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

[Maurile Tremblay]

The "math" guy's want everyone to believe there math, but leave all otherfactors out of the decision, like what the other team can do now, or how it will affect the thought process of either team, emotion plays a much largerpart to big time sports then many here want to believe, let alone the "logic"that disagrees with them.Ever hear of momentum swing, choking under pressure, playing conservative, ect..(None of that is even being factored in)

All of those factors can be included in an analysis, even if the analysis also involves some math.

 

[humpback]

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

You would think maybe it is telling, until you see that the results are the same when you look at games before 2 pt. conversions. The coach had no strategic decision to make, going for 2 was not an option so there was virtually no difference between being down 8 vs. 9, and yet teams down 9 still won more often than teams down 8. Same with teams down 12 vs. 11 and 17 vs. 16 or 15. I don't know the reason this happened, but it could not have been because the coach changed strategies due to a non-existent 2 pt. conversion possibility.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Nice fishing here.

 

[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.

Nice fishing here.

Took no time for the bite as it did to type that up. My only guess is people are fishing too. But they are doing a good job.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[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.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Wait guys, I just realized something. If you go for two and miss it and then the other team gets the ball and scores a TD, then you're down by 16 (in other words, a two possession game). On the other hand if you take the PAT and then return an onside kick for a TD and then make the 2 pt conversion, you're tied. Seems like you have to kick the PAT first.

 

[kegger]

Kick the extra point, the correct call!

 

[jon_mx]

Kick the extra point, the correct call!

Congrats, you have just summed up all the logic that goes into making that call.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[kegger]

Kick the extra point, the correct call!

Congrats, you have just summed up all the logic that goes into making that call.

About time you get with the program..

 

[shnikies]

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.

You think recovering an onside kick and then going and kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and timeouts you have left is easier than stopping a defense from kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and then winning in overtime? Then why wouldn't a team just kick an onside kick when they're tied in that situation? I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

You think recovering an onside kick and then going and kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and timeouts you have left is easier than stopping a defense from kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and then winning in overtime? Then why wouldn't a team just kick an onside kick when they're tied in that situation? I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

That wasn't my notion. But I do believe almost all teams fail to play with the urgency which is called for. Take for instance the Lions vs. Green Bay. Down by three scores going into the forth quarter, the Lions just patiently would go to the line of scrimmage and let the clock run down as if time was not important. You are down that many scores, you need to conserve clock the rest of the game, but most teams don't start in the mode until there is under 5:00 or so.

 

[shnikies]

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.

You think recovering an onside kick and then going and kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and timeouts you have left is easier than stopping a defense from kicking a field goal in whatever amount of time that is left and then winning in overtime? Then why wouldn't a team just kick an onside kick when they're tied in that situation? I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

That wasn't my notion. But I do believe almost all teams fail to play with the urgency which is called for. Take for instance the Lions vs. Green Bay. Down by three scores going into the forth quarter, the Lions just patiently would go to the line of scrimmage and let the clock run down as if time was not important. You are down that many scores, you need to conserve clock the rest of the game, but most teams don't start in the mode until there is under 5:00 or so.

It really doesn't matter what they do but what they should do. Is there anyone here that would argue that if you are a coach without knowing if you'd get the 2 point conversion down by 8 that you would try to score a touchdown as quickly as possible? My guess is no and the fact that some coaches do actually play like their down by 7 and assume they'll get the 2 point conversion is the reason these stats I have yet to see show that teams down by 9 win more than teams down by 8. Saying being down by 9 is better than being down by 8 is simply not true. That's it. The argument that by going for 2 first helps you know whether you need two possessions is your best play for the argument. When you're down by 9 or 8 you should score as quickly as possible where as if you're down by 7 you can try to leave as little amount of time as possible. Don't use the down by 9 is better than down by 8 because that's a fallacy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

The argument for the 2-pt conversion does not and has never relied on the absurd notion that being down by 9 is better than being down by 8. That's some asinine and incorrect corollary that the PAT-first crowd brings up, demonstrating that they, like you, don't even understand the argument they are arguing against. Like I said, shnikes, step away. I knew this wouldn't go well for you and you're just making it worse.

