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

[Instinctive]

I this thread.

 

[TobiasFunke]

bumping for the end of the GB-SF game.

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.

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.

McCarthy seems to do an excellent job of running the team, and he's probably very good at all the aspects of being a head coach that I don't understand. But when it comes to the ones I do understand- the strategy calls like this one and punting vs. going for it and all that- he's atrocious. Worst I can remember in the NFL.

 

[Short Corner]

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.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Out of context that does sound silly, but I just skimmed back through the page and I vaguely remember what was going on there. Someone laid out some basic math showing why going for 2 early was the right call, based on some reasonable assumptions of conversion rates, etc. humpy correctly pointed out that if you change those assumptions, you might get different results. As you can see, he was then asked what he would change the assumptions to, but refused to respond.I don't think jon's point was that there were literally no assumptions that would produce the opposite results, his point was more that there were no reasonable assumptions that would provide the opposite results. He may or may not have been right about that, but since humpster failed to ever come up with any alternate assumptions to plug into the equations, that discussion died off.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

shnikies did some hardcore fishing in here. Gotta give him credit for sticking to his guns.

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

 

[humpback]

Out of context that does sound silly, but I just skimmed back through the page and I vaguely remember what was going on there. Someone laid out some basic math showing why going for 2 early was the right call, based on some reasonable assumptions of conversion rates, etc. humpy correctly pointed out that if you change those assumptions, you might get different results. As you can see, he was then asked what he would change the assumptions to, but refused to respond.

I don't think jon's point was that there were literally no assumptions that would produce the opposite results, his point was more that there were no reasonable assumptions that would provide the opposite results. He may or may not have been right about that, but since humpster failed to ever come up with any alternate assumptions to plug into the equations, that discussion died off.

If you want to know what actually happened instead of what went on in your head, you can try reading the posts.

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.

humpback says there are some, and I agree with him. (Assume, for example, that the chance of making a two-point conversion when down by 9 is 15%, while the chance of making a two-point conversion when down by 2 is 85%.)The question is whether any such set of assumptions is reasonable. I don't know exactly which assumptions humpback has in mind (or will be able to come up with), but we can't judge their reasonableness very well until we know what they are. So I think it'd be helpful if he were to state them.

No, according to professor jon, there is no possible way that this could happen. It's mathematically impossible. The reason why I haven't stated any is because it would just start another 5 pages of back and forth arguing about something that can't be proven. One side would consider different assumptions to be reasonable, the other side would not. All you have to do is tweak some numbers in BFS's example to come to the opposite conclusion (say, assume the odds of winning when down 7 are 10% instead of 12%, or assuming the odds of winning when down 8 are 9% instead of 8%).Basically, this comes back to flawed logic IMO- people think they can precisely determine the odds of the next event occuring based only on past data. People think the likelihood of an event happening is the same for all teams under all sets of circumstances. People think a team will play no differently when up 7, 8, or 9 points. People who believe these things will never see eye to eye with people who do not, and vice versa.

Lying about me not responding is pretty ironic, considering you refused to respond here:

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.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you want to know what actually happened instead of what went on in your head, you can try reading the posts.

My bad, I got this far and stopped:

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.

No... The reason why I haven't stated any is because it would just start another 5 pages of back and forth arguing about something that can't be proven.

Forgive me for not realizing you threw in a couple of numbers at the end there. Whether or not they're reasonable or make the math work out your way is for someone else to debate, though as I said above, I agree with you that changing the assumptions could change the results, and I said jon may have been wrong that there are no reasonable asumptions that make the math work out in favor of the PAT-fist folks. Furthermore, I think your overall point is that this situation can't simply be reduced to a solvable math problem, and I agree with that as well. I still believe going for 2 early is obviously the correct call, but not because P(X) is exactly 0.04% greater than P(Y) or anything like that.

Lying about me not responding is pretty ironic, considering you refused to respond here:

I responded to that exact point, if not that exact post, at least once and probably several times. If you want to know what actually happened instead of what went on in your head, you can try reading the posts.

 

[humpback]

If you want to know what actually happened instead of what went on in your head, you can try reading the posts.

My bad, I got this far and stopped:

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.

No... The reason why I haven't stated any is because it would just start another 5 pages of back and forth arguing about something that can't be proven.

Forgive me for not realizing you threw in a couple of numbers at the end there. Whether or not they're reasonable or make the math work out your way is for someone else to debate, though as I said above, I agree with you that changing the assumptions could change the results, and I said jon may have been wrong that there are no reasonable asumptions that make the math work out in favor of the PAT-fist folks. Furthermore, I think your overall point is that this situation can't simply be reduced to a solvable math problem, and I agree with that as well. I still believe going for 2 early is obviously the correct call, but not because P(X) is exactly 0.04% greater than P(Y) or anything like that.

Lying about me not responding is pretty ironic, considering you refused to respond here:

I responded to that exact point, if not that exact post, at least once and probably several times. If you want to know what actually happened instead of what went on in your head, you can try reading the posts.

So you stopped reading in the middle of a paragraph, right before I did exactly what you said I didn't do? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. In any event, sounds like you agree.Link or quote of you responding to mine?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So you stopped reading in the middle of a paragraph, right before I did exactly what you said I didn't do? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. In any event, sounds like you agree.

