Not going for 2 when down 14 and score td in 4th qtr....

[Tacosman]

 

Going for 2 is the right move as long as conversion rates hover close to50%.

It's not even close really.  Anyone who can't see this is math/data illiterate.  

So why did we not do this?

To be fair I see other teams screw this up too....

but we've had 2 games now(and especially the steeler game where iirc our first td hapened later in 4th to make it even clearer), and we are going for 1...

when the model shows that going for 2 to try to cut it to 6 is BY FAR the superior choice.  

[bjh2130]

No..... I want to see the model you are referring to so please find it for me. I have never seen anything like that. If you are down 15 or 16 then yes for it. Being down 14 you kick the pat.

[D Bone]

46 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

 

Going for 2 is the right move as long as conversion rates hover close to50%.

It's not even close really.  Anyone who can't see this is math/data illiterate.  

So why did we not do this?

To be fair I see other teams screw this up too....

but we've had 2 games now(and especially the steeler game where iirc our first td hapened later in 4th to make it even clearer), and we are going for 1...

when the model shows that going for 2 to try to cut it to 6 is BY FAR the superior choice.  

..... and here I thought Hue was the worst game day strategist I knew. 

I stand corrected. 

[Richiswhere]

http://www.theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart

[D Bone]

Man, I can't believe this is even a thread. Always take the point until your expected remaining possessions vs time left say otherwise......

If I played Taco 100 times, I'm going 75-25. 

[Orion]

I think you first play for the tie.  If you're down 14 and score a TD, you kick the PAT.

--------

If you're UP 7, then I like going for 2.  At 9 points your opponent cannot catch you.  -  If you miss the 2 point conversion you're still up 7 so the opponent will kick the PAT to tie you.  If you make the PAT and lead by 8, you're opponent will go for 2 to tie you.

[TexasAg1969]

Besides all of the above, we don't have a short yardage scoring play. Rest my case.🏆

[Tacosman]

13 hours ago, bjh2130 said:

No..... I want to see the model you are referring to so please find it for me. I have never seen anything like that. If you are down 15 or 16 then yes for it. Being down 14 you kick the pat.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Boom....with all the data very clearly laid out for you who aren't so good at math/using data

[Tacosman]

11 hours ago, Orion said:

I think you first play for the tie.  If you're down 14 and score a TD, you kick the PAT.

--------

If you're UP 7, then I like going for 2.  At 9 points your opponent cannot catch you.  -  If you miss the 2 point conversion you're still up 7 so the opponent will kick the PAT to tie you.  If you make the PAT and lead by 8, you're opponent will go for 2 to tie you.

ummmm no, thats what teams generally do.  But it's not the right move.

think about it like this::(in cases where you score two tds)

-if you go for it and make it, you are going to win the game.  That alone is almost 50% of the equation

-if for you go for two and miss it, you still have ANOTHER CHANCE to tie the game.  

-the only scenario where you lose is if you miss TWO STRAIGHT two point conversions, which has a much lower chance of happening than making the first two point attempt

Likewise teams should also go for two on the FIRST try when down 15 and they score a td to cut it to 9, but they almost always wait until the second.  When the reality is you need one 2 pt conversion anyways, so its better to know ahead of time whether you get it for future planning

[Tacosman]

12 hours ago, D Bone said:

Man, I can't believe this is even a thread. Always take the point until your expected remaining possessions vs time left say otherwise......

If I played Taco 100 times, I'm going 75-25. 

 

12 hours ago, Richiswhere said:

http://www.theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart

that chart is wrong.  It was 'developed in the 70s' and note there there is no data or winning probabilities associated with it. See the 538 chart I posted that uses actual data

to determine what the best choice is late in game.,

Even without the data though, just intuitively think about it.  Two point conversions work about half as often as an extra point.  The actual numbers now are 48% vs 95-6% or so.  For simplicity lets use 50 and 100 bc the point is still the same.  

scenario 1: make 2 pt conversion on 1st attempt.  kick xp on 2nd.  Win 50% of the time

scenario2: miss 2pt conversion on 1st attempt, make on 2nd.  tie 25% of the time

scenario 3: miss on 1st and 2nd attempt, lose 25% of the time

It's clear.  

Now this applies to generally when down 15 in fourth qtr.  Not at any point in game.  

