NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[-Jrabbit]

Umm, and then you'd fail, and only be up by 7. Unless you believe the 2 point conversion chances of (your team making) plus (other team making) average to greater than fifty percent, you don't go for it...

This is all predicated on the assumption that an opposing coach will kick the PAT for OT. If you think he has the stones to go for the win in regulation (VERY rare in the NFL), you kick.

By going for 2, you have an upside of a 2-score lead with a failure scenario of OT at worst. Success = Game Over.
Kicking a PAT for an 8-point lead is fine, but eliminates the "game over" outcome.

Assuming equal values for each team making a 2-pt conversion, I'd much rather see the ball in my QB's hands.

[Donegeal]

Ok, Slow... no mentioning of that other game...

But I am wondering, how well do you think Alex Barron is going to play against Julius Peppers this coming Sunday?

[-Jrabbit]

...chance and probability is being thrown out the window by these gutless armchair coaches.

Al, you've already stated that you didn't even see the game. Calling other people names that apply equally to you is pretty lame.

In a game where there had been no scoring in the second half and the opposing offense is crippled, I place a very high value on having the lead. Any analysis that would trade a virtual certainty of having the lead now for some indefinite possible future lead is not placing enough value on actual victory.

Let me be clear: As a general approach, I have no problem going for the TD in that situation. But this was about observation and analysis of the actual game in front of me. The fact that the Bears failed to score should be sufficient proof that, IN THIS SITUATION, my analysis was correct.

[snoopy369]

This is all predicated on the assumption that an opposing coach will kick the PAT for OT. If you think he has the stones to go for the win in regulation (VERY rare in the NFL), you kick.

By going for 2, you have an upside of a 2-score lead with a failure scenario of OT at worst. Success = Game Over.
Kicking a PAT for an 8-point lead is fine, but eliminates the "game over" outcome.

Assuming equal values for each team making a 2-pt conversion, I'd much rather see the ball in my QB's hands.

I don't care about people 'going for the win' - it's too rare to plan for.

If I'm up by 7 and have the chance to kick the XP or go for 2, I go for 2 if I think the composite chance of (me kicking PAT and making, and opp coach going for 2 and making) is lower than (me going for 2 and making) [which is not quite what I explained above - 50% is irrelevant to the comparison element]. You can argue whether going for 2 and making is > or < than 50% for any given team, but you have to decide that you think going for 2 and making is more likely than them going for 2 and making [or really, going for 2 and failing is less likely than them going for 2 and making]. That is the ONLY consideration here, for a rational coach. The "game over" outcome is ridiculous (for a rational coach). If it's the Bears, I want to see that PAT kicked every time as they are terrible at scoring from close in, and they have a very solid D, so I'd think the chances of them stopping a 2 pt conversion are very high. If it's the Jets, I'd probably go for 2 as their O-line is probably better than their D-line.

[snoopy369]

Al, you've already stated that you didn't even see the game. Calling other people names that apply equally to you is pretty lame.

In a game where there had been no scoring in the second half and the opposing offense is crippled, I place a very high value on having the lead. Any analysis that would trade a virtual certainty of having the lead now for some indefinite possible future lead is not placing enough value on actual victory.

Let me be clear: As a general approach, I have no problem going for the TD in that situation. But this was about observation and analysis of the actual game in front of me. The fact that the Bears failed to score should be sufficient proof that, IN THIS SITUATION, my analysis was correct.

Expected value is all about what happens on average, and through the next bit of the game. The fact that they didn't score IN THIS SITUATION is utterly irrelevant to your analysis being correct. The EV of the Bears going for it takes into account:
* % chance of a TD on that play
* EV of the Lions possession on their own 1 yard line
* EV of the Bears later scoring due to the great field position they will get from the Lions punting to them

And it's all probabilities anyway, so sometimes things happen that are improbable. But, the Bears later scoring a TD is taken into account in the EVs here... and is most of why the EV of going for it on 4th and goal on the 1 is quite high. The EV of a possession on your own 1 yard line is quite negative (-1.8 or something - don't remember the exact number).

[-Jrabbit]

Look, this was about my personal analysis of the game situation I was watching. I "knew" they would not score and, given that, would opt for the FG and the lead.

That's all I was saying.

I agree with you and Albert on the general case scenario; I won't argue a point that I basically agree with. I just felt strongly that this game situation was the exception.

[ZEE]

.

[SlowwHand]

It's seen as stupid, IMO.

[ZEE]

.

[snoopy369]

Why is it unsportsmanlike to go for 2? Is it unsportsmanlike to try and win a game? Next you'll say people shouldn't kick field goals when up by 8 points... Going for 2 is seen as 'unlikely to give me 2 points', or more likely 'in the old days they didn't have this fancy going for 2 stuff so I'm sure not doing it'.

[ZEE]

.

[snoopy369]

None of those had anything to do with 'unsportsmanlike'. Unsportsmanlike = not treating the other team fairly, gloating, rubbing it in, or cheating. None of those are related to that... I doubt the chances of an injury are relevant as you have sixty or so snaps a game, so you're only increasing the odds by 1/60, which of an already low chance is pretty low. You also have odds of injuries on the PAT to take into account, which do affect some of your star players (star linemen, which often are more important than star RB/QB/etc.) Certainly they should be taken into account, but I doubt they have more than a negligible effect on the expected value.

And what media/advertising companies have to do with anything I have no idea. They'd probably love to see you go for two more often - more exciting to have a 50/50 shot at 2 points than a 99% shot at 1 point. Viewers love increased variance. Otherwise people would watch more soccer.

In any event I have no idea why you think I don't think the NFL is being played the way I think it should be. I think coaches probably should go for 2 more often, but it doesn't particularly bother me that they don't - it's not a significant difference anyway. And until I either crunch the numbers myself, or learn to coach at the NFL level, I don't think I necessarily can say for certain what should be. For that matter I do believe I was suggesting in this instance to NOT go for two (or at least, suggesting why the reasoning to not go for two made some sense).

[ZEE]

.

[ZEE]

.

[Al B. Sure!]

AAHZ has no idea what he's talking about. He's thinking in video game terms.

The real reason why 2-point conversions and going for it on 4th and short anywhere on the field for that matter are not more common is because while it would look great if they converted, any time they don't convert, coaches know that they're going to get lambasted in the media and, in most situations, a failure will give the opposing team some level of an advantage either on the scoreboard or in field position.