The math behind going for 2 when down by 14 late in game and scoring a TD.

[Grant Green]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[PSUFTG2]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

A) It ain't even a difficult calculation (a simple decision tree would more than suffice - something a 7th grader should have no trouble with)
B) It ain't even that close a call... its a significantly preferred choice - even if you tweek some of the odds based on specific matchups.

and yet

C) It seemed to take NFL/NCAA coaches forever to realize it (WTF? Even with all those consultants and analysts around? )
D) Fans scream bloody murder anytime it "doesn't work" (The average fan still dumber than the average football coach? Yep)



( E) there are still plenty of other vigs to be had - by intelligent coaches - where the conventional wisdom is completely FUBAR. Probably another 20 years until some of those dickenkopf norms are busted. )

 

[Erial_Lion]

The ESPN article from a few years ago looked at it in a lot of detail. But it leads to a similar spot as your simplistic logic (that being that going for 2 is clearly the right call in that spot).

Going for 2 down 8 points: Packers pull off come-from-behind win thanks to this strategy

The Packers profited from being the first team this season to try this unconventional 2-point conversion attempt. Here's why others should follow their lead.

www.espn.com

 

[Lanz]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

How about going for two when down 9? Just curious.

 

[Erial_Lion]

How about going for two when down 9? Just curious.

The analytics community will also universally tell you that you should...but it blows people's minds when coaches do it, since "extending the game" seems to be more important than "increasing your chances of winning the game".

Thankfully, Franklin went for 2 in both of these situations this season, so he's being fed the right information...though unfortunately both of them failed.

 

[Grant Green]

A) It ain't even a difficult calculation (a simple decision tree would more than suffice - something a 7th grader should have no trouble with)
B) It ain't even that close a call... its a significantly preferred choice - even if you tweek some of the odds based on specific matchups.

and yet

C) It seemed to take NFL/NCAA coaches forever to realize it (WTF? Even with all those consultants and analysts around? )
C) Fans scream bloody murder anytime it "doesn't work" (The average fan still dumber than the average football coach? Yep)



( E) there are still plenty of other vigs to be had - by intelligent coaches - where the conventional wisdom is completely FUBAR. Probably another 20 years until some of those dickenkopf norms are busted. )

Yeah, pretty much right on. I especially love when it doesn't work and people become convinced that it was a dumb choice. Confirmation bias at it's best.
There are still a ton of coaches that don't do it. I was shocked when Belichick didn't do it early this season. Of all people, I thought he would be all over it.

 

[Grant Green]

How about going for two when down 9? Just curious.

Great question. I started thinking about that when Navy did it against Air Force this season and lost me a wager. My instinct was that it is not as much of an edge since you don't have the option of a 4 pt field goal if you miss the 2 pt conv. @Erial_Lion seems to think the math says yes. I would venture to guess that it still gives you a slight advantage, but not nearly as much.

 

[Grant Green]

The analytics community will also universally tell you that you should...but it blows people's minds when coaches do it, since "extending the game" seems to be more important than "increasing your chances of winning the game".

Thankfully, Franklin went for 2 in both of these situations this season, so he's being fed the right information...though unfortunately both of them failed.

That Indiana loss (well, we actually won) in OT a few years ago still sticks with me. PSU mistakenly scored a late TD to go up 7. Franklin kicked the XP to go up 8. I always thought he should have gone for 2 to put it out of reach, but never did the math to confirm.

 

[Bkmtnittany1]

The analytics community will also universally tell you that you should...but it blows people's minds when coaches do it, since "extending the game" seems to be more important than "increasing your chances of winning the game".

Thankfully, Franklin went for 2 in both of these situations this season, so he's being fed the right information...though unfortunately both of them failed.

No problem going for 2, just have a few plays that the opponent has not seen!

 

[Lanz]

Yeah, pretty much right on. I especially love when it doesn't work and people become convinced that it was a dumb choice. Confirmation bias at it's best.
There are still a ton of coaches that don't do it. I was shocked when Belichick didn't do it early this season. Of all people, I thought he would be all over it.

But wouldn't the potential flaw be the reliance on 50% league-wide success rate of 2pt conversion. What is the difference in success rate against a top 10 defense versus against a bottom 10 defense? What if the defense you are opposing only allows a 40% success rate?