 

[shnikies]

I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

The argument for the 2-pt conversion does not and has never relied on the absurd notion that being down by 9 is better than being down by 8. That's some asinine and incorrect corollary that the PAT-first crowd brings up, demonstrating that they, like you, don't even understand the argument they are arguing against. Like I said, shnikes, step away. I knew this wouldn't go well for you and you're just making it worse.

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?

 

[jon_mx]

I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

The argument for the 2-pt conversion does not and has never relied on the absurd notion that being down by 9 is better than being down by 8. That's some asinine and incorrect corollary that the PAT-first crowd brings up, demonstrating that they, like you, don't even understand the argument they are arguing against. Like I said, shnikes, step away. I knew this wouldn't go well for you and you're just making it worse.

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 never said that.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm sorry but this notion that being down 9 is better than being down by 8 is probably the most absurd thing ever posted in the SP.

The argument for the 2-pt conversion does not and has never relied on the absurd notion that being down by 9 is better than being down by 8. That's some asinine and incorrect corollary that the PAT-first crowd brings up, demonstrating that they, like you, don't even understand the argument they are arguing against. Like I said, shnikes, step away. I knew this wouldn't go well for you and you're just making it worse.

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?

It's really almost like you don't even understand what you are reading. Are you experiencing any numbness on your left side?

 

[shnikies]

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

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

Go for two

-Brock Middlebrook

When you are down by eight you playing for a 50% chance to tie the game. And you better not have left any time on the clock or the other team will have a chance to kick a FG. So even after all this, you then only have a 50% chance to win in overtime.

When you are down by 9, you are playing to win the game. You don't have to worry about making the two point conversion or losing in overtime. You may have to make some riskier plays to get there, but if you are successful, you win.

-jon_mx

All I've been trying to say is that this idea that when you're down by 9 you're playing to win and when you're down by 8 you're playing to tie is irrelevant. When you're down by 8 you're playing to win in overtime. The odds of getting the 2 point conversion, stopping the defense from scoring and then winning in overtime is greater than kicking an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal. That's all I've been trying to say. I don't know why this is so upsetting.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Shnikies, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but you're not the first person to argue against the nonexistent idea that a 9-point deficit is better than an 8-point deficit. You'll see it's been brought up and shot down numerous times before:

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.

I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

It is strange that you accuse me of not understanding what's going on here when you're the one who is clearly having a really hard time with it. I don't know if it's just a reading comprehension issue or something else, but it's not working out for you, unfortunately.

 

[shnikies]

Shnikies, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but you're not the first person to argue against the nonexistent idea that a 9-point deficit is better than an 8-point deficit. You'll see it's been brought up and shot down numerous times before:

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.

I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

It is strange that you accuse me of not understanding what's going on here when you're the one who is clearly having a really hard time with it. I don't know if it's just a reading comprehension issue or something else, but it's not working out for you, unfortunately.

I didn't say you said the 9 point deficit is better but there are people over the last couple pages that are at least trying to say being down by 9 is at least no worse than being down by 8. Go to the pages around 19+. Calbear says "When a team is down 8 late in the fourth quarter, they tend to treat the game as if they can tie in one possession. So if they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll run something close to their normal offense and try to spend 4:00 going down the field. If they're down by 9 and they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll immediately go into their 2-minute offense." That might be true that teams do that but it's wrong and I have no idea why this is even being talked about. You obviously play when you're down by 8 as if you need two possessions. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[jon_mx]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.Go for two-Brock MiddlebrookWhen you are down by eight you playing for a 50% chance to tie the game. And you better not have left any time on the clock or the other team will have a chance to kick a FG. So even after all this, you then only have a 50% chance to win in overtime.When you are down by 9, you are playing to win the game. You don't have to worry about making the two point conversion or losing in overtime. You may have to make some riskier plays to get there, but if you are successful, you win. -jon_mxAll I've been trying to say is that this idea that when you're down by 9 you're playing to win and when you're down by 8 you're playing to tie is irrelevant. When you're down by 8 you're playing to win in overtime. The odds of getting the 2 point conversion, stopping the defense from scoring and then winning in overtime is greater than kicking an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal. That's all I've been trying to say. I don't know why this is so upsetting.

