David Scott's Article, WOW do I ever disagree with him.

[Illini]

Lighten up, tough guy. I just said that I remember the thread, and remember you saying that. And indeed you are the only one anywhere that would do that. And I wasn't even arguing with you in that thread, so don't act like you told me so.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

No chance of me being down 4 and going for 2!? Are you serious? Give up the automatic point in hopes of making a 2 point conversion since "you might not win in overtime anyway"? LOL. You might revolutionize the whole business of setting lines if you can sell that one. Sorry but it only makes sense to get a chance to extend the game anyway you possibly can when losing, not out think yourself and minimize your chances to win or tie.

Haven't really thought about the 9 and going for 2 stuff as you are talking about potentially two scores but I can tell you right off I disagree with the go for 2 when down 4 statement and paint yourself into a big corner. That makes no sense, you need a FG to stay in the game anyway so take the point and go from there, to say it might not be enough in OT so let's do away with the gimme and try to make a TD if we miss is downright silly.


:monsters-

 

[Illini]

And another thing. Don't come in here and act like you know anything about the game of football, just because you're a physics professor or actuary or whatever it is that you do. Football is so much about momentum, energy, and emotion. While it's important to have sound reasoning when making strategic decisions, football cannot ever be reduced to math and formulas. Did you ever play the game? Doubtful.

 

[Illini]

No chance of me being down 4 and going for 2!? Are you serious? Give up the automatic point in hopes of making a 2 point conversion since "you might not win in overtime anyway"? LOL. You might revolutionize the whole business of setting lines if you can sell that one.

Haven't really thought about the 9 and going for 2 stuff as you are talking about potentially two scores but I can tell you right off I disagree with the go for 2 when down 4 statement and paint yourself into a big corner. That makes no sense, you need a FG to stay in the game anyway so take the point and go from there, to say it might not be enough in OT so let's do away with the gimme and try to make a TD if we miss is downright silly.


:monsters-

Agree completely.

 

[redpimp]

And another thing. Don't come in here and act like you know anything about the game of football, just because you're a physics professor or actuary or whatever it is that you do. Football is so much about momentum, energy, and emotion. While it's important to have sound reasoning when making strategic decisions, football cannot ever be reduced to math and formulas. Did you ever play the game? Doubtful.

:lolBIG: may be my mood has lightened because i have had a full hearty meal prepared with some love!!!

I am not going to rehash old issues like this. If you had a point to make, you would have done so in the relevant thread!!! As far as ever having played a single down of football, i again will point to your propensity to leap onto irrelevant ticky tacky issues when cornered in by the facts. 99% of the people who make the lines you gamble on have never played a single down of football either!!!


Ps..For one who uses simple maths and stats to make common sense decision, i seem to be the only one who seems to have the very coaches of the teams in question back me up by confirming exactly what i stated in my posts!!! (ie coach from the Niu game, and even Al groh himself.... so much for having never played football!!!!)

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Now I think more on it I also think going for 2 down 9 is a big mistake as well. When you are losing late in the game your first goal is to at least get back in the game and give yourself a chance to win. What makes the argument so preposterous to me is say you go for 2 when down 9 and make it, now you are down 7. In this story lets say you score again with no time left on the clock, do you go for 2 and take the win "since you may lose in OT anyway" or do you do the smart thing and tie up the game? Of course you kick it and take your chances. And there is your answer for all of this, there are times to play for the win, late in football games you are not playing the % if you try for 2 back to back times in hopes of winning rather than just taking the sure thing and getting to OT.

The 4 is a no-brainer and while I disagree on the 9 I can somewhat see both sides. I just do not think there is any guarantees in life but when losing late in a football game your goal is to get within one score, not shoot yourself in the foot going for two and then relying on having to score twice. If you are down 8 then assume you need to score twice instead of just once is my suggestion, not go for 2 so you know if it will take one or two score. Expensive price to pay for information. Hell this may change it all, in baseball they may quit trying to get the tying run to the plate in the 9th inning, hell that would only ensure extra innings and is of no value since you may lose anyway. Go up there swinging for the rose bushes.....

