Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't easier to score touchdowns from the 29 than it is from, say, the 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to look, but the Eagles redzone offense has been pretty bad this year. They might have more scores from outside the 20.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First let me say that the general principle in this and many of these scenarios, is the average person or coach's incorrect gut feeling about going for ties that have to be played off. They just don't gamble enough when they can go for the win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you saw the Eagles - Patriots game.

The Eagles were down by 3 with a 2 and 4 at about the 29 with a little less than 4 minutes to go.

They went for a touchdown right then and there. At first I hated the call based on them giving up the much easier goal of getting a first down

I don't know if the touchdown pass was the best choice but there is some merit to "gambling" for a win before they hit the red zone where it is much harder to score a touchdown as the defense gets compacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to post exactly this...

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't easier to score touchdowns from the 29 than it is from, say, the 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to look, but the Eagles redzone offense has been pretty bad this year. They might have more scores from outside the 20.

[/ QUOTE ]


C'mon guys.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have, but it depends on some parameters. So before I reveal it I want to ask some preliminary questions. Please don't answer it before thinking about it a little because I won't let you wiggle out if you try to claim my conclusions are wrong when I base it on your own numbers.

1. Two good equally matched football teams. Two and a half minutes to go in the game. The team losing by 5 is on their own 20 and has two time outs left. About how often will they score a touchdown?

2. Same situation but they are down by one point. About how often will they score a field goal (assuming they have a good field goal kicker.)

3. Same as above. Down by one. About how often will they surprisingly score an unneeded touchdown?

I realize that the answers depend on a lot of unstated things but you can still give me a ballpark average, which should be good enough.

EXTRA CREDIT

Tell me what I am driving at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking NFL or college? Two-minute drill-type scores come more quickly in college, even without the two-minute warning, because of the clock stopping on first downs. I'm pretty sure there'd be a different set of correct responses to your questions if we are talking college instead of NFL.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't easier to score touchdowns from the 29 than it is from, say, the 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to look, but the Eagles redzone offense has been pretty bad this year. They might have more scores from outside the 20.

[/ QUOTE ]


C'mon guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that crazy. The Eagles have 8 TDs from outside the redzone and 16 inside with a 0.486 prob of scoring a TD once inside.

To really answer this though you'd also need to know the probability of them being able to go from the 29 to inside the 20 (or 10 as the original poster said) and also what their TD percentage when they went for a TD when outside the redzone.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
But if you miss the 2 point conversion you can't tie the game with a field goal!

Edit: I will concede that a safety gives us the tie if we convert. Now I see why you think we need a good defense to go for this, but that also requires a good kick-off, so we do in fact need a good kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ben, at first I thought your post was playful/sarcastic. But your edit seems to say that you were serious. DS's point is that the emotional response of [ QUOTE ]
But if you miss the 2 point conversion you can't tie the game with a field goal!

[/ QUOTE ] is misleading. Even if you tie the game with an FG, you're still a dog to win the game (assuming some time has been left on the clock). Whereas, if you go for two, 50% of the time you'll be in position to take a 65-75% edge.

I hate it when posters don't do their own math. How many times have I posted, "So you think he should 3bet. Great. I was so curious what XXX thought the OP should do here. XXX says 3bet. Sadly, XXX you've left it up to us to figure out why." If you have a theory post your arguments for it.

OK, we've scored to make the score 23-27 and we have the option of going for 2, converting 50% of the time, or kicking for 1, converting 100% of the time. There is 5min left, and for us to be considering a win, there will be 2-3 more possessions in the game.

We kick the ball off and pray for defense. Our defense holds them to no score 65%. They get a FG 25%, a TD 10%. The TD% is meaningless as it means other team wins whether we're down 2,3,4. The FG% is very meaningful as its value has been greatly effected by our strategy decisions. If we had been down 2 or 3, the FG puts us down 5,6 - a TD wins it for us. If we we're down 4, a FG makes our TD only tie the game with a 7pt TD. So this is the first question. What is the FG% when we give them the ball back?

But we have stellar defense and they go 3 and out. We take 3-4 min to go down the field and score. we were down:
2: a FG gives us a 65% win. A TD gives us a 75% win.
3: a FG gives us a .65(chance other team scores) x .5(win in OT) = 33% win. A TD gives us a 75% win. Which leads to the next question - When down by 3, how often do we score a TD as opposed to a FG?
4: we've been given an extra down instead of a FGA. The extra down results in an eventual TD, (this is our third question: how often does the extra down lead to a TD) lets say 20% of the time. That TD gives us a win 65%, a tie 20%, a loss 15%, so a 75% win 20% of the time. A 15% win when down by 4.

