The Two Point Conversion When Eight Down

[adios]

One of the problems is that when things don't work out i.e. the underdog comes in, coaches can't really explain their decision process to a math ignorant fan base (including the media). As simple as the mathematical concepts are, IMO most folks will dismiss a mathematically based argument out of hand without even considering it. IMO it's sort of a group think mentality. When you go against the accepted modus operandi things better work out If they don't the negative feedback is something most coaches would prefer not to deal with. I agree that this a weak justification, just an explanation.

BTW I think you're right on the money regarding the mathematical aspect of game time coaching decisions. I'm fairly certain that basketball strategy is one area where a more mathematical approach would benefit coaches a great deal. I base this mainly on the 3 point shot in basketball and how it should be utilized.

[joes28]

think Yeti made a good point. A team who makes a comeback like this most likely has a greater win percentage than 50% when making it to OT. Id say this percentage (of course this percentage would always be an estimate the coach would have to make) would be big enough to swing the decision to a kick the majority of the time.

So maybe the decision to kick should be based on how the team fell behind in the first place, if they fell behind because of a few fluke plays, then go ahead and kick, but if they fell behind because they were getting their ass handed to them and then made some fluke plays and came back the decision should be to go for 2.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of coaches in general, I think this is probably true. However, that doesn't explain situations like the one David posted about, where it is very clear what the correct move is, and yet every singe coach gets it wrong every single time. Surely somebody has explained this to one coach or owner, right?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that going for 2 will be criticized on TV every day (less so if it works) heavily by every TV "expert" right? Then the fan base gets angered and wants a new coach. Then coach gets fired. Coaches aren't going to do anything that might get them fired. (outside of the crappy on field coaching) It's correct mathematically will not work as an explanation to 90% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that htere are more than a handfull of coahces in the league who aren't going to take much heat when it fails? Parcells ain't gettin fired, Belicheck, Cowher? You think Cower's going anywhere? Sahnahan, Holmgren (now that hes taken Seattle to a SB hes got a few more years). MOrover if going for it and succeding adden a win to your year and brought you into the playoffs it might just save your job.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of coaches in general, I think this is probably true. However, that doesn't explain situations like the one David posted about, where it is very clear what the correct move is, and yet every singe coach gets it wrong every single time. Surely somebody has explained this to one coach or owner, right?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that going for 2 will be criticized on TV every day (less so if it works) heavily by every TV "expert" right? Then the fan base gets angered and wants a new coach. Then coach gets fired. Coaches aren't going to do anything that might get them fired. (outside of the crappy on field coaching) It's correct mathematically will not work as an explanation to 90% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that htere are more than a handfull of coahces in the league who aren't going to take much heat when it fails? Parcells ain't gettin fired, Belicheck, Cowher? You think Cower's going anywhere? Sahnahan, Holmgren (now that hes taken Seattle to a SB hes got a few more years). MOrover if going for it and succeding adden a win to your year and brought you into the playoffs it might just save your job.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be interesting perhaps to go over the history in NFL games since the 2 pt. coversion was re-instated and see how the seasons might have been affected. The Steelers made into the playoffs last year as a 6th seed and won the Super Bowl. Perhaps they would have been derailed from making the playoffs with some more mathematically correct coaching decisions. Just one example.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My claim is that most coaches do not know the math or don't believe it when it is mentioned to them. Their excuses come after the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Their error is similar to poor single-table SnG tournament players who don't push a wide enough range of hands when they or their opponents are short-stacked on the bubble.

There is an apparent psychological tendency to become overly "conservative" in these situations and not make the best decision based on the math.

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they kick the extra point when they should go for two

[/ QUOTE ]

Often this is also the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of these is a mistake (I think) I remember seeing twice. A team is down by 15. They score a touchdown (so they are now down by 9), and they go for the 2-pt conversion. They miss, and now they still need 2 scores. Isn't it *much* better here to kick the PAT and make it a 1 score game?