 

[NoSoup4U]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

What the Math doesnt assume is the subsequent psychological mindset when the 2 pt is missed and or made

Mindset they miss:

Doesnt the offense now feel the need to press/sense of urgency only to just tie the game at best??? therefore playing tight making errors in judgement.... AKA Baker on that INT??
Lions playing loose knowing that chewing clock and punting is a viable option once they get the ball up by 8


Ok mindset that they make it:

Feeling confident forcing the Lions to play tight on their possession and hope your D makes a Stop( Bowles D mind at work) yet not forgone that a TD is on the horizon for your offense(as you say its an assumption it could be done-- but they took almost a full qtr to score a TD in Q2 and Q3 and Q4 what makes them think all of a sudden they can score so quickly???).
Lions knowing they can hold the ball methodically and HAVE to play the game they have been playing all day and maybe get a FG game over...punting may not be an option with a lot of time left

why play with a carrot dangling from the stick in either case??? you forced your hand on the turn instead of playing to the river to use Hold em parlance

 

[Erial_Lion]

That Indiana loss (well, we actually won) in OT a few years ago still sticks with me. PSU mistakenly scored a late TD to go up 7. Franklin kicked the XP to go up 8. I always thought he should have gone for 2 to put it out of reach, but never did the math to confirm.

I don’t think it really matters too much…the odds of converting it is usually thought to be slightly under 50%, so forcing the other team to convert the 2 would be my choice.

 

[Grant Green]

But wouldn't the potential flaw be the reliance on 50% league-wide success rate of 2pt conversion. What is the difference in success rate against a top 10 defense versus against a bottom 10 defense? What if the defense you are opposing only allows a 40% success rate?

Sure. The actual team vs team stats are more relevant. If you are Bowling Green playing against Iowa, this may not work. However, if you are Iowa the probability becomes even better.
It is definitely more suited for NFL games or evenly matched college teams where the 2pt prob is much closer to 50%. However, one other factor to consider is that kicking the XP is not 100% either. I think it's about 94% in the NFL.

 

[NoSoup4U]

But wouldn't the potential flaw be the reliance on 50% league-wide success rate of 2pt conversion. What is the difference in success rate against a top 10 defense versus against a bottom 10 defense? What if the defense you are opposing only allows a 40% success rate?

Very True and is as equal a pct when going to overtime the 12.5 gain is based on assumption of a stop and a second score--- doesnt account for the pct points it takes to stop a team from chewing clock and leaving you no time left

 

[Grant Green]

What the Math doesnt assume is the subsequent psychological mindset when the 2 pt is missed and or made

Mindset they miss:

Doesnt the offense now feel the need to press/sense of urgency only to just tie the game at best??? therefore playing tight making errors in judgement.... AKA Baker on that INT??
Lions playing loose knowing that chewing clock and punting is a viable option once they get the ball up by 8


Ok mindset that they make it:

Feeling confident forcing the Lions to play tight on their possession and hope your D makes a Stop( Bowles D mind at work) yet not forgone that a TD is on the horizon for your offense(as you say its an assumption it could be done-- but they took almost a full qtr to score a TD in Q2 and Q3 and Q4 what makes them think all of a sudden they can score so quickly???).
Lions knowing they can hold the ball methodically and HAVE to play the game they have been playing all day and maybe get a FG game over...punting may not be an option with a lot of time left

why play with a carrot dangling from the stick in either case??? you forced your hand on the turn instead of playing to the river to use Hold em parlance

If they miss, they are still under pressure to get a TD. I don't see why knowing they also have to make a 2pt conv affects them that much. Jordan Love was under the same pressure down by only 3 and also threw an INT.
If they make it, I still think the opponent is going to play somewhat conservative and try to burn clock (correctly), not throw incompletions, and not take big risks.
For sake of argument, let's say there is a slight psychological impact, which is not really possible to quantify. I would bet a lot that it doesn't amount to the 12.5% edge that going for 2 gives you.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Sure. The actual team vs team stats are more relevant. If you are Bowling Green playing against Iowa, this may not work. However, if you are Iowa the probability becomes even better.
It is definitely more suited for NFL games or evenly matched college teams where the 2pt prob is much closer to 50%. However, one other factor to consider is that kicking the XP is not 100% either. I think it's about 94% in the NFL.

