A Morning Well Spent

Sometimes it's fun to argue about small things.

Me, in an email to friends:

You are up by one point late in the game, and for the sake of argument, let us say that you have a good (but not great) offense, and a good (but not great) defense. You score a touchdown to go up 7 with, say, 2 minutes left. Do you go for two or kick the extra point?

Now, in my 20 years of watching football, I have never (!!) seen a team go for two, which to me makes no sense. Here is my breakdown of why you should:

Go For 2:

If you make it: Game is over, you have pretty much guaranteed that in making it a two-possession game, you win.

If you miss it: You are still up 7, and let's be honest few coaches have the balls to go for two to win a game, so your real worst- case scenario is still probably a tied game and overtime.

Go For 1:

Yes, you do require a team to convert a 2-point conversion, but most teams do this at about 60%+, so it's not that tough, and certainly easier than getting an onside kick and
getting the ball back.

My friend from Alabama insisted that no coach in his right mind would pull this stunt, but to me I can't see why not. If you have a chance to win the game, take it. Sometimes the seemingly safe bet is the wrong bet.

Am I wrong?

~Brian


REPLY FROM KARL:

Here's why your opponent is correct, and it has nothing to do with football. Coaches are fired for making "incorrect" decisions. If the 2 point conversion fails, it will be viewed as a coaching error (regardless of the decision's football merits) because it is unorthodox.

On purely football terms, I think it makes a difference whether you're playing college or NFL because NFL overtime is more of a crapshoot.


REPLY FROM GRAHAM:

Setting Karl's point aside, I still say you go for one in most situations. This needs to be thought of in terms of making a tough play. The kick is the easy play, going for two is the tough play. Either you take the easy play, go up 8, and force your opponents (if they manage to score a TD) to make the tough play, or you force yourself to make the tough play and, if you miss, allow your opponents to force OT with the easy play.

I'm sure we can imagine scenarios in which it makes sense to do what coach Fobi wants, but in general, I say take the point.


REPLY FROM MICHAEL

Oh Dr. Fobi and your game theory questions.

Draw out the risk/reward scenario as a 2x2 box matrix. What you'll find is that your assumption of the 60% of making a 2-point conversion is the critical factor. If that number is say 33% (or any number less than 50%), you'll see that kicking the 1-point is the best option (because the other team is likely to fail a 2-point to tie). For any value over 50%, you'll see that your original 2-point option is correct. This of course depends on both teams having roughly the same chance of 2-point success.

Realistically it depends on how good YOUR team is at 2-point conversions. If your team is >50% then you take the 2-point as you suggest. If your team is suspect then go for the 1 regardless of the other team. That way at least you get a tie and can go to over time. You can figure in how good the other team's offense/defense combination is to see if overtime is weighted one way or the other in the same type of 2x2 matrix and work backwards.

Mike

REPLY FROM ME:

But, that neglects to include the fact that at this point, the two teams tasks are in decidedly different positions. Wouldn't the 2x2 matrix have to take into account your success at making 2-pointers and the other team's adeptness in the two minute offense AND their ability to score 2 or kick a PAT? In other words:

My math is:
Make it= 60% chance of success

Their math is:
(chance of scoring TD in 2 minutes) x (the chance that they will make PAT or 2PT)

~Brian


REPLY FROM MIKE:

It's easier if you assume that each team is basically the same (has good/good offense/defense with equal chance of success in OT and of 2-point conversions), then I think you start with a 2x2 matrix of just what happens in regular time, since in OT they have the same chance of everything (again assuming they are equal). In that case the most important matter is chance of 2-point success in a single 2x2 regular time matrix.

If you DON'T assume that there is equal everything, then I believe you start with a 2x2 matrix of JUST what happens in OT. That gives you the basic chance of your vs other teams success in OT and you can plug that into a new 2x2 matrix for the regular time portion. In that case it matters both what the chances are for 2-point success (both yours and the other teams) as well as the chance of winning in OT from the first matrix.


REPLY FROM KARL

The funny thing is, the coaches do have those cheat sheets, they have a lot of data at their disposal, but they still seem disinclined to take certain chances, like going for it on fourth and 1 when you're within field goal range.

Part of it might be that the data isn't completely helpful (if going for it on 4th down were normal, the data might well change). But part of it seems to be that coaches aren't making purely rational decisions. People have visceral reactions to risk. That's why you get guys like your 'Bama fan who simply can't conceive of a situation where it makes sense to go
for the two point conversion.


REPLY FROM JONAH:

We need to hook the bama fan to a memory-scan machine or find a therapist and find out whether he (he?) ever got burned, either as a fan or while betting or as a player, in this situation. an important emotional angle here is that if your team goes for two and gets it, the win is guaranteed but is less tied to a game-ending situation. It's a de facto win, and unless it's a game of serious consequence, that might water down the rush of victory. if you don't get the two, though, and still win, you end up winning but with a sense of possible doom until the clock hits zero. ...and if you end up losing, you just took a punch in the stomach.

personally, i think a lot of it has to do with a sense of ambivalence about the idea that a two-point conversion can be used to make the game "over." same thing with fouling in b-ball when up by three at the end of a game. it seems "unsportsmanlike" somehow. (now brian's really gonna blow up!)


REPLY FORM BRIAN C:

I don't have too much to add here, so I'll just be a homer and point out that Belichick, in the (home) game against Atlanta earlier this year, went for it on 4th and 1 from the Pats' own 24, up only 6 in the third quarter. I'm sure it helps that he has a LOT of leeway with the fans about his decision making... reinforced by the fact that he's pretty often right, as he was in this case. :)

I remember reading an article where he was asked about that study that encouraged more 4th down conversion attempts. Couldn't find it online, but did find a book excerpt:

"I think I understand some of the points that were made in there and I think he has some valid points," Belichick said after reading Romer’s study in the summer of 2002. "There’s sometimes an emotional aspect, and momentum, if you will, to those decisions, but I’m not sure how to calculate that. One of the points he was making was that if you go for it, particularly when you’re inside the opponents’ twenty, even if you come up short, you’ve got them backed up, they got eighty, ninety yards to go. Do the mathematical percentages of them scoring in that situation versus you getting the ball, and so forth and so on, and that’s a valid point. On the other hand to go down there and get nothing out of it, psychologically there’s an impact there on your team."

"I think that some of those are legitimate points and you just have to evaluate the situation to your team, the team you’re playing," he added. "I see where a lot of that’s coming from."


I still think heads would explode if he went for two to be up 9 in a late-game situation. I'd love it, personally.


REPLY FROM ME:

I hate (x5000) when people foul with 3-point leads at the end of a game. I know that we've gone a bit far afield here, but I think that it is like guys flopping at the end of soccer matches to bleed the clock out. I'm not sure what the rule would look like to prevent this, though Kobe did punish the Warriors this year by hitting a three point shot and getting fouled at the end of a game.

That's right, if there is one person who can clean up sports, it is Kobe Bryant. Kobe and Bellicheck... the defenders of honor and good in sports? Go figure.

Back to the point, I think that the 2-pt conversion is more honorable because instead of breaking the rules to prevent end-of-game drama, you are actually playing within the rules to end the game. Now, that obviously leads to a more complicated question as to whether rule, convention and practice have made fouling in basketball and flopping
in soccer part of the game. Have at...

~Brian


REPLY FROM NICK:

"Breaking a rule" is just an option to take the liability. I can't see a functional difference b/w "playing within the rules" and "breaking the rules" besides some clear intent to harm. Maybe it goes against some sort of "spirit of the game," but I appreciate creative application of the rules, of which penalties are a component.