I think I see why the Fezzik/Shrink matchup might be closer than I first realized.

 

[Illini]

:lolBIG: may be my mood has lightened because i have had a full hearty meal prepared with some love!!!

I am not going to rehash old issues like this. If you had a point to make, you would have done so in the relevant thread!!! As far as ever having played a single down of football, i again will point to your propensity to leap onto irrelevant ticky tacky issues when cornered in by the facts. 99% of the people who make the lines you gamble on have never played a single down of football either!!!

I didn't feel like participating in that thread. Not because I'm not good at math, but because you guys were arguing math formulas around a game which has so many "gut" decisions, based on the momentum and flow of the game. So I didn't get involved in that silly argument. I was just having Winky's back, because he mentioned what you said, and I remember you saying it. And it was off the wall. And then you went off on him like he's some idiot, which was uncalled for. He didn't even name you or reference you, so there was no need for that. That's all.

 

[Illini]

Ps..For one who uses simple maths and stats to make common sense decision, i seem to be the only one who seems to have the very coaches of the teams in question back me up by confirming exactly what i stated in my posts!!! (ie coach from the Niu game, and even Al groh himself.... so much for having never played football!!!!)

As far as that NIU game, God only knows if what that guy said is true. If his team was really that tired that they couldn't suck it up for an OT, then that's on him for not conditioning them properly. If going for two was his only chance to win, then it was the right decision. I will say that although I got tired playing basketball, I never got tired in football, and I never left the field. I can't imagine guys who play one-way being too tired to play an OT. But if that's what he said, whatever. I just think it's a bad play, because you are going to fail more times than succeed going for two. And it sends a bad message to your kids, telling them that you don't trust them to win in OT, you don't believe they are the better team, and that you have to gamble to win. Cause going for two is gambling.....it's a negative expecation game.

 

[Fezzik]

You are down 3; it is 4th and goal from the opponents 4 yard line,what do you do?

I'll tell you what you do. You wonder why the h*** you kicked your extra point 5 minutes ago to go down 3, leaving you in a horrible position to have to decide whether to play for a 3 or a TD. If you had gone for 2, you could then either

1) Kick the fg and win or
2) Go for the win anyway going for it.

THis scenario happens over and over and over.

Everyone who disagrees with the Ross "go for 2 down 4" is shooting from the hip using erroneous common sense. Those running Monte Carlo simulations, or using reasonable math come to a quick conclusion that going for 2 is a no brainer provided you make it over 40%......which you will.

Seroiusly, you have your choise.

1. You can have 4th and 5 from the opponents 10 down 3 with :40 to play. OR

2. You have a 43% chance to have the same situation but down 2 and a 57% chance to have the same situation down 4.


Gimme scenario "2" EVERY TIME. Assuming an automatic kick you win the game WAY OVER 50% in scenario 2. In scenario 1 it is just a coinflip.

Solve by inspection stuff. Yet 99% of the guys disagree.

My key point in the article was that the author cited an argualbly CORRECT decision as being moronic. Surely, he could have come up with a truly moronic example, rather than a super complicated, get out your slide rule, we can argue all night about this one example.

 

[jwunderdog]

I agree totally with what Winky posted, a team inside the 10 with a minute left t and game tied, let them score. I have only seen it done a couple of times that a team has let the other team score.

 

[redpimp]

And it sends a bad message to your kids, telling them that you don't trust them to win in OT, you don't believe they are the better team, and that you have to gamble to win. Cause going for two is gambling.....it's a negative expecation game.

This is the selective reasoning i am talking about. Always picking views that seem to strengthen your side when infact its hog wash!!!

So going for two points shows your team you dont believe in them? how about the opposite, that is shows you have the faith in them to close the deal and take the win and go home? How about showing your team that you trust them to knock the other guys off the blocks and punching that ball into the endzone!!! Ever think about that Mr Energizer bunny who doesnt get tired?
Going for two is not gambling!!! but then again why would i go into that, you have expressed your hate for maths and factual statistics!!! You simply have precious little knowledge you are talking about.