I am not upset, but you are missing my point. If you are down by 8 even if you are successful and score, you still have only a 50% chance of scoring the two-point conversion and a 50% chance of winning in OT. That is a 25% chance to win after you get a TD. And that percentage goes down significantly if you leave any time on the clock. Being down 8 is not an good place to be. Really, not much better than having to recover an onside kick and get a FG. That is why the historical percentages are really close. It is really irrelevant to this problem which is better, although an interesting side track. What is relevant is I would rather take the 50-50 shot at the two-point conversion early and know I am down 7 or down 9 and play the game with the optimal strategy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Shnikies, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but you're not the first person to argue against the nonexistent idea that a 9-point deficit is better than an 8-point deficit. You'll see it's been brought up and shot down numerous times before:

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.

I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

It is strange that you accuse me of not understanding what's going on here when you're the one who is clearly having a really hard time with it. I don't know if it's just a reading comprehension issue or something else, but it's not working out for you, unfortunately.

I didn't say you said the 9 point deficit is better but there are people over the last couple pages that are at least trying to say being down by 9 is at least no worse than being down by 8. Go to the pages around 19+. Calbear says "When a team is down 8 late in the fourth quarter, they tend to treat the game as if they can tie in one possession. So if they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll run something close to their normal offense and try to spend 4:00 going down the field. If they're down by 9 and they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll immediately go into their 2-minute offense."

Right, you're mischaracterizing the point he's trying to make. Probably a reading comprehension issue.

That might be true that teams do that but it's wrong and I have no idea why this is even being talked about. You obviously play when you're down by 8 as if you need two possessions. That's all I'm trying to say.

It's not at all obvious how you should play when you're down by 8 points. Playing as if you need two possessions is the wrong strategy half the time.

 

[shnikies]

I think we can all agree that's it's better to be down by 7 than 8.Historical data indicates that (counter-intuitively) it's better to be down by 9 than down by 8.Go for two-Brock MiddlebrookWhen you are down by eight you playing for a 50% chance to tie the game. And you better not have left any time on the clock or the other team will have a chance to kick a FG. So even after all this, you then only have a 50% chance to win in overtime.When you are down by 9, you are playing to win the game. You don't have to worry about making the two point conversion or losing in overtime. You may have to make some riskier plays to get there, but if you are successful, you win. -jon_mxAll I've been trying to say is that this idea that when you're down by 9 you're playing to win and when you're down by 8 you're playing to tie is irrelevant. When you're down by 8 you're playing to win in overtime. The odds of getting the 2 point conversion, stopping the defense from scoring and then winning in overtime is greater than kicking an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal. That's all I've been trying to say. I don't know why this is so upsetting.

I am not upset, but you are missing my point. If you are down by 8 even if you are successful and score, you still have only a 50% chance of scoring the two-point conversion and a 50% chance of winning in OT. That is a 25% chance to win after you get a TD. And that percentage goes down significantly if you leave any time on the clock. Being down 8 is not an good place to be. Really, not much better than having to recover an onside kick and get a FG. That is why the historical percentages are really close. It is really irrelevant to this problem which is better, although an interesting side track. What is relevant is I would rather take the 50-50 shot at the two-point conversion early and know I am down 7 or down 9 and play the game with the optimal strategy.

That 25% or whatever it is counting the chances the opposition scores (not to mention if you leave time on the clock there is also a chance you win in regulation) is greater than the chance of recovering an onside kick and kicking a field goal. Obviously I'd prefer to be down by 7 but I would also much rather be down by 8 than down by 9.

 

[jon_mx]

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!

 

[shnikies]

Shnikies, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but you're not the first person to argue against the nonexistent idea that a 9-point deficit is better than an 8-point deficit. You'll see it's been brought up and shot down numerous times before:

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.

I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

It is strange that you accuse me of not understanding what's going on here when you're the one who is clearly having a really hard time with it. I don't know if it's just a reading comprehension issue or something else, but it's not working out for you, unfortunately.

