Jacksonville math

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
Not exactly Doug Marrone's strongest suit.

Now you have to score and go for 2 again.

Few fries short of a happy meal?
 
That was truly piss poor thinking and clock management from the Jags all around. Going for 2 early made little sense, if they really wanted to win in regulation just go for 2 on the last TD unless they had no trust in their kicker to make XP. Then the last drive, I get it that you have open spots down the middle of the field, but wasting all that time to get sort of close, then kick the FG leaving yourself time for maybe one hail mary was nonsense. If you want to kick the FG first, do it when you are about 50 yards away and save some clock. Frankly, I think the better move is to try to score the TD first and see if you make the 2 because then you know if a FG even helps. The only time you try the FG is if you are under 20 seconds on the clock because then you really are at hail mary only situation.

Looking at the Jags yesterday, there was a minute left on the clock and they got to Cincy 31. Time to spike it, maybe there is 50 seconds left. Kick the FG then. If kicker misses a 48 yarder oh well, you lose. But if he made it and you recover the kick, you have 40+ seconds left, you can move the ball at least 25 yards and have some shots at the end zone. If you decide not to kick, then you have to try to go for the TD with plays that aren't eating up all the clock like they did. Sideline patterns or quick spikes had to be part of the plan, they seemed to have no clue on how to play it out. Once again, NFL teams spend millions of dollars on coaching staffs and don't get simple end game strategy correct is so insane. Hire one more guy on the staff that gets this and have him be in charge of last two minute strategy.
 

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
and the math vehemently disagrees with you
Nice try. Not even close nor realistic Bill's point is correct. You should go for 2 on the final score. Why make it that much more difficult on the eventual score if you even get the chance? Play the percentages You don't convert on the first try then you need to attempt another try if you even get the chance, and that's just to tie. Plus you're on the road only in week 4 with still 3/4 of the season remaining. Just confusing logic and poor coaching.
 
Last edited:

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
lmfao

you’re too old and evidently stubborn to ever realize the humor of this, but hopefully others recognize it
Care to share? The only one that's too old and stubborn is the poster debating the obvious. I'd love to hear this one given all I'm hearing are nonsense myths and confusing fountains of misinformation from a supposed season vet.
 
Last edited:

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
Preseason I have no issue with this strategy. Regular season especially this early, I'm sticking with playing the percentages and going for the tie.
 

WeinketoWarrick

EOG Master
The percentages say you go for 2. You have a better chance of winning. To your point, 33 yarders aren’t locks. Hell, two missed in MNF tonight.

The math is really straightforward on this and if you’re too lazy to read up and realize that it’s on you not me.
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
Did the Raiders try for 2 yesterday down 8 against the Bills before the PAT Weinke? I didn't think so. The 50% succession rate is statistically and likely less given the results in a full season. And since when is a 33 yard PAT a gimme at 100%? Play the percentages. Analytics are for desperate football teams.

So much to correct here, its mind boggling.

The article for simplicity purposes gave the single point PAT conversion rate as 100%. Obviously if a 2 pt try is optimal, assuming the highest 1 pt try success rate makes perfect sense.

The 50% 2 pt try conversion rate is actually accurate from 2015-2019 data (2015 was the year the PAT was moved back) if you subtract the 8 cases where QBs took a knee at the end of the game when their team was ahead. These are counted as unsuccessful 2 pt trys. Also subtracted are botched PATs from the 15 yd line where the holder tries a pass or run which are counted as 2 pt trys. The net results are 253 successful tries out of 505 attempts (~50%).

What is tantamount is the net winning percentage, just as you say. Analytics is the vehicle for determining the percentages.

The article factors out the probability of having to score the second TD and not give up a score which is necessary in both cases, but its around 62% vs 47% in favor of go for 2. Not even close.

Clearly the 2 pt conversion rate would have to be way lower than 50% to be a close decision.
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
That was truly piss poor thinking and clock management from the Jags all around. Going for 2 early made little sense, if they really wanted to win in regulation just go for 2 on the last TD unless they had no trust in their kicker to make XP.

This is truly piss poor thinking. Going for 2 early + late XP not only gives the same probability as early XP + late 2, but also the ability to tie with a late 2 if the early 2 fails. This option adds about 12.5% (50% 1st miss * 50% 2nd make * 50% win in OT) and when the choice is to go for two early vs late, it means always go for 2 early.
 

