Down by 14 in the 4th Quarter (1 Viewer)

[secretid]

This is a cross-post of sorts from 2plus2.

A gentleman there determined that if XPs are converted at 98% and 2 pt conversions at 42% (I'm trusting his numbers) then a team should go for 2 upon scoring if they were down by 14. If they succeed they go for the XP next time, if they fail they obviously go for 2.

The Math:

Combos In Going For 2

Succeed on 1st, Make XP on 2nd (AHEAD 1) = 41.12%

(.42 * .98)

Succeed on 1st, Miss XP on 2nd (EVEN) = 0.01%

(.42 * .02)

Fail on 1st, Succeed on 2nd (EVEN) = 24.36%

(.58 * .42)

Fail on 1st, Fail on 2nd (BEHIND 2) = 33.64%

(.58 * .58)

I'll save you the math on going for 1 but it works out to being even 96.88% of the time, and behind 3.22% of the time. Assuming OT is a 50/50 proposition you win 48.44% of the time going for 1 after the first TD.

By Going for 2 after the first TD, you win 53.30% of the time (again assuming 50/50 for OT)

Now the assumptions in this are extensive. You first must assume that there is only time for one more score. You must assume that OT is a 50/50 shot for your team. You must also assume that there are no "momentum" effects of missing the 2PC. There are also some 2nd level considerations like the effect of going for 2 more often on your conversion rate.

REGARDLESS, the basic math shows that going for 2 is easily the correct move, but coaches would likely be mobbed for losing a game by making the technically correct decision.

Thoughts?

P.S. - I stated being ahead by 1 in the event as a win, and being down by 1 or 2 as a loss. Obviously an additional FG for your team or the opposition changes this, but that has no bearing on the numbers. If you can't see why PM me rather than cluttering the thread.

 

[aposulli]

This is a cross-post of sorts from 2plus2.

A gentleman there determined that if XPs are converted at 98% and 2 pt conversions at 42% (I'm trusting his numbers) then a team should go for 2 upon scoring if they were down by 14. If they succeed they go for the XP next time, if they fail they obviously go for 2.

The Math:

Combos In Going For 2

Succeed on 1st, Make XP on 2nd (AHEAD 1) = 41.12%

(.42 * .98)

Succeed on 1st, Miss XP on 2nd (EVEN) = 0.01%

(.42 * .02)

Fail on 1st, Succeed on 2nd (EVEN) = 24.36%

(.58 * .42)

Fail on 1st, Fail on 2nd (BEHIND 2) = 33.64%

(.58 * .58)

I'll save you the math on going for 1 but it works out to being even 96.88% of the time, and behind 3.22% of the time. Assuming OT is a 50/50 proposition you win 48.44% of the time going for 1 after the first TD.

By Going for 2 after the first TD, you win 53.30% of the time (again assuming 50/50 for OT)

Now the assumptions in this are extensive. You first must assume that there is only time for one more score. You must assume that OT is a 50/50 shot for your team. You must also assume that there are no "momentum" effects of missing the 2PC. There are also some 2nd level considerations like the effect of going for 2 more often on your conversion rate.

REGARDLESS, the basic math shows that going for 2 is easily the correct move, but coaches would likely be mobbed for losing a game by making the technically correct decision.

Thoughts?

P.S. - I stated being ahead by 1 in the event as a win, and being down by 1 or 2 as a loss. Obviously an additional FG for your team or the opposition changes this, but that has no bearing on the numbers. If you can't see why PM me rather than cluttering the thread.

I was thinking this the other day.If a coach had balls and an above average red-zone Offense, assuming the Defense wasn't dominant.... would it be completely insane NOT to go for 2 in MOST situations?

It my opinion, the only factor would be how much faith the coach had in the O.

If I had Tom Brady and to a lesser extent, Peyton Manning guiding my O for example, or a mobile QB, I would think you have a much higher rate of conversion.

 

[secretid]

Actually considering that the conversion rate is 42% on average I would assume that very few teams will score more pts by going for 2 most of the time.

AND, even for teams that could score more pts by going for 2 that doesn't actually make it necessarily correct. In many situations the value of that first point is much greater than the value of the 2nd one.

