Gophers' Claeys will ‘always’ go for 2 when up by 7 late; Agree? Or kick the Xtra Point?
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
But that's the only time the decision to go for two will matter; otherwise we're just wasting our time in deciding whether it's the right decision.
Statistically speaking you are more likely to win a two possession game than a one possession game.
There's no such thing a short sighted in football. This isn't investing in your 401k. If your two point conversion fails then, the other team will tie the game and play in overtime. If you kick the extra point, then you still give the other team the chance to tie it and go in to overtime.
Going for two is low risk high reward. When it's low risk high reward, you always go for it.
“If we don’t get it, and the other team goes down and scores, 95 percent of the time they are kicking (the extra point), and we are going to overtime anyway,” he said.
I doubt that at the end of the game the team is more likely to kick for a tie. I would assume many would go for the win
I doubt that at the end of the game the team is more likely to kick for a tie. I would assume many would go for the win
The overwhelming majority of the time the team that's behind ties the game and takes it in to overtime. Claeys is correct.
Statistically that is just not true and assuming the other team will score every time is why. They score infrequently enough as to make it no big deal whether you go for 2 or not. You can't make a correct decision if you assume something to happen. You should make decisions off actual probabilities, not assumed worse case scenario, if your answer is to give yourself the best chance at winning the game.
Let's relate this to a modified version of roulette. Let's say there are two roulette wheels. Wheel #1 has 39 black pockets and 61 red pockets. Wheel #2 has 50 black and 50 red.
The first roll is always using wheel #1 and the roller always has to pick black. So you're the customer, you go first. You can either roll and take your 39% chance of getting black or you can pass.
If you roll and the roll is black you win and the game is over. If the roll is red, you tie and move to wheel #2 which is a 50/50 chance. In this scenario, you have a 39% chance of winning on the first roll followed by a 50% chance for roll 2 and beyond.
If you pass, then the house rolls. If the house rolls black, then you tie and move to wheel #2 which is 50/50 chance. If the house rolls red, then you win. In this scenario you have a 61% chance of winning on the first roll followed by a 50% chance for roll 2 and beyond.
I know football isn't the same as a roulette wheel because a team might be better on offense, so you take your chances on offense and the pressure off the defense. On average though, I think everyone would rather have a 61% chance of winning on the first roll rather than a 39%, so the logical thing to do is pass (which is the equivalent of kicking the extra point).
no they don't. The overwhelming majority of the time they don't score irrespective of whether or not you kicked an extra point. Claeys may have been right (he likely wasn't terribly wrong at worst).
I don't know where to find the stat, but it seems to me that most coaches play for the tie when given the choice unless they are a big underdog. Most coaches tend to be risk averse whenever possible.
If the other team doesn't score, then it doesn't matter if you kick the extra point, convert on the two point, or fail to convert on the two point. You're going to win in all 3 scenarios. You're not improving your chances by going for two. There's no decision to make. Therefore, it's irrelevant to ask what is the right call for the scenario of the other team not scoring.
If you want to call that Scenario A, the other team doesn't score 95% of the time (or whatever), you're going to win each and every time. So forget about that scenario; whether to go for two has as much impact in the outcome as deciding which restaurant to go to after the game to celebrate.
It's Scenario B, when the other team does score a TD 5% of the time, that's the only time where it's going to matter whether you converted or not. And that's the only scenario worth discussing, even if you think that it's not likely to happen.
If your two point conversion fails then, the other team will tie the game and play in overtime. So, 40% of the time, I win in regulation, and 60% of the time I go to overtime.
If you kick the extra point, then you still give the other team the chance to tie it and go in to overtime. So, 60% of the time, I win in regulation, and 40% of the time I go to overtime.
Going for two is low risk high reward. When it's low risk high reward, you always go for it. How is going for two low risk, high reward, when I'm 50% more likely (60 is 50% more than 40) to win in regulation kicking the extra point?
But that's where you are wrong, the scenarios where the other team doesn't score a TD matter. They matter a LOT since they happen so frequently. You can only base your decision on whether or not to go for a 2 point conversion on the expected Win/Loss percentage from each decision. What you find is it really doesn't matter much whether you go for 2 or not since you are going to win either way.
I understand your point about if they don't score you win anyway, but that is the point. Going for 2 isn't a bad decision because it doesn't decrease your likelihood of winning the game. Assuming the other team scores a TD 100% of the time makes an incorrect assumption and since we are using actual math to determine expected outcomes, you can't use an assumption that far off and still get the right answer.
That's like saying it doesn't matter whether you wear a seat belt, since it's so unlikely that you'll get into an accident.
In all the times where I drove my car and didn't get into an accident, it didn't matter whether I wore a seat belt.
The only time it matters whether I wear a seat belt is when I'm going to be in an accident. In those situations, the right choice is to wear a seat belt. Since I don't know when I will be in an accident, the right choice every time I get into a car is to wear a seat belt.
