Totally clueless
I saw Goff’s eyes and he knew he screwed up clock
I saw Goff’s eyes and he knew he screwed up clock
OT: Bucs didn’t call TO on 4th and 13 to force FG attempt
- Thread starter nutfromSEC117
- Start date
Saw that….Lions messed up the clock management. TB definitely should have used their last TO and tried to block a FG.
35 coaches on sideline and in booth
All 35 gave up ??? That can’t happen !
I’m on my couch half paying attention wondering if I should have late dinner leftover pizza or go with strawberry cake for dessert and I caught it.
All 35 gave up ??? That can’t happen !
I’m on my couch half paying attention wondering if I should have late dinner leftover pizza or go with strawberry cake for dessert and I caught it.
I actually had coconut shrimp still in fridge
Pizza will be fine for dinner tomorrow
Cake still kinda frozen so I’m waiting until tomorrow
Pizza will be fine for dinner tomorrow
Cake still kinda frozen so I’m waiting until tomorrow
Remember back in the day, the dude that used to implore us to focus and not overlook the next opponent (as though this board, rather than the players, were the ones that needed that advice)?
Wanted to avoid OT. make the two to cut it to 6 then kick XP to win 32-31. Not a bad idea; you can make half your 2-pt plays. Allows you to fall back on a tie if you miss the first attempt
It makes a ton of mathematical sense.
Kicking two extra points with a probability of the mid to high 90’s% only gets you to overtime, which starts with a coin flip (50%) over whether you control winning the game.
You only need a 50% success rate at the two point conversion to make it equivalent to kicking twice, but then you need to take into account that going for two gives you the chance to win in regulation and avoid that 50% chance in OT.
The breakdown I have seen came up with the number that down 14 points late in the game, it makes sense to go for two when you score a TD if your success rate on two point conversions is 39% or higher.
Last edited:
Also looked like defensive PI on that 2-point try.It makes a ton of mathematical sense.
Kicking two extra points with a probability of the mid to high 90’s% only gets you to overtime, which starts with a coin flip (50%) over whether you control winning the game.
You only need a 50% success rate at the two point conversion to make it equivalent to kicking twice, but then you need to take into account that going for two gives you the chance to win in regulation and avoid that 50% chance in OT.
The breakdown I have seen came upth the number that down 14 points late in the game, it makes sense to go for two when you score a TD if your success rate on two point conversions is 39% or higher.
TSopranoRU - the original board nutcase. He's a host of psychology books waiting to be written.
I actually ran the numbers a while back to prove to someone the benefit of this approach. I remember the breakeven line being in the 34-39% for 2Pt conversions if you assumed XP probability between 90-97.5%. Along those lines at least.
So your numbers pass mustard FWIW.
Except that other factors affect the 2pt conversion rate: plays the opponent has seen on tape, opponent’s D, playoff pressure, weather conditions (absent in the dome)….
So one just can’t use season stats to validate going for two. A .300 hitter can’t be assumed to have a 30% chance to get a hit on any particular at bat. The pitcher he’s facing matters.
It would be interesting to know what data TB used to justify going for two.
Possibly more detailed than you want, but this article dives into it more deeply...
Going for 2 down 8 points: Packers pull off come-from-behind win thanks to this strategy
The Packers profited from being the first team this season to try this unconventional 2-point conversion attempt. Here's why others should follow their lead.
www.espn.com
That's a horrific explanation from Bowles...I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he didn't realize they got that TO back and still had one left.
Yeah, well that's a bunch of baloney since they are going by the league's average conversion rate. That would not be the Bucs conversion probability in a road playoff game. As I said above, every situation is different.Possibly more detailed than you want, but this article dives into it more deeply...
Going for 2 down 8 points: Packers pull off come-from-behind win thanks to this strategy
The Packers profited from being the first team this season to try this unconventional 2-point conversion attempt. Here's why others should follow their lead.
Same thing with 'the metrics say always go for it on 4th and less than 5.'
But in that sense, the odds of winning in OT would also be less than 50% you’d assume. I think the odds of converting the 2 pointer are closer to the average than you’re thinking…even the most extreme example might move it 5-10% tops (it’s not like the odds suddenly drop to 30%).
OK I will be that guy.
The phrase you are looking for is "pass muster". The image of passing mustard is not one on which I choose to dwell.
Sure, maybe those assumptions are fair but not to the point of being certain the 2 pt try is the best choice without factoring other metrics than 'league average', a clear oversimplification.
But factoring in "League Average" makes it a very clear decision. Maybe it's not quite a 60/40 decision, but it would certainly be more than 50/50 unless you're thinking that you chances of making a two-pointer are something like 35% (and if that's the case, you're very likely underestimating your odds of converting it).
What is the point you're trying to make? There's nothing wrong with league averages to validate the benefit of the 2Pt strategy. If you're arguing you should use different assumptions based on the situationally context, sure. No one here has time or a interest in doing that.
Of course. I was refuting the supposed ‘no brainer’ validity of league average as explained in the article.
Why not kick the PA ( 98 percent success rate) make it a 7 point game then, if you happen to score a Touchdown to make it a 1 point game go for the win at that time ? Seems to make more sense at least to me
We've got a couple people on this board who I am CONVINCED are posting from the community room at Bergen Pines.
OK, two points here (no pun intended). First, "passing mustard" would be nasty. But "passing muster" (a military inspection) would be OK.
Second, here's the logic, Moose (and I completely agree that it seems counterintuitive at first).
Under your approach, and assuming a 50/50 shot at making the two (which is close to league average), you win half the time and you lose half the time.
Under the "go for two first" approach, here are the probabilities:
1. You make the two-pointer on the first touchdown 50% of the time and then you kick the extra point on the second touchdown (to make it easy, let's say 100% of the time), and you win the game. That gives you a 50% win so far.
2. Here's the other possibility: You miss the two-pointer on the first touchdown and are down 8. On the second touchdown, you can try again for the two-point conversion. You make it 50% of the time, sending the game into overtime, where you win, on average, 50% of the time. Sooooo, for this 50% you make the second two-pointer half the time, sending it into overtime 25% of the (total) time under this situation. You win half of these, or 12.5% of the (total) time. Added to the 50% you win from situation 1, this means that you win 62.5% of the time by going for 2 on the first touchdown, versus 50% by going for 1 on the first touchdown, and going for 2 on the second one. (Also, if you go for 1 on both TDs, you win 50% of the time).
Because you lose if you don’t make that one attempt on the second TD.
You want to try it on the first TD, so if you miss it you can try again on the second TD and tie, or just kick the PAT and win.
Your scenario removes any chance of a tie and puts more of that probability to a loss than it does a win.
Last edited: