So, here’s the math on going for 2 when down by 14

Obviously, if you think that math can’t capture the realities of the game, that coaches should trust their players and go with their guts, then fine. This post isn’t going to change your mind, you can skip it. But for anyone who’s interested in looking at the probabilities, here they are

Let’s assume a 100% chance of converting the extra point and a 50% chance of converting the 2pt (the real numbers are more like 95% and 48%, but we’re simplifying just to illustrate the point)

Let’s also assume that you’re going to score two TDs while stopping the other team from scoring. Because obviously if you can’t do that, you lose the game regardless

So we break it down:

Option A Kick the XP both TDs:

  • 100% chance of going to overtime

Option B Kick the XP first, then go for 2 on the second TD:

  • 50% chance of winning in regulation, 50% chance of losing

Option C Go for 2 on the first TD:

  • Scenario 1 (50% chance), you convert. Then on the next drive, you score the TD and kick the XP: 100% chance of winning
  • Scenario 2 (50% chance), you fail to convert. Then on the next drive, you score the TD and go for 2: 50% chance of succeeding (overtime); 50% chance of losing
  • So, Option C has a total outcome of 50% chance of winning, 25% chance of overtime, 25% chance of losing

To put it together:

  • Option A, 100% overtime
  • Option B, 50% win, 50% lose
  • Option C, 50% win, 25% lose, 25% overtime

Obviously, Option C is better than Option B. And between Option A and Option B . . . well, that’s the coach’s decision. If you think you have the better roster, Option A looks fine. But I can see plenty of situations, such as the Buccaneers playing the Bills, where Option C looks pretty good to me

Even if you drop the probability of converting the 2pt to 40%, and keep the XP at 100%, Option C still comes out at 40% win, 36% lose, 24% overtime. There’s absolutely still an argument for going for that over Option A, 100% overtime–hell, even if you assume a 50% chance of winning in overtime (and if I were the Bucs playing the Bills, I wouldn’t assume that) it still comes out to 52% chance of winning, 48% chance of losing

So yeah, if you think that math can’t capture what happens on the field, then sure, perfectly reasonable point of view. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. In fact I’m not arguing myself that coaches should blindly follow the percentages–hell, the baked-in assumption here was that you were going to score TDs on consecutive drives and force a 3-and-out in between. If you think your team can do that, maybe you’re feeling pretty good about overtime

Just pointing out that, based on the probability alone, going for 2 when down by 14 makes sense a lot of the time

    • gakule@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Going for 2 leaves you with a 25% chance of losing instead of 50% chance of losing.

  • Sharkbait_ooohaha@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Matt Lafleur has done this consistently and it’s so confusing to even serious fans that they assume he screwed up.

  • Sartheking@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    It makes sense if it’s in the 4th quarter and time is running out. Otherwise, I get your point but it doesn’t really change much.

  • mrhashbrown@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    This is great, I was genuinely baffled as to why the Bucs would risk going for 2 on the first TD rather than on the potential second TD.

    Turns out I think like an old school coach and wanted to take the guaranteed points and ‘delay’ winning or losing lol. This post helped a lot and I’m a little shook that Bowles was the one to think like this when his reputation has been very risk-averse.

  • youtube_and_chill@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    For a sport that exudes aggression it’s kind of crazy how fans, coaches and owners are so risk averse. Where almost every decision is framed from the negative outcome and never from the positive.

    This is the biggest hurdle for “analytics” because it by and large is perceived to skew aggressively towards in game decision making; in a sport where people see every decision like “so what happens if you go for it and don’t get it” and never “so what happens if you go for it and get it”.

    • Efficient_Delivery47@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      People wanted Harbaugh’s head after the Ravens kept getting burned on 2 Pt conversions and maybe 4th downs I think 2 years ago. I completely agreed with Harbaugh trying to win outright. It was 50/50 and he tried his offense. It was just a run of bad luck.

    • ctsmith76@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Exactly why I was pissed that “Riverboat” (I use that term very loosely) Ron pussed out and went for the XP at the end of regulation in our first game against the Eagles.

      “We just went the length of the field in a minute and a half. We were gassed.”

      Well fuck me with a fish stick… Guess what? The defense was probably gassed, too! If you can’t get your offense to muster up two fucking yards at the end of the game to win on the road as a heavy underdog and start your season 3-1, you were gonna lose in overtime, anyway. Lo and behold, we ended up with a judgement call by the refs that didn’t go our way, and Philly won it in OT.

      Ron and his whole staff can’t be fired fast enough.

  • bitt3n@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Part of the disparity might be attributable to the fact that a failed two-point conversion leading to a loss in regulation tends to be blamed on the coach more directly than losing in overtime, and coaches don’t want to give the owner a reason to fire them.

    It reminds me of that statistic that suggests that soccer players should shoot penalty kicks straight at the goalie far more often than they do, but they don’t do this because if the strategy fails they take more blame than were they to fail shooting for the corner.

  • FridgesArePeopleToo@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Yup, it’s actually pretty simple.

    Assuming you score two tds there are three scenarios:

    Make first 2pt conversion = win in regulation (50% chance)

    Make 2nd 2pt conversion = OT (25% chance) 12.5% overall chance to win

    Miss both = lose in regulation (25% chance)

    So going for two gives you like a 60% chance to win compared to 50% for extra points.

  • Jammer_Kenneth@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The big thing to understand about the choice to go to overtime is that the longer a game lasts the less likely upsets are. A lucky team can steal a lead by going all out and opening a bag full of trick plays, but eventually luck runs out.

    So if a good team is feeling good and energized they can simply kick the points, take it to extra time, and win the game there. But if a team is aiming for an upset, go big or go home.