Re: OK......37%
No data, because you can't quantify many of the intervening variables. Assuming they don't exist, however, is preposterous. That article is shockingly stupid for something in the Times. Following its logic, it is never correct to go for 2 because of EV, when there are times that it clearly is (down 2 with :01 left on the clock after scoring a touchdown, for example). Using my previous example combined with the article's logic, there would never be an appropriate time to shoot a 3 in basketball. Ever.
I would argue that Dick Vermeil's call for the Chiefs to go for 2 was a good call. His offense had been running over the defense for the entire drive, it was the end of the game, the defense was emotional distraught and physically exhausted. The chiefs' running game had been unstoppable. I believe his chances of scoring that touchdown were well over 50%, and I think anyone watching the game would agree. I think he could expect to win more long term by going for it, rather than waiting for overtime. +EV. But no data. This is why coaches are coaches.
|