I have never relied on any of the stats. Logic has been the basis for the majority of arguments throughout this thread. A sample size of 100 gives you a margin of error on the order of +/-10. Considering the number of success stories under all these conditions is at most a handful, the MOE pretty much wipes out any meaningful conclusions which could be drawn from the stats.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
Well, one thing they absolutely prove is that the reason for the counter-intuitive results prior to 1994 is not due to the 2 pt. conversion because it didn't exist. I know you think the data isn't important, but several other posters believe it is irrefutable evidence (at least they did when they thought it worked in their favor). Interestingly enough, none of them have addressed it since I brought up the data from pre-2 pt. conversions.
Not Important and Statistically insignificant are two different things. Even when they used the stats earlier to support the go for it early position, I denounced their statistical significance. They are interesting data points, but there are simply not enough data to mean much.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I'm not sure how much explanation is required to convince you that being down by 8 is better than being down by 9. It's, well... obvious. The fact that teams down by 9 have won more often than teams down by 8 was never "the argument," it was just a curious statistical anomaly that appeared to support the arguments in favor of going for 2 first (this anomaly, as you've apparently shown, existed prior to the introduction of the 2-pt conversion). If you think this has something to do with "potential future margins" I'd be interested to have you outline how the potential future margins are worse for a team down by 8 than they are for teams down by 9.
The addition of the 2 pt conversion should never "hurt" teams that are trailing by 8. That's a poor mischaracterization of the "knowledge" argument. Again, it's not surprising that adding the option of a 2 point conversion would benefit teams down by 8 - it gives them a way to tie the game with just one possession that didn't previously exist.
I think you're putting too much stock in a small sample of games which admittedly aren't even necessarily representative of the situation being discussed, and only serve to show us what teams have done (as possibly opposed to what teams should have done). We're talking about the proper strategy to employ here. There are logical arguments that can and are being made for different strategies. Knowing what happened in games that have happened in the past isn't extremely useful and isn't going to win the argument, because coaches have almost universally employed just one of the strategies (kicking the PAT first). If half the coaches in the NFL always went for two first, and you could show that they lost far more often than the coaches that kicked the PAT first, then you might have something. But it doesn't seem like any coaches have ever regularly employed the 2-pt-first strategy (not that any coach would be in this situation often enough to employ any strategy "regularly" anyway). So you're not really weighing in on whether or not going for 2 early is the superior strategy.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
You, CalBear, and many others have used the fact that being down 9 and 7 wins more than being down 8 numerous times in this thread. You attributed this discrepancy to the lack of knowledge regarding the correct plays to call by the trailing team. Once that "lack of knowledge" factor is removed and the trend still holds to an even greater degree and then you backtrack and hand wave it away as a statistical anomaly - even though it has held true over hundreds of games in different eras. If the entirety of the NFL history is a small and irrelevant sample size I am not sure how you can prove your point at all - especially when you have been using an even smaller sample size of the subset of games when the 2pt conversion was possible.
The bolded makes me wonder if you are understanding what I am saying. When kicking was the only strategy available to coaches they still lost more.You are talking out of both sides of you mouth here. You claim my sample size of hundreds of games is too small yet then think that using only games since the 2pt conversion was implemented would show something. The data doesn't support kicking it but it doesn't support going for 2 for informational purposes either. The data shows that being down 8, for some reason is worse than being down 7 or 9 even if you know how many possessions you need. 5%+ pre and post merger may be an anomaly - but I have a hard time believing that that big of a difference is due to random chance.
That's fine, and I agree that it isn't all that meaningful for a few reasons, but again, this is about the other posters. Call it whatever you'd like, but several people in the go for 2 camp do think it is important, statistically significant, and/or meaningful enough to prove their case. This pre 2 pt. conversion data should squash their theory for those who subscribed to it.
Anything within the +/-10% is not an anomaly. An anomaly would be outside your margin of error. The data is interesting, but your insistence on making definitive conclusions on it is just wrong.
Yes, the poster who posted it did try to draw definitive conclusions from the data, and I posted just after him that the evidence was not that compelling. And similarly this pre 2-pt conversion doesn't squash anything.
