Going for 2 after scoring a touchdown to get within 8. Yes, there will be math

[blacklab 12064]

Kevin and Chad on the radio today were discussing the choice by Ron Rivera to go for 2 when Carolina scored  on Green Bay to make it 24-16. Chad had no idea why they did it and thought it was stupid. He's wrong. It's the right thing to do.

If we assume GB doesn't score, Carolina scores another TD as the clock is running out, overtime is a 50/50 win/loss, current nfl average for 2 point conversions is 47.5% and current XP% this year is 93.3%. here's how it works out:

Kick XP on first

• make first, miss second, lose 100% of the time (happens 6.7%)
• Miss first
  • miss 2pt conversion (52.5%) - lose 100% (happens 93.3% x 52.5% = 49% )
  • make 2pt conversion (47.5%) go to overtime, lose 50% of the time (happens 44%)

So if you kick the first XP you're winning 44% of the time and losing 56%  of the time.

Go for 2 on first TD

• Make it (47.5%),
  • now you can kick xp on second and win (47.5% x 93.3% = 44% win)
  • miss xp on second, go to overtime and have a 50/50 chance of winning. (47.5% x 6.7% x 50% =  2% win 2% loss)
• Miss it (52.5%)
  • make 2 pointer on second TD, go to OT, win 50%  (52.5% x 47.5% x 50% = 12% win 12% loss)
  • miss 2 pointer on second TD lose (52.5% * 52.5% = 28% loss)

So if you go for 2 you will win 58% of the time and lose 42% of the time

And if you need further proof it's the right thing to do, let's look at the game of the century, and what they guy with the name on our stadium decided to do: (from wikipedia)

Quote

James Street scrambled for a touchdown on the first play of the fourth quarter. Longhorns coach Darrell Royal had decided before the game to go for two after the Longhorns' first touchdown to avoid a tie, and Street dove into the end zone to make it 14–8. This was an unusual decision since most teams would have delayed the decision for a two-point conversion until the next touchdown (though clearly mathematically correct, since this would have given the Longhorns a later chance to tie in case of a failed two-point try).

[Beau Vine 55867]

The people who argue against this will pretty much always base their argument on what-happens-if-you-fail-on-the-first-attempt?  

[HornsOverIthaca 2339]

Just tell me what to think and I’ll agree with it.

[Neonmoon 38130]

I was told there would be no math 

[AUS-97HORN 12051]

14 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The people who argue against this will pretty much always base their argument on what-happens-if-you-fail-on-the-first-attempt?  

the people who argue against this are the same idiots who argue against going for 2 after the first TD  when you were originally down by 15.

you HAVE to make one of the 2 point conversions just to tie and go to OT, where you still lose about half the time, and what a 4% chance to tie?   

If you kick the XP on the first one and then use up all your time scoring the 2nd TD and you miss the 2 pointer on the 2nd score. you lose for sure.   

If you miss the first 2 pointer you now know you need to score 2 more times to win, so play aggressive at that point, and if you score twice you win. 

 

I would rather know that I have to score twice with 5 mins left  rather than think I only have to score once with 10 seconds left. 

[blacklab 12064]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I was told there would be no math 

Who told you that? 

[blacklab 12064]

ok big analytics guy, show me the math behind the "common sense"

[WBT 20979]

You should also go for 2 when you score to cut the lead to 4.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

[Agent 13 319]

None of the above calculations are accurate unless your particular team performs exactly at the NFL average.

[Beau Vine 55867]

17 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

the people who argue against this are the same idiots who argue against going for 2 after the first TD  when you were originally down by 15.

you HAVE to make one of the 2 point conversions just to tie and go to OT, where you still lose about half the time, and what a 4% chance to tie?   

If you kick the XP on the first one and then use up all your time scoring the 2nd TD and you miss the 2 pointer on the 2nd score. you lose for sure.   

If you miss the first 2 pointer you now know you need to score 2 more times to win, so play aggressive at that point, and if you score twice you win. 

 

I would rather know that I have to score twice with 5 mins left  rather than think I only have to score once with 10 seconds left. 

Yeah, but but but... if you miss the first one, the game is over!

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

How much time was left in the game?

[Tex Long 4665]

I was there in 1969, and Saint Darrell was 100% correct. Miss on the first two-pointer, you can still tie on the next TD. No overtime, so kiss your sister (if her name's not Donna).

