Holy crap, I totally misread that article ... I blame it on the bad cold I'm battling, or the sun was in my eyes, or something ... yeah, it says "dealer's face card," not a 3 ... wow. My bad.
The math behind going for 2 when down by 14 late in game and scoring a TD.
- Thread starter Grant Green
- Start date
Seems like a hell of a lot of assumptions to make this a ‘no brainer’ precisely because of the things a scenario or formula can’t quantify, and those are momentum swings and psychological impact of failing.
How do you guarantee the other team won’t score? You have to assume in a game you are losing by two TD’s that at a minimum, the other team has shown it can score. And if it’s late? You basically do what you can to win; I’d like to see some numbers/probability on going for two after scoring your first TD in an away game where you’re favored by a single digit.
The article says he stayed on 16 vs. a dealer's face card which is the wrong move, supposed to hit there. Also you are incorrect, you'd hit a soft 16 against a dealer's 3.
I already posted that I misread the article … and if they were talking about a soft hand, it’d state as such.
First, you should read through this thread as responses by Erial and myself will cover some of these.
On momentum, you are assuming this is a one way street - what if your team goes for 2 and misses, they will lose momentum. Well, what if they make it? Doesn't that give them more momentum? This impact cancels out. Also, if your team is down 2 TDs late in the game and you just drove to get one of them, does missing the 2 point really have that much impact to the team psyche? You still have a chance to tie the game with an 8 point play! Plenty of incentive.
You ask, what if the other team scores? Meaningless. If you had gone for the traditional extra point instead of going for 2 and the other team scores then it didn't matter if you went for 2 or 1. The parameters of this scenarios is that your team will be able to score 2 more TDs without the other team scoring, so a score by the other team is not even part of this scenario anyway.
What are the other assumptions? The math is really simple as I have shown. It shows an edge of 62.5% to win the game by going for 2 as opposed to a 50% chance by going for 1. Yes, the math is simplified on purpose so these numbers are not precise. However, 12.5% is an ENORMOUS statistical edge (this is what I think most people are missing). All factors discussed throughout this thread can make subtle differences to the percentages, but none are enough to overcome a 12.5% edge. None.
One last word. There were 2 NFL games last year where this strategy was successful and the team won. One was the GB Packers who made the playoffs by one game.
Last edited:
Coaches would rather "extend the game" than win the game. Ryan Day was guilty of this in OSU's loss to Oregon. I don't understand why OSU didn't go for 2 after its last touchdown in the 3rd quarter. If they didn't make it they would have ended up losing by 2. Instead they lost by 1. If they had made it, the game would have been tied at the end of regulation.
I'm a numbers person but I wouldn't make the decision to go for 2 based on "the book".
- If I think I have the better team I'd kick and be happy to get into OT.
- If I'm the underdog I might think this is my best chance to win (like MD yesterday).
- I'd also consider fatigue. If my team is gassed I'd try to win in regulation.
- Of course you should also consider who has the momentum. If the momentum is on my side I'd go for 2.
Also have to consider whether or not your team is good in short yardage situations. I've had to endure 12 years of Brian Kelly at ND, and his teams were norotious short yardage failures
First, in my mind "playing by the book" is taking the points and just kicking XPs, so the 'go for 2 after scoring a TD to go down by 8' is not at all by the book.
If you are truly a numbers guys, then you should understand that ~62.5% chance of victory is an ENORMOUS edge over a ~50% chance. It's so large that it makes almost any other factor irrelevant (better team, below ave short yardage game, fatigue, momentum, etc). None of these can overcome a 12.5% edge. For context, when coaches are making the 4th down decisions, the analytic differences are often on the order of 52% vs 51% - relatively small compared to a 12.5% difference. In these situations, I can understand considering other factors such as early in the game, fatigue, etc. when making a decision. Not when it's a 12.5% edge though.
Going for 2 points when down by 8 late in the game is going to be overwhelmingly the correct decision almost every single time.
As @Grant Green said, in this instance, the numbers would never overcome the edge that you gain by going for two. Especially when you factor in that if your team is bad in short yardage, then wouldn't going to OT put you at a disadvantage with the NCAA OT rules?
There is a new one that blew my mind this morning (and I know that @Grant Green and @PSUFTG will appreciate it).
In last night's Dallas-Houston game, Dallas was down 20-10 with 4:21 left in the 3rd quarter. They successfully converted a 64 yard FG on 4th down, but Houston got called for a Personal Foul on the play. So, McCarthy took the points off the board and turned down a 20-13 game to instead keep it 20-10 but have it 1st and 10 from the Houston 31.
Seems like a complete no-brainer decision to me, but he's somehow getting blasted this morning since you "never take points off the board", or that he "could have made it a one score game", and that's somehow the most important thing at that point (at least it is to some that aren’t getting it).