And, factor in that if you’re chances of success with the two pointer are lower, then it means that your chances of winning in OT should also be considerably lower…if anything, it tells me that I’d rather roll the dice on one play vs a full OT.

 

[Grant Green]

And, factor in that if you’re chances of success with the two pointer are lower, then it means that your chances of winning in OT should also be considerably lower…if anything, it tells me that I’d rather roll the dice on one play vs a full OT.

Excellent point.

 

[LaJollaCreek]

The analytics community will also universally tell you that you should...but it blows people's minds when coaches do it, since "extending the game" seems to be more important than "increasing your chances of winning the game".

Thankfully, Franklin went for 2 in both of these situations this season, so he's being fed the right information...though unfortunately both of them failed.

Good thread @Grant Green. People aren't always open to new ideas or changes....analytics run everything now. Like any call in football when you make it, it's a good call, when you don't you're an idiot.

 

[NoSoup4U]

If they miss, they are still under pressure to get a TD. I don't see why knowing they also have to make a 2pt conv affects them that much. Jordan Love was under the same pressure down by only 3 and also threw an INT.
If they make it, I still think the opponent is going to play somewhat conservative and try to burn clock (correctly), not throw incompletions, and not take big risks.
For sake of argument, let's say there is a slight psychological impact, which is not really possible to quantify. I would bet a lot that it doesn't amount to the 12.5% edge that going for 2 gives you.

It most likely math wise doesnt over come that edge ...... but I have hard time believing that edge is the same say with 1 min left or 5 minutes left or 10 minutes left

 

[Grant Green]

Good thread @Grant Green. People aren't always open to new ideas or changes....analytics run everything now. Like any call in football when you make it, it's a good call, when you don't you're an idiot.

Maybe someday we'll also explore the merits of "defense wins championships". Someone came up with that cute little saying decades ago and people act like it's gospel. Maybe it was once true, but is it still? Iowa and PSU 2023 would beg to differ.

 

[Grant Green]

It most likely math wise doesnt over come that edge ...... but I have hard time believing that edge is the same say with 1 min left or 5 minutes left or 10 minutes left

Agreed. My original scenario is "late" in the game. I know I didn't quantify "late", but the intention is that there is enough time for each team to have 1 more possession, but probably not much more. I would concur that time remaining is a consideration.

 

[Ludd]

The analytics community will also universally tell you that you should...but it blows people's minds when coaches do it, since "extending the game" seems to be more important than "increasing your chances of winning the game".

Thankfully, Franklin went for 2 in both of these situations this season, so he's being fed the right information...though unfortunately both of them failed.

Many posters who disagree with the analytics think it’s just dumb coaching…they have yet to figure out that it’s what many coaches are going to do, so there’s no sense getting mad about it, just hope for the best.

 

[CbusLion]

People underestimate the success rate of 2pt conversions, but there is nuance in the success rate. Getting your *** kicked in short yardage? Kick it. Only have short receivers to run fades? Perfect, throw it up!

I personally like the idea of learning as much as possible from the defense before having to go for 2, or deciding whether or not to do so.

 

[PSUFTG2]

But wouldn't the potential flaw be the reliance on 50% league-wide success rate of 2pt conversion. What is the difference in success rate against a top 10 defense versus against a bottom 10 defense? What if the defense you are opposing only allows a 40% success rate?

FWIW, even using those numbers, going for 2 is a significantly better option

 

[Grant Green]

I personally like the idea of learning as much as possible from the defense before having to go for 2, or deciding whether or not to do so.

But the very simple math would tell you that doing so gives you less of a chance to win the game.

 

[PSUFTG2]

That Indiana loss (well, we actually won) in OT a few years ago still sticks with me. PSU mistakenly scored a late TD to go up 7. Franklin kicked the XP to go up 8. I always thought he should have gone for 2 to put it out of reach, but never did the math to confirm.

Just help a brother out:

If you assume 50-50 on the 2, and 100% on the PAT, and 50-50 in OT.... it is dead break even there wrt going for 2 in that situation.

If you think your 2 point adds are over 50, or if you include some chance of missing the PAT, you go for 2.
If you think you are better than 50-50 in OT, you kick.

 

[PSUFTG2]

How about going for two when down 9? Just curious.

