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

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

so let me recap the extra point first position.It is a given that: you will fail the early 2pt conversion, hence the discussion on being down by 9 is worse than down by 8, but no adjunct discussion about how being down by 7 is better than down by 8You will succeed or at least have better odds of converting the late 2 pt attempt, which is why being down by 8 is a one possession game.football players are emotionally fragile, receive no benefit or momentum swing from converting the early 2 pt conversion, but are crushed by failing the attemptThere are so many variables that crudely approximating the percentages is unknowable so why are we having this discussionThe team with the 2 possession lead will play more aggressively than the team with the one possession lead, and that outweighs the knowledge gained by knowing whether you are truly down by one possession or 2. This, despite the fact that we routinely observe teams content to run the clock out, calling run plays, staying inbounds, and hiking with little time left on the clock when they have multiple possession leads.did I summarize that correctly?Ultimately, the improvement in odds of you winning is small. Post 1994, if you are down by 9 at the start of the 4th quarter, your historical chances of winning are 18.75%. Down by 8, 16.0%, and down by 7, 19.4%. one argument might be that the 2 pt conversion decision improves your chances of winning by about 3%, whether you succeed or fail, although that's an extrapolation of the historical data. As humpback kind of noted without showing the numbers, there is the same dip. The big change is that the down by 8 odds of winning prior to 1994 was 13.04%, with no significant changes in the down by 7 and down by 9 win percentages. again, the argument can be that the successful 2 pt conversion improved the odds of those teams winning by 3%. if past history predicted future performance (safe harbor statement, it doesn't, but that doesn't stop anyone from using past history to predict future performance), I would rather have the 19% chance of winning over the 16% chance, but if I didn't go for 2 early, I would rather have the 16% chance of winning over the 13% chance.

The problem with using the 4th quarter data is that being down by 7-9 points with the other team having the ball and under 7:00 to go, is a lot different than being down 7-9 with a full quarter to play and we don't know who has the ball.

oh I agree. we just don't have the game logs, or the spare time to go through approximately 5453 games to give us the more accurate data (at least I don't. Individual circumstances may vary) So it's a crude approximation at best, but it's at least a little better than feel.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What are you talking about? Seriously, do you have any idea what you're talking about? jon_mx and bottomfeeder were both just arguing that it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8. Do you have them on ignore or something?

I though you pleaded "no contest" last night and asked for a reprieve? In any case I explicitly stated that being down by 8 is better than being down by 9 multiple times in this thread. If you want to "disagree" at least disagree with something I stated.In any case I believe that several posters are still waiting to hear the flawed assumptions I made when demonstrating mathematically that going for 2 was a small, but significant improvement in the already long odds. I think they will accept either flaws in the base assumptions that dictated the default position, or they would accept game situation changes that would alter the math. Repeating "everybody knows" "coach speak" is not really much of an argument, but for the most part that is all they have gotten. I assumed last night that you weren't interested in trying, but here you are rehashing the same nonsense that is a rebuttal to zero arguments offered by the go for two crowd. That is of course because you ultimately have nothing but echoing ex-player TV analysts rhetoric that confuses what every coach does with what every coach should do.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

oh I agree. we just don't have the game logs, or the spare time to go through approximately 5453 games to give us the more accurate data (at least I don't. Individual circumstances may vary) So it's a crude approximation at best, but it's at least a little better than feel.

The win probability data I used what created, according to the author from analyzing 8 years of play by play data.

 

[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.

As I said before when they supported the position, I put little weight in those numbers. There are too few to be statistically significant and you would have to evaluate the circumstances. I have no idea what it means you ran the numbers. What numbers? How many cases did you find? Did you cherry pick? You provided nothing.

My post wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the several other posters who said that data should end the conversation. No, I didn't cherry pick, nor is it from some fringe left-wing source. I took the data CalBear gave for all games, subtracted the data he gave for games post 2 pt. conversion, and came up with the data for pre 2 pt. conversion.What's telling is how people not only thought this post 2 pt. data somehow proved their case, but how they won't even comment when their theory is completely debunked. Not sure if no one ever thought to run the data for pre-2 pt. conversions, or if they did but never mentioned it because it destroys their theory.

 

[jon_mx]

Obviously, he would go for the two earlier so he knew the right strategy. You seem to think that basing a strategy on ignorance is the superior way to go. This is like not wanting to know the dealers hole card until after you decide to hit or stand.

I think that is a pretty good analogy.

 

[shnikies]

I'm not arguing going for 1 first the right thing to do. I'm arguing that using past results based on coaches using the wrong strategy when they're down by 8 is not relevant to the original question.

You haven't shown that playing as if you need two possessions is the correct strategy when down by 8. Here's a scenario I presented earlier: There's 3:00 left and you have the ball on your own 20 with one timeout left. You complete a 50-yard pass, ending in the field of play. Do you use the timeout? Run up and spike the ball? What play do you call once you're at the line?If you're playing as if you need two possessions, you probably either run up to the line and spike the ball, or call the timeout. Then you have to call only pass plays, with an emphasis on sideline and end zone routes. Down by 9, this is clearly correct. Down by 7, it's clearly insane. Down by 8, if you play as if you need two possessions, you will reduce your chances of getting in the end zone in favor of saving more time on the clock. As I said, you will look pretty stupid at the end if it turns out you only needed one possession.

What would you do?