Here is some advice for you, before opening your mouth about a football game you did not watch from start to finish, try and get this point into your head, you dont know a damn thing about the game. Here you are making bullshit comments about how you never got tired playing football, well sonny the last time i checked your arse is gambling for a living instead of earning money in the NFL!!!! When you make retarded comments like you dont understand how people get tired in football games, it only goes further to show the level of your ignorance about the game you are talking about. You dont even have the first clue as to what may have contributed to the fatigue. You are just running your mouth like Hpark!!!!
finally regarding you stepping up for Winkyduck, is that guy such a bozo he has to hide his little snivelling comments in other peoples threads? He cant even mention me by name now?:monsters-




HA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ChuckSims]

Fezzik, do you smoke weed? Sheer stupidity to go for two. Go for 2 to cut the lead to two instead of the PAT to cut the lead to 3? You would be fired immediately as a head coach the second time you make that boneheaded decision.

 

[redpimp]

I'll tell you what you do. You wonder why the h*** you kicked your extra point 5 minutes ago to go down 3, leaving you in a horrible position to have to decide whether to play for a 3 or a TD. If you had gone for 2, you could then either

.

I highly doubt that there is a horrible position of any kind in this scenario. Its not as if the refs ask you to choose between the two and you cant do one if you do the other. The route you take to get the field goal is the exact same route you take for the touch down. There is no dilemma in this case of any kind!


You simply play for the touch down, failing that, the option to kick the field goal is still open...Going for two just so that you dont have to choose between the easy choice of a td vs a fieldgoal .That is not logical thinking.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Fezz, on most of your stuff I have pretty much respected your conclusions, not at all of it but a good part of it. But for you to even suggest going for 2 when a team is down 4 is the right move is mind boggling. What you have done is just eliminate about 35 yards of the field you could have used to tie the game and perhaps later win. Hell you can still score a TD and win the game just because you take the gimme and get yourself down by 3, nothing says you can't still do that, you just don't want to make it so you have to score a TD in order not to lose. Makes no sense to purposely give away the fact a FG could save the game for you.

On the being 9 down I can see a little bit of your argument, though I still disagree it's not as clear as the being down 4 slam dunk. But answer me this if you strongly believe the move is going for 2, do you do it both times? For instance you are down 9 and go for 2 to get it to a 7 point game. You then score with no time left on the clock, I assume you go for two again since you are gambling to win rather than just kicking it and going to OT? It is OT you are trying to avoid with all this staying off the 3's and 7's "because you might lose it there anyway"?

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

PS - if this was all just to garner some attention for the front page article of the RX than job well done, LOL. I can't quite make myself believe he is serious on all this.

 

[D2bets]

I'll tell you what you do. You wonder why the h*** you kicked your extra point 5 minutes ago to go down 3, leaving you in a horrible position to have to decide whether to play for a 3 or a TD. If you had gone for 2, you could then either

1) Kick the fg and win or
2) Go for the win anyway going for it.

THis scenario happens over and over and over.

Everyone who disagrees with the Ross "go for 2 down 4" is shooting from the hip using erroneous common sense. Those running Monte Carlo simulations, or using reasonable math come to a quick conclusion that going for 2 is a no brainer provided you make it over 40%......which you will.

Seroiusly, you have your choise.

1. You can have 4th and 5 from the opponents 10 down 3 with :40 to play. OR

2. You have a 43% chance to have the same situation but down 2 and a 57% chance to have the same situation down 4.


Gimme scenario "2" EVERY TIME. Assuming an automatic kick you win the game WAY OVER 50% in scenario 2. In scenario 1 it is just a coinflip.

Solve by inspection stuff. Yet 99% of the guys disagree.

My key point in the article was that the author cited an argualbly CORRECT decision as being moronic. Surely, he could have come up with a truly moronic example, rather than a super complicated, get out your slide rule, we can argue all night about this one example.

