real world problems you must make assumptions. Of course if there is no agreement on what a reasonable set of assumptions are, you are not going to convince anyone by doing the math.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can you show the math please?

There are four possible outcomes from the two decisions.
1) You go for 2 at the 7 minute mark and fail

2) You go for 2 later and fail

3) You go for 2 at the 7 minute mark and succeed

4) You go for 2 later and succeed

Now is anyone really going to argue that failing later improves your chances of winning the game? Is it better to be down 2 at the 1 or 0 minute mark kicking off than down 9 kicking off at the 7 minute mark? Remember you believed it was a one possession game and strategically left as little time on the clock as possible. Now you need to recover the on side kick with around a 10% chance of success, move the ball from the 45 or so to the 30 or so (25 yards) with little time. Lots of talk about how each team plays and momentum and what not, but the simple fact is that the team that knows they missed at 7 minutes is in a superior position to do something about it. They will be forced to play more aggressive and at the same time the opponent will be more conservative. Thus it will be easier to get the first score, sooner.

If you are going to fail, are you really going to argue that there is an advantage to failing later?

What if you score on the two point conversion, then it would be a wash correct? No! If you are down one with a few seconds to go you probably won't try for two (only a half dozen times has this happened - I think at roughly 50-50 results) but at least you have the option to win it on this play. That tiny advantage that most won't take still swings the math. And down one with a few seconds to go if the play doesn't stop for time outs or replays or whatever most of the time you should be ready to go for two and take advantage of that momentum that the go for one crowd says is so important. Of course some of you are probably arguing that it is dangerous to give coaches this option that having this option available makes going for two later the better choice. Of course for 20+ pages these same guys have been arguing that coaches are constantly making the optimal choices.

So failing earlier is better than failing later. And making it earlier is better than making it later. And there are really no other choices.

On page one you argued that the trailing team gets no new information that the leading team doesn't get. Both teams will thus adjust accordingly. The leading team will get more conservative the further out ahead they are and the trailing team will get more aggressive the further behind they are. The leading team would be better of being left in the dark in this case. Of course there are some coaches secure enough in their success that they don't play by the book. If that is your opposition there is even more reason to go for two.

 

[humpback]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

I agree, which is why this can't be proven by math, or by using statistics that aren't even the same set of circumstances as the question in the OP.I was just asking because it seems quite a few people think that those stats completely settle the conversation, when they clearly do not.

But it is provable. Given ANY set of assumption. ANY. It will come out going for it early is better. Knowing information and optimizing strategy based upon that allows you to improve the likelihood of winning. Using math in real world problems you must make assumptions. Of course if there is no agreement on what a reasonable set of assumptions are, you are not going to convince anyone by doing the math.

If you'd like to waste your time, go ahead, but this is just completely wrong.

 

[humpback]

Can you show the math please?

There are four possible outcomes from the two decisions.
1) You go for 2 at the 7 minute mark and fail

2) You go for 2 later and fail

3) You go for 2 at the 7 minute mark and succeed

4) You go for 2 later and succeed

Now is anyone really going to argue that failing later improves your chances of winning the game? Is it better to be down 2 at the 1 or 0 minute mark kicking off than down 9 kicking off at the 7 minute mark? Remember you believed it was a one possession game and strategically left as little time on the clock as possible. Now you need to recover the on side kick with around a 10% chance of success, move the ball from the 45 or so to the 30 or so (25 yards) with little time. Lots of talk about how each team plays and momentum and what not, but the simple fact is that the team that knows they missed at 7 minutes is in a superior position to do something about it. They will be forced to play more aggressive and at the same time the opponent will be more conservative. Thus it will be easier to get the first score, sooner.

If you are going to fail, are you really going to argue that there is an advantage to failing later?

What if you score on the two point conversion, then it would be a wash correct? No! If you are down one with a few seconds to go you probably won't try for two (only a half dozen times has this happened - I think at roughly 50-50 results) but at least you have the option to win it on this play. That tiny advantage that most won't take still swings the math. And down one with a few seconds to go if the play doesn't stop for time outs or replays or whatever most of the time you should be ready to go for two and take advantage of that momentum that the go for one crowd says is so important. Of course some of you are probably arguing that it is dangerous to give coaches this option that having this option available makes going for two later the better choice. Of course for 20+ pages these same guys have been arguing that coaches are constantly making the optimal choices.

So failing earlier is better than failing later. And making it earlier is better than making it later. And there are really no other choices.

On page one you argued that the trailing team gets no new information that the leading team doesn't get. Both teams will thus adjust accordingly. The leading team will get more conservative the further out ahead they are and the trailing team will get more aggressive the further behind they are. The leading team would be better of being left in the dark in this case. Of course there are some coaches secure enough in their success that they don't play by the book. If that is your opposition there is even more reason to go for two.