I would avoid the situation by going for 2 when I score a TD down by 15. That is the point of this thread.If I was overridden by the ghost of Al Davis and am in the situation where I'm down by 8, I would try to optimize my chances of getting in the end zone. I probably would call the timeout, and then use my entire playbook, while trying to play a little faster than usual. But it's better to avoid the situation.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go for 2 first. If it came down to a situation in a game where you were down by 8 somehow with two minutes left at the opponent's 10, would you try to score as quickly as possible?

 

[CalBear]

I'm not arguing going for 1 first the right thing to do. I'm arguing that using past results based on coaches using the wrong strategy when they're down by 8 is not relevant to the original question.

You haven't shown that playing as if you need two possessions is the correct strategy when down by 8. Here's a scenario I presented earlier: There's 3:00 left and you have the ball on your own 20 with one timeout left. You complete a 50-yard pass, ending in the field of play. Do you use the timeout? Run up and spike the ball? What play do you call once you're at the line?If you're playing as if you need two possessions, you probably either run up to the line and spike the ball, or call the timeout. Then you have to call only pass plays, with an emphasis on sideline and end zone routes. Down by 9, this is clearly correct. Down by 7, it's clearly insane. Down by 8, if you play as if you need two possessions, you will reduce your chances of getting in the end zone in favor of saving more time on the clock. As I said, you will look pretty stupid at the end if it turns out you only needed one possession.

What would you do?

I would avoid the situation by going for 2 when I score a TD down by 15. That is the point of this thread.If I was overridden by the ghost of Al Davis and am in the situation where I'm down by 8, I would try to optimize my chances of getting in the end zone. I probably would call the timeout, and then use my entire playbook, while trying to play a little faster than usual. But it's better to avoid the situation.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go for 2 first. If it came down to a situation in a game where you were down by 8 somehow with two minutes left at the opponent's 10, would you try to score as quickly as possible?

I just answered that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What the historical data really shows is when you are down by 15 with under 7:00 to go you want Tebow as your QB!

 

[firstseason1988]

Let's just say all things being equal, the scenario played out where you just ran the ball down to the 1 yard line in bounds and had all three timeouts remaining with just 50 seconds remaining on the clock. You would play the game differently if you were down by 7 than if you were down my 9. Down by 7 you would let the clock run down and try to leave no time on the clock. If you were down by 9, you would hurry up and possibly call a timeout and try to score and leave as much time on the clock as possible. Then make an onside kick.

On the other-hand, if you were down by 8 you would not know which way is best. Do you need to leave time for an onside kick and a FG attempt or do you want to leave no time on the clock so the other team can't score. Making the wrong decision has a good chance of costing you the game. You really want to be ignorant on what strategy to take? Apparently most do.

Leave time for onside kick in case you don't make 2 pt conversion, assuming you do in fact score a TD. No brainer.

So if you do make it, the same amount of time for you to do an onside kick and get in FG position will now be enough time for the other team to complete a couple of passes and kick a FG. You have just reduced your chance of winning by about 30 percent.

That's what you gotta do. You playing the game. Hopefully your defense steps it up. Since you brought math into it,I am relying on others numbers here, 2 point conversion is only made 48% of the time, you can't count on that. There are factors where I would let the clock run down, like your defense is getting steam rolled consistently in the recent past, but it would have to be pretty bad. Then you take the chance and let clock run down. If we are talking about original premise, granted not what u said, then your defense just had a stop, so I score as quick as I can. 99 times out of 100, I score as quick as possible, you play to win the game. Really a no brainer, glad I can help.

You're practically making the argument for the 2-pt first side, and I don't think you even realize it. No brainer, indeed.

Not gonna try to read your mind sparky by reading between the lines, answering your direct questions with direct answers. It's obvious, good schtick though, if not schtick then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's just say all things being equal, the scenario played out where you just ran the ball down to the 1 yard line in bounds and had all three timeouts remaining with just 50 seconds remaining on the clock. You would play the game differently if you were down by 7 than if you were down my 9. Down by 7 you would let the clock run down and try to leave no time on the clock. If you were down by 9, you would hurry up and possibly call a timeout and try to score and leave as much time on the clock as possible. Then make an onside kick.

On the other-hand, if you were down by 8 you would not know which way is best. Do you need to leave time for an onside kick and a FG attempt or do you want to leave no time on the clock so the other team can't score. Making the wrong decision has a good chance of costing you the game. You really want to be ignorant on what strategy to take? Apparently most do.

Leave time for onside kick in case you don't make 2 pt conversion, assuming you do in fact score a TD. No brainer.

So if you do make it, the same amount of time for you to do an onside kick and get in FG position will now be enough time for the other team to complete a couple of passes and kick a FG. You have just reduced your chance of winning by about 30 percent.

That's what you gotta do. You playing the game. Hopefully your defense steps it up. Since you brought math into it,I am relying on others numbers here, 2 point conversion is only made 48% of the time, you can't count on that. There are factors where I would let the clock run down, like your defense is getting steam rolled consistently in the recent past, but it would have to be pretty bad. Then you take the chance and let clock run down. If we are talking about original premise, granted not what u said, then your defense just had a stop, so I score as quick as I can. 99 times out of 100, I score as quick as possible, you play to win the game. Really a no brainer, glad I can help.

You're practically making the argument for the 2-pt first side, and I don't think you even realize it. No brainer, indeed.