The specific framing of this question is what offers up the possibility of gaining by going for 2 in a situation where virtually no one does.

 

[richn]

If an NFL coach is down by 14 in the 4TH, he is happy to go to OT. He needs to kick the sure PAT's (98%). Missing 1 or 2 2 pt conversions, he will be 2nd guessed way too much.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.

There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

 

[thayman]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

You also have to consider how badly a coach would be killed with the media, and fans if he didn't convert on either 2pt conversion.

 

[Daisuke Matsuzaka]

I don't think many coaches will "assume" that their chances of wining in OT are 50/50, which is something this entire discussion depends on.

 

[secretid]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

I don't think you read the post. Even at a 38% conversion rate this makes sense if it's the end of the game and you're down 14... Reread it.

 

[redman]

Going to overtime is its own safe harbor and a victory of sorts for a coach whose team is down by 14 late. I think most coaches would coach in this situation primarily to avoid criticism than to play to win based upon an obscure and complex mathematical formula that most fans (and radio commentators and writers) wouldn't understand and would criticize you for if you failed.

It's perhaps not the way it "should" be, but it's the way most coaches think.

 

[LTsharks]

Going to overtime is its own safe harbor and a victory of sorts for a coach whose team is down by 14 late. I think most coaches would coach in this situation primarily to avoid criticism than to play to win based upon an obscure and complex mathematical formula that most fans (and radio commentators and writers) wouldn't understand and would criticize you for if you failed. It's perhaps not the way it "should" be, but it's the way most coaches think.

Good point. Most coaches who are down 14 late in the game and are able to get the game to overtime would probably consider that a "win". Afterall, it was a great comeback even if it comes up just short in overtime.So in their minds (using the above numbers) this means:extra points = 96.88% win2 point conversion = 66.36% win

 

[sinatravolta]

I think that's very interesting and I buy that especially as it gets later in the 4th quarter - that this is probably the right call. It's almost like a lesser version of the Moneyball kind of stats where for example everyone just assumed batting average was a key stat, when actually OBP is much better.

But it would be hard to explain to not only the press and fans, but also your players. And the gain is fairly minor as you have to be in the right situation - and you have to come through with both TDs - to make it matter. So you're talking about a small percentage gain in a situation that occurs rarely in the first place (you successfully come back from 2 TDs down in the 4th quarter).

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

It's been pretty well pointed out, that while mathematically, this is the thing to do a coach would never make that call.

It's pretty similar to going for it on 4th down. I remember watching something on ESPN years ago where some mathmatician did a proof prooving that it would be better to go for it something like 98% of the time on 4th downs, instead of punting. I think the only exceptions were the cases of 4th and 50, etc.

 

[richn]

You'd have to convert 51 percent of your 2 point conversions to make it worth your while. Considering that most teams have special plays when they go for 2 points, the average that you mention of 42 percent would actually go down if one were to go for it every down because these so called "special 2 point plays" would no longer exist as everyone would see them via game film tape week in week out.

There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

You also have to consider how badly a coach would be killed with the media, and fans if he didn't convert on either 2pt conversion.

Sounds familliar....see my post above

 

[Todem]

Never go for 2 unless you have to. And I would never be going for 2 before the 4th quarter ever. take the easy almost certain extra point.

The percentages speak for themsleves. ( Baseball minded thinking on my part)

End of Story.

 

[CalBear]

There are a lot of coaches in football and a lot of games have been played. I'm sure if coaches thought they could get some sort of an advantage from always going for 2 points they would have done so all along.

Without weighing in on the general topic, I strongly disagree with this assertion. Coaches in all sports make decisions which are incorrect in terms of expected value, all the time.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not sure I agree with the math. Getting 2 XP is about a 99% sure thing. So there is probably only a 1% chance of not going to OT.

If you go for two points, there is roughly a 60% probabilty that you WON'T make it. Then the next trip you HAVE to make it to even tie (and again have roughly a 60% chance of failing).

IMO, the risk of failure is too great when you are all but guaranteed to go to OT. If you go for it and miss, you have to hope and pray to get back to what was all but a sure thing to begin with (going to OT).

If I were a coach and considering this, I might be convinced to go for two points, just out of a kick formation as the element of surprise should add to your chances of success.

