Two point conversion decisions

[TerpEagle]

I like new school NFL about as much as new school baseball.

I would have kicked it.

Grueger Hill made a nice play right in front of us on that ... we saw every goal line stand in our end.

Loud fun abounded.

Would you have kicked it in the Super Bowl as well?

[Maniac]

PS - doesn't mean I dislike all aggressive play that was not the norm before, but early points are still gold in the NFL

Yup. The trick is finding the sweet spot between old school and new. Not all old school maxims are wrong.

[jrachiever]

Like I said, successful XPs are 95 percent. You don't make decisions thinking about the Falcons missing an XP. You have to assume they will make it.

Obviously, it's an inexact science but I would have gone the high percentage route, kicked the XP and taken the five point lead. Differing opinions are valid. I'm sure the Eagles ran it by their analytics guy.

From the available stats, in the past 20 years there have been 70 drives where a team starts with between 2 min and 2:30 left in the game down by between 4-6 pts, and teams have scored 24 TD's in those situations (34%). So assume:
-Odds of defensive hold are 66%
-XP conversion rate is 94%
-2-pt conversion rate is 50%
-After conceding a TD, odds of coming back to kick a tying or winning field goal are 10%
-Odds of winning in OT are 50%

Up 4 pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's missed xp + Odds of winning in OT after making a tying field goal after opponent's made xp
.66+.34*(.06*.1+0.5*.94*.1) = 67.8%

Up 5pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's failed 2-pt conversion + odds of winning in OT after making a tying field after opponent's successful 2-pt conversion
0.66+.34*(0.5*.1+0.5*.1*.5) = 68.6%

Up 6pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's made xp + odds of winning in regulation or OT after opponent's missed xp
0.66+.34*(.94*.1+.06*(.1+.9*.5))= 70.3%

So up 4, choosing to kick xp gives you odds of winning of:
0.06*.678+0.94*.686 = 68.5%

choosing to go for 2 gives you odds of winning of:
0.5*.678+0.5*.703 = 69.1%

I put it in a spreadsheet and played around with the percentages of each assumption, but for everything remotely reasonable, going for 2 improves the odds of winning a little bit. There are obviously a few very uncommon additional scenarios to consider, but I don't think they'd change the end result.

[Maniac]

From the available stats, in the past 20 years there have been 70 drives where a team starts with between 2 min and 2:30 left in the game down by between 4-6 pts, and teams have scored 24 TD's in those situations (34%). So assume:
-Odds of defensive hold are 66%
-XP conversion rate is 94%
-2-pt conversion rate is 50%
-After conceding a TD, odds of coming back to kick a tying or winning field goal are 10%
-Odds of winning in OT are 50%

Up 4 pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's missed xp + Odds of winning in OT after making a tying field goal after opponent's made xp
.66+.34*(.06*.1+0.5*.94*.1) = 67.8%

Up 5pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's failed 2-pt conversion + odds of winning in OT after making a tying field after opponent's successful 2-pt conversion
0.66+.34*(0.5*.1+0.5*.1*.5) = 68.6%

Up 6pts, odds of winning = Odds of defensive hold + Odds of making winning fg after opponent's made xp + odds of winning in regulation or OT after opponent's missed xp
0.66+.34*(.94*.1+.06*(.1+.9*.5))= 70.3%

So up 4, choosing to kick xp gives you odds of winning of:
0.06*.678+0.94*.686 = 68.5%

choosing to go for 2 gives you odds of winning of:
0.5*.678+0.5*.703 = 69.1%

I put it in a spreadsheet and played around with the percentages of each assumption, but for everything remotely reasonable, going for 2 improves the odds of winning a little bit. There are obviously a few very uncommon additional scenarios to consider, but I don't think they'd change the end result.

Well there you go. Basically a toss-up. Surprising to me. Nice analysis.

[art vandelay]

this is an impressive post.

[Maniac]

This article shows similar results. At +4, the decision is a coin flip.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...or-2-for-real/

[slag]

It's great when it works, ain't it?

[Maniac]

Would you have kicked it in the Super Bowl as well?

At the end of the first half in a shoot out with Brady? No way. Totally different.

Thats why you cant depend on analytics in football. Too many variables.

[TerpEagle]

It's great when it works, ain't it?

And easy to bitch about when it doesn't. And also when it does apparently.

[slag]

So what?

A positive result from a bad decision makes that the thing to repeat?

Let's say you were driving drunk and, as a consequence you missed the turn you were supposed to make to get home, which saves your life because another drunk was in the wrong lane on that road and you would have had a head-on collision if you made that turn.

That mean driving drunk is a good idea?

[TerpEagle]

So what?

A positive result from a bad decision makes that the thing to repeat?

Let's say you were driving drunk and, as a consequence you missed the turn you were supposed to make to get home, which saves your life because another drunk was in the wrong lane on that road and you would have had a head-on collision if you made that turn.

That mean driving drunk is a good idea?

Perhaps, due to the consistency of these decisions working, conventional thinking that they're bad is wrong.

[DEERSPINE GUY]

I'D RATHER BE UP 6 THAN 4 OR 5.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEADING BY 4 OR 5, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE LEADING BY 6.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS THREAD GOT TO A SECOND PAGE.

[slag]

Come on ... you know second guesses are coming at some point.

We were pretty pissed when he was losing games the first year and not taking easy 3's early.

I don't know if the Eagles win the Super Bowl if they kick instead of running Philly Special, and although I was pretty drunk at a rowdy bar and not exactly doing statistical analysis ... I was leaning toward the FG.

However, take a look at my avatar ... like I said, when it works its great.

[slag]

Yeah there is ... they score 7 and you need a FG for a tie, not a win.

EDITED TO ADD: Which pretty much forces them to go for 2 if they score the TD, which is statistically less likely of success than an XP.

[DEERSPINE GUY]

I'M ALL IN FOR GOING FOR TWO THERE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. MY OPINION IS OUR SUPER BOWL COACH SAYS GO TWO. DROP THE MALLET.