Speaking of "no maths", going for two, late, when 16 behind is the right call, but it doesn't get you "within" 8, it gets you "to" 8 - gotta get two twice. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Tex Long

[Beau Vine 55867]

Just now, Agent 13 said:

None of the above calculations are accurate unless your particular team performs exactly at the NFL average.

I'd be willing to bet that you'd get the exact same conclusions if your team was within 1 stdev of the league average.  

[Beau Vine 55867]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

It was incredibly stupid for Rivera to go for 2 there. I’m a big analytics guy but not over common sense. 

You are neither a "big analytics guy" nor a guy blessed  with ample common sense.  

[Pato del Muerto 53505]

What’s the math on expected points if you always kick the xp vs always go for 2?

lets say 3 and 4 scores since those are probably the most common. 

[blacklab 12064]

Dr. Beeper, explain to me how you are a "big analytics guy" but won't use math in your argument.

[blacklab 12064]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What’s the math on expected points if you always kick the xp vs always go for 2?

lets say 3 and 4 scores since those are probably the most common. 

expected points for kicking is .935 points per try

going for two results in .95 points per try

Look at the article linked above at 538 for a mathematically correct chart of when to go for 2.

[Beau Vine 55867]

Beeper is Rex Kramer, right?

[blacklab 12064]

I don't know and don't think it's appropriate to speculate if he is. Some people change usernames due to divorces or business issues, no need to link them to their old name.

Having said that, what this thread confirms using "common sense" is that Dr. Beeper is a fucking idiot.

Edited November 12, 2019 by blacklab

[AeroHorn 793]

40 minutes ago, blacklab said:

ok big analytics guy, show me the math behind the "common sense"

No math, but a very big assumption on your part is the opponent will not score, or change their strategy on how they play the final minutes (regular vs prevent offense/defense, etc.). I typically don't like chasing points until you are quite sure this is the second last offensive series for you. The opponent will play very differently when they are down of 6 or 7. If they are down by 7, they will play prevent, keep the plays in front and make you go 10+ plays to get to red zone. If they are down by 6, they will most likely play regular defense/offense.

[Huckleberry 34657]

11 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

No math, but a very big assumption on your part is the opponent will not score, or change their strategy on how they play the final minutes (regular vs prevent offense/defense, etc.). I typically don't like chasing points until you are quite sure this is the second last offensive series for you. The opponent will play very differently when they are down of 6 or 7. If they are down by 7, they will play prevent, keep the plays in front and make you go 10+ plays to get to red zone. If they are down by 6, they will most likely play regular defense/offense.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

First, you keep saying down when you mean up.

More importantly, you appear to be claiming that a defense whose only goal is not to allow a touchdown and they win will play differently if the lead is 6 rather than 7. Why? A defense whose only goal is not allowing a touchdown within a given amount of game clock will play the same regardless. I see no logical explanation why that wouldn't be the case.

[Auto Driller 2566]

What is the source for your odds of winning in OT being exactly 50/50?

[blacklab 12064]

No source, just used to make it easy.

Assume GB is better than Carolina then it shifts the odds even further towards going for 2 and avoiding overtime.

[Huckleberry 34657]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tAlVjQr7eNLhn3l_Ix5wn3ymR9xtWw4Nh_EndOCzoNE/edit?usp=sharing

Play with the inputs on the left.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Handcruser 2815]

I’d go for 2 most of the time if not every time. Surely I’d go for 2 every time in the first half. I’d get really really good at going for two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AeroHorn 793]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This makes no sense whatsoever.

First, you keep saying down when you mean up.

More importantly, you appear to be claiming that a defense whose only goal is not to allow a touchdown and they win will play differently if the lead is 6 rather than 7. Why? A defense whose only goal is not allowing a touchdown within a given amount of game clock will play the same regardless. I see no logical explanation why that wouldn't be the case.

I am speaking for the team that is behind, hence being down. The defense will play differently because giving up a TD will be a loss in one case and OT in the other. This is very obvious in how they will call timeouts, the aggression they will show, even thinking of letting them score to get back the ball, etc.

Edited November 12, 2019 by AeroHorn

[Auto Driller 2566]

5 minutes ago, blacklab said:

No source, just used to make it easy.

Assume GB is better than Carolina then it shifts the odds even further towards going for 2 and avoiding overtime.

This is where these types of analysis break down in football in my opinion.

Shifting the assumed win percentage in overtime can massively change the outcome of the analysis. Football is incredibly unpredictable (just ask anyone who sports bets) so using “average” outcomes to guide what you should do in this situation can backfire.