 

[pats3in4]

Anecdote: The Pats played the Chiefs in a high-scoring affair in 2002. The Pats could not stop Priest Holmes to save their lives, but the Chiefs couldn't stop Brady either. The Chiefs were on the Pats' one yard line with just seconds to play, down 38-31. Everyone in the stadium (and watching on TV) knew Priest was getting the ball and was likely to score as time expired. He did. Suddenly, a horrifying thought overcame most of the Pats fans...what if the Chiefs go for two?!? Everyone was confident that whoever won the coin toss was going to win on the first drive of OT, and with the Pats having no success stopping the Chiefs in the 2nd half, it was probably the Chiefs' best chance to win right then and there.

Vermeil kicked the PAT and sent the game to OT.

The Pats won the toss, drove the field and kicked the winning FG.

To this day, I'm convinced the Chiefs win that game 39-38 if they went for two. Holmes was ripping off runs at 8 yards a pop (I'm not exaggerating) in the 2nd half as the Pats' run D completely fell apart. Yet Vermeil, who I consider a sharp coach, likely couldn't stomach the thought of explaining a failed two point conversion to his players, coaches, ownership and fans, despite the odds of victory being in his favor.

This was a prime situation where going for two instead of playing for OT would have been a wise choice, yet was bypassed. If it wasn't done in this situation, I don't see any widespread change of coaching philosophy forthcoming.

 

[kensat30]

I go for 2 every time in Madden. Seems to work out really well for the most part.

 

[pagermill]

A few years back when the greatest show on turf was in full swing...didn't they go for 2 each time when Wilkins went down iwith an injury? And they were really successful. I remember a post discussing if they should do it full time.

I'll try and find the info to the game.

 

[pagermill]

Here's the info...year 2000. Looks like they went 4 for 5.

First Quarter

Atl--D.Vaughn 96 kickoff return (M.Andersen kick), 0:16.

StL--T.Horne 103 kickoff return (J.Wilkins kick), 0:36.

Atl--T.Mathis 16 pass from C.Chandler (M.Andersen kick), 4:46.

Second Quarter

StL--T.Horne 3 pass from K.Warner (L.Fletcher pass from K.Lyle), 0:05.

StL--J.Watson 2 run (conversion failed), 11:44.

Atl--J.Anderson 4 run (M.Andersen kick), 13:04.

StL--A.Hakim 30 pass from K.Warner (M.Faulk run), 14:57.

Third Quarter

StL--R.Holcombe 12 pass from K.Warner (M.Faulk run), 8:03.

Fourth Quarter

Atl--T.Dwight 16 pass from C.Chandler (J.Anderson run), 10:33.

StL--M.Faulk 3 run (R.Williams pass from K.Warner), 13:51.

A--66,019.

 

[ExtraPoint]

I don't think many coaches will "assume" that their chances of wining in OT are 50/50, which is something this entire discussion depends on.

Having the momentum and confidence in a comeback and the general belief that their team is better than it really is has to play in their minds.Another thing that most coaches are thinking is that their defense has an equal chance to decide things as their offense does. I think the exception comes when you have a team like the Bengals or Colts. For the Bengals/Colts, going for two in this situation makes a lot more sense than for the Bears. First of all, the odds of the Bengals/Colts making the two point conversion is better. Secondly, the Bengals/Colts win most games with their offense, while the Bears win most games with their defense. For the Bears, this means they first want to get the game within 7 points to put the opponent's offense in a situation where they are more likely to take a chance. I remember that game where Kurt Warner's Rams played without a kicker... they did fine. Manning should go for it. Grossman should not.

 

[The Duff Man]

Mathematically it works assuming you are going to score two TDs and your opponent is not going to score, but in football you can't discount the emotional part of the game.

There would be a huge emotional letdown for your team if you missed the first two point conversion. This is not shown in the model given but would effect your ability to score the second TD.

Secondly, if you were successful on the first attempt, the opposition would be leading by 6. There would be a big emotional difference in their offense knowing that if they give the ball back and give up a TD they will lose. It would also likely effect their play calling.

What is not shown is how going for it and either making it, or not making it, would impact your ability to get that second TD. Of course this is impossible to model.

