Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

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.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

Onside kickingmore often? I wont take stabs at your numbers because I'm sure they are available somewhere and someone will post real ones soon.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have, but it depends on some parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to take the median or average of people answers for your model?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

..........are u [censored] kidding?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I have no [censored] idea. I'll let others elaborate.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

1/2. No idea really

3. Almost zero. Unless a routine mid-range pass breaks into a long, long TD, it ain't going to happen.

Well, I think I see the point you're driving at. In #1, you have the option to go for 2 after the TD, which allows for you to go ahead by 3. That would require the opposing team to get a TD for the win rather than a FG or TD. By getting a FG, the chances of your opponent getting a winning score is higher even though it puts you in the lead for the time being since they have more scoring flexibility.

Therefore, if the chances of 1 + 3 happening are greater than 2, then it may make more sense to go for the TD.

Something like that. I'm probably wrong though.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

1 = 10%
2 = 25%
3 = less than 5% (Not every TD in scenerio 3 will be unneeded. For example, if your WR turns what should be 20 yard gain into a TD on the 1st play, you just left more than 2 minutes on the board. Your TD is hardly unneeded at that point.

I think you are driving at the fact that coaches are making -EV decisions early in the game that may see them needing a TD as opposed to a field goal late in the game, not fully realizing that they would be better off playing for 2 after a TD on many more occasions than they do. That is why you used "down by 5 points."

You are going to use our own numbers to show 2 point frequency rates and then discuss the gap between the percentages in questions 1 and 2.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I think you are driving at the fact that kicking two fgs is better.
Assuming they are both league average teams on both sides of the ball (Not two really good offensive teams and bad defensive teams) I would guess something like 20%, 35%, 5%, but I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

10%
30%
1% (but 3rd one is difficult... i doubt the coach considers the final TD unnecessary, but final score does.... )

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

1) 10-15%
2) 30%
3) <5%

There's some fuzzy math behind #'s 1&2, just took a guess for #3. No idea what you're driving at.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I hope you are driving at coaches playing for FGs far too often, which I agree with


otherwise....I have no clue

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

So much depends on the skill level and tendencies of the League. We don't know if you're talking NFL, CFB, or, hell, HSFB. Answers would differ if you were talking about Pac10 or C-USA.

But, why not:

25
35
8

Not really sure what you're driving at.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

Let's play a new game, odds that Sklansky replies in this thread? I say 90% that he starts a new one.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I guess I just remember the times it succeeds, but it seems as though teams get decents looks on field goals in this situation.

1. High Teens %
2. Mid to High 30's
3. Very rarely like 3-5% I guess

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.

This probably might become more interesting if the team with the ball is trailing by 1 instead.
Again, it's 2nd and 1 on the 10 with 1:40 left and the defending team has no time-outs.

If you let him score a TD right now then you get the ball back with about 1:30 left trailing by either 5 or 7.
If you stop them from getting a FG then you will get the ball back with about :15 left trailing by 2.

Has to be better chances with the first option.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.




[/ QUOTE ]

Packers/Bronco's Superbowl?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea is much more applicable when a team is up by one and either the defense stupidly doesn't allow the team to score or the offense stupidly goes in for a TD instead of falling down.

Edit: Washington appeared to have done this against the Eagles earlier this year when they were down by 1 after a turnover and smartly let Westbrook run it in from the 10.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.

This probably might become more interesting if the team with the ball is trailing by 1 instead.
Again, it's 2nd and 1 on the 10 with 1:40 left and the defending team has no time-outs.

If you let him score a TD right now then you get the ball back with about 1:30 left trailing by either 5 or 7.
If you stop them from getting a FG then you will get the ball back with about :15 left trailing by 2.

Has to be better chances with the first option.