I said I just skimmed through the page to remind myself what was going on at that point in the discussion, I wasn't really reading all the posts.

Link or quote of you responding to mine?

I don't see a question in the post you're referencing, and it doesn't seem like it was directed at me, so it's quite likely I didn't respond to your post. I admitted as much - but others brought up pretty much the same exact thing, and I did respond. I'm even feeling generous enough to bump a few for you, since they're right at the top of this page:

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).

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.

I'm not sure what else you're looking for in terms of a response.

 

[humpback]

So you stopped reading in the middle of a paragraph, right before I did exactly what you said I didn't do? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. In any event, sounds like you agree.

I said I just skimmed through the page to remind myself what was going on at that point in the discussion, I wasn't really reading all the posts.

Link or quote of you responding to mine?

I don't see a question in the post you're referencing, and it doesn't seem like it was directed at me, so it's quite likely I didn't respond to your post. I admitted as much - but others brought up pretty much the same exact thing, and I did respond. I'm even feeling generous enough to bump a few for you, since they're right at the top of this page:

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).

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.

I'm not sure what else you're looking for in terms of a response.

I'm just pointing out how it was rather ironic for you to say I didn't respond when I clearly did, while you didn't respond to mine.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm just pointing out how it was rather ironic for you to say I didn't respond when I clearly did, while you didn't respond to mine.

I hereby award you six internet points.

 

[humpback]

I'm just pointing out how it was rather ironic for you to say I didn't respond when I clearly did, while you didn't respond to mine.

I hereby award you six internet points.

That's better than going for 1 or 2.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm just pointing out how it was rather ironic for you to say I didn't respond when I clearly did, while you didn't respond to mine.

I hereby award you six internet points.

That's better than going for 1 or 2.

 

[Please See Mine]

Redakins coming up 4 and a half minutes left

 

[duaneok66]

please stop.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So, if you're down 22 with 10 minutes to play, do you go for 2?

 

[Warrior]

So, if you're down 22 with 10 minutes to play, do you go for 2?

Yes, totally and completely different situation.If you miss the 2pt conversion, you can go for 2 twice later.

 

[jon_mx]

So, if you're down 22 with 10 minutes to play, do you go for 2?

Yes, totally and completely different situation.If you miss the 2pt conversion, you can go for 2 twice later.

It is not totally different, although that case has an additional advantage as you outlined.

 

[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.

Maybe saying there are no assumptions that could lead to the opposite conclusion is inaccurate. But the kind of assumption that you would have to make is something like you are more than twice as likely to convert the two-point conversion at the later time. But for any set of assumptions where the probability conversion are equal at any given time, then it is always best to go for the two-point conversion early.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Keeping an eye on the end of this Saints-Giants game.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Keeping an eye on the end of this Saints-Giants game.

Clearly kicking the extra point was the wrong call - they are going to lose the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Keeping an eye on the end of this Saints-Giants game.

Clearly kicking the extra point was the wrong call - they are going to lose the game.

 

[sooted72]

Didn't ready many of the responses past page 1, but super obvious kick the extra pt 100% of the time to make it a 1-possession game. 7:00 is an eternity and you don't know for sure that you'll ever need to go for 2. This is not the one coaches constantly get wrong.

What coaches constantly get wrong is the same scenario but down by 14. In that case the correct play is to go for 2. But ofc they don't do that, most likely to keep their jobs. So basically until Belicheck starts to do it regularly, nobody else in the NFL ever will.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

lol

 

[Tau837]

Didn't ready many of the responses past page 1, but super obvious kick the extra pt 100% of the time to make it a 1-possession game. 7:00 is an eternity and you don't know for sure that you'll ever need to go for 2. This is not the one coaches constantly get wrong.What coaches constantly get wrong is the same scenario but down by 14. In that case the correct play is to go for 2. But ofc they don't do that, most likely to keep their jobs. So basically until Belicheck starts to do it regularly, nobody else in the NFL ever will.

 

[MIMN]

I am extremely surprised at how many people would kick the point...As I said in the 2nd response on the thread, wouldn't you want to know that you didn't make the two point conversion much earlier so that you have more time to adjust? This argument about momentum and a let down and all that is so minor. If the team was so let down that you were down by 15 with 7 minutes to go how did they muster up the energy to get into the end zone to begin with?I am in the camp that the obvious choice is to go for 2 so you know what you are dealing with.

I am equally surprised by the people that insist that you must go for 2 immediately. There is no need. Leave doubt in the other team's mind. If you must know that you missed the 2 pt conversion then just assume that you missed it and play call accordingly. Giving the other team that info allows them to play differently (because they will be assuming you make it).Plus, anyone on the team that thinks that we can't make a 2 pt conversion needs to rethink their career plans. IMO.

 

[GreenNGold]

Didn't ready many of the responses past page 1, but super obvious kick the extra pt 100% of the time to make it a 1-possession game. 7:00 is an eternity and you don't know for sure that you'll ever need to go for 2. This is not the one coaches constantly get wrong.What coaches constantly get wrong is the same scenario but down by 14. In that case the correct play is to go for 2. But ofc they don't do that, most likely to keep their jobs. So basically until Belicheck starts to do it regularly, nobody else in the NFL ever will.