Not gonna try to read your mind sparky by reading between the lines, answering your direct questions with direct answers. It's obvious, good schtick though, if not schtick then I feel sorry for you.

Pretending that the myriad things you don't understand in life are shtick is good shtick.

 

[shnikies]

I'm not arguing going for 1 first the right thing to do. I'm arguing that using past results based on coaches using the wrong strategy when they're down by 8 is not relevant to the original question.

You haven't shown that playing as if you need two possessions is the correct strategy when down by 8. Here's a scenario I presented earlier: There's 3:00 left and you have the ball on your own 20 with one timeout left. You complete a 50-yard pass, ending in the field of play. Do you use the timeout? Run up and spike the ball? What play do you call once you're at the line?If you're playing as if you need two possessions, you probably either run up to the line and spike the ball, or call the timeout. Then you have to call only pass plays, with an emphasis on sideline and end zone routes. Down by 9, this is clearly correct. Down by 7, it's clearly insane. Down by 8, if you play as if you need two possessions, you will reduce your chances of getting in the end zone in favor of saving more time on the clock. As I said, you will look pretty stupid at the end if it turns out you only needed one possession.

What would you do?

I would avoid the situation by going for 2 when I score a TD down by 15. That is the point of this thread.If I was overridden by the ghost of Al Davis and am in the situation where I'm down by 8, I would try to optimize my chances of getting in the end zone. I probably would call the timeout, and then use my entire playbook, while trying to play a little faster than usual. But it's better to avoid the situation.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go for 2 first. If it came down to a situation in a game where you were down by 8 somehow with two minutes left at the opponent's 10, would you try to score as quickly as possible?

I just answered that.

I didn't know it was that easy to completely avoid going down by 8. If you're down by 5 and the opposition kicks a field goal or down by 6 and give up a safety or down by 1 and the opposition scores a touchdown. There are plenty of scenarios where you can't avoid going down by 8. With that being said, why would you play a little faster than usual? Wouldn't you rather score as quickly as possible? What's the benefit of being in the middle of as quickly or as slowly as possible? My only point of this whole thing is to say that the reason your stats show that teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 is because they play as if they will convert the 2 point conversion. If all the teams that were down by 8 played as if they needed two possessions they would win more often than teams that were down by 9.

 

[CalBear]

I didn't know it was that easy to completely avoid going down by 8.

It's entirely a choice to avoid going down by 8 in the scenario that this thread is discussing. Please try to keep up.

With that being said, why would you play a little faster than usual? Wouldn't you rather score as quickly as possible? What's the benefit of being in the middle of as quickly or as slowly as possible? My only point of this whole thing is to say that the reason your stats show that teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 is because they play as if they will convert the 2 point conversion. If all the teams that were down by 8 played as if they needed two possessions they would win more often than teams that were down by 9.

If you're down by 8, it is more important to get into the end zone, than to get into the end zone quickly. If you don't get into the end zone, you lose, so actions which will reduce your chance of getting into the end zone, such as burning downs with quick spikes, or limiting your playbook to sideline patterns and fades, are losing actions.In addition, you don't want extra time on the clock if you make the 2-point conversion. If there are 2:00 left on the clock, the probability that the opponent drives for a FG to win a tie game is higher, probably a lot higher, than the probability that you recover an onsides kick and drive for a FG to win the game after you miss a 2-point conversion. So by rushing you reduce the chance that you'll score, while increasing the chance that you'll lose even if you do manage to score.

 

[shnikies]

I didn't know it was that easy to completely avoid going down by 8.

It's entirely a choice to avoid going down by 8 in the scenario that this thread is discussing. Please try to keep up.

With that being said, why would you play a little faster than usual? Wouldn't you rather score as quickly as possible? What's the benefit of being in the middle of as quickly or as slowly as possible? My only point of this whole thing is to say that the reason your stats show that teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 is because they play as if they will convert the 2 point conversion. If all the teams that were down by 8 played as if they needed two possessions they would win more often than teams that were down by 9.

If you're down by 8, it is more important to get into the end zone, than to get into the end zone quickly. If you don't get into the end zone, you lose, so actions which will reduce your chance of getting into the end zone, such as burning downs with quick spikes, or limiting your playbook to sideline patterns and fades, are losing actions.In addition, you don't want extra time on the clock if you make the 2-point conversion. If there are 2:00 left on the clock, the probability that the opponent drives for a FG to win a tie game is higher, probably a lot higher, than the probability that you recover an onsides kick and drive for a FG to win the game after you miss a 2-point conversion. So by rushing you reduce the chance that you'll score, while increasing the chance that you'll lose even if you do manage to score.

I understand the scenario of the thread but your statistic saying teams that are down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 didn't only include teams that were initially down by 15. My point is that stopping the team from making the game winning field goal after a successful 2 point conversion and winning in overtime is much higher than recovering an onside kick and kicking the game winning field goal regardless of how much time is left after converting the 2 point conversion. That's the reason why being down by 8 is better than being down by 9. I understand the basis of the argument of going for 2 first is that the difference between being down 7 and down 8 is greater than being down 8 vs down 9. I'm not saying that isn't true but the stat saying teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 isn't relevant because a significant amount of the examples are coaches playing down by 8 as if they won't need another possession. You also can't eliminate the possibility of a team winning in regulation after tying with a 2 point conversion. 3 and outs and turnovers do happen during 2 minute drills.