[gumby73]

        

[bjh2130]

10 hours ago, Tacosman said:

ummmm no, thats what teams generally do.  But it's not the right move.

think about it like this::(in cases where you score two tds)

-if you go for it and make it, you are going to win the game.  That alone is almost 50% of the equation

-if for you go for two and miss it, you still have ANOTHER CHANCE to tie the game.  

-the only scenario where you lose is if you miss TWO STRAIGHT two point conversions, which has a much lower chance of happening than making the first two point attempt

Likewise teams should also go for two on the FIRST try when down 15 and they score a td to cut it to 9, but they almost always wait until the second.  When the reality is you need one 2 pt conversion anyways, so its better to know ahead of time whether you get it for future planning

I agree with going for the two point try earlier when down 15 or 22 for example. If down 22 and you go for two on the first and don't get it you still are only down 2 scores (16), but that is because you absolutely need a 2 point conversion to tie the game in that instance.

As far as your point of losing is only if you don't convert either 2 point conversion which is lower blah blah etc is rubbish. That's not how that works bub. Just because you missed the first doesn't make you more likely to make it the second time. It is 46% to make it the first time and 46% to make it the second time. They are not dependent on each other. You know like in roulette if it lands on red 10 straight times it still means betting on black that 11th time you lose more than you win.

 

 Your chance of missing two straight two-point conversions is about 54% and your chance of making the first two point conversion is 46% according to your numbers.

[Tacosman]

7 hours ago, bjh2130 said:

I agree with going for the two point try earlier when down 15 or 22 for example. If down 22 and you go for two on the first and don't get it you still are only down 2 scores (16), but that is because you absolutely need a 2 point conversion to tie the game in that instance.

As far as your point of losing is only if you don't convert either 2 point conversion which is lower blah blah etc is rubbish. That's not how that works bub. Just because you missed the first doesn't make you more likely to make it the second time. It is 46% to make it the first time and 46% to make it the second time. They are not dependent on each other. You know like in roulette if it lands on red 10 straight times it still means betting on black that 11th time you lose more than you win.

 

 Your chance of missing two straight two-point conversions is about 54% and your chance of making the first two point conversion is 46% according to your numbers.

your math isnt good.  You are right they are independent of each other(duh), which is why if the conversion rate is 50%, then the chance of missing two straight and losing is 25%.  

.5 x .5 = .25 = 25%

I have no idea why you think your chance of missing two straight 2 pt conversions would be the same as missing just the first.

 

[Tacosman]

12 hours ago, gumby73 said:

        

 

math = good

data = good

making decisions involving math and date = good

 

[bjh2130]

55 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

your math isnt good.  You are right they are independent of each other(duh), which is why if the conversion rate is 50%, then the chance of missing two straight and losing is 25%.  

.5 x .5 = .25 = 25%

I have no idea why you think your chance of missing two straight 2 pt conversions would be the same as missing just the first.

 

 I said they are not dependent of each other. So in your mind at the casino playing roulette you look at the board it says it's hit black 10 straight times so to you that means that there is only a .09% chance that the next roll will result in black when that is not the case at all. Because one roll doesn't have to do with the previous or the next just like 1 2 point conversion doesn't have to do with the previous or the next

And I believe that because once you have missed the first you still have the same odds of making/missing the second. It's like calling heads twice in a row thinking that you have a better chance of it being heads the second time if it was tails the 1st it's just not true.

[Tacosman]

1 minute ago, bjh2130 said:

 I said they are not independent of each other. So in your mind at the casino playing roulette you look at the board it says it's hit black 10 straight times so to you that means that there is only a .09% chance that the next roll will result in black when that is not the case at all. Because one roll doesn't have to do with the previous or the next just like 1 2 point conversion doesn't have to do with the previous or the next.

(sigh)

Of course they are independent of each other.   We both get that obvious point. Lets do the math again.  Put on your big boy math cap and try to follow along.

each two point conversion attempt has roughly a 50% chance of success.

When down 14 after scoring a td, that inital two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure)

When down 8 after the first one misses, that next two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure)

This means the chance of a team that tries two back to back 2 pt conversions failing to make either one, and thus losing, is 25%.  Why are you struggling with that?  Where is the hang up?

So the breakdown is as follows:

make the first two pt try, kick xp to win by 1: ~50%

miss the first and second, lose by 2: ~ 25%

miss the first, make the second, tie: ~ 25%

Therefore, the right move late in the game is to go for 2

[D Bone]

You know you're phucked up when Pat Shurmur agrees with you.......  