Just shocking stuff...read it in several different places, but here is an example...
thelandryhat.com
In last night's Dallas-Houston game, Dallas was down 20-10 with 4:21 left in the 3rd quarter. They successfully converted a 64 yard FG on 4th down, but Houston got called for a Personal Foul on the play. So, McCarthy took the points off the board and turned down a 20-13 game to instead keep it 20-10 but have it 1st and 10 from the Houston 31.
Seems like a complete no-brainer decision to me, but he's somehow getting blasted this morning since you "never take points off the board", or that he "could have made it a one score game", and that's somehow the most important thing at that point (at least it is to some that aren’t getting it).
Just shocking stuff...read it in several different places, but here is an example...
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his Cowboys fate with illogical decision vs. Texans
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his fate as Cowboys head coach with a baffling decision against the Texans.
thelandryhat.com
Last edited:
But Dallas ended up getting no points at all for that drive. After taking the penalty they got to 4th and 2 at the eight, went for it and failed. Don’t you think that, down ten with an iffy offense, Dallas not kicking the field goal from the 8 was a mistake?There is a new one that blew my mind this morning (and I know that @Grant Green and @PSUFTG will appreciate it).
In last night's Dallas-Houston game, Dallas was down 20-10 with 4:21 left in the 3rd quarter. They successfully converted a 64 yard FG on 4th down, but Houston got called for a Personal Foul on the play. So, McCarthy took the points off the board and turned down a 20-13 game to instead keep it 20-10 but have it 1st and 10 from the Houston 31.
Seems like a complete no-brainer decision to me, but he's somehow getting blasted this morning since you "never take points off the board", or that he "could have made it a one score game", and that's somehow the most important thing at that point.
Just shocking stuff...read it in several different places, but here is an example...
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his Cowboys fate with illogical decision vs. Texans
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his fate as Cowboys head coach with a baffling decision against the Texans.
I agree they taking the penalty was the right move. But in some sense taking the penalty was a good idea because they could have put the three points back on the board later in that drive, the only thing you lose is some time off the clock.
I had to read this twice to make sure I was understanding correctly. Yeah, very surprised this call was questioned. I'm all for piling on McCarthy, but not this one.There is a new one that blew my mind this morning (and I know that @Grant Green and @PSUFTG will appreciate it).
In last night's Dallas-Houston game, Dallas was down 20-10 with 4:21 left in the 3rd quarter. They successfully converted a 64 yard FG on 4th down, but Houston got called for a Personal Foul on the play. So, McCarthy took the points off the board and turned down a 20-13 game to instead keep it 20-10 but have it 1st and 10 from the Houston 31.
Seems like a complete no-brainer decision to me, but he's somehow getting blasted this morning since you "never take points off the board", or that he "could have made it a one score game", and that's somehow the most important thing at that point.
Just shocking stuff...read it in several different places, but here is an example...
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his Cowboys fate with illogical decision vs. Texans
Mike McCarthy may have sealed his fate as Cowboys head coach with a baffling decision against the Texans.
I would come to a different conclusions with an iffy offense. With limited opportunities to score, you have to maximize points when you get into opposition territory. This will obviously involve some luck, but Dallas is going to need luck to win any football games at this point.
That play happened in the third quarter, of course you take the penalty and try to drive in for the TD. I think it is silly to argue otherwise.
Actually, I think that anyone would take the penalty in this situation. This situation, where a penalty allows you to continue a drive, is different than a situation where you go for it on fourth down instead of taking three sure points, or going for two. Technically this was indeed a situation where Dallas “took points off the board,” but it’s not an example that was argued on this board.
I could have made a new thread, but posted it here since it's another example of some of those old wives' tales (and "anti-analytics") creeping in like "never take points off the board", or the important of "making it a one score game". I'd think it's obvious to take the 1st down and keep the drive going, but forums, articles (like the one I posted, which called it both "boneheaded" and "illogical"), Twitter, etc are heavily criticizing McCarthy for making such a bad call...it's results-based thinking as it's worst.
No...though not a strong enough opinion that I'd criticize doing so.
FWIW, the ESPN 4th down analytics page gave a 3.7% edge to going for it. I'm not going to stake my life on the quality of ESPN's analytics, but even at say, a 2% edge, I lean to go for it. Again, especially given that Dallas was not going to have a lot of opportunities in the RZ again.
https://espnanalytics.com/game/9
So if I understand the theory correctly now, if you think the other team isn't done scoring, going for 2 in that situation doesn't really give you an edge?
So just looking at the conversion, is the argument that you are more likely to get the 3 points by going for the 2pc on the first TD, rather than the second? Why is that?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the quoted post about the cowboys game or the general concept of going for 2 when you just scored aTD after trailing by 14?
Get unlimited access today.