-Tom

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they kick the extra point when they should go for two

[/ QUOTE ]

Often this is also the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of these is a mistake (I think) I remember seeing twice. A team is down by 15. They score a touchdown (so they are now down by 9), and they go for the 2-pt conversion. They miss, and now they still need 2 scores. Isn't it *much* better here to kick the PAT and make it a 1 score game?

-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to make a 2 point conversion why would it make any differnece if you attempt it with 4 min left, or with 10 secs left. In fact i would think that going for it on the first try is MUCH better since when you miss there might still be a way to get the ball back twice (go for two onsides kicks) and have a shot at planning the game better. If you miss on your last shot you have no way of altering your game plan to reflect that fact.

[jccookjr]

David, you might find this interfootballcommentary.com

A model-based approach to football strategy.

May 29, 2004
[Home] [Back To Article]

Two-Point Conversion Chart
The chart shown below, computed using the footballcommentary.com Dynamic Programming Model, is intended to provide guidance on when to attempt a two-point conversion.

The rows are labeled by the lead after scoring a touchdown, but prior to the attempt at an extra point or points. The columns are labeled by the amount of time remaining in the game.

As an example of how to use the chart, suppose that after scoring a touchdown you trail by 5 points, with 21:00 remaining in the game (i.e. 6:00 left in the 3rd quarter). In the row corresponding to minus 5, and the column corresponding to 21:00, the entry is 0.31. This means you should attempt a two-point conversion if your probability of making it exceeds 0.31. NFL teams make about 40% of their two-point conversions, or perhaps a bit more. So when trailing by 5 with 21:00 to play, going for two is the correct play.

For another example, suppose that after scoring a touchdown you lead by 4 points, with 5:00 remaining in the game. In the row corresponding to 4, we interpolate between the columns corresponding to 3:00 and 6:00, and find that the interpolated Chart entry is 0.47. This means you should attempt a two-point conversion if your probability of making it exceeds 0.47. For most if not all NFL teams, the correct choice is to kick.

Time Remaining In The Game
3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 24:00 27:00 30:00
30 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.71 0.65 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57
29 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.51
28 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60
27 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
26 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.44
25 0.66 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58
24 0.97 0.93 0.79 0.68 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
23 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.55
22 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.48
21 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58
20 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60
19 0.27 0.24 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.41
18 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56
17 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60
16 0.95 0.86 0.71 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51
15 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.46
14 0.72 0.69 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.59
13 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58
12 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.38
11 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.56
10 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
9 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.53 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.47
8 0.92 0.76 0.70 0.59 0.53 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.45
7 0.58 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
6 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.56
5 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36
4 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.53
3 0.93 0.90 0.84 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.62
L 2 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40
E 1 0.10 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.44
A 0 0.97 0.95 0.90 0.84 0.78 0.73 0.69 0.66 0.63 0.62
D -1 0.56 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
-2 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.36
-3 0.86 0.77 0.73 0.67 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54
-4 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58
-5 0.05 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37
-6 0.54 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44
-7 0.95 0.88 0.84 0.78 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.62
-8 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42
-9 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
-10 0.03 0.14 0.26 0.35 0.42 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.52
-11 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.52
-12 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40
-13 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.41
-14 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60
-15 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41
-16 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39
-17 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.52
-18 0.01 0.09 0.23 0.34 0.39 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.48
-19 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38
-20 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.42
-21 0.82 0.76 0.71 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58
-22 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39
-23 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40
-24 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.32 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.49
-25 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.44
-26 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.28 0.35 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40
-27 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40
-28 0.79 0.76 0.70 0.66 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.55
-29 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40
-30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39

Copyright © 2004 by William S. Krasker
esting.

[jojobinks]

hit 2 / hit one -- > win
.42*.98 = 41.16%

miss 2 / miss 2 --> loss
.58*.58= 33.64%

OT = the rest of the time
1-(33.64+41.16)= 25.2%

total win% = 53.76
total loss %= 46.24

thank you good night.

[retleftolc]

Here is an article on the subject.

Linkypooh

You can also go to footballoutsiders.com for similar discussions. Its like a "Moneyball" for football.

ret