[Huckleberry 34657]

1 minute ago, AeroHorn said:

I am speaking for the team that is behind, hence being down. The defense will play differently because giving up a TD will be a loss in one case and OT in the other. This is very obvious in how they will call timeouts, the aggression they will show, even thinking of letting them score to get back the ball, etc.

Huh?

A team that is behind and needs the ball back to score will be passive if they're down by 7 but aggressive if they're down by 6? You're saying that a team that is losing by 7 late in a game will play prevent defense?

You just made it even more nonsensical.

[Huckleberry 34657]

13 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

This is where these types of analysis break down in football in my opinion.

Shifting the assumed win percentage in overtime can massively change the outcome of the analysis. Football is incredibly unpredictable (just ask anyone who sports bets) so using “average” outcomes to guide what you should do in this situation can backfire.

Assuming league average extra point and two-point success rates, a team would need to have a 71.5% overtime win probability or greater in order to make two extra points the mathematically superior decision.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Huckleberry

[AeroHorn 793]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Huh?

A team that is behind and needs the ball back to score will be passive if they're down by 7 but aggressive if they're down by 6? You're saying that a team that is losing by 7 late in a game will play prevent defense?

You just made it even more nonsensical.

I guess I need to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Comment about not preferring to chase points until penultimate drive: speaking for the team that is behind.

Comments about defense: The said team's opponent (the team that is leading, in case it is not clear)

 

[Bateshorn 9991]

Lotta motherfuckers on this thread who probably also believe in bunting.

[blacklab 12064]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I think you’re trying to pin league wide statistical averages into a very specific situation, and I just don’t agree with you here.

Y’all ever hear of “The Big Sheet”, which is a big betting league of somewhat legendary proportions?

Ok, I built a spreadsheet to show ranges of xp% from 100%-80% and 2pt conversion range from 57%-37% and keeping OT at 50/50

ot win %	0.5				kicking first
	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%	50%	49%	48%	47%	46%	45%	44%	43%	42%	41%	40%	39%	38%	37%
100%	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50
99%	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49
98%	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48
97%	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48
96%	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47
95%	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46
94%	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45
93%	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45
92%	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44
91%	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43
90%	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.42	0.42	0.42
89%	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42
88%	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41
87%	0.42	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
86%	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
85%	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39
84%	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38
83%	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38
82%	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37
81%	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.36	0.36
80%	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36
					going for 2 first
	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%	50%	49%	48%	47%	46%	45%	44%	43%	42%	41%	40%	39%	38%	37%
100%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
99%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
98%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
97%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
96%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.59	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
95%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.58	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
94%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.57	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
93%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.56	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
92%	0.68	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.55	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
91%	0.68	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.54	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
90%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.53	0.51	0.50	0.49
89%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.52	0.50	0.49
88%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.51	0.49
87%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.50
86%	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
85%	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
84%	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
83%	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
82%	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
81%	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
80%	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49

There is not one spot on this chart that kicking first is better, not one. So your argument of using nfl averages is bad is completely wrong.

Nope, never heard of big sheet.

[tantric superman 4668]

What is this?  Fucking baseball?

[DaggerHorns 3170]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

Having said that, what this thread confirms using "common sense" is that Dr. Beeper is a fucking idiot.

Finally, a reasonable conclusion with absolutely no mathematical explanation.

[LonghornSean 4103]

Like John Harbaugh said defending his strategy earlier this season, you're increasing your odds of winning in regulation and not simply going for the tie and playing for OT. 

Correct decision to go for two there.  Make the 2 point attempt, you can take the lead with an XP on the second TD.  Miss it, and you still have a chance to go for two again for the tie. (I know that's what blacklab's post was detailing)

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by LonghornSean

[blacklab 12064]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

You totally missed my point and are doubling down on league wide statistics rather than focusing on the specific situation in that game, which is my point. Why?  Are you applying for a job at Pulaski Academy?

Ok, obviously you are an expert in football and I'm just a numbers guy.

In that game, at that time what percentage of time is Carolina scoring a two pointer?

What was the percentage chance of the kicker hitting a XP?

What is the probability of Carolina winning in overtime?