 

[humpback]

Obviously, he would go for the two earlier so he knew the right strategy. You seem to think that basing a strategy on ignorance is the superior way to go. This is like not wanting to know the dealers hole card until after you decide to hit or stand.

I think that is a pretty good analogy.

It really isn't. The dealer can not change their strategy in blackjack. This analogy would only work if you're in the camp that the winning team would play exactly the same if they were up 7, 8, or 9.

 

[CalBear]

I understand the scenario of the thread but your statistic saying teams that are down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 didn't only include teams that were initially down by 15. My point is that stopping the team from making the game winning field goal after a successful 2 point conversion and winning in overtime is much higher than recovering an onside kick and kicking the game winning field goal regardless of how much time is left after converting the 2 point conversion. That's the reason why being down by 8 is better than being down by 9.

Being down by 8 is better than being down by 9. Having a 40% chance of being down by 7 vs. a 60% chance of being down by 9 is better than being down by 8.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I understand the scenario of the thread but your statistic saying teams that are down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 didn't only include teams that were initially down by 15. My point is that stopping the team from making the game winning field goal after a successful 2 point conversion and winning in overtime is much higher than recovering an onside kick and kicking the game winning field goal regardless of how much time is left after converting the 2 point conversion. That's the reason why being down by 8 is better than being down by 9. I understand the basis of the argument of going for 2 first is that the difference between being down 7 and down 8 is greater than being down 8 vs down 9. I'm not saying that isn't true but the stat saying teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8 isn't relevant because a significant amount of the examples are coaches playing down by 8 as if they won't need another possession. You also can't eliminate the possibility of a team winning in regulation after tying with a 2 point conversion. 3 and outs and turnovers do happen during 2 minute drills.

and if these same teams played as if they needed two possessions and rushed down the field and limited their offense and/or left too much time on the clock, and ten they made the two point conversion, then that would be bad too.

Kicking early guarantees that you have an approxmately 50% chance of employing a strategy that hurts your ability to win. whether you play as if it's a one score game or a two score game.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I am not as certain as I was last year in whether or not I would kick first - but not due to the arguments placed forth by the go for 2 first crowd because if there was no 2pt conversion they would still say kick the extra point if down 15 (as they did when I said according to them if they are down 23 and score a TD they are better off staying at 17). If you look at games prior to when the 2pt conversion was implemented (prior to 1994) here is the breakdown of wins/losses/ties being up by X amount of points at the start of the 4th quarter. Granted, this still assumes that coaches are making the correct call (and it is obvious they don't always do this) and that 15 minutes left is similar to 7 (which we also know isn't the case) but possessions to win or tie are no longer an unknown - which is what the vast debate in this thread is about.

Points w/l/t

23 63/1/0

16 117/2/0

9 126/31/0

22 38/1/0

15 94/3/0

8 158/24/3

The results seem contradictory. You would rather be down 22 vs. 23, 15 vs. 16, but not 8 vs. 9. But if you don't want to be down 8 vs. 9 you would think that would affect 15 vs. 16 as well. So, I looked at being down 14 and 7 prior to the 2pt conversion.

14 496/24/12

7 679/171/53

Counting ties as 1/2 a win and *knowing* at all times how many possessions and what type of scores needed to win or tie.

Down 9 = 20% chance to win

Down 8 = 14% chance to win

Down 7 = 22% chance to win

Since the 2pt conversion was implemented here is the breakdown

Down 9 = 68/15/0 = 18%

Down 8 = 108/20/0 = 16%

Down 7 = 374/97/0 = 21%

The gap actually narrows with the 2pt conversion implemented (which contradicts the go for 2 crowd) but being down 9 or 7 seems to almost always be better than down 8 (which contradicts the kick it crowd).

My only conclusion is that either time plays a *much* greater role than anyone is considering or that certain margins favor teams based strictly on what the margin and potential future margins are (I am leaning towards this). It appears that adding uncertainty favors the trailing team over the leading team (which is what I argued before) but the uncertainty probably doesn't make enough difference to overcome whatever other factors are in play. I argued before that coaches should kick first then play as if they are down 2 possessions (because they most likely are) and that the leading team would have to play as if they are only up by 1 possession (when they most likely are up 2). I think most of us agree that most teams both winning and losing in the NFL currently play like a 1 possession game when the margin is 8 pts. For my stance to be the correct game plan the down 8 group would have to win about 5 more games. I don't think that is unreasonable but I have my doubts that it would increase their chance to win by 25%.

I don't feel like looking at hundreds of box scores to see who scored what when - but it seems that being down 8 with any significant time left on the clock is almost always worse than being down 9 or 7. The "go for 2" crowd may be right but for the wrong reasons. Not knowing the number of possessions seems to favor the trailing team (due to the increase in winning percentage down 8 pre/post 2pt conversion implementation). The only time you would definitely rather be down 8 than 9 is if you know you are getting exactly one possession.

 

[jon_mx]

Obviously, he would go for the two earlier so he knew the right strategy. You seem to think that basing a strategy on ignorance is the superior way to go. This is like not wanting to know the dealers hole card until after you decide to hit or stand.

I think that is a pretty good analogy.

It really isn't. The dealer can not change their strategy in blackjack. This analogy would only work if you're in the camp that the winning team would play exactly the same if they were up 7, 8, or 9.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't get it.