On the other hand, I am sure there are some teams that are well above the league average in conversions, and some that are well below. If you are a team that was well above and found yourself in this situation it would definitely be worthwhile.

 

[midwest_kc]

Anecdote: The Pats played the Chiefs in a high-scoring affair in 2002. The Pats could not stop Priest Holmes to save their lives, but the Chiefs couldn't stop Brady either. The Chiefs were on the Pats' one yard line with just seconds to play, down 38-31. Everyone in the stadium (and watching on TV) knew Priest was getting the ball and was likely to score as time expired. He did. Suddenly, a horrifying thought overcame most of the Pats fans...what if the Chiefs go for two?!? Everyone was confident that whoever won the coin toss was going to win on the first drive of OT, and with the Pats having no success stopping the Chiefs in the 2nd half, it was probably the Chiefs' best chance to win right then and there.Vermeil kicked the PAT and sent the game to OT.The Pats won the toss, drove the field and kicked the winning FG.To this day, I'm convinced the Chiefs win that game 39-38 if they went for two. Holmes was ripping off runs at 8 yards a pop (I'm not exaggerating) in the 2nd half as the Pats' run D completely fell apart. Yet Vermeil, who I consider a sharp coach, likely couldn't stomach the thought of explaining a failed two point conversion to his players, coaches, ownership and fans, despite the odds of victory being in his favor.This was a prime situation where going for two instead of playing for OT would have been a wise choice, yet was bypassed. If it wasn't done in this situation, I don't see any widespread change of coaching philosophy forthcoming.

Actually, it may have made a difference for Vermeil, though. If you remember last year, a similar situation happened against the Raiders, though this time they were down by 3, no timeouts left, and at either the 1 or 2 yardline. They could have kicked a field goal, and gone into OT against the Raiders, at home, but instead went for the TD with LJ. He scores, Chiefs win, he's a hero. Would be interesting to see what would have happened had LJ been stopped, but maybe that Pats game played a role in his decision there.

 

[pats3in4]

Anecdote: The Pats played the Chiefs in a high-scoring affair in 2002. The Pats could not stop Priest Holmes to save their lives, but the Chiefs couldn't stop Brady either. The Chiefs were on the Pats' one yard line with just seconds to play, down 38-31. Everyone in the stadium (and watching on TV) knew Priest was getting the ball and was likely to score as time expired. He did. Suddenly, a horrifying thought overcame most of the Pats fans...what if the Chiefs go for two?!? Everyone was confident that whoever won the coin toss was going to win on the first drive of OT, and with the Pats having no success stopping the Chiefs in the 2nd half, it was probably the Chiefs' best chance to win right then and there.Vermeil kicked the PAT and sent the game to OT.The Pats won the toss, drove the field and kicked the winning FG.To this day, I'm convinced the Chiefs win that game 39-38 if they went for two. Holmes was ripping off runs at 8 yards a pop (I'm not exaggerating) in the 2nd half as the Pats' run D completely fell apart. Yet Vermeil, who I consider a sharp coach, likely couldn't stomach the thought of explaining a failed two point conversion to his players, coaches, ownership and fans, despite the odds of victory being in his favor.This was a prime situation where going for two instead of playing for OT would have been a wise choice, yet was bypassed. If it wasn't done in this situation, I don't see any widespread change of coaching philosophy forthcoming.

Actually, it may have made a difference for Vermeil, though. If you remember last year, a similar situation happened against the Raiders, though this time they were down by 3, no timeouts left, and at either the 1 or 2 yardline. They could have kicked a field goal, and gone into OT against the Raiders, at home, but instead went for the TD with LJ. He scores, Chiefs win, he's a hero. Would be interesting to see what would have happened had LJ been stopped, but maybe that Pats game played a role in his decision there.

That's interesting. I was not aware of that Raiders game last year. Maybe that 2002 Pats game did play a role in his decision to go for the TD and the win.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i love posts like this. The NFL all too often is burdened by its precedent-like approach. Conventional wisdom is far too common.