 

 

[Michael Knight 13224]

[Horn Dogg 4297]

2 hours ago, blacklab said:

Ok, I built a spreadsheet to show ranges of xp% from 100%-80% and 2pt conversion range from 57%-37% and keeping OT at 50/50

 

ot win %	0.5				kicking first
	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%	50%	49%	48%	47%	46%	45%	44%	43%	42%	41%	40%	39%	38%	37%
100%	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50
99%	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49
98%	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.49	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48
97%	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.48
96%	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.47
95%	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46
94%	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45
93%	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.45
92%	0.45	0.45	0.45	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44
91%	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43
90%	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.42	0.42	0.42
89%	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.43	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42
88%	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41
87%	0.42	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
86%	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
85%	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39
84%	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38
83%	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38
82%	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37
81%	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.36	0.36
80%	0.38	0.38	0.38	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.37	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36	0.36
					going for 2 first
	57%	56%	55%	54%	53%	52%	51%	50%	49%	48%	47%	46%	45%	44%	43%	42%	41%	40%	39%	38%	37%
100%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
99%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
98%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
97%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
96%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.59	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
95%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.58	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
94%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.57	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
93%	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.56	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
92%	0.68	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.55	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
91%	0.68	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.54	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
90%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.53	0.51	0.50	0.49
89%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.52	0.50	0.49
88%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.51	0.49
87%	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.50
86%	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
85%	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
84%	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
83%	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
82%	0.66	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
81%	0.66	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.62	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.57	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49
80%	0.66	0.65	0.64	0.64	0.63	0.62	0.61	0.61	0.60	0.59	0.58	0.57	0.56	0.56	0.55	0.54	0.53	0.52	0.51	0.50	0.49

There is not one spot on this chart that kicking first is better, not one. So your argument of using nfl averages is bad is completely wrong.

Nope, never heard of big sheet.

Damn dude!  When I saw the first few posts on this thread, I was thinking “these guys shouldn’t try to argue with Blacklab, I saw what he did to D-Figs.”  This chart confirms my theory.

[mulletpelini 5225]

You go for two much like when you choose to onside kick.....when the other team least expects it.  Zero issue with ISU going for 2 when they did, except if you're going to do that, go for 2 the score before, when the cocksuckers least expect it.  It may have been somewhat unexpected at the end, but damn sure more a possibility than on the previous score.  Hell, worse case scenario you cost them a TO to get set up and then just kick the XP if you want.  Defense is reactive, takes more energy.  You want them constant working, constantly thinking....slows em down.

Also, takes balls and confidence in your team.  Players feed from that belief.

[NowThis 931]

Kick XP on first

• make first, miss second, lose 100% of the time (happens 6.7%)
• Miss first
  • miss 2pt conversion (52.5%) - lose 100% (happens 93.3% x 52.5% = 49% )
  • make 2pt conversion (47.5%) go to overtime, lose 50% of the time (happens 44%)

So if you kick the first XP you're winning 44% of the time and losing 56%  of the time.

 

=======

 

what about the scenario where they make the XP first and go for 2 on the 2nd TD?  Is that 0.93333 x 0.475 ? This is what teams normally do.

[blacklab 12064]

Don't feel bad Dr, you're in good company. One study showed on average bad decisions by head coaches in the NFL give up over 1 game of win equity per year.

In this case with 50/50 and 100% kicker you kicking drops the likelihood of you winning from 63% to 50% a loss of .13 of win equity.

And in a windy and snowy situation an XP is no where near 100%

The thought of "I got to extend the game" and going against the numbers is common in the NFL. Punting instead of going for it, not going for 2, kicking a FG instead of going for it when up 3, and kicking a FG when down 7 late in the game are all common and all stupid.

A few weeks ago Pitt had the ball on the 1 yard line down 7 near the end of the game and kicked a FG. It was the worst possible decision they could have made. Taking a knee gave them a better chance of winning. 

Kansas CIty punted to GB rather than going for it on fourth down. They never got the ball back.

Keep making decisions based on feeling, maybe you too could be an NFL head coach one day.

 

[blacklab 12064]

12 minutes ago, NowThis said:

what about the scenario where they make the XP first and go for 2 on the 2nd TD?  Is that 0.93333 x 0.475 ? This is what teams normally do.

Well, assuming they already made the first, the chance of winning is 47.5% on average in the NFL.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

I don’t mean to always bring these analytics discussions back to madden, but I swear the top level madden players have been ahead of the curve on this one for a while now. The risk reward is clearly in favor of going for 2 in that situation (ESPECIALLY now that XPs aren’t automatic). I’m happy that some of this shit is finally getting brought to the NFL, and even old school coaches like River boat Ron are buying in. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[blacklab 12064]

Oh, and my favorite one ever was Mike Tomlin scoring a touchdown rather than taking a knee and kicking a FG against Green Bay a few years ago. GB went right down the field and scored a TD. 