 

[Fensalk]

A blackjack analogy does not fit here, because the core of the issue is managing large groups of people. Its not like you have a team of 40 people deciding how to play your hand.

 

[jon_mx]

A blackjack analogy does not fit here, because the core of the issue is managing large groups of people. Its not like you have a team of 40 people deciding how to play your hand.

It makes no difference to the logic of the problem. You model the events as the probability of an outcome given the circumstances. Yes, it is much more difficult to accurately model the outcomes which depends upon the human element, but the logic is still the same. An event is an event. If you are going to take the position that it is impossible to model a football game because of the human element, then all further discussion will be fruitless, which is pretty much where we are right now. If you think it is best to base decisions on feelings instead of logic and numbers, then it is a philosophical difference in which minds will never change.

 

[cvnpoka]

how about down 22 and you score a td? 2pt or no?

 

[jon_mx]

how about down 22 and you score a td? 2pt or no?

Yes, and even more so. If you are successful, you have cut it to a 14 point game, then you have almost certainly made it a two-possession game. If you are unsuccessful, it is a 16-point game and you still have a chance to make it a two possession game if you can make two two-point conversion. By going early, you increase your odds by giving yourself an alternative way to tie the game.

 

[jon_mx]

Interesting, last night in the Wisconsin-MSU game, the coach got it right and went for it early and won. It was only an 8-point scenario, but there was over 13 minutes left. The announcers were pretty shocked and thought it was too early. By missing the 2-point conversion early, later in the game the Badgers knew a FG would not be enough, so they had to play riskier and score a TD. They did and they won the game.

 

[PoolShark]

Total no-brainer. You kick & make it an 8 point game. If you fail on the 2 pt coversion you're down by 2 scores. If you make the extra point you're only down by 1 score & you have 7 minutes left. And you still have the opportunity to go for 2 if you score again... same difference. Too much time left to go for 2 in this situation.

 

[jon_mx]

Total no-brainer. You kick & make it an 8 point game. If you fail on the 2 pt coversion you're down by 2 scores. If you make the extra point you're only down by 1 score & you have 7 minutes left. And you still have the opportunity to go for 2 if you score again... same difference. Too much time left to go for 2 in this situation.

Let's just assume the team is able to score 3 TDs in both cases, here is how the odds play out for each strategy assuming it is a 50-50 chance to make a two-point conversion under these circumstance, and 100 percent chance to make an extra point:Going for it early, you can tie it by either of these scenarios:

(Make it early)(Kick)(Kick) = 0.5 * 1.0 * 1.0 = 50% chance of tying game, AND

(Miss it early)(Make it on second try)(Make it on third try) = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 12.5%,

For a total of a 62.5% chance to tie the game scoring three TDs if you go for two early.

If you wait til the end:

(Kick)(Kick)(Make it late) = 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.5 = 50% chance of tying the game, AND

no other way to tie it, for a total of a 50% chance to tie the game scoring three TDs.

It is really not even a close decision if you go by logic and probabilities.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Total no-brainer. You kick & make it an 8 point game. If you fail on the 2 pt coversion you're down by 2 scores. If you make the extra point you're only down by 1 score & you have 7 minutes left. And you still have the opportunity to go for 2 if you score again... same difference. Too much time left to go for 2 in this situation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I am not as certain as I was last year in whether or not I would kick first - but not due to the arguments placed forth by the go for 2 first crowd because if there was no 2pt conversion they would still say kick the extra point if down 15 (as they did when I said according to them if they are down 23 and score a TD they are better off staying at 17).

What does this sentence mean? If there was no 2pt conversion, we'd say kick the PAT? Well... yeah.

If you look at games prior to when the 2pt conversion was implemented (prior to 1994) here is the breakdown of wins/losses/ties being up by X amount of points at the start of the 4th quarter. Granted, this still assumes that coaches are making the correct call (and it is obvious they don't always do this) and that 15 minutes left is similar to 7 (which we also know isn't the case) but possessions to win or tie are no longer an unknown - which is what the vast debate in this thread is about.Points w/l/t23 63/1/016 117/2/09 126/31/0 22 38/1/015 94/3/08 158/24/3

I'm betting you didn't filter these results correctly. There's no way that there were three ties in games that entered the 4th quarter with an 8 point margin.I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post since I assume it was based on these numbers, and I assume these numbers are inaccurate.

 

[dutch]

I would much prefer kicking the ball off while down nine points with seven minutes left in the game than I would kicking the ball off while down by two points with 30 seconds left in the game. It makes a huuge difference in strategy.

 

[jon_mx]

I would much prefer kicking the ball off while down nine points with seven minutes left in the game than I would kicking the ball off while down by two points with 30 seconds left in the game. It makes a huuge difference in strategy.

That is very nice. I wish I had some idea what it has to do with this.

 

[shnikies]

I'm not saying going for 1 first is better but can we at least agree that the substantial chance the opposing team kicks a field goal on their next possession is a con for going for 2 first?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I would much prefer kicking the ball off while down nine points with seven minutes left in the game than I would kicking the ball off while down by two points with 30 seconds left in the game. It makes a huuge difference in strategy.

That is very nice. I wish I had some idea what it has to do with this.

He's right. He's saying if you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion, it's far better to do so with 7 minutes left than it is to do so with 30 seconds left.