'jon_mx said:
It was multiple posters who used that data to "prove" their theory, and I know you said that it wasn't that compelling- again, I agree, but this isn't about us. Assume for a second that you did think it was compelling, like those other posters- wouldn't you then agree that the pre-2 pt. conversion data should discredit their theory?So you want me to say your insignificant data disproves what the other set of insignificant data did not prove. OK, cool.'jon_mx said:
shnikies
Footballguy
All he's saying is that though you may have not used that data to say being up by 9 is better than 8 and thus a reason for going 2 first, there were several posters who did.So you want me to say your insignificant data disproves what the other set of insignificant data did not prove. OK, cool.'jon_mx said:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I'm not going to waste my time defending arguments I haven't made. As I explained to you, the stats (which someone else posted) were a curiosity that, if true, appeared to support the arguments that have been made for going for two early. Apparently you've since shown that those curious stats occurred prior to the introduction of the 2-pt conversion as well, and therefore they don't confirm those arguments they way they appeared to. Good on you for doing the research. My arguments have never been based on those stats being accurate, however, so you're going to have to take your complaints to someone else, or find another line of reasoning to discredit the actual position I've taken in this thread.'sn0mm1s said:
I said you "might have something" if you had stats comparing what happens when coaches go for two first and what happens when they kick the PAT first. But you don't, so it's moot. I'm not going to get into a statistics lesson with you. You admitted earlier that you're "not a statistician," and my arguments don't rely at all on these stats, so this is pretty much a dead end. As I said, no coach has ever consistently employed the "2-pt first" strategy so we don't have any stats to indicate whether or not it's superior. Let's try something new, since I'm pretty sure you tried and failed to refute my arguments a year ago, and now you're trying to get me to defend arguments I'm not even making. Let's examine your position, which I asked you to explain and you ignored in your response. You've said that you believe the reason teams have won more often down by 9 as opposed to down by 8 is because of "potential future margins." I believe that, like some of the other stuff that's been posted, is obviously absurd, but I'd like to have you explain why you think that's the case.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
First off, what is your position then? I could've sworn that you, CalBear, Tobias etc. were arguing that the slimmer the margin the better, but a slimmer margin isn't worth the uncertainty of not knowing how many possessions were needed. The stats prior to the advent of the 2pt conversion don't support this.As far as potential score differences, I don't have the access to the data in any clean way to suggest why. PFR doesn't make their game data available to load into a database. I merely am pointing out that neither slimmer margin nor knowledge of possessions needed seem to be valid reasons. Maybe it is because 9 and 7 point differentials make tying a game more likely with standard TDs and FGs and that helps the trailing team. The 10 vs. 11 vs. 12pts hold the same pattern (though only a 1% difference between 11 and 12) with 10 and 12pts being better. 15,16, and 17 have the same pattern as well (with 15 and 17 being better than 16) although at that point the margin is so great going into the 4th quarter that that the number of times the losing team has won is extremely small. Looking at halftime point differentials being down 18 is better than being down 20 - but no team has won being down 19 (with only 41 occurrences).
From that data maybe the correct call is to always take the slimmer margin unless that margin isn't comprised of factors of 3 and 7. Or to take the minimum number of possessions needed to tie (which would make 17 more desirable than 15) only scoring with 3 and 7. In the case of being able to win with one possession you always take the slimmer margin. As strange as that sounds, I am not sure how else to interpret 8,11,16, and 19 all having lower winning percentages than the two margins bookending them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
My position is that when you're down by 15 with 7 minutes left in the game, and you score a TD, you should attempt a 2-pt conversion. My position regarding scoring margins is that I'll always prefer a smaller deficit to a larger deficit.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
That is quite a cop out - and contradictory. Your potential points kicking the ball is higher than going for two. You are settling for the larger margin when you go for 2.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Jesus. I knew this was a waste of time.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
I know, I feel the same way since both of your positions don't fit the evidence yet you are now refusing to say why you should go for 2.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Your potential points for kicking is one point. Your potential points for going for a two-point conversion is two points. Two is greater than one, I think.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Sorry, expected points.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Jets down by 15 at the half. 
firstseason1988
Footballguy
Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.Jets down by 15 at the half.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Yeah, doesn't look like the Jets will be faced with this question either.Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.Jets down by 15 at the half.
CalBear
Footballguy
You're down by 32 with 7:00 minutes left in the fourth and you score a TD...Yeah, doesn't look like the Jets will be faced with this question either.Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.Jets down by 15 at the half.
CalBear
Footballguy
Apparently, you go for 2.You're down by 32 with 7:00 minutes left in the fourth and you score a TD...Yeah, doesn't look like the Jets will be faced with this question either.Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.Jets down by 15 at the half.
coolnerd
Footballguy
Kubiak is a mostly conservative (or maybe football traditional) coach. My guess is that he would kicked the extra point.'firstseason1988 said:Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:Jets down by 15 at the half.
GeauxTigers
Footballguy
How can so many people say Don't go for 2? The obvious answer is go for 2. If you go for 2 after the score, you will know if you need one more score or 2 more scores at that point.
GeauxTigers
Footballguy
I've never understood how people can make a decision not based on numbers/facts. It's arithmetic, simple math. Don't bring emotion into decision making.
The particular bias that I think is most explanatory isn't listed on that page (that I could find). I think it's this one:
[Our intuitive] view of probability, for instance, functions largely by classifying gambles into three categories—impossible, possible, or certain. One result is that an increase in probability within the middle category, say from 50% to 60%, appears less significant than an increase of the same size from 0% to 10% or from 90% to 100%.
