Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-06-2005, 08:20 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think NFL kickers miss 1 of 20 PATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. after looking at the career stats of a few kickers and then getting tired of it, the lowest among the ones i saw was a little over 98%. Even Feely was 175-177
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-06-2005, 09:03 AM
Punker Punker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 297
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

Insufficient sample size and results based thinking. They didn't lose because they attempted the 2pt - they lost because they failed to convert it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-06-2005, 09:20 AM
private joker private joker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,943
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think NFL kickers miss 1 of 20 PATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just posing a hypothetical when I said 95%. But even if it's 98%, that affects the EV of the decision. It's not automatic.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-06-2005, 09:34 AM
Jack of Arcades Jack of Arcades is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: not the gay jack
Posts: 2,275
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

It's pretty much 99%
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:37 PM
sam h sam h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 742
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming most people here read David Sklansky's article a few months back about going for it on 4th down. The basis of his whole article was that you can calculate your EP(expected points) from any field position, your opponents EP from that same spot in case you fail, and your expected 4th down conversion success rate, and then compute your best play from that. He of course offered the caveat that it doesn't apply in certain situations where you'd want to minimize your variance, but in general it is correct. Now i'm not saying this method of analyzing football decisions is correct just because he says it is, but I do think that carries a lot of weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did David pass this off as his own idea? Because a statistics professor at Berkeley wrote a paper a few years back that got a fair amount of press which basically argued the same thing and found that teams should go for it around midfield in 4th and short situations almost every time.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-06-2005, 01:06 PM
Jack of Arcades Jack of Arcades is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: not the gay jack
Posts: 2,275
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

This idea has been around since at least the hidden game of football.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-06-2005, 04:02 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]

Did David pass this off as his own idea? Because a statistics professor at Berkeley wrote a paper a few years back that got a fair amount of press which basically argued the same thing and found that teams should go for it around midfield in 4th and short situations almost every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't think he explicitly said that he was the first to think of it, but he didn't exactly include a works cited page either.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-06-2005, 06:17 PM
bobman0330 bobman0330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two reasons:
1. 6 points only ties 2 FGs, which is a common scoring increment. As you've established, the 2pt is roughly equal to the PAT, but loses big against 2 FGs.
2. Assume that each team scores 1 TD. If the first team goes for 2, it will lose a lot more than 50% of the time. 50% of the time it misses and loses. 50% of the time it makes. Then, the other team knows to go for 2, and ties the game half the time. Obviously, the real life situations aren't so formalistic, but the longer there is remaining in the game, the more this effect costs the converting team.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you have something worth-while to say but I'm not really following. Could you rearticulate?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Points don't have linear utility. Increasing your point total by 8 is better than increasing it by 7, because you'll beat a TD+PAT rather than tying it. But increasing your point total by 7 comparatively even better than increasing it by 6, because you'll tie a TD+PAT and beat 2 FGs. Even though both differences are 1 point, the downside risk of a 2pt conv. is higher than its upside.

2. Going for 2 early in a game gives the other team informational advantages. Whenever they have to make a similar decision, they can act knowing whether or not you made your conversion. If you did not, they can play conservatively to win. If you did make it, they can gamble and sometimes tie you. The benefit is substantially decreased because the other team can adjust if you succeed.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-06-2005, 06:53 PM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming most people here read David Sklansky's article a few months back about going for it on 4th down. The basis of his whole article was that you can calculate your EP(expected points) from any field position, your opponents EP from that same spot in case you fail, and your expected 4th down conversion success rate, and then compute your best play from that. He of course offered the caveat that it doesn't apply in certain situations where you'd want to minimize your variance, but in general it is correct. Now i'm not saying this method of analyzing football decisions is correct just because he says it is, but I do think that carries a lot of weight.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read this, but this idea is pure lunacy

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what the hell would you base it on? Your gut feeling?

[/ QUOTE ]There was some math guy on ESPN trying to convince coaches about the 4 down conversion expected points. The 3 coaches said it was ridiculous that a mathman would dare say anything about football. Percels said that he wanted the mathguy next to him on the sideline so whenever it fails he could punch him in the face. It's too bad, becuase going for it on 4th when your expected pts is positive would really add to the excitement of the game. Luckly for us the NFL can change the rules to artificialy instill more offense into the league anytime they want.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-06-2005, 07:44 PM
MyTurn2Raise MyTurn2Raise is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: b/n Chicago,Champaign,St. Louis
Posts: 320
Default Re: Going for two each time Theory

[ QUOTE ]
1. Points don't have linear utility. Increasing your point total by 8 is better than increasing it by 7, because you'll beat a TD+PAT rather than tying it. But increasing your point total by 7 comparatively even better than increasing it by 6, because you'll tie a TD+PAT and beat 2 FGs. Even though both differences are 1 point, the downside risk of a 2pt conv. is higher than its upside.

2. Going for 2 early in a game gives the other team informational advantages. Whenever they have to make a similar decision, they can act knowing whether or not you made your conversion. If you did not, they can play conservatively to win. If you did make it, they can gamble and sometimes tie you. The benefit is substantially decreased because the other team can adjust if you succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

right on...I almost posted something like this, but my economics is quite rusty. I think I did a brain flush the second I dropped out of my PhD work.

I think much of these ideas do not account for the fact that the plays are not held in isolation. A football game is a dynamic system with each play inter-related to the next. Pushing to maximize the output of any one play, or "event," can have very detrimental consequences towards maximizing the output of the entire game, or "system."

While I think that football coaches are too conservative, I do not see the fault in going for two not frequent enough. I see coaches go for two far too frequently. I also think they should go for it on fourth more often, but not nearly as often as suggested in the paper by the Professor out at Berkeley.

What I have seen in football is the total breakdown of risk-taking on the offensive side of the ball. The mid to long range passing game is becoming extinct. I think everyone realized how important turnovers are, but over-reacted. An interception 35 yards downfield is different than a fumble at the line. Oh well...I have a whole notebook full of observations of things I'd change if I were a coach. Maybe after I make millions at poker, I'll work my way up from the low levels of coaching.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.