I didn't say you said the 9 point deficit is better but there are people over the last couple pages that are at least trying to say being down by 9 is at least no worse than being down by 8. Go to the pages around 19+. Calbear says "When a team is down 8 late in the fourth quarter, they tend to treat the game as if they can tie in one possession. So if they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll run something close to their normal offense and try to spend 4:00 going down the field. If they're down by 9 and they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll immediately go into their 2-minute offense."

Right, you're mischaracterizing the point he's trying to make. Probably a reading comprehension issue.

That might be true that teams do that but it's wrong and I have no idea why this is even being talked about. You obviously play when you're down by 8 as if you need two possessions. That's all I'm trying to say.

It's not at all obvious how you should play when you're down by 8 points. Playing as if you need two possessions is the wrong strategy half the time.

It's never wrong because you have to make the decision without the knowledge of knowing whether you make the conversion. There is only one best decision at that point and it's to score as quickly as possible and play as if you'll miss the 2 point conversion. It's the right strategy all of the time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Shnikies, I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but you're not the first person to argue against the nonexistent idea that a 9-point deficit is better than an 8-point deficit. You'll see it's been brought up and shot down numerous times before:

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.

I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

It is strange that you accuse me of not understanding what's going on here when you're the one who is clearly having a really hard time with it. I don't know if it's just a reading comprehension issue or something else, but it's not working out for you, unfortunately.

I didn't say you said the 9 point deficit is better but there are people over the last couple pages that are at least trying to say being down by 9 is at least no worse than being down by 8. Go to the pages around 19+. Calbear says "When a team is down 8 late in the fourth quarter, they tend to treat the game as if they can tie in one possession. So if they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll run something close to their normal offense and try to spend 4:00 going down the field. If they're down by 9 and they get the ball back with 4:00 left, they'll immediately go into their 2-minute offense."

Right, you're mischaracterizing the point he's trying to make. Probably a reading comprehension issue.

That might be true that teams do that but it's wrong and I have no idea why this is even being talked about. You obviously play when you're down by 8 as if you need two possessions. That's all I'm trying to say.

It's not at all obvious how you should play when you're down by 8 points. Playing as if you need two possessions is the wrong strategy half the time.

It's never wrong because you have to make the decision without the knowledge of knowing whether you make the conversion. There is only one best decision at that point and it's to score as quickly as possible and play as if you'll miss the 2 point conversion. It's the right strategy all of the time.

If you say so. The larger point is that the truly incorrect strategy is stupidly leaving yourself with an 8 point deficit in the first place. You have a chance at the 7 minute mark to clear up this confusion, but you'd intentionally choose not to.

 

[jon_mx]

That 25% or whatever it is counting the chances the opposition scores (not to mention if you leave time on the clock there is also a chance you win in regulation) is greater than the chance of recovering an onside kick and kicking a field goal. Obviously I'd prefer to be down by 7 but I would also much rather be down by 8 than down by 9.

It has nothing to do with the opposition scoring, in fact it assumes they don't. What it is if you score a TD when you are down by eight, two things must happen for you to win.1. You convert the two-point conversion (Roughly 50-50 shot) and force OT2. You win in overtime (Again a 50-50 shot)The probability those two events happen and you win = .50 x .50 = 25%

 

[shnikies]

That 25% or whatever it is counting the chances the opposition scores (not to mention if you leave time on the clock there is also a chance you win in regulation) is greater than the chance of recovering an onside kick and kicking a field goal. Obviously I'd prefer to be down by 7 but I would also much rather be down by 8 than down by 9.

It has nothing to do with the opposition scoring, in fact it assumes they don't. What it is if you score a TD when you are down by eight, two things must happen for you to win.1. You convert the two-point conversion (Roughly 50-50 shot) and force OT2. You win in overtime (Again a 50-50 shot)The probability those two events happen and you win = .50 x .50 = 25%

I know this. I don't know what your point is though. So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance? Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

 

[jon_mx]

It's never wrong because you have to make the decision without the knowledge of knowing whether you make the conversion. There is only one best decision at that point and it's to score as quickly as possible and play as if you'll miss the 2 point conversion. It's the right strategy all of the time.