If you go for two and fail, the probability of a win moves, in our natural intuition, from the the possible category to the effectively impossible category. If we make the two-point conversion, the probability of a win goes from being possible to still just being possible. And if we go for one, we'll make it and the probability of a win goes from being possible to still being possible.If we ignore the various gradations within the possible category and instead just look at potential movements among categories, it's intuitively obvious that we should go for one.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
The same reason people (stupidly) stand on 16 when the dealer is showing a 10 even though they know that it is statistically a bad move.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I recently got that Kahneman book but haven't started it yet. Very much looking forward to it though.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
The lesson here is to not throw an INT down 15.Yeah, doesn't look like the Jets will be faced with this question either.Houston was down by 15 with 8 minutes left inside the Panthers 10 yard line. Was interested in seeing what was going to happen, not to prove or disprove anything, just interested, Yates then threw an INT.Jets down by 15 at the half.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
If anyone wonders if this thread has any merit...it did change my mind. At first I thought it would be silly to go for two. Nobody does that. Now I'm not sure why you wouldn't do it.
* You'll know earlier whether or not you need one score or two
* Your team is less nervous, since the entire game isn't on the line (like it would be with 20 seconds left or something).
* You just scored so you have momentum just as you would scoring the second TD WITHOUT the added momentum for the defense (stop them here and those TDs we gave up don't matter). If they stop them they're in better shape, but there's still plenty of time left.
* You know whether or not you should use timeouts on a methodical final drive or if you need to save them for yet another drive you hope you get.
I know that being down by eight is better than being down by nine...but knowing how many scores you need with seven minutes left is much better than knowing with 30 seconds left.
I'm convinced. Thanks.
* You'll know earlier whether or not you need one score or two
* Your team is less nervous, since the entire game isn't on the line (like it would be with 20 seconds left or something).
* You just scored so you have momentum just as you would scoring the second TD WITHOUT the added momentum for the defense (stop them here and those TDs we gave up don't matter). If they stop them they're in better shape, but there's still plenty of time left.
* You know whether or not you should use timeouts on a methodical final drive or if you need to save them for yet another drive you hope you get.
I know that being down by eight is better than being down by nine...but knowing how many scores you need with seven minutes left is much better than knowing with 30 seconds left.
I'm convinced. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
SWC
Bromigo
i would run a gaget play where the qb hands the ball off to a very short running back who hides behind a lineman and the lineman stands around looking like he was hurt and then another larger rb goes to the right like he has the ball and everyone piles up on top of him and then the small hiding rb bursts to the left when everyone thinks the play is over and goes 90plus yards for a td and the win
Tau837
Footballguy
Watching the Baylor bowl game. They were down by 18 in the 3rd quarter and scored a TD. Partly due to reading this thread, I found myself thinking, they should go for two here so they know if they need two TDs or a TD and FG to tie/win. They kicked the extra point. Then later in the third quarter, with more than 8 minutes left, they scored another TD to cut the deficit to 5 and went for 2 and made it, cutting the deficit to 3.
Particularly if they were willing to go for it the second time, shouldn't they have done it the first time?
Particularly if they were willing to go for it the second time, shouldn't they have done it the first time?
GregR
Footballguy
The big benefit of going for it in the thread hypothetical is that with the knowledge you can play the rest of your game to maximize your chance of winning. And when time is as scarce as the thread situation, that change (preserving time or bleeding it off so opponent has no time left when you score) in how you play it is noticeable and significant.The earlier in the game we move the situation though, the less useful the knowledge is. When you have 4 or 5 possessions still to come in the game, you probably just want to call plays with the best chance to move the ball, regardless of down 2 scores or 1.I don't know where the break even point would be exactly, but if it is early third quarter down by 18 when you score, I wouldn't think the knowledge would help you enough yet. The game situation still has a lot of opportunity to change, like an opposing FG that means you don't need to go for 2 on any score if you're trying to tie.
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
The correct answer lies within Tim Tebow
Tau837
Footballguy
Yes, I understand that earlier means less valuable to do this, just thought it was curious they did it on the second TD... if they would do that, it seems they should have done it on the first one. Of course, in this case, both teams scored a lot more points during the remainder of the game, so these decisions did not necessarily affect the outcome.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
When will coaches learn?And they lost. Q.E.D.'gianmarco said:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
bumping for the end of the GB-SF game.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I thought about this thread when they kicked the PAT. It's amazing that coaches who earn millions of dollars per year can't handle basic math.bumping for the end of the GB-SF game.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I was rooting for the 49ers in the game, but when they were down 15 I really wanted GB to score just to see what McCarthy would do. I was saddened that he made the wrong decision, though obviously pleased with the result.I thought about this thread when they kicked the PAT. It's amazing that coaches who earn millions of dollars per year can't handle basic math.bumping for the end of the GB-SF game.
coolnerd
Footballguy
Many if not most people play not to lose versus to win until they have no choice. I am sure i have modified my on the mathmatical correctness of going for two in this (and many other situations), but nature of people playing convention versus actual facts still remains.I thought about this thread when they kicked the PAT. It's amazing that coaches who earn millions of dollars per year can't handle basic math.bumping for the end of the GB-SF game.
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
shnikies did some hardcore fishing in here. Gotta give him credit for sticking to his guns.
Similar threads
- Poll