 

[jon_mx]

I would much prefer kicking the ball off while down nine points with seven minutes left in the game than I would kicking the ball off while down by two points with 30 seconds left in the game. It makes a huuge difference in strategy.

That is very nice. I wish I had some idea what it has to do with this.

He's right. He's saying if you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion, it's far better to do so with 7 minutes left than it is to do so with 30 seconds left.

oh OK, been talking about so many different scenarios, I did not put together what point was trying to make.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not saying going for 1 first is better but can we at least agree that the substantial chance the opposing team kicks a field goal on their next possession is a con for going for 2 first?

Well, that's only a con if you miss the 2-pt conversion. If you kick the PAT and then your opponent kicks a FG, then you need to make a 2-pt conversion just to tie.The reality is that if you let the opponent go down the field and score on their next possession, you're almost certainly not going to win the game no matter what you chose to do when you were down by 15.

 

[dutch]

I would much prefer kicking the ball off while down nine points with seven minutes left in the game than I would kicking the ball off while down by two points with 30 seconds left in the game. It makes a huuge difference in strategy.

That is very nice. I wish I had some idea what it has to do with this.

He's right. He's saying if you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion, it's far better to do so with 7 minutes left than it is to do so with 30 seconds left.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm not saying going for 1 first is better but can we at least agree that the substantial chance the opposing team kicks a field goal on their next possession is a con for going for 2 first?

Unwrap this, I don't see the disadvantage you are talking about. You are saying being down 11 is better than the 50-50 chance of being down 10 or 12? Doesn't seem to change anything. You are still in the position to make FG-TD game you have to score the two-point conversion later. Might as well know now if you do or do not make it, so you can play accordingly.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not saying going for 1 first is better but can we at least agree that the substantial chance the opposing team kicks a field goal on their next possession is a con for going for 2 first?

Unwrap this, I don't see the disadvantage you are talking about. You are saying being down 11 is better than the 50-50 chance of being down 10 or 12? Doesn't seem to change anything. You are still in the position to make FG-TD game you have to score the two-point conversion later. Might as well know now if you do or do not make it, so you can play accordingly.

Right. Once again, there is an incorrect weighting of outcomes. "If you go for two, here are the bad things that will happen when you miss. If you go for one, then you're only down by 11, which you will tie with a TD and a FG." There's something obviously wrong with that statement, which the PAT-first guys have repeatedly failed to understand. They'll say they understand it, but then they keep making arguments like shnikies's above, demonstrating that they really don't.

 

[humpback]

Obviously, he would go for the two earlier so he knew the right strategy. You seem to think that basing a strategy on ignorance is the superior way to go. This is like not wanting to know the dealers hole card until after you decide to hit or stand.

I think that is a pretty good analogy.

It really isn't. The dealer can not change their strategy in blackjack. This analogy would only work if you're in the camp that the winning team would play exactly the same if they were up 7, 8, or 9.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't get it.

You're clueless. In blackjack, of course you would want to know the dealer's hole card. The dealer does not (can not by rule) change his strategy whether you know his hole card or not. In football, the leading team can change their strategy based on the information gained from going for 2 early. The only way the analogy makes any sense is if you think the leading team will not change strategy at all if they have a 7, 8, or 9 point lead. Since you have said that they will play differently, your analogy sucks, just like the majority of your posts.

 

[kegger]

Man you guy's really like to keep "trying" to prove your side.

Gotta give yu props for beating a horse that's been dead A LONG TIME!

(keep going you'll eventually figure it out)

 

[jon_mx]

You're clueless. In blackjack, of course you would want to know the dealer's hole card. The dealer does not (can not by rule) change his strategy whether you know his hole card or not. In football, the leading team can change their strategy based on the information gained from going for 2 early. The only way the analogy makes any sense is if you think the leading team will not change strategy at all if they have a 7, 8, or 9 point lead. Since you have said that they will play differently, your analogy sucks, just like the majority of your posts.

Just like in blackjack, we are not really concerned about the dealers and/or opponents strategy as much as we are our strategy. We know our opponents are going to try to run clock and we know the dealer is going to hit on anything below a soft 17. What the information does is allow us to change OUR strategy. Get the picture? That is where the real advantage comes in. Thanks for the insults, come again and play anytime.

 

[shnikies]

Just so we can close this thread, I e-mailed Brian from advancednflstats.com and he said this:

You would usually want to go for 2, if only because you want to know sooner rather than later whether a 3rd score is going to be required. Coaches won't do this, however, because they don't actually play to win, they play to delay elimination from the game. Failing to get the 2-pt conversion 'eliminates' them, for practical purposes, so they wait until a second TD to roll the dice.

Also, if you convert it, it also gives you the option to go for the win after a second touchdown with another 2-pointer.

Brian

/endthread

 

[sn0mm1s]

What does this sentence mean? If there was no 2pt conversion, we'd say kick the PAT? Well... yeah.

And that might be the wrong decision. In fact, as shown again below, down 8 knowing exactly how many possessions you need is worse than being down 9 by a pretty significant margin.

I'm betting you didn't filter these results correctly. There's no way that there were three ties in games that entered the 4th quarter with an 8 point margin.I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post since I assume it was based on these numbers, and I assume these numbers are inaccurate.

