The Two Point Conversion When Eight Down

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I do think the idea has some effect on them, maybe subconsciously.

[/ 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?!?!?!

[wheatrich]

[ 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.

[kdotsky]

[ 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 ]

I was thinking that too. The basic math involved has been around way longer than the game. I do not believe that every owner and coach choose to ignore it or are too stupid to understand it, especially when there is so much to gain by winning more often. Someone would try it out eventually, it would work, and the practice would spread.

This leads me to think that maybe there is, in fact, more to the game situation than it appears, or that coaches do avoid highly visible and risky plays for personal reasons.

[PairTheBoard]

This makes me think of Mutual Fund portfolio managers who are not shy about padding their image at the expense of EV when they add hot stocks to the Fund's portfolio just before reporting time just to make it look better, regardless of whether they think the stocks will continue to outperform.

PairTheBoard

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
It's correct mathematically will not work as an explanation to 90% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. "I have confidence in my team," will. "We had momentum going our way, and I wanted to give our boys a chance to win it in regulation. And, of course, if we missed, we'd get another shot."

[David Sklansky]

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.

[Yeti]

David,

You believe that a team who scores two late touchdowns to tie a game has only a 50% chance of winning in OT?

[wheatrich]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. "I have confidence in my team," will. "We had momentum going our way, and I wanted to give our boys a chance to win it in regulation. And, of course, if we missed, we'd get another shot."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had confidence in your team why wouldn't you kick the XP's and most likely go into OT?
I wanted a chance to win it in regulation makes it seem like you didn't have confidence in your team.
The last one is true but isn't an argument.

Here's a third point I didn't explain. If you have a better team you'd be better off going for the OT. We're assuming it's 50/50 here and there is no such thing. [obviously winner of coin toss has big edge but no two teams can possibly be 50/50 against each other]

[starbird]

If we pretend that kicking the extra point is 100%, the issue becomes very clear: going for it wins the game outright (vs. a guaranteed tie) when the first attempt works, and loses the game outright when both attempts fail. So we're comparing x vs. (1-x)^2, and we can go for it even though x is less than 50%.

(The breakeven point is 38.2% in this case; under your 98% assumption, breakeven falls to 37.1%.)

The NFL coaches remind me of poker players who don't believe in ICM considerations -- they can see that going for two is -pointEV (since .42 is less than half of .98), but don't see that it is nevertheless +gameEV.

Part of the problem, I think, is that head coaches tend to be (a) nonmathematicians, with (b) big egos. It's a lot to ask of such a person that he delegate the key playcalling decisions of the game to some non-football pocket-protector type upstairs.

And the risk is hard to quantify. It's not sufficient to educate the owners (indeed, sometimes it's not possible), because the owners also face pressure from the public. Angry sports-talk fans may not be rational, but they can have a concrete impact on the bottom line. It's entirely possible that maximizing gameEV does not maximize careerEV for the coach, or $EV for the owner.

[starbird]

A couple of guys I know wrote software to model NFL play-calling decisions.

Louisville Courier-Journal story
End Game Technologies homepage

They've been marketing it to NFL teams, but haven't gotten any takers. My question is whether they should be marketing to sports bettors/handicappers instead.