He speaks the truth and that probably deserves a new thread of its own titled why you should go for 2 if you score a TD when down 14.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Didn't ready many of the responses past page 1, but super obvious kick the extra pt 100% of the time to make it a 1-possession game. 7:00 is an eternity and you don't know for sure that you'll ever need to go for 2. This is not the one coaches constantly get wrong.What coaches constantly get wrong is the same scenario but down by 14. In that case the correct play is to go for 2. But ofc they don't do that, most likely to keep their jobs. So basically until Belicheck starts to do it regularly, nobody else in the NFL ever will.

Jeff Fisher, is that you?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Didn't ready many of the responses past page 1, but super obvious kick the extra pt 100% of the time to make it a 1-possession game. 7:00 is an eternity and you don't know for sure that you'll ever need to go for 2. This is not the one coaches constantly get wrong.

What coaches constantly get wrong is the same scenario but down by 14. In that case the correct play is to go for 2. But ofc they don't do that, most likely to keep their jobs. So basically until Belicheck starts to do it regularly, nobody else in the NFL ever will.

He speaks the truth and that probably deserves a new thread of its own titled why you should go for 2 if you score a TD when down 14.

There is already a thread about that.

 

[sooted72]

Oh my bad. Despite being a FBG memeber for over 5 years now, I'm still new to the forums.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Oh my bad. Despite being a FBG memeber for over 5 years now, I'm still new to the forums.

That's ok, that thread didn't get a lot of attention anyway. This one, on the other hand...I could be wrong, but I think Just Win Baby was laughing at your first paragraph, not your second.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Plus, anyone on the team that thinks that we can't make a 2 pt conversion needs to rethink their career plans. IMO.

What do you mean here? Coaches who assume their team won't make a 2 pt. conversion 100% of the time should rethink their careers? (That seems wrong.) Or coaches who assume their team won't make a 2 pt. conversion more than 0% of the time should rethink their career plans? (That's probably true, but irrelevant.) Or something else?Most coaches probably think that their team will make a 2 pt. conversion somewhere between 40% and 60% of the time. Are you saying that predicting something outside of that range would be better?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Plus, anyone on the team that thinks that we can't make a 2 pt conversion needs to rethink their career plans. IMO.

The (flawed) reason everyone says not to go for 2 right away is because they're afraid of what happens if they don't make it.If no one on your team is afraid of not converting the 2-pt try, then just go ahead and get it out of the way on the first TD.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Plus, anyone on the team that thinks that we can't make a 2 pt conversion needs to rethink their career plans. IMO.

The (flawed) reason everyone says not to go for 2 right away is because they're afraid of what happens if they don't make it.If no one on your team is afraid of not converting the 2-pt try, then just go ahead and get it out of the way on the first TD.

Go for two every time, in fact, really.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Plus, anyone on the team that thinks that we can't make a 2 pt conversion needs to rethink their career plans. IMO.

The (flawed) reason everyone says not to go for 2 right away is because they're afraid of what happens if they don't make it.If no one on your team is afraid of not converting the 2-pt try, then just go ahead and get it out of the way on the first TD.

Go for two every time, in fact, really.

Right. If anyone thinks we can't make it, they need to rethink their career plans imo.

 

[coolnerd]

Well, the team has to score to have a decision to make.

 

[Raider Nation]

Well, the team has to score to have a decision to make.

Yeah, they foiled my plans.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Well, the team has to score to have a decision to make.

Yeah, they foiled my plans.

Good bump though.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

popcorn

 

[FootballGuy22]

I guess we can put the popcorn away now

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Chase's head is about to explode on twitter

 

[Raider Nation]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

 

[renesauz]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is one of the things that Chip Kelly will get right starting next year, and after a few more years everybody else will be as well.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

My post (or bump as you call it) was about Chase. Did I say they should have gone for 2?

 

[Raider Nation]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

My post (or bump as you call it) was about Chase. Did I say they should have gone for 2?

Not following. Has Chase commented in the past about whether a team should go for 2 with 20:00 remaining?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

My post (or bump as you call it) was about Chase. Did I say they should have gone for 2?

Not following. Has Chase commented in the past about whether a team should go for 2 with 20:00 remaining?

Not surprising

 

[Raider Nation]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

My post (or bump as you call it) was about Chase. Did I say they should have gone for 2?

Not following. Has Chase commented in the past about whether a team should go for 2 with 20:00 remaining?

Not surprising

Go back to being a terrible poster in CFB threads. TIA.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

7:00 to go. Not 20:00 to go.

Was a silly bump

My post (or bump as you call it) was about Chase. Did I say they should have gone for 2?

Not following. Has Chase commented in the past about whether a team should go for 2 with 20:00 remaining?

Not surprising

Go back to being a terrible poster in CFB threads. TIA.

 

[Raider Nation]

I'm still waiting to hear what being down by 15 with 20:00 left has to do with the premise of this thread.Guess we'll never know.