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

[immortal13 4059]

The best was back when aggy coach Franny decided to kick the PAT after scoring a TD to go up by ONE with a couple of minutes left in the game against Clemson. You can guess what happened.

[Irieguy 1059]

1 hour ago, Not a cat said:

You asked for "a change could your opponent make after the 2 point that makes the 2 a bad decision. " I gave you one.  Admittedly not the most interesting one, but it's the most obvious one I see at the end of a lot of games.

No I didn’t. Follow the conversation. I’m asking for a “change the opponent could make” in the PARTICULAR situation discussed in the thread. 

[Not a cat 5619]

Ahh,  I see, now that you have repeated the exact same thing, but in an even more dickish and condescending manner, it's all clear.   Thanks for clearing it up.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

19 hours ago, Not a cat said:

 

 

Here's an example- you score to get within one with 90 seconds left and opponent has 3 timeouts.  If you kick the XP, it's a tie game and likely the opponent will play a little cautiously going for a game winning field goal rather than risk a turnover or giving you the ball back.  Let's say it's 25% they get it because you know the coach will turtle to preserve the tie.

If you go for 2 and make it they are going balls to the wall for a field goal or td and their chances go to 50%.

So with an XP (let's just assume 100%) you chances of winning are 37.5% (75% chance of OT, even chance of winning in that OT).  With a 2 pt (assume 50%) you have a 50% chance of losing because you didn't make it, and within the 50% of the time you make it you still lose half of those for an overall win rate of 25%.

I'm not saying the charts are wrong, I'm just saying that there are situations where your opponents reaction, if you can predict it,  should factor in.  Kind of like advanced game theory.

In your situation you would also have to factor in the increased chances of a turnover since the team is "going balls to the wall".

[JBJ 3649]

You go for it within the 5 because it's low risk, high reward. 

If you make it, you have 4 more points than a FG.

You miss it and statistically pinning your opponent inside the 5 - the field position - is worth about a field goalmpre than the 25YL anyway.

Go look at the 4th and goals we didn't convert.  How many did we get the ball back around midfield and score a TD or FG next drive?

Edited November 13, 2019 by JBJ

[closetohumping 17401]

Panthers were already within 8

[Huckleberry 32701]

Just now, closetohumping said:

Panthers were already within 8

Did you read past the thread title? Also, you misread the thread title.

"(t)o get within 8" is modifying "scoring a touchdown," it is not modifying "Going for 2."

[Irieguy 1059]

5 hours ago, Not a cat said:

Ahh,  I see, now that you have repeated the exact same thing, but in an even more dickish and condescending manner, it's all clear.   Thanks for clearing it up.

I added the word particular to help you understand.

I didn’t say “there is never a scenario where going for 2 changes your opponents behavior”

I did say “in the SPECIFIC scenario of the Carolina / Green Bay game that we are discussing, going for 2 does not change your opponent behavior”

We are in AGREEMENT.  There is a situation where going for 2 changes opponent behavior.  Just not this one particular situation.  Understand?

 

[Jkwellborn 6653]

You go for it within the 5 because it's low risk, high reward. 
If you make it, you have 4 more points than a FG.
You miss it and statistically pinning your opponent inside the 5 - the field position - is worth about a field goalmpre than the 25YL anyway.
Go look at the 4th and goals we didn't convert.  How many did we get the ball back around midfield and score a TD or FG next drive?

Lsu says not one damn time.

[mulletpelini 5209]

18 hours ago, immortal13 said:

The best was back when aggy coach Franny decided to kick the PAT after scoring a TD to go up by ONE with a couple of minutes left in the game against Clemson. You can guess what happened.

what would have changed had they gone for 2?

Edited November 14, 2019 by mulletpelini
moral victory?

[immortal13 4059]

5 hours ago, mulletpelini said:

what would have changed had they gone for 2?

Math is hard

[S11 16]

On 11/11/2019 at 8:10 PM, blacklab said:

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

I would argue probability of making a 2pc is variable based on opponent matchup.

more likely Vs the OU defense than the TCU defense for instance.   

In a perfectly average situation you are right.  However the coefficients change based on matchups

[mulletpelini 5209]

14 hours ago, immortal13 said:

Math is hard

my question wasn't about math, it was about aggy

[Ignatius 4001]

On the “down by 15” question....

Every breakdown of this I’ve ever seen assumes (from an analytics POV) that your odds of getting the back late in the game are equal.  In other words, after you score the first TD (to cut it to 9 prior to the PAT) there seems to be the assumption that no matter what you do, your opponent’s offensive philosophy won’t change at all, whether you’re down by two scores or one score.

Does anyone actually believe this?  If you’re under 2 minutes, you’re ahead by 8 with the ball, and your opponent has 3 timeouts, there are a shitload if coaches out there who are going to hand off 3 times in a row for the sole purpose of making you burn all of those timeouts. In effect, they’re giving up their chance to get a first down that would ice the game and giving you the ball with (say) 1:40 and no TOs.

 

Up by 9, however, there’s now a lot less risk for that same team to run the same offense that they ran the whole game, the same one that gave them the 15 point lead in the first place.  They can push the ball downfield, run/pass, whatever - it was a 2-score game before your TD, and it’s still a 2-score game after your TD.  And the flexibility that team has is the result of your decision to go for two after the first TD, and not make it a one-possession game.

I believe in analytics, and I’ve never bought into the ‘extend the game’ argument, but it’s always bothered me that all of the ‘data driven’ arguments for always going for 2 after the first TD assume that your odds of getting the ball back late are equal whether it’s a one- or two-possession game.  From subjective observation, this isn’t the case...

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Ignatius

[TXSooner518 2432]

The problem is calling an 8 point game a “one possession” game when more than half the time a TD will still leave that team trailing.

I also disagree with the premise that late in the game a team up 9 is less conservative than a team up 8.

[Ignatius 4001]

50 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

The problem is calling an 8 point game a “one possession” game when more than half the time a TD will still leave that team trailing.

I also disagree with the premise that late in the game a team up 9 is less conservative than a team up 8.
 

And for the record , down by 8 is by definition a ‘one score game’

Really?  When you watch football you don’t see a team call plays differently late in the game up by one score vs two scores?

Edited November 23, 2019 by Ignatius

[Huckleberry 32701]

A team up by 9 with two minutes left will be even more conservative. I think you're completely wrong with your logic. They have absolutely no reason to pass the ball or take risks.

[Ignatius 4001]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

A team up by 9 with two minutes left will be even more conservative. I think you're completely wrong with your logic. They have absolutely no reason to pass the ball or take risks.

[TommyGufano 6021]

Figure it's worth mentioning that Slye missed a PAT kicking indoors today.

Also Carolina missed the 2-pt attempt chasing that miss and it looks like may have lost their best WR to injury on the attempt

[TommyGufano 6021]

... and missed another PAT and then a chip shot FG

[LTtxfan 48970]

[Bevo&Pevo 5027]

maybe she makes a helluva a sammich.

[Beau Vine 54001]

Eagles scored to make it 17-9 today and decided to go for two.  The guy doing PBP on the radio immediately started sneering about how they were doing what "the analytics suggested" and implying that it was stupid.  He wrapped it up by saying, "By my numbers, going for 2 is only successful 47% of the time, so that means you're going to get 0 more often than not."  I nearly drove off the road because of the stupidity.