Interesting Q:

The only edge in going for 2 down 9 is if you think there is a reasonable chance you might get two more possessions. If not, there is no advantage (in the UM game, PSU had essentially 0 chance of getting two more possessions, so no value in going for 2 there)

 

[Erial_Lion]

Maybe someday we'll also explore the merits of "defense wins championships". Someone came up with that cute little saying decades ago and people act like it's gospel.

My favorite is still the “it’s really hard to beat a team 3 times in a season”.

You know what’s even harder? Beating a team that already beat you twice.

 

[GrimReaper]

Except that all of the "analytics" for football (at least the NFL) are shlt and the people pushing them are clowns.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Interesting Q:

The only edge in going for 2 down 9 is if you think there is a reasonable chance you might get two more possessions. If not, there is no advantage (in the UM game, PSU had essentially 0 chance of getting two more possessions, so no value in going for 2 there)

Why I liked it there (and in similar situations) is that it at least gives you the option to go the long FG/insides kick route to create that extra possession. As it gets later, it does matter less and less, but I’m still going to do whatever I can to maximize the chances of winning until they are zero (though obviously Todd Bowles disagrees…my head is still exploding from that one).

 

[Grant Green]

Just help a brother out:

If you assume 50-50 on the 2, and 100% on the PAT, and 50-50 in OT.... it is dead break even there wrt going for 2 in that situation.

If you think your 2 point adds are over 50, or if you include some chance of missing the PAT, you go for 2.
If you think you are better than 50-50 in OT, you kick.

I suppose that was my thought at the time. PSU had momentum and Indiana defense gassed, so probably likely over 50% of making it.

 

[Grant Green]

My favorite is still the “it’s really hard to beat a team 3 times in a season”.

You know what’s even harder? Beating a team that already beat you twice.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that past data shows that the team with 2 wins already has won the 3rd game more than 50% of the time by a good margin. Although, I may be thinking of covering the spread, which is obviously much more important

 

[Woodpecker]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

How does this play out with the same scenario (cutting a lead to 8) in the 3rd quarter? The 2nd quarter? The first quarter? In those instances, I assume you remove the 50% OT component but would the numbers still favor going for 2?

 

[Grant Green]

Except that all of the "analytics" for football (at least the NFL) are shlt and the people pushing the are clowns.

Relying blindly on all analytics = foolish
Discounting all analytics = foolish

 

[Grant Green]

How does this play out with the same scenario (cutting a lead to 8) in the 3rd quarter? The 2nd quarter? The first quarter? In those instances, I assume you remove the 50% OT component but would the numbers still favor going for 2?

I think the more time on the clock, the more variables that come into play and the less straightforward the math.

 

[Erial_Lion]

How does this play out with the same scenario (cutting a lead to 8) in the 3rd quarter? The 2nd quarter? The first quarter? In those instances, I assume you remove the 50% OT component but would the numbers still favor going for 2?

It wouldn't be nearly as clear...in those instances, there are likely enough possessions left in the game that the impact becomes negligible...this specific instance is around you scoring once more and holding the other team from scoring (which obviously becomes more likely late in the game).

 

[GrimReaper]

Relying blindly on all analytics = foolish
Discounting all analytics = foolish

There is some data collected that is statistically significant, but not much.

 

[Woodpecker]

I think the more time on the clock, the more variables that come into play and the less straightforward the math.

It wouldn't be nearly as clear...in those instances, there are likely enough possessions left in the game that the impact becomes negligible...this specific instance is around you scoring once more and holding the other team from scoring (which obviously becomes more likely late in the game).

Hmmm, OK, how about this: Choose a future point in the game, say one or two possessions down the road as an intermediate outcome point. Now it would be better if you were ahead at that point rather than tied or behind so, again based on the math, wouldn't you go for 2 to enhance your ability to get there? There is no urgency and you may be just as likely to be further behind (actually more so based on how the game has gone so far) and you might act differently when that time comes but, when you cut it to 8, should you go for 2 to get an advantage at that albeit arbitrary future point?

Please note: I am not advocating this approach but rather trying to approach it as a mathematician might. I am not a mathematician myself (which may be painfully obvious) but it's my perception that they may try to break down the problem in this manner. The real maths guys (LionJim and IrishHerb) might chime in to prove me all wet.

 

[Grant Green]

There is some data collected that is statistically significant, but not much.

Unless you work as, or closely with sports analysts, you are just postulating.