I can see the merit in this argument and the math certainly doesnt lie. I guess i would say though it would have to be a team by team consideration. ie...Is your team one that converts 60% of 2 pt conversions vs 24%. How tired is your defense? How bad is your kicker? Is it snowing? Is the game a shootout, or has your defense pretty much been stiff?

 

[Kiko13]

I'm not sure I agree with the math. Getting 2 XP is about a 99% sure thing. So there is probably only a 1% chance of not going to OT.

The original post assumed 98% success rate of the extra point. So based on that the MATH is correct. If you're claiming it's 99% success rate, then your issue is with the assumptions, not the math. By the way, a 99% success rate translates to 1.99% (almost 2%) chance of not going to OT (0.99*0.99=0.9801).

If you go for two points, there is roughly a 60% probabilty that you WON'T make it. Then the next trip you HAVE to make it to even tie (and again have roughly a 60% chance of failing).

Ya, but they have a 64% chance of making at least one of them.The math is correct, but that doesn't mean coaches should go for 2. If the season were 1000's of games long, this might be worthwhile, where law of averages has a chance to take a meaningful affect. In real life, this scenario may only come up once in a season and if they fail and miss the playoffs by one game, there's a good chance that coach is going to get fired. If I told you I had a biased coin where heads came up 52% of the time, would you bet your job (assuming you like your job) on heads on a single flip? Probably not.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not sure I agree with the math. Getting 2 XP is about a 99% sure thing. So there is probably only a 1% chance of not going to OT.

The original post assumed 98% success rate of the extra point. So based on that the MATH is correct. If you're claiming it's 99% success rate, then your issue is with the assumptions, not the math. By the way, a 99% success rate translates to 1.99% (almost 2%) chance of not going to OT (0.99*0.99=0.9801).

If you go for two points, there is roughly a 60% probabilty that you WON'T make it. Then the next trip you HAVE to make it to even tie (and again have roughly a 60% chance of failing).

Ya, but they have a 64% chance of making at least one of them.The math is correct, but that doesn't mean coaches should go for 2. If the season were 1000's of games long, this might be worthwhile, where law of averages has a chance to take a meaningful affect. In real life, this scenario may only come up once in a season and if they fail and miss the playoffs by one game, there's a good chance that coach is going to get fired. If I told you I had a biased coin where heads came up 52% of the time, would you bet your job (assuming you like your job) on heads on a single flip? Probably not.

I'm still not buying the math argument.If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

 

[Z-Dog]

Mathematically it works assuming you are going to score two TDs and your opponent is not going to score, but in football you can't discount the emotional part of the game.There would be a huge emotional letdown for your team if you missed the first two point conversion. This is not shown in the model given but would effect your ability to score the second TD.Secondly, if you were successful on the first attempt, the opposition would be leading by 6. There would be a big emotional difference in their offense knowing that if they give the ball back and give up a TD they will lose. It would also likely effect their play calling.What is not shown is how going for it and either making it, or not making it, would impact your ability to get that second TD. Of course this is impossible to model.On the other hand, I am sure there are some teams that are well above the league average in conversions, and some that are well below. If you are a team that was well above and found yourself in this situation it would definitely be worthwhile.

While I agree about the emotional side of football, I think the point about the response by the other team is telling. If you are up 14, and you give up a TD and 2-point, you're only up six. Being up 7 calls for a more conservative offensive approach, centered on eating up as much time as possible. Being up by six makes scoring again a much higher priority. So basically, if you are assuming that you will score, it makes sense to go for two. But that's not a realistic way to make coaching decisions.

 

[Gamblor]

I'm still not buying the math argument.

If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.

If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

 

[Marc Levin]

Jimmy Johnson used to regularly make decisions like this earliewr in the game when he coached the Dolphins.

Makes no sense in the 4th, however.

When down by 14 in the fourth, you are no longer playing for the win - you are playing to catch up, tie the game, maybe win in regulation, but really you are happy with OT.

 

[Gamblor]

Jimmy Johnson used to regularly make decisions like this earliewr in the game when he coached the Dolphins.

Makes no sense in the 4th, however.

When down by 14 in the fourth, you are no longer playing for the win - you are playing to catch up, tie the game, maybe win in regulation, but really you are happy with OT.

