I'm certainly not Jim or Herb, but I have a math background and spend a lot of time with sports data/analytics. There really isn't any reason why you'd want to reach an intermediate outcome at the risk of sacrificing anything from your full-game outcome. It is true in a sport like NASCAR where there are advantages for leading at a specific period of a race. But with football where it only matters who wins the game, there isn't any other point that you should care about as you make your decisions.
The math behind going for 2 when down by 14 late in game and scoring a TD.
- Thread starter Grant Green
- Start date
@Woodpecker Maybe a better way to look at it is how can you accumulate more points over the long run - by going for 2 or kicking the XP?
If your long term 2pt rate is greater than your XP rate divided by 2, then you should always go for 2. Of course no other coach will ever do this because of bad public perception. Malcolm Gladwell did a good podcast on this called "pulling the goalie".
Do you disagree with the simple math? You prefer having a lower chance of winning?
It reminds me of the example that someone gave elsewhere of the following scenario...
You're a baseball manager, and your team is down 3-2 in a 7 game series. Tonight, you can throw your ace on short rest, and you'd likely have a 60% chance of winning. But then tomorrow, you come back with a pitcher that gives you a 45% chance of winning. Or, you can throw that other pitcher tonight with the 45% chance of winning, and saving your ace for tomorrow's game would give you a 70% chance of winning.
I'm shocked at how many say you have to throw the ace tonight, since that gives you the best chance of extending the series...and heading into the offseason without your ace pitching the last game would potentially get you fired if we could have gone. Me...I do whatever gives me the best chance of winning the series, regardless of it means I have a larger chance of losing in 6.
Plenty of casinos. I've been a winning football bettor since 2016 (mostly offshore books) . Wish I could say the same for baseball which is why I stopped betting it. Not sure why this is relevant.
Why do you go to a casino? In the long run you will lose. Or ādo you disagree with simple mathā? Just take your money and throw it out the window. Will save on gas.
Maybe there's a lot of angst about 2 pt conversions in this fan base because we were forced to watch numerous unsuccessful OT efforts vs. an vastly inferior team? Or a phantom 2 pointer a few years ago?
Sort of 2PTSD for 2 point stress disorder?
Sort of 2PTSD for 2 point stress disorder?
I completely agree if you are playing table games. When I go to a casino, I play poker or bet on sports where I can shift the odds in my favor. I would only play blackjack if I was good at counting cards and wanted to risk being kicked out.
Michigan and Ohio St, both this season, in the two scenarios that were discussed in this thread.
I also will as a group for entertainmentā¦I make it to casinos about once every two years, and will play something like Blackjack playing basic strategy throughout, while sucking down the free drinks. -EV isnāt much different than a night out anywhere else.
That simple math ignores the team-specific variables. Like not being able to convert 2pt attempts at the NCAA averages.
Having more Intel on the opponent's short yardage defense increases your success rate.
Yes because If I lose game 6 the 70% chance of winning tomorrow doesnt exist----- its an independent event that only exists if I win
So yeah ill take my 40% chance of losing and going home tonight versus 55% chance of losing and going home tonight
This was already covered earlier in the thread. While it will certainly change the math, it is unlikely to overcome the 12.5% edge.
Youād be putting way too much stock into individual results in that scenario. In general, the NCAA averages will give you a pretty good indication; there will be some small variances based on the teams, but not that overly significant.
It is not completely independent. The scenario is that you have to win 2 games to win the series.
Probability 1 = 60% X 45% = 27%
Probability 2 = 45% X 70% = 31.5%
Then why have individual events/results at all?
Thats the problem with generalizing or normalizing with your statistics across a large pool---- these games don't operate in a vacuum
Teams strengths and weakness do count thats why they train, they practice else why play at all if the statistics say well your going lose because the odds say your are going to
The only thing that matters are outcomes.
If a coach follows their analytics as Doug P. did, you better be prepared to face the media and hostile fans if the outcome fails. The aftermath will be brutal.
If a coach follows the common sense path and takes the sure thing by kicking the XP, at least his team is guaranteed to have a fighting chance in OT regardless of the outcome. Fans and media will be more tolerant.
Football isnāt blackjack. People are overthinking things by trying to be the smartest person in the room.
Last edited:
And if games were solely based on Math why even play them?
come on Grant you lose game 6 there is no game seven plain and simple
Probability is a poor excuse for actual results---- and if your telling me that your 3.5% delta chance of winning is the way to go just because probability says so versus to what is actually happening on the field real time?
I'll pass --- I want to win game 6 plain and simple and want to play tomorrow--- and take my chances...its an all hands on deck game anyway so this scenario is a strawman argument to favor probability not a real world event that happens in real time
The reason is that a game is a series of hundreds of individual events, and as you compound them, those small variances add up. Iām not going to beat a PGA pro over a tournament or a round, but I can over a hole.
The odds of a bad team beating a good team may be smallā¦but the odds of converting one two pointer are much higher.
Exactly. I want to make the decision that gives me more winning outcomes than appease fans.
I believe Doug P relied heavily on analytics in 2017 and brought Philly its only super bowl. If you asked Philly fans, would you rather win a super bowl and suck for the next 2-3 years, or be above average every year and not win a super bowl, what do you think they will choose?
No it wasnt Game 7 has meaning---- ever been to one?
I lose game 6 Game 7 doesnt exist--- thats a big IF there on your part
either way I would want take 7 games to lose a series than 6
Knowing that I get more chances at independent events that can swing the game in my favor (sure maybe lose it too)----aka 9 more innings but either way I have to win 2 and I cant win 2 without winning the 1st one
If your goal is make fans happy about getting to Game 7, great. My goal is to give myself the best chance to win it all.
You are assuming that pitching a 45% prob pitcher loses you the first game. It doesn't. Sorry buddy, you are off on this one.
It does? What was Penn State's 2pt conversions success rate this year? Against OSU/Michigan it was 0/3. As a playcaller you don't ignore the nuance of your offense and the opposing defense because of nationwide averages.
Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I wouldn't trust the 2023 offense to achieve 50% success on 2pt conversions especially against the better defenses.
Take the points (and yes rest your Ace)
As I said, Iām surprised that many do have that same beliefā¦it goes back to announcers/coaches/fans thinking the most important part is āextendingā and not āwinningā (and using the logic that you canāt win it if you donāt extend it).
My basketball version of it is coaches/fans that are anti-fouling when up 3, since āworst case, youād still go to OT if they make a 3, whereas with fouling, you bring up the chance of losing in regulationā. Me, I foul even if it means a chance of losing in regulation, since it increases my odds of winning at a macro-level.
You're supposed to say "sports is played on the field, not on paper". I believe that's how the saying goes.
Not when you are para phrasing George FoussekisYou're supposed to say "sports is played on the field, not on paper". I believe that's how the saying goes.
Michigan was 15 points, not 14. PSU scores and rather than making it a one score game, Franklin went for two and kept it as a score game.
If he kicked it instead, it means we only need one drive versus two. Kind of a deflating moment.
He has a point. You never have to draw up plays on a chalk board anymore. Hell, you don't even need paper.
Why draw up plays anyway? Stop thinking and just go out there and beat the snot out of the other team, you know, on the field.