Our defense allows a FG and we get the ball back down:
5: win 25%
6: win 25%
7: win 12.5%

So we do need to remember that our gamble will cost us if we then allow a FG. How much it costs us depends on how often the other team scores a FG, leaving us enough time for a drive.

So we have 3 rather important variables to consider before making the final calculations:
1. What is the FG% when we give them the ball back?
2. When down by 3, how often do we score a TD as opposed to a FG?
3. When forced to go for a TD instead of kicking it on 4th down, how often does the extra down lead to a TD?

Of course that's not even all the extra variables we've added. There is additional value to knowing you only need a FG to win - you can run out the clock before setting up the FG. It feels like there are too many variables here to come up with a sound mathematical answer. Guesstimate final numbers have it as a 54% win if we kick the extra point, and a 45% win if we go for two when down 4. This ignores the value gained from being able to run the clock before setting up for game winning FG. Also ignores the cost of being down 7 when 2pt fails and they get a FG. Questions 2 and 3 have the greatest effect on estimates. Of course, all this is predicated on the DS's notion that the other team WILL get the ball back for that final drive. I think my numbers have been unfair to DS because of this. Being down 2 gives us a great chance of kicking the game-winning FG as time expires.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

david, which team are you talking about scoring an unnecessary TD?

the team that is down by 1? i.e. they score 2 TD's

or the team that is up by 1? i.e. the ball turns over, they score one TD that takes the margin to 8 and clock down near zero

i'd put first at 1-2%... second at 6-7%, given that the losing team hasn't scored. obviously if losing team scores, then it is necessary

but i'm seeing 10% that losing team scores two TD's from own 20 with little time and 2 timeouts. maybe my 1% was too low.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]
Two small counterarguments with no proof = ownage imo.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't just my opinion. Many experts have shown that some of these errors are egregious. The apologists invoke psychology to defend the coaches. But that is usually disengenuous because the coach had no idea that psychology would have to be his excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology isn't the reason that coaches refuse to gamble in some spots. It's because their jobs are on the line if they do something drastic and blow it. Unlike professional gamblers, the rest of the world and team ownership are results-oriented. So, if a coach were to do something retarded and still win, nobody would give a damn. But doing something that is mathematically correct won't change the fact that an unconventional decision cost your team the playoffs.

You can do something that is mathematically correct in the long run. But in the end, what matters is the here and now rather than other games in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

SUB-

This is the exact post I was just going to make. I agree 100%.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure MT2R has owned a lot of other threads on this forum in the same way.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]
Two small counterarguments with no proof = ownage imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

no proof???


didn't I show where coaches had come across such ideas?
didn't I show where the 2 pt conversion rate has been inversely related to the number of 2 pt attempts in a season?

hmmmm.... I understand most of the forum cannot think through dynamic systems and understand what is truly at play, but my god

not small counter-arguments at all

there is only so much time to practice and so many key short yardage plays that a team can have

LOL @ using one of those plays down 8 to get a 2 pointer when they might need one for a future TD drive when the math isn't overwhelming

I basically pointed out where the whole framework and assumptions don't apply
seems like a fatal flaw

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure MT2R has owned a lot of other threads on this forum in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...yeah...I've been shown to be so wrong on the Bonds thing

oh yeah....I wasn't

lollerskates

you can attack me personally over and over, all it does is embarrass you

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

Sklansky,

Good point actually.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]

didn't I show where the 2 pt conversion rate has been inversely related to the number of 2 pt attempts in a season?

[/ QUOTE ]

A link to a NYT article that contained the following sentence which you quoted:

[ QUOTE ]
But a funny thing has been happening at the same time: offenses have regained the upper hand on conversion attempts.

[/ QUOTE ]

was the entirety of your evidence. Note that that is not a quantitative statement. If you were to show that the size of that effect was substantial enough to impact Sklansky's reasoning, that would be a good argument. What you are doing instead is waving your hands, and instead of saying something like "Here is a possible counterargument," you're saying "OWNED YOUR FACE OFF SLANKSY"

EDIT: What evidence is there that football coaches have thought through this mathematically? Anecdotally, it sounds like baseball has only recently gotten into sabermetrics, and that's a sport which seems like it has a considerably longer history of statistical analysis.