The filter was fine - but what I didn't realize that was before the merger the AFL had a 2pt conversion. 2 of those 3 games were tied due to a 2pt conversion. I reran the filter from 1969-1993 (instead of inception to 1993). Here are the results.Down 9 97/26/0 = 21%Down 8 101/18/0 = 15%Down 7 445/117/21 = 22%And here are the results for NFL only from 1940-1993Down 9 114/29/0 = 20%Down 8 147/23/1 = 14%Down 7 617/157/44 = 22%Same pattern - same conclusion. It may be that being down 8 is almost is always worse and that uncertainty is better for the trailing team since the numbers for being down 8 improve once the 2pt conversion comes back into play in 1994.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What does this sentence mean? If there was no 2pt conversion, we'd say kick the PAT? Well... yeah.

And that might be the wrong decision. In fact, as shown again below, down 8 knowing exactly how many possessions you need is worse than being down 9 by a pretty significant margin.

This is obviously untrue. Being down by 8 is always better than being down by 9. I'd be interested to hear any argument otherwise.

I'm betting you didn't filter these results correctly. There's no way that there were three ties in games that entered the 4th quarter with an 8 point margin.I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post since I assume it was based on these numbers, and I assume these numbers are inaccurate.

The filter was fine - but what I didn't realize that was before the merger the AFL had a 2pt conversion. 2 of those 3 games were tied due to a 2pt conversion. I reran the filter from 1969-1993 (instead of inception to 1993). Here are the results.Down 9 97/26/0 = 21%Down 8 101/18/0 = 15%Down 7 445/117/21 = 22%And here are the results for NFL only from 1940-1993Down 9 114/29/0 = 20%Down 8 147/23/1 = 14%Down 7 617/157/44 = 22%Same pattern - same conclusion. It may be that being down 8 is almost is always worse and that uncertainty is better for the trailing team since the numbers for being down 8 improve once the 2pt conversion comes back into play in 1994.

I'm still not sure what your argument is here. It's not at all surprising that the numbers improve for teams down by 8 after the introduction of the 2-pt conversion. That's because the 2-pt conversion allows them the possibility of tying a game with one TD, which previously wasn't possible. It has nothing to do with "uncertainty" benefiting the trailing team.

 

[humpback]

You're clueless. In blackjack, of course you would want to know the dealer's hole card. The dealer does not (can not by rule) change his strategy whether you know his hole card or not. In football, the leading team can change their strategy based on the information gained from going for 2 early. The only way the analogy makes any sense is if you think the leading team will not change strategy at all if they have a 7, 8, or 9 point lead. Since you have said that they will play differently, your analogy sucks, just like the majority of your posts.

Just like in blackjack, we are not really concerned about the dealers and/or opponents strategy as much as we are our strategy. We know our opponents are going to try to run clock and we know the dealer is going to hit on anything below a soft 17. What the information does is allow us to change OUR strategy. Get the picture? That is where the real advantage comes in. Thanks for the insults, come again and play anytime.

In blackjack, we aren't concerned AT ALL with the dealers strategy because it is fixed regardless of what you do or what information you know. Since you have said that the opponent would play differently with a 7, 8, or 9 point lead, that makes it a poor analogy.I get the argument that the information is a bigger advantage for the trailing team than the leading team so you should always go for 2 first, I don't necessarily agree and there's no way to quantify it, but that has nothing to do with your blackjack analogy being poor. One opponent (dealer) can not alter their strategy at all, the other (leading team) can and probably will even if it's slightly.

 

[CalBear]

Just so we can close this thread, I e-mailed Brian from advancednflstats.com and he said this:You would usually want to go for 2, if only because you want to know sooner rather than later whether a 3rd score is going to be required. Coaches won't do this, however, because they don't actually play to win, they play to delay elimination from the game. Failing to get the 2-pt conversion 'eliminates' them, for practical purposes, so they wait until a second TD to roll the dice.Also, if you convert it, it also gives you the option to go for the win after a second touchdown with another 2-pointer.Brian/endthread

So you're admitting you're wrong?

 

[shnikies]

Just so we can close this thread, I e-mailed Brian from advancednflstats.com and he said this:You would usually want to go for 2, if only because you want to know sooner rather than later whether a 3rd score is going to be required. Coaches won't do this, however, because they don't actually play to win, they play to delay elimination from the game. Failing to get the 2-pt conversion 'eliminates' them, for practical purposes, so they wait until a second TD to roll the dice.Also, if you convert it, it also gives you the option to go for the win after a second touchdown with another 2-pointer.Brian/endthread

So you're admitting you're wrong?

I was arguing 9 vs 8. I never said going for 2 wasn't the right play.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I get the argument that the information is a bigger advantage for the trailing team than the leading team so you should always go for 2 first, I don't necessarily agree and there's no way to quantify it, but that has nothing to do with your blackjack analogy being poor.

Information is a bigger advantage for the trailing team than the leading team because the offense has a lot more to say about the flow of the game than the defense does; and in the cases where this debate will matter at all, the trailing team will be on offense a lot more. (If the leading team can sustain a long drive, this whole debate becomes moot.)

 

[humpback]

The filter was fine - but what I didn't realize that was before the merger the AFL had a 2pt conversion. 2 of those 3 games were tied due to a 2pt conversion. I reran the filter from 1969-1993 (instead of inception to 1993). Here are the results.Down 9 97/26/0 = 21%Down 8 101/18/0 = 15%Down 7 445/117/21 = 22%And here are the results for NFL only from 1940-1993Down 9 114/29/0 = 20%Down 8 147/23/1 = 14%Down 7 617/157/44 = 22%Same pattern - same conclusion. It may be that being down 8 is almost is always worse and that uncertainty is better for the trailing team since the numbers for being down 8 improve once the 2pt conversion comes back into play in 1994.