I think I see the problem now.

 

[CalBear]

It's not at all obvious how you should play when you're down by 8 points. Playing as if you need two possessions is the wrong strategy half the time.

It's never wrong because you have to make the decision without the knowledge of knowing whether you make the conversion. There is only one best decision at that point and it's to score as quickly as possible and play as if you'll miss the 2 point conversion. It's the right strategy all of the time.

Playing as if you need two possessions when down by 8 might be the right thing to do. But no one actually does it, so if you're making the argument that going for one is correct because that's what teams do, you can't make the argument that playing as if you need two possessions down by 8 is correct, because that's not what teams do.In any case, the situation here is that you have the opportunity to be down 7, down 8, or down 9. Down 7 or down 9 it is entirely clear what you need to do. Down 8, half of the time you'll find that the strategy you chose reduced your chances of winning the game. Because if you rushed to get that second score, burned all your timeouts and left 2:10 on the clock, you'll look pretty silly when you make the 2-point conversion only to lose because the other team had plenty of time to go down and get a field goal.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I know this. I don't know what your point is though.

If you recognize that you don't understand the point, why do you keep fighting it?

So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance?

You're comparing the wrong probabilities here.

Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

No you're not.

 

[shnikies]

I know this. I don't know what your point is though.

If you recognize that you don't understand the point, why do you keep fighting it?

So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance?

You're comparing the wrong probabilities here.

Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

No you're not.

If you're down by 9 after you score a touchdown you need to recover an onside kick and kick a game winning field goal to win. If you're down by 8 you need the 2 point conversion, stop the opposition and then win in overtime. How are those the wrong probabilities?If you're down by 9 and score a touchdown, you're down by 2. If you're down by 8, score a touchdown and then miss the 2 point conversion, you're down by 2. How are those situations different? Being down by 2 is different than being down by 2?

 

[shnikies]

It's not at all obvious how you should play when you're down by 8 points. Playing as if you need two possessions is the wrong strategy half the time.

It's never wrong because you have to make the decision without the knowledge of knowing whether you make the conversion. There is only one best decision at that point and it's to score as quickly as possible and play as if you'll miss the 2 point conversion. It's the right strategy all of the time.

Playing as if you need two possessions when down by 8 might be the right thing to do. But no one actually does it, so if you're making the argument that going for one is correct because that's what teams do, you can't make the argument that playing as if you need two possessions down by 8 is correct, because that's not what teams do.In any case, the situation here is that you have the opportunity to be down 7, down 8, or down 9. Down 7 or down 9 it is entirely clear what you need to do. Down 8, half of the time you'll find that the strategy you chose reduced your chances of winning the game. Because if you rushed to get that second score, burned all your timeouts and left 2:10 on the clock, you'll look pretty silly when you make the 2-point conversion only to lose because the other team had plenty of time to go down and get a field goal.

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.

 

[jon_mx]

That 25% or whatever it is counting the chances the opposition scores (not to mention if you leave time on the clock there is also a chance you win in regulation) is greater than the chance of recovering an onside kick and kicking a field goal. Obviously I'd prefer to be down by 7 but I would also much rather be down by 8 than down by 9.

It has nothing to do with the opposition scoring, in fact it assumes they don't. What it is if you score a TD when you are down by eight, two things must happen for you to win.1. You convert the two-point conversion (Roughly 50-50 shot) and force OT2. You win in overtime (Again a 50-50 shot)The probability those two events happen and you win = .50 x .50 = 25%

I know this. I don't know what your point is though. So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance? Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

Again, I am not making that point, nor does it matter one bit to the problem. But as a side debate, the two probabilities are in the same ballpark.

between 2001 and 2008, NFL teams averaged 60 onside kicks a year and succeeded about 1 in 4.76 times. The 2007 NFL season boasted an even higher success rate. Of the 77 onside kicks attempted that season, 22 were recovered by the kicking team, a success rate of 1 in 3.5 times.

But that does bring up a good point. While I consider being down 8 marginally better than being down 9, being down 7 is twice as good as being down 8. If you agree with that assessment of those two, you should go for two early.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I know this. I don't know what your point is though.