EDIT 2: Funnily, immediately after the sentence from the NYT article comes this piece of wisdom: "(Sackrowitz says teams now do not go for 2 often enough.)"

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

did you miss the stats given in the thread?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

even using the wrong model

assumptions:
-xp pct was way off
-team down late in the game would average 42% on 2 pointers
-team that didn't get the 2 down 8 would still be 42% to convert the second 2 pointer
-team that comes back from 14 down is only 50/50 in OT
-the 2pt conversion rate would remain the same with opposing coaches expecting it more
-going for 2 on the first TD does not have any effect on the probability of scoring a second TD

I don't know how someone who can think logically wouldn't highly question all of those assumptions

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

MT2R,

I don't care one way or the other, but it's pretty much a given that any time someone declares "victory" in an internet debate a bunch of people are going to come along and try to shoot holes in his argument.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know how someone who can think logically wouldn't highly question all of those assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]

Questioning assumptions is good. There is an obvious assumption in your reasoning as well: "High level football coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and rejected it." I find that assumption highly questionable, too.

EDIT: Also, where do you cite stats for how frequency of 2 pt. conversions translates to success rates?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure MT2R has owned a lot of other threads on this forum in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I've been owned by him like that at least once or twice.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

i linked articles in the other thread

the main coaches in today's game, whose disciples are everywhere, have considered it

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R,

I don't care one way or the other, but it's pretty much a given that any time someone declares "victory" in an internet debate a bunch of people are going to come along and try to shoot holes in his argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


that was pretty much a shot at Sklansky who did the same in the original thread

sorry if that wasn't clear

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i linked articles in the other thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to the lone article you cited in support of the 2 pt. conversion. It does not provide those stats; it provides the sentence I quoted earlier on. So, no, you didn't provide stats. (EDIT: To be clear, it provides some stats earlier in the article; it does not provide direct, hard evidence to explain exactly what it means by when the rate of going for it went down, the success rate went up. But these are the stats that matter for your argument.)

Let's look at the other article, showing that coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and taken it into account. Here's a typical quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a professor from Cal-Berzerkely?" asked Giants head coach Jim Fassel, in the true tradition of a former Stanford man.

Fassel turned a sheet with the equation on it sideways, then upside down in a humorous attempt to absorb its subtleties.

"What does the professor coach?" Fassel asked. "Maybe," he added, "he needs a few more classes to teach. Too much free time?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Brian Billick, the cerebral head coach of the Baltimore Ravens, isn't so sure about all of the professor's numbers.

"There are only two numbers," Billick said. "And those are 50-50. You either make it, or you don't."

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from telling us that Billick would be something in BBV, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be indicative that coaches have performed this type of searching analysis and found it wanting.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i linked articles in the other thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to the lone article you cited in support of the 2 pt. conversion. It does not provide those stats; it provides the sentence I quoted earlier on. So, no, you didn't provide stats. (EDIT: To be clear, it provides some stats earlier in the article; it does not provide direct, hard evidence to explain exactly what it means by when the rate of going for it went down, the success rate went up. But these are the stats that matter for your argument.)

Let's look at the other article, showing that coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and taken it into account. Here's a typical quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a professor from Cal-Berzerkely?" asked Giants head coach Jim Fassel, in the true tradition of a former Stanford man.

Fassel turned a sheet with the equation on it sideways, then upside down in a humorous attempt to absorb its subtleties.

"What does the professor coach?" Fassel asked. "Maybe," he added, "he needs a few more classes to teach. Too much free time?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Brian Billick, the cerebral head coach of the Baltimore Ravens, isn't so sure about all of the professor's numbers.

"There are only two numbers," Billick said. "And those are 50-50. You either make it, or you don't."

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from telling us that Billick would be something in BBV, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be indicative that coaches have performed this type of searching analysis and found it wanting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pandering to Joe Sixpack LDO

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

stats......hahahahhahahahahahahhaha... to combat what? The fake assumptions presented?

don't the ones trying to set up the model have to justify the stats they use

or is solving a math problem that doesn't capture the situation at hand enough???

GMAFB

don't the articles also mention Bilicek and Mariucci going over the work?


there were stats given in the thread for 96 through 2000
success rate was 40.8% and had it's best results early. As used more, success declined.