Id argue the complete opposite. Makes no sense earlier in the game, when there is a lot of time left on the clock. The other team can still score impacting the results of your decision. The only time it makes sense is in the 4th when you have to score twice, and the depend on the hope that the other team won't score at all.No one is happy with overtime, unless it results in a win. OT loss/regulation loss still result in the same points.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm still not buying the math argument.

If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.

If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

 

[Gamblor]

I'm still not buying the math argument.

If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.

If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

You arent considering two chances at it though.If I told you to flip a coin 6 times, would your chances of getting heads once be 50%?

 

[Perfect Tommy]

There is no doubt that teams screw this up all the time. And I don't buy the argument that coaches are afraid of facing the press. It would be easy. Just smile and say "I am a gambler" or some such thing. It would make the coach appear macho. What coaches really hate is losing, and their refusal to make the correct gaming decision promotes losing. It is just stupid. A statistician was on one of the NFL shows a couple of seasons ago and commented on going for it on 4th and 1, which is usually correct. He said that there may be other considerations at times which make punting or going for the FG a better play, but the mathematically correct play has to be right SOMETIMES. It can't always be right to make the mathematically incorrect play.

 

[Archie Bunker]

Jimmy Johnson used to regularly make decisions like this earliewr in the game when he coached the Dolphins.Makes no sense in the 4th, however. When down by 14 in the fourth, you are no longer playing for the win - you are playing to catch up, tie the game, maybe win in regulation, but really you are happy with OT.

It is actually quite the opposite.Late in the game, mathematically (assuming no other variables are involved and your team is at least close to average in conversion %) it makesperfect sense. Emotionally, it may not.Early in the game, other variables, such as the other team scoring tds or fgs, makes it much more complex.

 

[Marc Levin]

Jimmy Johnson used to regularly make decisions like this earliewr in the game when he coached the Dolphins.

Makes no sense in the 4th, however.

When down by 14 in the fourth, you are no longer playing for the win - you are playing to catch up, tie the game, maybe win in regulation, but really you are happy with OT.

Id argue the complete opposite. Makes no sense earlier in the game, when there is a lot of time left on the clock. The other team can still score impacting the results of your decision. The only time it makes sense is in the 4th when you have to score twice, and the depend on the hope that the other team won't score at all.No one is happy with overtime, unless it results in a win. OT loss/regulation loss still result in the same points.

Makes no sense ever, IMO. The use of "however" was me mispeaking. I was just saying JJ used the theory a few times earlyin games when the damage of not making it could be minimized and he had more opportuity to get the lost point back.But, JJ would also go for onside kicks at bizarre points in the game, and th guy was a big time gambler

 

[Marc Levin]

It is actually quite the opposite.

See above.

 

[toppshelff]

Rigorous statistical methods in football, like they are used more and more in baseball. Be interesting to see if it happens.

Another note for the scenario above. Assuming there is, say 5 minutes on the clock. Going for 2 sets up a scenario where 2 field goals could be kicked to tie it, as well. They recover a quick onside kick, and are 4th and long with a couple minutes on the clock, kick the field goal, and try it again.

I know you assumed only two drives, but this possibility could only increase the advantage of going for 2.

 

[Archie Bunker]

I'm still not buying the math argument.

If a team tried 100 XPs, they will make 98 and end up with 98 points.

If a team tried 100 2-point conversions, they will make 42 and end up with 84 points.

No offense - but the math is cut and dry. There is no debating it, unless you also dont buy that a square has 4 sides.

How is my math wrong? The more XP you kick, the more points you'll have when you are done.

Let's say you are in this position 100 times.~40 times you win in regulations by converting the 2-pt first, then kicking the PAT 2nd.

~34 times you lose by failing both conversions.

~26 times, you go to OT. Of those games, you win 13 and lose 13.

Add them all up and you win 53 and lose 47.

In very simple terms, it gives you multiple opportunities to win (in regulation and in OT). By kicking PATs, your only chance of winning is in OT.

Now, this all assumes no other variables are involved. If your team is poor at conversion, below about 30-35, the math doesn't work. Or, if you feel your team is superior to the other, then you think your chance of winning in OT is really high, then go for the PATs

 

[Gamblor]

Jimmy Johnson used to regularly make decisions like this earliewr in the game when he coached the Dolphins.

