Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.

sklunsky understood. shows you are deficient in math.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
All a coach has to do is show the simple math to the owner, preferabley BEFORE it comes up, and he is out of hot water if it backfires.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't follow american professional sports too closely, do you?

I understand the math behind it, and it makes sense. The chances change depending on how good the defending team's red zone defense is, and the offense, but that's obvious.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
sklunsky understood. shows you are deficient in math.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i understand it, its not complicated. my post was mostly about valenzuelas awful layout and wording. he also has a history of posts like these, like his tennis predictions. and i dont know why im defending myself to a gimmick account.

[valenzuela]

English isnt my mother language...I knew somebody would figure the post out and the discussion would start.
I think NFL coaches are big pussies AND theyre not really good at math.( btw in my example i have 99% for a PAT, 40% is a conservative amount so that ppl realize its still +EV)

Imagine the indianapolis colts.
First of all an NFL coach is probably not a stupid person, however he might be bad at math and thereby wont get the theory at first but he should get it on the end. So now the coach know its better going for 2.
Now the coach needs to explain the theory to all of his staff, lets suppose they all understand the theory.
Now the coach needs to expalin the theory to the owner, after a lot of talking...the owner will say something like " that strategy of urs better workout"...ok so now the coach knows he will get flamed if he loses.
The coach needs to expalin the theory to the players........after 8237299272729819 years all the players get the theory.
So know all the teams know its better to go for 2.

Lets suppose its the AFC championship game and Indy is behind 14 against NE....4 minutes to go.
TD indy!!!!! wooo.
Tony Dungy mind: shiit, if we miss the 2 pt. attempt we are soooooo screwed. Damn...I think I rather go for one.
I cant be a sissy I have to go for 2, I know its better, i know it.
Tony Dungy: Ok boys lets go for 1
Manning: yeah its better.
Announcer: Indy are down by 7!!!
other announcer: now the defence needs to step up here, they have allowed 162 rushing yards today, etc.

[Voltron87]

i understand english is a second language for you, but saying stuff like "ur", RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING and atrocious spacing are sort of unrelated to language.


Everyone gets this. It has been around for decades and it is not complicated.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the indianapolis colts.
First of all an NFL coach is probably not a stupid person...

[/ QUOTE ]

EWWWW, bad example.

[BadBoyBenny]

Coaches risk looking foolish not only for the decision to go for it, but also because of the bad play call.

Also, I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of games a team wins/loses/ties in overtime after tying from down 14+ points. The smaple size would probably be too small, but believers in momentum would probably like their chances to win in OT.

(I can only remember one game that a team came back 14+ in the 4th to force overtime and it ended up tied).

[David Sklansky]

"Also, I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of games a team wins/loses/ties in overtime after tying from down 14+ points. The smaple size would probably be too small, but believers in momentum would probably like their chances to win in OT."

I highly doubt that this is a sufficintly strong argument to go for one. And it is a highly suspect argument if it is being made by someone who is desperately trying to cover up for the fact that he didn't realize, until told, that the two point play was mathematically much better.

[MCS]

I still think you underestimate the potentially very significant negative impact to coaches if variance decides it doesn't like them and they lose a couple of games this way. At least until owners/fans/writers understand this concept better and accept it. In baseball, EXECUTIVES are completely willing to ignore all sorts of data re: who is a good player and what helps a team win, and the baseball data are much stronger than the football example.

There is a large enough penalty for losing in an "uncommon" way that it is not fully offset by the increased win probability. The USC play against Notre Dame is a good example. If they lose on that, Pete Carroll gets crucified (well, or he would if they hadn't won 800 consecutive games, though he's kinda earned a pass).