Yet another post filled with assumptions and very little math. I think it's pretty clear that the answer isn't black and white, although I'm not sure why so many people continue to argue that the math is irrefutable when it is not.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Oh, for actual math.

Assumptions:

45% chance of making 2 point conversion at 7:00 minute mark

Down

9 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 6% chance of winning

8 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 - 8% chance of winning

7 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 - 12% chance of winning

(Since field position is mostly linear I don't believe that changing it will change these calculations.)

.45 * .12 + .55 * .06 = 0.087

0.087 > .08

Now if the team down by 9 tries an onside kick at this point they will likely kill their chances.

Down 9 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at your 45 - 3% chance of winning

Down 9 at seven minute mark, you have the ball at your 45 - 8% chance of winning

That the success rate will be about 20%

.80 * .03 + .20 * .08 = 0.04

 

[humpback]

Oh, for actual math.

Assumptions:

45% chance of making 2 point conversion at 7:00 minute mark

Down

9 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 6% chance of winning

8 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 - 8% chance of winning

7 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at 20 - 12% chance of winning

(Since field position is mostly linear I don't believe that changing it will change these calculations.)

.45 * .12 + .55 * .06 = 0.087

0.087 > .08

Now if the team down by 9 tries an onside kick at this point they will likely kill their chances.

Down 9 at seven minute mark, opponent has ball at your 45 - 3% chance of winning

Down 9 at seven minute mark, you have the ball at your 45 - 8% chance of winning

That the success rate will be about 20%

.80 * .03 + .20 * .08 = 0.04

Okay, and if I change the assumptions, you could come to the opposite conclusion. This really isn't that difficult- there is no mathematically correct answer to the question.

 

[IHEARTFF]

I do think that the go for 2 early crowd is discounting the fact that the opposing team will now also have the same information as our team does. IE, are they up by 1 or 2 possessions, and how does that affect their play calls, strategy, etc. I don't think that sways the decision enough to not get the information early. I would rather we know and they know than we don't know and they don't know.

I also really wish people would quit saying that an 8 point game is a 1 score game. Yes, you can score 8 points on 1 possession, but it still requires 2 scores.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Okay, and if I change the assumptions, you could come to the opposite conclusion. This really isn't that difficult- there is no mathematically correct answer to the question.

What assumptions would you change?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 

[humpback]

Okay, and if I change the assumptions, you could come to the opposite conclusion. This really isn't that difficult- there is no mathematically correct answer to the question.

What assumptions would you change?

Take your pick- these aren't statistical facts we're dealing with, they are unknowable estimates.

 

[jon_mx]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

I agree, which is why this can't be proven by math, or by using statistics that aren't even the same set of circumstances as the question in the OP.I was just asking because it seems quite a few people think that those stats completely settle the conversation, when they clearly do not.

But it is provable. Given ANY set of assumption. ANY. It will come out going for it early is better. Knowing information and optimizing strategy based upon that allows you to improve the likelihood of winning. Using math in real world problems you must make assumptions. Of course if there is no agreement on what a reasonable set of assumptions are, you are not going to convince anyone by doing the math.

If you'd like to waste your time, go ahead, but this is just completely wrong.

You are correct on the first part. Any further discussion with you about math and/or logic is a waste time.

 

[humpback]

Absent some exceptional situation the math overwhelmingly supports going for two first. So does all non mathematical logic. That was settled several years ago.

Can you show the math please?

I stated assumptions above, if we can agree those are reasonable assumptions for this exercise, I can illustrate how the math works out. Otherwise we are stuck with an infinite number of possible decisions and outcomes. The more assumptions, details, and decision points, the more exponentially complex the problem becomes.

I agree, which is why this can't be proven by math, or by using statistics that aren't even the same set of circumstances as the question in the OP.I was just asking because it seems quite a few people think that those stats completely settle the conversation, when they clearly do not.

But it is provable. Given ANY set of assumption. ANY. It will come out going for it early is better. Knowing information and optimizing strategy based upon that allows you to improve the likelihood of winning. Using math in real world problems you must make assumptions. Of course if there is no agreement on what a reasonable set of assumptions are, you are not going to convince anyone by doing the math.

If you'd like to waste your time, go ahead, but this is just completely wrong.

You are correct on the first part. Any further discussion with you about math and/or logic is a waste time.

I haven't been on this board for very long, but there is one thing I know- if jon_mx disagrees with you, you must be right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Okay, and if I change the assumptions, you could come to the opposite conclusion.

Now we're getting somewhere. It'd be very helpful if you could list whatever assumptions you think would lead to the opposite conclusion.

 

[jon_mx]

Okay, and if I change the assumptions, you could come to the opposite conclusion.

Now we're getting somewhere. It'd be very helpful if you could list whatever assumptions you think would lead to the opposite conclusion.

There are no assumptions that could lead to the opposite conclusion. That is the point.