In all the times the other team doesn't score a TD, it doesn't matter whether you go for two or kick the extra point. The only time it matters is when they do score a TD. In those situations, the right choice is to kick the extra point. Since you don't know when the other team will score a TD, the right choice every time is to kick the extra point.
I'm saying it's equivocal. If you kick the XP every time you are as likely to win the game as if you go for 2. Kicking the XP isn't any more right than going for 2. It doesn't help you win the game in any way.
Coaches, however, would probably most likely kick the XP since they are so risk averse. Most would rather lose in a conventional fashion so they don't get blamed for the loss (and possibly fired) than make a decision which gives them a better chance of winning but if they lose they will get blamed instead of the players.
Making an unpopular choice, even if correct, opens up a coach to a level of criticism that they don't face for making a safe (albeit incorrect) choice.
Yes, you are likely to win either way. That has nothing to do with the decision to go for 1 or 2. The is a decision made knowing there is a possibility the other team could score. Whether other team scores 100% of time, or 1% of time, the chances of winning the game in the event they score is the same. The other not scoring is not a factor in the decision.
It is like my decision to wear a seatbelt. There is a very small chance I will need it. The only reason to wear it is in the event of an accident. It increases my chance of survival. Going for one increases your chance of winning the game.
It is like my decision to wear a seatbelt. There is a very small chance I will need it. The only reason to wear it is in the event of an accident. It increases my chance of survival. Going for one increases your chance of winning the game.
Ha! Ray threw out the same analogy. I started writing that, and then jumped in the car(likely the reason I thought of it) then finished when I reached my destination.
So the reason the seatbelt analogy doesn't work is that in regards to dying in an accident, dying is an infinitely worse outcome compared to not dying. It also doesn't cost anything to wear the seatbelt.
In football, a win and a loss are essentially equivalent outcomes in terms of magnitude. And unlike wearing a seatbelt, kicking an XP doesn't make you more likely to win the game(wearing a seatbelt does), it just changes what your losses look like.
If the odds of winning the game are roughly equal between 2 choices, it literally does not matter which choice you make. There is no other sane argument unless you want to argue that how you lose matters. If you make 100 choices going for 2 and 100 kicking the XP, in the 100 you went for 2 you lose in regulation 4 times and lose in OT once. In the 100 you kicked the XP, you lose in OT 5 times (because you went to OT a lot more).
So please note, you seem to think I am claiming you are likely to win the game either way. I am not saying this. I am saying you are EQUALLY likely to win the game either way. It's simple math. There are only a few variables.
% chance of XP
% chance of 2 pt conversion
% chance of opponent TD
% chance opponent goes for 2
That's really about it. Mathematically you can solve the equation and nearly any realistic input you use will yield the same result.
If it truly is equivocal, there is no "risk averse" choice though?
My contention is you do whatever it takes to keep the pressure on the opponent without putting your team in a worse spot than it needs to be. With less than 2 mins to go, being up 8, you are never going to lose that game in regulation. If you do, you would have lost it being up 9 too.
There is a time and place for calculated risk taking. It would be something you'd do in the first 3 quarters by, say, going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 instead of kicking a FG. There, the 50%+ chance of a TD (=3.5 points expected, or higher) is mathematically better than a 97% chance of a FG. Plus, if you don't convert, you have plenty of time to make it up with another chance.
Analogy, Blockm. That's kind of how they work. Maybe insurance is a better analogy? I probably won't use it, but have it in the event I need it.
Which gives you a better chance to win? The one that is higher is the one to take.
So the thing is, a coach shouldn't make a choice to "keep pressure on the opponent". They should make a choice to maximize their chances of winning the game. Being up 7 or up 8 is equal pressure to the opponent IMHO because they have to score a TD. They have no other option. And if you are up 8, it's maybe even less pressure because there is no though process as they have to go for 2. If you are up 7, though most coaches will simply take OT, some will actually think about going for 2 to win in regulation.
The simple math says NEITHER choice is better. They are BOTH the same. Kicking the XP doesn't give you a higher chance of winning. It gives you a higher chance of not losing in regulation, but equal chance of losing the game.
That's why I'm actually working out the math. This isn't, "if i crashed a car I wish I had a seatbelt on even if the crash was unlikely".
My main point is you have to make some horrible assumptions that are likely drastically wrong to be able to state that you are definitely more likely to win the game by kicking the XP.
And please keep in mind I think Tracy Claeys is a joke for Minnesota to have hired as a coach. I am actually surprised he could make a bold decision that wasn't stupid.