I'm still not sure what your argument is here. It's not at all surprising that the numbers improve for teams down by 8 after the introduction of the 2-pt conversion. That's because the 2-pt conversion allows them the possibility of tying a game with one TD, which previously wasn't possible. It has nothing to do with "uncertainty" benefiting the trailing team.

I'm assuming his point is the same as mine was earlier. Since 2 pt. conversions began, teams which have trailed by 9 have won more often than teams down by 8, teams down 17 have won more often than teams down 16 and 15, and teams down 12 more often than teams down 11. Several posters have said that this somehow proves that this is due to the coaches changing strategies and making poor decisions due to the 2 pt. conversion opportunity and we shouldn't even continue the conversation.However, the results are almost identical for games before 2 pt. conversions- teams down 9 have won more often than teams down 8, 17 more than 16 and 15, and 12 more than 11. It doesn't prove that you shouldn't still go for 2 first, but it does basically eliminate the "poor decisions due to the 2 pt. conversion opportunity" theory. That couldn't possibly be the reason when it's not even an option.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This is obviously untrue. Being down by 8 is always better than being down by 9. I'd be interested to hear any argument otherwise.

Why is it obviously untrue? There is a significant dip in winning % by the team trailing by 8pts when no 2pt conversion exists in the NFL. The argument (as you "go for 2" crowd use ad nauseum in this thread) is that teams win more down 9 and 7 than down 8. You attribute this to coaches playing incorrectly due to not knowing how many possessions they need (and usually playing as if they need 1). But, this is true with or without a 2pt conversion. Again, I think this probably has to do with the potential future margins favoring the leading team up 8 pts.

I'm still not sure what your argument is here. It's not at all surprising that the numbers improve for teams down by 8 after the introduction of the 2-pt conversion. That's because the 2-pt conversion allows them the possibility of tying a game with one TD, which previously wasn't possible. It has nothing to do with "uncertainty" benefiting the trailing team.

It should hurt them if the go for 2 crowd is correct about the knowledge of number of possessions benefiting the trailing team more than the leading team is correct.Being down 8 and knowing how many possessions the trailing team needs by both the leading and trailing team has a winning percentage of 14-15%.Being down 8 and *not* knowing the number of possessions needed to win (which the go for 2 crowd says hurts the trailing team more because the trailing coaches can't manage the clock correctly or play for a tie that less that 50% chance of happening if a TD is scored late) has a better winning percentage. Prior to the 2pt conversion leading and trailing teams were always playing correctly and the trailing teams won less.It would seem that playing incorrectly 60% of the time (playing for 1 possession in an 8pt game) is better than playing correctly 100% of the time in a 8pt game when two possessions are needed. I don't think this really supports what the go for 2 crowd has been saying. Maybe you are right that is solely due to the fact that the odds of tying the game with one possession is non-zero when before it was impossible - but even if that was the case it doesn't explain why being down 9 needed 2 possessions is significantly better than being down 8 with 2 possessions needed.

 

[jon_mx]

The filter was fine - but what I didn't realize that was before the merger the AFL had a 2pt conversion. 2 of those 3 games were tied due to a 2pt conversion. I reran the filter from 1969-1993 (instead of inception to 1993). Here are the results.

Down 9 97/26/0 = 21%

Down 8 101/18/0 = 15%

Down 7 445/117/21 = 22%

And here are the results for NFL only from 1940-1993

Down 9 114/29/0 = 20%

Down 8 147/23/1 = 14%

Down 7 617/157/44 = 22%

Same pattern - same conclusion. It may be that being down 8 is almost is always worse and that uncertainty is better for the trailing team since the numbers for being down 8 improve once the 2pt conversion comes back into play in 1994.

I'm still not sure what your argument is here. It's not at all surprising that the numbers improve for teams down by 8 after the introduction of the 2-pt conversion. That's because the 2-pt conversion allows them the possibility of tying a game with one TD, which previously wasn't possible. It has nothing to do with "uncertainty" benefiting the trailing team.

I'm assuming his point is the same as mine was earlier. Since 2 pt. conversions began, teams which have trailed by 9 have won more often than teams down by 8, teams down 17 have won more often than teams down 16 and 15, and teams down 12 more often than teams down 11. Several posters have said that this somehow proves that this is due to the coaches changing strategies and making poor decisions due to the 2 pt. conversion opportunity and we shouldn't even continue the conversation.However, the results are almost identical for games before 2 pt. conversions- teams down 9 have won more often than teams down 8, 17 more than 16 and 15, and 12 more than 11. It doesn't prove that you shouldn't still go for 2 first, but it does basically eliminate the "poor decisions due to the 2 pt. conversion opportunity" theory. That couldn't possibly be the reason when it's not even an option.

These stats are so statistically insignificant that they really don't prove anything. Interesting to look at, but offer no convincing evidence of anything.

 

[sn0mm1s]

These stats are so statistically insignificant that they really don't prove anything. Interesting to look at, but offer no convincing evidence of anything.

They are the basis of what the go for 2 crowd has been using for nearly this entire thread and, while not a statistician, 100+ games seems like it would be statistically significant.