If you recognize that you don't understand the point, why do you keep fighting it?

So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance?

You're comparing the wrong probabilities here.

Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

No you're not.

If you're down by 9 after you score a touchdown you need to recover an onside kick and kick a game winning field goal to win. If you're down by 8 you need the 2 point conversion, stop the opposition and then win in overtime. How are those the wrong probabilities?If you're down by 9 and score a touchdown, you're down by 2. If you're down by 8, score a touchdown and then miss the 2 point conversion, you're down by 2. How are those situations different? Being down by 2 is different than being down by 2?

Hint: If you're down by 9, you have options that aren't really available to you when you're down by 8. Think about it.Anyway, this is obviously not going anywhere. I like math problems, though, can I post some more of those? I was pretty disappointed that you didn't even attempt to answer any of the ones I posted for you last time around.

 

[shnikies]

I know this. I don't know what your point is though.

If you recognize that you don't understand the point, why do you keep fighting it?

So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance?

You're comparing the wrong probabilities here.

Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

No you're not.

If you're down by 9 after you score a touchdown you need to recover an onside kick and kick a game winning field goal to win. If you're down by 8 you need the 2 point conversion, stop the opposition and then win in overtime. How are those the wrong probabilities?If you're down by 9 and score a touchdown, you're down by 2. If you're down by 8, score a touchdown and then miss the 2 point conversion, you're down by 2. How are those situations different? Being down by 2 is different than being down by 2?

Hint: If you're down by 9, you have options that aren't really available to you when you're down by 8. Think about it.Anyway, this is obviously not going anywhere. I like math problems, though, can I post some more of those? I was pretty disappointed that you didn't even attempt to answer any of the ones I posted for you last time around.

Please list those options that you don't have when you're down by 8.

 

[shnikies]

That 25% or whatever it is counting the chances the opposition scores (not to mention if you leave time on the clock there is also a chance you win in regulation) is greater than the chance of recovering an onside kick and kicking a field goal. Obviously I'd prefer to be down by 7 but I would also much rather be down by 8 than down by 9.

It has nothing to do with the opposition scoring, in fact it assumes they don't. What it is if you score a TD when you are down by eight, two things must happen for you to win.1. You convert the two-point conversion (Roughly 50-50 shot) and force OT2. You win in overtime (Again a 50-50 shot)The probability those two events happen and you win = .50 x .50 = 25%

I know this. I don't know what your point is though. So, do you think recovering an onside kick and kicking a game winning field goal is higher than a 25% chance? Also, this doesn't include the fact that when you're down by 8 and miss the 2 pointer you're in the same situation as if you were down by 9 initially.

Again, I am not making that point, nor does it matter one bit to the problem. But as a side debate, the two probabilities are in the same ballpark.

between 2001 and 2008, NFL teams averaged 60 onside kicks a year and succeeded about 1 in 4.76 times. The 2007 NFL season boasted an even higher success rate. Of the 77 onside kicks attempted that season, 22 were recovered by the kicking team, a success rate of 1 in 3.5 times.

But that does bring up a good point. While I consider being down 8 marginally better than being down 9, being down 7 is twice as good as being down 8. If you agree with that assessment of those two, you should go for two early.

I believe recovering the kick alone is 25% and that doesn't include having to get into field goal range and then making the field goal. Even if they're in the same ballpark if one is greater than the other then you have an advantage.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Please list those options that you don't have when you're down by 8.

Think about it.

 

[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.

 

[jon_mx]

I believe recovering the kick alone is 25% and that doesn't include having to get into field goal range and then making the field goal. Even if they're in the same ballpark if one is greater than the other then you have an advantage.

All that has to happen for going for two early to win the argument on this point is:The advantage of 7 vs. 8 has to be greater than the advantage of 8 vs. 9. I am not sure you will follow that logic, but it is a reasonable assessment.

 

[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?

 

[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 8

You 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 attempt

There are so many variables that crudely approximating the percentages is unknowable so why are we having this discussion

The 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.

 

[jon_mx]

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?

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.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[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.