If the chance of an opponent scoring a TD is 5%, and the odds of a successful 2 point conversion is 40%, and the odds of a successful XP is 100% (I know it isn't, but to make the math simpler):
Going for 2 will get you victories in regulation in 2% of the games, win in OT 1.5% of the time, and lose in OT 1.5% of the time. Total winning percentage of 98.5%
Kicking the XP will get you victories in regulation in 3% of the games, win in OT in 1% of the games, and lose in OT in 1% of the games. Total winning percentage is 99%
Maybe you say 99% vs. 98.5% isn't statistically significant. But 99% is better than 98.5%
Despite your typos about winning in regulation 2% of the time or 3% of the time, your assumptions are kinda far off and you still come up with a difference of 1 win every 200 attempts. 99% might be better than 98.5% using those assumptions, but your margin of error on your guesses of odds is so large as to render that 0.5% completely meaningless and not significant.
That's what I mean. And you can concoct 1000s of combinations of odds of various parts of the outcome. Some give 1% here or there either way. When you add up all the reasonable guesses, it just doesn't matter.
Because keep in mind with this math we are also intentionally ignoring times when your opponent scores a TD so quickly as to give your own team another possession before OT when you get another chance to win. So even making the math favor kicking the XP as much as possible with the assumptions you get statistically insignificant results.
For example, you go for 2, miss it, your opponent runs the kick back for a TD and then goes for 2 and goes up 1 but you still get the ball back with another 60-70 seconds left and have additional chances to win the game.
There is no argument that either choice Claeys would have made significantly impacted the odds of winning the game for his team.
I suppose that we can agree that there is no statistically compelling reason to go for two in that situation.
Not sure what typos you're referring to. If you add the numbers to the 95% where the opponent doesn't score, I believe they are correct.
Going for two and winning
.95 (other team doesn't score)
+ (.4 *.05) (40% success rate of going for 2 in the 5% of games where the other team scores)
+ (.5 *.03) (50% success in OT in the 3% of the games where you fail on the conversion)
= .985
.95 (other team doesn't score)
+ (.6 *.05) (60 % success rate of other team failing to convert in the 5% of games they score a TD)
+ (.5 *.02) (50% success in OT in the 2% of the games where they convert)
= .99
Not sure what typos you're referring to. If you add the numbers to the 95% where the opponent doesn't score, I believe they are correct.
Going for two and winning
.95 (other team doesn't score)
+ (.4 *.05) (40% success rate of going for 2 in the 5% of games where the other team scores)
+ (.5 *.03) (50% success in OT in the 3% of the games where you fail on the conversion)
= .985
.95 (other team doesn't score)
+ (.6 *.05) (60 % success rate of other team failing to convert in the 5% of games they score a TD)
+ (.5 *.02) (50% success in OT in the 2% of the games where they convert)
= .99
And converting the two point conversion you win 99.99% of the time and don't even go in to overtime.
What you fail to realize is that you are exponentially more likely to win a 2 possession game late than a 1 possession game late.
You are using very simple minded numbers here. Do you think that if Minnesota was playing Ohio State that those numbers will still hold water? No they won't. Why? Because simple math doesn't account for the hundreds of other factors that differentiate the two teams.
Jesus. IF you're just going to take things outside of the context of the conversation, then there is no point in engaging with you.
FYI, the context of the conversation was that if the other team was able to go down and score, they would go for the tie 95% of the time.
And preventing the other team from converting the two point conversion you win 99.99% of the time and don't even go into overtime.
So, what's more likely, you converting the two point conversion, or preventing the other team from converting the two point conversion? All things being equal, you have a better chance of preventing the other team from scoring.
Now, if you have a fantastic offense and a horrible defense, maybe your odds of converting improve, and the odds of defending worsen. But if you go with the 40% success rate, you're more likely to win in regulation by kicking the extra point.
You cannot relate football to roulette in the slightest. It's an apples and oranges argument.
My argument was that odds do not change the definition of a term.
So what's better? Winning 99.99% of the time, or winning 60% of the time?
That's where the low risk high reward comes in. You are risking 10% of your chance to win the game to gain a 99.99% chance to win the game.
But how do you get to the 99.99% chance of winning? By using a strategy that's only successful 40% of the time, namely, going for two.
How do I get to the 99.99% chance of winning? By using a strategy that's successful 60% of the time, namely, defending the two point conversion.
I will be more likely to get to that magical 99.99% than you are.
My example absolutely applies because you always want the odds in your favor. Who takes a 40% chance to win the game rather than a 60% chance. Whoever goes for two only has a 40% chance of success. Why wouldn't you let them go for two and then you have a 60% chance to win.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who always wins in Vegas because you only count when you win. If you go from two then you only win 99.99% of the time when you make a two point conversion (which is 40%). In order to figure out your percentage of winning, you would need to use the formula (.9999 * .40), which means you'll win 39.996% of the time.
Yes, but it ignores forcing them also to go for two.
I heard him say it after the game, and I get it in that situation, but it diminishes the importance of the ability to stop their conversion.