[TexasAg1969]

Well Shurmer is an idiot now. Could have gone for 1 to be behind by 7, but went for two and now behind by 8.

EDIT: D Bone spotted it at the same time. LOL!🤣

[Tacosman]

1 minute ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Well Shurmer is an idiot now. Could have gone for 1 to be behind by 7, but went for two and now behind by 8.

excellent move as the data shows....

[TexasAg1969]

1 minute ago, Tacosman said:

excellent move as the data shows....

Data fuc-ked him then.

[bjh2130]

31 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

(sigh)

Of course they are independent of each other.   We both get that obvious point. Lets do the math again.  Put on your big boy math cap and try to follow along.

each two point conversion attempt has roughly a 50% chance of success.

When down 14 after scoring a td, that inital two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure)

When down 8 after the first one misses, that next two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure)

This means the chance of a team that tries two back to back 2 pt conversions failing to make either one, and thus losing, is 25%.  Why are you struggling with that?  Where is the hang up?

So the breakdown is as follows:

make the first two pt try, kick xp to win by 1: ~50%

miss the first and second, lose by 2: ~ 25%

miss the first, make the second, tie: ~ 25%

Therefore, the right move late in the game is to go for 2

Even if you want to say that which i get what you are saying as a whole but once the first is missed you don't have a 75 percent success rate. If you kick both extra points you have a 95% chance of going to overtime and only a 5 percent chance of losing if you get the two scores and you are the team playing better at the time you want overtime.

[Orion]

Pat Murmur is a dope.

I noticed him giving Manning a play without putting his play-card in front of his mouth..........and I couldn't make out a single murmur he made.

[TexasAg1969]

Just now, Orion said:

Pat Murmur is a dope.

I noticed him giving Manning a play without putting his play-card in front of his mouth..........and I couldn't make out a single murmur he made.

He said, "We're going for two so we can tank for #1."😜

[D Bone]

7 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

excellent move as the data shows....

You just double jumped and asked to be Kinged.... Too bad you're playing chess. 

[bjh2130]

Why didn't we pick up this kicker instead of the guy we got.

[D Bone]

Thank God we have Hue and not Pat. 

[Tacosman]

27 minutes ago, bjh2130 said:

Even if you want to say that which i get what you are saying as a whole but once the first is missed you don't have a 75 percent success rate. If you kick both extra points you have a 95% chance of going to overtime and only a 5 percent chance of losing if you get the two scores and you are the team playing better at the time you want overtime.

of course once the first is missed you dont have a 75% success rate...at that point you only have a 50% chance to tie.

But again,..look at the whole picture- if you make it the first time, you hae a 50% chance to win.  That is worth more than the downside

[Tacosman]

31 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Data fuc-ked him then.

not at all...he just explained  why.

Now on Sportscenter they just explained the analytics and explained why it is so clear.

The data is clear- its a nobrainer

[D Bone]

38 minutes ago, Tacosman said:

its a nobrainer

Finally, something we agree on! 

[Tour2ma]

Interesting stuff...

10 hours ago, Tacosman said:

I have no idea why you think your chance of missing two straight 2 pt conversions would be the same as missing just the first.

It's the old "once the first event has occurred" argument...

9 hours ago, Tacosman said:

not at all...he just explained  why.

Now on Sportscenter they just explained the analytics and explained why it is so clear.

The data is clear- its a nobrainer

Why cling to "the data" when the the game played out just as "the data" said it would? Namely NYG made one of two 2-point conversions?

That said...

The problem with "the data" that I see (other than the fact that it is not "data", but a set of statistical probabilities derived from "the data") is that it is not team specific. Not all teams are created equal. And then there's the time of game factor. Or as the 538 article put it:

Quote

So coming up with a complete guide to 2-point conversions merely involves repeating the process above, but for every possible combination of point spread and time remaining. For this, we’re going to let ESPN/Brian Burke’s expected wins model do the heavy lifting.⁸ Moreover, since all of this is based on league averages and no coach likes to think of his team as average, we need to compute all the scenarios for different types of teams, based on how good (or bad) they are at 2-point conversions. (Scenarios within scenarios!)

The charts at the bottom of your linked article clearly support Patsies decision. Specifically this chart: which has essentially all the decisions firmly in the 2-point side. However, the same is not true of Hue's early Q3 decision where the chart suggests that the poorer 2-point teams, of which we are one, should consider going for the single PAT.