[/ QUOTE ]
GB Denver SB but that was tied and probably the right decision tho I don't remember specifics.
I'd guess
19%
39%
1%
have to be stats about this somewhere.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

part 3 has to be more than 1% I would think.
There's 2:30 to go AND 2 time-outs left for crying out loud. Very easy for some team to score a TD with 1:00 left or something.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

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?...16%



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.)...37%

3. Same as above. Down by one. About how often will they surprisingly score an unneeded touchdown?...11%


EXTRA CREDIT

Tell me what I am driving at
that internet players are better then kenny tran

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about this as I was watching the GB-Dallas game. Similar situation, around the 2 minute warning GB was down by 7, Dallas had the ball at around GB's 20. Clearly in FG position. I would think it would be much better to let Dallas score a TD before the 2 minute warning and being down 14 with in essence 2 TO's left that be down 10 with 1 minute left and no TO's (which is exactly what happened.)

BTW, what coached would think like this? Shanahan most likely. Belichick? I think so.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

2 and a half minutes is a lot of time and teams can do awfully well when using all 4 downs

40%
60%
10%

I thought the point he was driving at was that a team trailing by 1 should be content to stop short of the goal line and set up a chip shot FG as time expires, rather than scoring a TD and leaving the other team time to march the other way.

Regarding the Redskins/Eagles game, the Redskins did admit after the game that they had let Westbrook score, and Westbrook responded that if he'd known they were letting him score, he would have kneeled at the 1. All players should be instructed NOT to score unnecessary TDs in spots such as that.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

20
40
2.5

Here\'s The Situation
 

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. Two 70% shots are an underdog but it doesn't feel that way to a non gambler. Thus they go for two point shots, bunt, punt, etc. etc. when they shouldn't. Or sometimes go for one extra point rather than two. 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.

But this particular play I have never before seen done, or talked about. Not even by the mathematically inclined. For it to be right you need things to be kind of just so. And you can't fall back on clear cut statistics like you can with the two point conversion, when down by eight, scenario.
Still I believe that what I am about to propose is often the right decision with about five minutes to go in the game. Especially if your team has a good defense and only a so so field goal kicker. Because it comes up so rarely and is most likely close and less obviously provable than other errors, I wouldn't even mention it. Except that it may be an original idea. For now I will state it without going into the relevant calculations. I will leave that to others.

If you score a touchdown with five minutes or so left in the game and that puts you down by exactly four points, go for two.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the Redskins/Eagles game, the Redskins did admit after the game that they had let Westbrook score, and Westbrook responded that if he'd known they were letting him score, he would have kneeled at the 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
He should kneel whether they're intentionally letting him score or not. I can't really fault someone for not kneeling though. Besides even if he tried to stop and kneel it would be very easy to hit him from behind and knock him into the end zone. That would be something hilarious to watch; almost as good as Reid challenging to take an INT away from his cornerback (I forget which one it was).

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

ugh.

with 5 min left i dont see much difference between being up 5 or 6. but being up 4 sucks.

5 min is plenty of time for the other team to score and leave some time on the clock. now when we get the ball back
i would much prefer to be driving for the winning field goal, rather than the tie.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
ugh.

with 5 min left i dont see much difference between being up 5 or 6. but being up 4 sucks.

5 min is plenty of time for the other team to score and leave some time on the clock. now when we get the ball back
i would much prefer to be driving for the winning field goal, rather than the tie.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a matter of fact I hate going for ties as well so I completely agree with you. You know your football. Reading is another matter.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

It's down 4, not up by 4.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

damn i even read the post twice so i didnt say anything stupid.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

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.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you score a touchdown with five minutes or so left in the game and that puts you down by exactly four points, go for two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you ask for 2pt conversion stats? If you assume ~50% (I don't know what the real number is, and I'm sure it varies a lot based on matchups for individual tries), then it looks like you're clearly right.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

This should help. So might this, for those who are into this sort of thing.

So, based on the table in the first link:

1) About 21-25%.

2) About 33-36%

Not based on the table, but I'd say that (3) is about 2-5%.

Note that the table is giving numbers for starting from your own 10 or 30 (not your 20), and with 2 minutes left (not 2:30), so my numbers are just guesses as to where the numbers in OP's scenarios would fall.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

1. 15-20%

2. 50%

3. 5%


Obv. I think the discrepancy in difficulty between getting a TD & FG in this spot is a lot wider than most.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ 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.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ 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.

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

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

Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you score a touchdown with five minutes or so left in the game and that puts you down by exactly four points, go for two.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.