Then again, I'm blown away by the supposed infinite pool offenses have of 42% successful plays to get 2 yards.

--these are not independent, isolated trials..this isn't blackjack and it's an insult to analyze the game like it is
this is a dynamic system

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't just my opinion. Many experts have shown that some of these errors are egregious. The apologists invoke psychology to defend the coaches. But that is usually disengenuous because the coach had no idea that psychology would have to be his excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology isn't the reason that coaches refuse to gamble in some spots. It's because their jobs are on the line if they do something drastic and blow it. Unlike professional gamblers, the rest of the world and team ownership are results-oriented. So, if a coach were to do something retarded and still win, nobody would give a damn. But doing something that is mathematically correct won't change the fact that an unconventional decision cost your team the playoffs.

You can do something that is mathematically correct in the long run. But in the end, what matters is the here and now rather than other games in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your second paragraph. But I wonder how many coaches purposely do what they know to be the wrong play for your reason. Few, if any, I'd venture to say. At least not. without discussing it with the owner first.

And what is that last paragraph supposed to mean?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
stats......hahahahhahahahahahahhaha... to combat what? The fake assumptions presented?

don't the ones trying to set up the model have to justify the stats they use

or is solving a math problem that doesn't capture the situation at hand enough???

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, Sklansky forgot to include clutchness in his calculations.

EDIT: And yes, they do mention that Belichick looked at the paper, which was about 4th downs. He appears to go for 4th downs slightly more often than is the norm, based purely on the anecdotal evidence of me watching football games. So some coaches clearly look at it. But to suggest that the football conventional wisdom is clearly based on such iron-clad analysis, as you seem to be, is dumb.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

no...I'm suggesting that thinking one has found that error with 2-pointer down 14 and that it hasn't been considered before is dumb...that model is severely flawed and demonstrates a huge lack of basic understanding of football as a dynamic system

alot of conventional wisdom in football is wrong...dead wrong... mainly the amount of times teams play for FGs, the lack of going for it near midfield, and the lack of taking shots down the field on 3rd and medium/long situations

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no...I'm suggesting that thinking one has found that error with 2-pointer down 14 and that it hasn't been considered before is dumb...that model is severely flawed and demonstrates a huge lack of basic understanding of football as a dynamic system

alot of conventional wisdom in football is wrong...dead wrong... mainly the amount of times teams play for FGs, the lack of going for it near midfield, and the lack of taking shots down the field on 3rd and medium/long situations

[/ QUOTE ]

If your second paragraph is true, then why is it dumb to think that one has found a mathematical nuance that hasn't been considered before?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

that isn't dumb, but one should really check the validity of there assumptions if they are going to go up against conventional wisdom

to present the argument as I've seen it presented is laughable

The first question should be 'what is wrong with the model?'
Instead, the proponent just questioned 'what is wrong with NFL coaches?'

that was dumb when the model is severely flawed

It's also silly in that I've heard that criticism before and there were posted sources that talked about it



Perhaps one should analyze whether it's better to go for 2 up 7 or kick the point.

Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

First assume that after scoring to go down by four you stop them. (This assumption hurts my position because if you go for one and they come back to score a field goal, a rare last second comeback touchdown by you is a win rather than a tie [if you missed the two pointer]. But since this scenario is so rare, I will ignore it.)

Assume also that overtime is even money.

Now to throw out some reasonable numbers, we will say that after scoring and stopping them you have a twenty percent chance of scoring a touchdown if you need it (because you missed the two pointer). And if you don't need it you will come back and score a field goal 40% and a touchdown another 3%.

If a two conversion is 40% and a one pointer is 100% (the real numbers help my case a bit) then:

If you go for one you will win 23%. The touchdown plus half your chances of making a tying field goal.

If you go for two your chances of wining is 40%x43% = 17.2% when you succeed and score PLUS 60%x20% = 12% when you fail on your two pointer but come back with a touchdown. That adds up to 29.2%. Quite a bit better than 23%.

Drop the needed touchdown percent to 15% and we still have a clear edge for the two point attempt.

Again remember that these numbers assume the opponent is stopped. The real numbers are smaller.

It is important to realize that plays like this come up not only because of disadvantages of going for ties but also because of poker like advantages of going last. It is sometimes worth giving up a little bit of instant EV if it will make a later decision more clear cut. For instance suppose you dealt five cards to an opponent who drew to them and showed you his hand. You win if your five cards, after drawing, beat him. Knowing what you have to beat is enough of an advantage that you could lay a small price every hand. This football situation may be analogous.