When asked in the press conference why he didn't just take a knee he replied "We don't play that"

[blacklab 12064]

Just now, youdunnf'dup said:

I don’t mean to always bring these analytics discussions back to madden, but I swear the top level madden players have been ahead of the curve on this one for a while now. The risk reward is clearly in favor of going for 2 in that situation. I’m happy that some of this shit is finally getting brought to the NFL, and even old school coaches like River boat Ron are buying in. 

YES!

Another one I learned in Madden was when down 10 kick a FG as soon as you're in range and go for the onsides. A few NFL and college teams have done it and the announcers were like "WTF ARE THEY DOING"

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

4 minutes ago, blacklab said:

YES!

Another one I learned in Madden was when down 10 kick a FG as soon as you're in range and go for the onsides. A few NFL and college teams have done it and the announcers were like "WTF ARE THEY DOING"

The main one is going for 2 when you score a td to go up by 7 in the 2nd half of games. Kicking an XP in that situation to go up 8 isn’t really THAT big of a deal. Go for 2 to go up by 9 (giving you a 2 score lead) and your win probability jumps up drastically. Miss the 2 pt conversion and who gives a shit, you’re up 7. I hate the eagles but I give credit where it’s due. They do this more than any team in the NFL.

Edited November 12, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[blacklab 12064]

from the link someone posted earlier

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

going for 2 after going up 7 is bad, but it's close.

EST. CHANGE IN WIN PROB. IF YOU GET …				EST. CHANGE IN WIN PROB. IF YOU GET …
MARGIN AFTER TD	+1	+2 (VS. +1)	BETTER OPTION	MARGIN AFTER TD	+1	+2 (VS. +1)	BETTER OPTION
-15	0.5	1.0	Two	0	8.4	1.8	One
-14	1.0	0.4	One	1	1.8	6.5	Two
-13	0.4	1.1	Two	2	6.5	5.0	One
-12	1.1	1.3	Same	3	5.0	2.9	One
-11	1.3	2.2	Two	4	2.9	3.1	Same
-10	2.2	2.9	Two	5	3.1	5.2	Two
-9	2.9	3.3	Same	6	5.2	3.3	One
-8	3.3	5.2	Two	7	3.3	2.9	Same
-7	5.2	3.1	One	8	2.9	2.2	One
-6	3.1	2.9	Same	9	2.2	1.3	One
-5	2.9	5.0	Two	10	1.3	1.1	Same
-4	5.0	6.5	Two	11	1.1	0.4	One
-3	6.5	1.8	One	12	0.4	1.0	Two
-2	1.8	8.4	Two	13	1.0	0.5	One
-1	8.4	8.4	Same	14	0.5	0.7	Same

 

They mention the -8 margin in the article and link to a previous article about it

Here's a whole article supporting my point of view over the Dr.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-coaches-are-getting-away-with-crimes-against-middle-school-math/

 

[orangecat92 306]

45 minutes ago, mulletpelini said:

You go for two much like when you choose to onside kick.....when the other team least expects it.  Zero issue with ISU going for 2 when they did, except if you're going to do that, go for 2 the score before, when the cocksuckers least expect it.  It may have been somewhat unexpected at the end, but damn sure more a possibility than on the previous score.  Hell, worse case scenario you cost them a TO to get set up and then just kick the XP if you want.  Defense is reactive, takes more energy.  You want them constant working, constantly thinking....slows em down.

Also, takes balls and confidence in your team.  Players feed from that belief.

I agree with this.  The thing about the Iowa state game was I think sooners were totally surprised, but I think the refs stopped the game, after the TD, to give OU time to recover, and take a breath.  OUs defense had been on the field quite a bit.  I think the interception thrown by OU was done pretty early in the drive.  If the refs had not stopped the game, would OU coach have been smart enough to call timeout to give his team time to recover?  

 

I especially like the part about telling the offense you have confidence they will get the two yards.  As the underdog, I think the object should be to end the game in regulation.  Why give the favorite another chance with the game tied?  Make them uncomfortable.

[Iceman 2978]

9 hours ago, HornsOverIthaca said:

Just tell me what to think and I’ll agree with it.

Marriage counsellor, eh?

[Tex Long 4665]

246 toothpicks, exactly 246.