Crazy Pete

EOG Addicted
This is truly piss poor thinking. Going for 2 early + late XP not only gives the same probability as early XP + late 2, but also the ability to tie with a late 2 if the early 2 fails. This option adds about 12.5% (50% 1st miss * 50% 2nd make * 50% win in OT) and when the choice is to go for two early vs late, it means always go for 2 early.

Exactly!!
As usual, great analysis by CB.
This particular situation has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Bob hits the nail on the head by pointing out the key edge of getting a semi-mulligan if u fail on the 1st 2 point conversion.
But what is astonishing is how few teams do it.
Around 2-3 years ago Pro Football Reference was harping on this, making same basic points Bob did, yet they said that in the previous year or 2 (exact numbers are hazy but close), NFL teams had @ 120 occasions where they were down by 14 points late in the game with @ 5 minutes of less left in the game, scored a TD, and NOBODY made the statistically correct decision & went for 2. NOBODY!! 0-120! Not the great but overrated Belichick (why didn’t he call timeout with 80 seconds left before Malcolm Butler bailed his ass out), not anybody.
I really don’t follow NFL too closely anymore, but I do believe some teams have finally done the Junior High School math & have started going for 2 in this situation.

Another pet peeve of mine is kicking a field goal down 10-11 with @ a minute left like Jax did. Odds of winning are minuscule regardless of what u do, but going for the TD makes it slightly less minuscule than attempting a FG.
Playing strategy decisions should be based on EV. Coaches should treat them like AP’s do.
Many people here say teams should spend .000001% of their budget on a dedicated AP type who knows the EV of playing decisions. I strongly agree.
Hiring Computer Bob imo would have the same value as a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick, given the current state of ignorance demonstrated by NFL coaches.
 

FairWarning

Bells Beer Connoisseur
Exactly!!
As usual, great analysis by CB.
This particular situation has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Bob hits the nail on the head by pointing out the key edge of getting a semi-mulligan if u fail on the 1st 2 point conversion.
But what is astonishing is how few teams do it.
Around 2-3 years ago Pro Football Reference was harping on this, making same basic points Bob did, yet they said that in the previous year or 2 (exact numbers are hazy but close), NFL teams had @ 120 occasions where they were down by 14 points late in the game with @ 5 minutes of less left in the game, scored a TD, and NOBODY made the statistically correct decision & went for 2. NOBODY!! 0-120! Not the great but overrated Belichick (why didn’t he call timeout with 80 seconds left before Malcolm Butler bailed his ass out), not anybody.
I really don’t follow NFL too closely anymore, but I do believe some teams have finally done the Junior High School math & have started going for 2 in this situation.

Another pet peeve of mine is kicking a field goal down 10-11 with @ a minute left like Jax did. Odds of winning are minuscule regardless of what u do, but going for the TD makes it slightly less minuscule than attempting a FG.
Playing strategy decisions should be based on EV. Coaches should treat them like AP’s do.
Many people here say teams should spend .000001% of their budget on a dedicated AP type who knows the EV of playing decisions. I strongly agree.
Hiring Computer Bob imo would have the same value as a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick, given the current state of ignorance demonstrated by NFL coaches.
Not disagreeing with your take, but you need the entire organization to buy in. It may be the right decision to go for the 2 down 14, but the ownership and the GM are grading the head coach on wins and losses only.
 

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
For me it's regarding mathematics, not analytics. You want to play some Russian Roulette early in the second quarter, or even the first when Pittsburgh used to take their chances on their early TDs and go for 2 early instead of kicking the PAT without mathematical consequences, fine by me. But even that will come back to bite you in the rear given the situation progressing late.

As far as kicking a field goal down 10 or 11 late, yes the chances of receiving an onside kick need to salvage a perfect bounce, but it's not like you didn't need the 3 anyway. If I want to stay in the game, taking the logical route leaves you a fighting chance rather than rolling the dice with more on the line in jeopardy. Rushing to attempt to score 8 ahead of 3, you still need that onside kick on the subsequent possession.
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
not all teams have 50% success

This is a good point. A few teams (CIN, NE, NYJ) have fewer than 10 two pt trys from 2015-19, so small sample. Also a few (DET, ATL, DEN, TEN, WAS) have less than 40% conversion rate.

OTOH, PHI in 26 trys has a 70% conversion rate, PIT in 30 attempts has a 56% success rate, Only 13 teams are less than 50%.
 