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you go for one you will win 23%. The touchdown plus half your chances of making a tying field goal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this number come from? I'm assuming you used someone's estimate from this thread to get the 23%?

Wait- I just realized, you're using the 3% TD + 1/2*40% FG? That's not going to be correct. The 3% TD is for when you are down 2 and don't need the TD to win. If you are down 3, you are obviously going to go for the TD much more often than if you're down 2 (see the Oregon St/Cal finish.)

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
First assume that after scoring to go down by four you stop them. (This assumption helps my position because if you go for one and they come back to score a field goal, a rare last second comeback touchdown by you is a win rather than a tie [if you missed the two pointer]. But since this scenario is so rare, I will ignore it.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I don't see how this assumption helps your case. It seems like it hurts it. If you don't stop them and they kick a FG, then obviously you would hope that you had kicked the XP to be down by only 6.

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First assume that after scoring to go down by four you stop them. (This assumption helps my position because if you go for one and they come back to score a field goal, a rare last second comeback touchdown by you is a win rather than a tie [if you missed the two pointer]. But since this scenario is so rare, I will ignore it.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I don't see how this assumption helps your case. It seems like it hurts it. If you don't stop them and they kick a FG, then obviously you would hope that you had kicked the XP to be down by only 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

My misprint. Changed it.

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you go for one you will win 23%. The touchdown plus half your chances of making a tying field goal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this number come from? I'm assuming you used someone's estimate from this thread to get the 23%?

Wait- I just realized, you're using the 3% TD + 1/2*40% FG? That's not going to be correct. The 3% TD is for when you are down 2 and don't need the TD to win. If you are down 3, you are obviously going to go for the TD much more often than if you're down 2 (see the Oregon St/Cal finish.)

[/ QUOTE ]

My 3% figure(for a touchdown, while playing for a field goal), unlike the last preliminary question I asked originally, did in fact assume that a field goal will only come back and tie. So it might be too low. And if it is high enough, it makes me wrong. That is one reason that there has to be a fairly small window of time left for the play to be considered. Enough time to get that touchdown if it is really needed, but not enough time to make a concerted effort for it if it is not.

Still the figures I postulated were so far in favor of the two pointer, that it would surprise me if the actual figures were enough off to always change the decision back to a one pointer.

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

Re: Some Simplistic Assumptions That Would Justify My Play
 

MT2R,
Two point conversions aren't rare a spot as they are very similar to most redzone plays. The dynamic system can improve chances as well.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

I think you are right. You should go for two if you are down by 4, 8, 11, 15, . . . .

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Psychology isn't the reason that coaches refuse to gamble in some spots. It's because their jobs are on the line if they do something drastic and blow it. Unlike professional gamblers, the rest of the world and team ownership are results-oriented. So, if a coach were to do something retarded and still win, nobody would give a damn. But doing something that is mathematically correct won't change the fact that an unconventional decision cost your team the playoffs.

You can do something that is mathematically correct in the long run. But in the end, what matters is the here and now rather than other games in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your second paragraph. But I wonder how many coaches purposely do what they know to be the wrong play for your reason. Few, if any, I'd venture to say. At least not. without discussing it with the owner first.

And what is that last paragraph supposed to mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that coaches don't run the same exact scenario time and time again in a live game to ensure that something might be mathematically correct. They have one chance to succeed when it comes to a very critical, game-changing decision and they don't want to screw it up.

For example, going for two instead of kicking the extra point might be mathematically correct for some teams. But if you're down by one point in the Super Bowl with no time left in the 4th quarter, you go for two and miss, then you still lost the game because you didn't take a safer route, kick the XP, tie the game and play for OT.

How many coaches will have the opportunity to replay that in real-time to show ownership that it was mathematically correct to go for two? Coaches are lucky to get to one Super Bowl, let alone multiple tries.

Ownership doesn't want reasons no matter how good they are. Even if they understood the reasons and agreed with it, it doesn't matter. They want results. Good results keep the fans in their seats and the money flowing in. There is no owner that will say to a head coach, "Gee, you made great decisions the whole time. So even though the team went 2-14 this season, lost significant fan support, spent 100M+ on currently underachieving players, I'm going to give you a contract extension." I cannot see that going over too well with anybody.