Makes no sense in the 4th, however.

When down by 14 in the fourth, you are no longer playing for the win - you are playing to catch up, tie the game, maybe win in regulation, but really you are happy with OT.

Id argue the complete opposite. Makes no sense earlier in the game, when there is a lot of time left on the clock. The other team can still score impacting the results of your decision. The only time it makes sense is in the 4th when you have to score twice, and the depend on the hope that the other team won't score at all.No one is happy with overtime, unless it results in a win. OT loss/regulation loss still result in the same points.

Makes no sense ever, IMO.

The use of "however" was me mispeaking. I was just saying JJ used the theory a few times earlyin games when the damage of not making it could be minimized and he had more opportuity to get the lost point back.But, JJ would also go for onside kicks at bizarre points in the game, and th guy was a big time gambler

The math shows it does make sense, given the right circumstances and teams involved, regardless of your opinion. It would have to be a bold coach to give it a shot though.

 

[Archie Bunker]

It is actually quite the opposite.

See above.

You know what they say about opinions and.....everyone's got one. You still can't argue with the math. See above.

 

[Marc Levin]

See above as in I don't like the call

Quote all the math you want - emotionally, and as a sports fan, I would be pissed at my team's HC for going for two when down by 14.

I'd have MoRE respect for him as a "gambler" if he went for two on the following TD.

 

[Miscellaneous]

The math is fine, but it's still actually wrong. You're assuming that any offense in the NFL, against any defense, in any situation, will be successful at the same rate. That's stupid.

Cleveland Browns, down 14 to the Chicago Bears, better kick the XPs.

 

[mbuehner]

I'd kick the field goal.

 

[Marc Levin]

The math is fine, but it's still actually wrong. You're assuming that any offense in the NFL, against any defense, in any situation, will be successful at the same rate. That's stupid.

Cleveland Browns, down 14 to the Chicago Bears, better kick the XPs.

Good point.That's why football = way better than baseball. When you have 160 games, you can play the stats. When you have 1/10 as many games, you play it safe.

 

[Marc Levin]

P.S. - the "math" also uses a league average of scoring 2pt conversions.

I don't think the Broncos, Ravens and Bears are as easy to score 2pt conversions against as Houston, St. Lou and Green Bay.

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's say you are in this position 100 times.

#1) If as a coach you are behind 14 points late 100 times, you won't have a job.#2) You would have to coach for 50+ years to be in this situation 100 times.So there is basically a 3% advantage (win 53 times vs 50 times by kicking). But kicking the XPs gives you only a 1-2% chance of losing in regulation as opposed to a 34% chance of losing in regulation by failing two conversion attempts. As others have said, playing to tie keeps coaching jobs and flat out losing casues coaching vacancies.

 

[Gamblor]

See above as in I don't like the callQuote all the math you want - emotionally, and as a sports fan, I would be pissed at my team's HC for going for two when down by 14.I'd have MoRE respect for him as a "gambler" if he went for two on the following TD.

My way is RigHT cause I say so!

 

[Archie Bunker]

The math is fine, but it's still actually wrong. You're assuming that any offense in the NFL, against any defense, in any situation, will be successful at the same rate. That's stupid.

Cleveland Browns, down 14 to the Chicago Bears, better kick the XPs.

I very clearly stated that it assumes no other variables are involved. As for your example, I think quite the opposite may be the right decision. Assuming Cleveland is about average in converting, they have about a 40% chance of winning (assuming they score twice). If they take the PATs and go to OT, do you think they have a 40% chance of beating the Bears? If not, go for two. If Cleveland is well below average but has a kicker that can regularly boot a 50+ yard FG (for OT), then take the PATs. Now, that's just one variable. Home vs. away is probably a consideration as well.

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

 

[Marc Levin]

And, Marc finally admitted that it is an emotional decision, not one based on statistics. No one remembers when a coach goes for two and wins. No one forgets Tom Osborne and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 20+ years later.

No - I always admitted it was an emotional decision.Gamblor's response - whatever, dude.

I didn't even come close to saying my way is right because I said so - I said I' be pissed if the HC of my favorite team did it.