Frankly if the conversion rate is 50% then teams should go for 2 almost every time, no? I mean if its 50% you get 2 and 90-95% you get 1, then 2 pointers should be the call always. That was the Oregon philosophy back in the Chip Kelly days. Kind of made sense because he had a team that was really hard to stop on 2 pointers. I think if NFL team bought into this philosophy and built some plays and personnel around it I might agree with it more.

Maybe my thought is I'm not sure I buy into the 50% rate for a random conversion. Think about the timing of these plays, usually late in the game when a defense may be tired or set up nicely so you bring out one play that kind of runs counter to what you have been doing all game so you can't stop it. So I can see it being a higher rate than sort of steady rate. But if you have to attempt a bunch of them that rate probably goes down, not up. I think the key is in the NFL short yardage runs are just not that successful any longer. They almost seem like bad play calls in an all or nothing situation. Defenses are just too good at stuffing a 3rd/4th and short play so it becomes much more likely to be a pass play or at least a QB option to run/pass.
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
To wrap the topic up, let's note that the assumptions here limit the analysis/decisions to those made late in the game. Some teams currently have data that suggests they should be going for two more often. Its hard to say if the 50% success rate will hold up over time. Its still unusual to see it tried early in a game.

Doing a more formal analysis/breakdown of going for two down 8 follows:

Let P2s be the probability of a 2 pt try success, P1s be the 1 pt success rate, and POtW be the probability of a win in OT. P2EarlyW denotes the win % of going for 2 early and P1EarlyW is the win% of going for 1 early. Also we postulate a second TD with no score by the opponent. All probabilities are between zero and 100%.

Then P2EarlyW = win outright + make 2nd try and win in OT or P2s * P1s + (1-P2s)* P2s * POtW and

P1EarlyW = make 1 pt conversions and win in OT or P1s * P1s * POtW.

Also we have already seen that the strategy of delaying going for 2, then go for 2, on the 2nd PAT is always inferior to the early 2 pt try.

So for the early try for 2 being superior, we have P2EarlyW > P1EarlyW or:

P2s * P1s + (1-P2s)* P2s * POtW > P1s * P1s * POtW and rearranging terms and dividing by POtW:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW +1) - P1s^2 > 0

We ask at what value of P2s are the two strategies equal? We set the sum to zero or:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW +1) - P1s^2 = 0

P2s^2 - P2s * (P1s/POtW +1) + P1s^2 = 0 a quadratic equation for breakeven value of P2s.

If the reasonable values of POtW = 0.5 and P1s = 0.94 are used, then

P2s^2 -2.88 * P2s +0.884 = 0 and the 2 pt conversion rate for breakeven is 34.9% (see more correct equation below)
 
Last edited:

ComptrBob

EOG Master
Just occurred to me that I ignored the rare case of missing the first 1 pt PAT and subsequently tying with a successful 2 pt PAT, so:

P1EarlyW = either make 1 pt conversions and win in OT, or miss early PAT, make 2nd 2 pt, and win in OT so = (P1s * P1s + (1- P1s) * P2s) * POtW. Thus:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW +1) - (P1s^2 + (1 - P1s) * P2s) > 0

so collecting terms, breakeven is given by:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW + P1s) - P1s^2 = 0 which gives

P2s^2 - 2.82 * P2s + 0.884 = 0 and the 2 pt conversion rate for breakeven is 35.9%
 
Good analysis Bob. I think this correlates to what the league was thinking when they moved the XP out to 33 yards. They did some study that was supposed to equalize the value of kicking versus going for 2 and settled on 33 yards for a kick. One could assume the league was thinking a 2pt conversion should have a 40-45% success rate historically. Since offenses are doing much better than historical levels today, it seems like every team should basically go for 2 as much as possible in all situations.
 
Just occurred to me that I ignored the rare case of missing the first 1 pt PAT and subsequently tying with a successful 2 pt PAT, so:

P1EarlyW = either make 1 pt conversions and win in OT, or miss early PAT, make 2nd 2 pt, and win in OT so = (P1s * P1s + (1- P1s) * P2s) * POtW. Thus:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW +1) - (P1s^2 + (1 - P1s) * P2s) > 0

so collecting terms, breakeven is given by:

-P2s^2 + P2s * (P1s/POtW + P1s) - P1s^2 = 0 which gives

P2s^2 - 2.82 * P2s + 0.884 = 0 and the 2 pt conversion rate for breakeven is 35.9%

i was just about to post that. ;)
 
Top