RealGM

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... for.2.html

I thought this was an interesting article. Basically, if you're down by 14 and get a TD, you should go for 2 to make it a 6-point game and have a chance to win in regulation. If you don't get it, you're down by 8 and still have a chance to tie it up.

Assuming that a 2-point conversion is successful 45% of the time, extra points are 100%, and OT is 50/50, the math works out thus (assuming you get both TD's):

45% chance of winning the game in regulation
24.75% chance of going to OT
30.25% chance of losing in regulation

= 57.375% chance of winning (45% + 24.75%/2)

... vs. kicking extra points and having a 50% chance in OT.

I kind of wish NFL coaches would think more like this instead of being conservative all the time.

No

Learn math


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I kinda wish teams went for 2 more often as well but late in games, it's better to play it safe and just keep kicking XPs.

Higga wrote:I kinda wish teams went for 2 more often as well but late in games, it's better to play it safe and just keep kicking XPs.

Why? You can lose the game in OT.

epheisey wrote:Learn math


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there a problem with my math?

this all depends on how much time is on the clock. going for two with 30 secs or more doesn't really make sense since other team can get to the field goal range within that time frame and win the game anyway, so risk payout is low especially if you're going against a good qb.

if there is few seconds left on the clock, i'd go for two if i am the less talented team. that's probably my best chance to win the game since talent tends to rise to the top as the game goes on.

Keller61 wrote:

epheisey wrote:Learn math


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there a problem with my math?

I could use some learning too. I still think that article is incorrect mathematically, and that would make your math wrong....but I don't have the brains to explain it properly. I can't logically understand how a team that is down by 14 ever has a greater chance to win than the team that is up by 14. That doesn't add up in my brain, and I'm sure there's something there to put this all into the correct perspective, but I don't know what that is.

On the football side of things: It very well may provide a better statistical chance to win, but it also provides a better statistical chance to lose in regulation. A coach can be forgiven if he puts his team into OT and loses. He will get roasted if his team doesn't even make it to the 50-50 round.

That's where I'm a little confused with your math. For the team that is losing, 50% chance to win would essentially be their best probability in that given situation. That's why they shoot for OT. At least, that's logically what my brain tells me.

Maybe I'm the one that needs to learn math. But it doesn't look right.

epheisey wrote:

Keller61 wrote:

epheisey wrote:Learn math


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there a problem with my math?

I could use some learning too. I still think that article is incorrect mathematically, and that would make your math wrong....but I don't have the brains to explain it properly. I can't logically understand how a team that is down by 14 ever has a greater chance to win than the team that is up by 14. That doesn't add up in my brain, and I'm sure there's something there to put this all into the correct perspective, but I don't know what that is.

On the football side of things: It very well may provide a better statistical chance to win, but it also provides a better statistical chance to lose in regulation. A coach can be forgiven if he puts his team into OT and loses. He will get roasted if his team doesn't even make it to the 50-50 round.

That's where I'm a little confused with your math. For the team that is losing, 50% chance to win would essentially be their best probability in that given situation. That's why they shoot for OT. At least, that's logically what my brain tells me.

Maybe I'm the one that needs to learn math. But it doesn't look right.

Ah, well the math takes for granted that you score the two necessary TDs and the other team doesn't score. Of course, that has to happen for you to get to the point where these probabilities apply.

Under that scenario, it's essentially the same as if you're down 2 and are given two conversion attempts. You could kick two extra points and go to OT, but it's better to go for 2.

Pointless to go for a 2 point conversion isn't it? You need two touchdowns anyways.

I am a fan of unconventional playcalling (we all know how aggressive bellicheck is and how successful he has been). However, to me it doesn't make much sense to go for 2 when you can knock yourself out of the game if you don't get it, but the reality is you have to feel out the opponent and the game situaton.

What I have always thought is that teams down by 15 should go for 2. This way you're either down 9 (two posessions or 7 (one possession) which would dramatically impact the way to coach the remainder of the game.

epheisey wrote:

Keller61 wrote:

epheisey wrote:Learn math


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Is there a problem with my math?

I could use some learning too. I still think that article is incorrect mathematically, and that would make your math wrong....but I don't have the brains to explain it properly. I can't logically understand how a team that is down by 14 ever has a greater chance to win than the team that is up by 14. That doesn't add up in my brain, and I'm sure there's something there to put this all into the correct perspective, but I don't know what that is.

On the football side of things: It very well may provide a better statistical chance to win, but it also provides a better statistical chance to lose in regulation. A coach can be forgiven if he puts his team into OT and loses. He will get roasted if his team doesn't even make it to the 50-50 round.

That's where I'm a little confused with your math. For the team that is losing, 50% chance to win would essentially be their best probability in that given situation. That's why they shoot for OT. At least, that's logically what my brain tells me.

Maybe I'm the one that needs to learn math. But it doesn't look right.

The math in the article is fine. It's saying that a team down 14 points late, assuming they score 2 touchdowns which they will have to do regardless, has a greater chance to win the game if they go for 2 on the first touchdown than if they kick an extra point. It's pretty tough to argue with.

You're right about the bolded though, and in a way you just demonstrated it. Should a coach do this and lose the game because of it, the fans/media will eat him alive (depending on who he is) and either not pay any mind to the fact that it was the right decision mathematically, or claim that it was the wrong decision mathematically.

If we're assuming they score two touchdowns, than maybe. However, no coach in his right mind is going to make that assumption during a game. You are looking to make up the points you're down.

Analytics doesn't work in all situations at all times. The nerds need to learn that.

Yoshun wrote:If we're assuming they score two touchdowns, than maybe. However, no coach in his right mind is going to make that assumption during a game. You are looking to make up the points you're down.

As opposed to just giving up?

It's a legit take, but coaches are too afraid of looking bad.

Worm Guts wrote:

Yoshun wrote:If we're assuming they score two touchdowns, than maybe. However, no coach in his right mind is going to make that assumption during a game. You are looking to make up the points you're down.

As opposed to just giving up?

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying no coach is going to assume they will:
1. Lose in OT
2. Be able to make both 2s

I would be like Oregon and have the threat of going for two regardless depending on how the other team lines up.

Yoshun wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

Yoshun wrote:If we're assuming they score two touchdowns, than maybe. However, no coach in his right mind is going to make that assumption during a game. You are looking to make up the points you're down.

As opposed to just giving up?

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying no coach is going to assume they will:
1. Lose in OT
2. Be able to make both 2s

You don't need to make both 2's. You just need to make one. If you make the first, you kick the 2nd extra point and win. If you make the second, you're in the exact same position you would have been had you kicked both.

Worm Guts wrote:

Yoshun wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:
As opposed to just giving up?

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying no coach is going to assume they will:
1. Lose in OT
2. Be able to make both 2s

You don't need to make both 2's. You just need to make one. If you make the first, you kick the 2nd extra point and win. If you make the second, you're in the exact same position you would have been had you kicked both.

True, but if you miss the first one you're forced to go for it again the second time. The chance of making a 2 is just above 50% while the chance of making an extra point is just below 100%. Really it depends on whether or not you want to win in regulation. Obviously, if you kick 2 extra points, in this scenario, the chance of winning in regulation is 0%. You would be depending on OT.