The Two Point Conversion When Eight Down

[FishSticks]

Tom,

I think you're just hearing what you want to hear from me. As I've said numerous times, my position was that although the algebra DS presents clearly dictates we must go for 2 in this situation - these statistics are flawed and can not be accurately applied to gametime situations as is, thus the entire basis of the argument is flawed.

We could say "If we assume that we convert 55% of our 2-point conversions, should we go for pretty much all the time?". Well, obviously, outside of specific endgame situations, yes, we should. And we could flame someone that argued against this saying "ZOMG 0.55*2 > 0.99*1 U R RETARDED DOUCY?!"

All I'm saying is the figures DS provided as the basis for this discussion can not just be applied directly to a gametime situation, and he's painting with far to broad of a brush on this.

In terms of you knowing better than the entire NFL, my point is football is a megamillions industry, and to assume no one in the NFL has already thought about this, or can't figure it out because they're bad at math - well, that's just naive.

[TomCowley]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're just hearing what you want to hear from me. As I've said numerous times, my position was that although the algebra DS presents clearly dictates we must go for 2 in this situation - these statistics are flawed and can not be accurately applied to gametime situations as is, thus the entire basis of the argument is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, blindly plugging in 42% to all situations is wrong, but that doesn't mean the point isn't generally valid. If some situations are lower, others must necessarily be higher. Unless EVERY situation where the 2-pt conversion is 42% or better is ALSO a situation where OT is a much better than 50% proposition, and there's no reason to think this is true in every case, coaches are making mistakes.

Unless the distribution is something bizarre, like mostly 35% situations with enough 90% situations to balance to 42%, and there's no reason to think that's the case either, coaches would make fewer mistakes by always going for 2.

Coaches and teams, unfortunately, have to play for more than simply winning or losing. Coaches have to keep fans/management happy. Teams have to put butts in the seats. Making calls that the average fan (or executive) won't understand, and will unfairly blame for a loss, could well be lower $EV for the coach and the team than playing it safe and winning slightly less often. That's why I expect the 4th down revolution to begin on a team with low expectations, because the downside isn't as bad.