First you have to GET IT TO 4th and 5th from the opponent's 10. Much more likely is you'll have the ball at the opponent's 30 with 5 seconds left and you'll regret having it to heave it into the endzone in desparation rather than kicking the 47 hard FG to go into OT. Consider that if you miss the 2 you've also just made a lot easier on the defense knowing they only have to keep you out of the endzone and in a late game situation knowing that they just need to keep the clock running and that the offense will then need to run sideline plays. It's a TON more difficult to score a TD in 1 or 2 minute drill (esp w/o timeouts) than it is to get into FG posotion. Have you quantified that in your algorithm. Hey, I'm all for questioning conventional wisdom but in this case I think CW and common sense are right. I could be wrong, but I still don't think so.

 

[Illini]

This is the selective reasoning i am talking about. Always picking views that seem to strengthen your side when infact its hog wash!!!

So going for two points shows your team you dont believe in them? how about the opposite, that is shows you have the faith in them to close the deal and take the win and go home? How about showing your team that you trust them to knock the other guys off the blocks and punching that ball into the endzone!!! Ever think about that Mr Energizer bunny who doesnt get tired?
Going for two is not gambling!!! but then again why would i go into that, you have expressed your hate for maths and factual statistics!!! You simply have precious little knowledge you are talking about.

Here is some advice for you, before opening your mouth about a football game you did not watch from start to finish, try and get this point into your head, you dont know a damn thing about the game. Here you are making bullshit comments about how you never got tired playing football, well sonny the last time i checked your arse is gambling for a living instead of earning money in the NFL!!!! When you make retarded comments like you dont understand how people get tired in football games, it only goes further to show the level of your ignorance about the game you are talking about. You dont even have the first clue as to what may have contributed to the fatigue. You are just running your mouth like Hpark!!!!
finally regarding you stepping up for Winkyduck, is that guy such a bozo he has to hide his little snivelling comments in other peoples threads? He cant even mention me by name now?:monsters-




HA!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, going for two is like telling your team directly that you don't believe they are the better team, and thus, will probably lose the game in OT. No other way to put it. A better team going for two is still less likely to score than more likely, on one play from the 3 yard line. That's a fact. Give it a whole series for both teams, and you have a better chance to win, if you are the better team. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. When you make the outcome of the game ride on one play, a play which will never hit at over 50%, you are gambling. And I never said I didn't like math or wasn't good at it. I just said that football cannot be reduced to math formulas without regard to many other important factors. Hell, using your dipshit logic, I guess the Redskins had a 0% chance to score that first touchdown last night, since they had gone 0 for the game up to that point. Oops.

You, sir, are the one who doesn't know a damn thing about this game. You were on the math team and played in the band. Maybe you went to Ohio St and dotted the eye at halftime, and felt like you were part of the team, but you weren't. You were just a band geek. Nothing less and nothing more.

There is a lot of downtime in football, unlike basketball. If you are in shape, you should rarely get tired. I guess the first 3 games of the season, when it was hot, maybe I got tired 2 or 3 times during a game, but nothing that you don't just shake off, after resting for 30 seconds between every play. When it was cold, you never got tired. In college, nobody plays both ways, so I find the "tired" excuse a little hard to believe. Even if they were tired, just suck it up for 4 or 5 more plays, and rest in between them. Or you can just gamble and go for two. Whatever.

Why am I not in the NFL? Gee, why are you not in the NY symphony? You can't be a good band geek unless you make it all the way there, ya know? I'm not a bad guy, but when someone is an asshole to me, I'm gonna dish it back. Stick to math and band directing, okay?

 

[Fezzik]

This is ridiculous. All I hear is "Fez your wrong, I'm right".

Not a shred of mathematical assumptions to back anyone's position here! I guarantee all I've spent far more time thinking about this and analyzing it than anyone on the board.

I LOVE to start with the down 8, what do you do scenario? EVERY "expert" says, you gotta kick it. The numbers show what a horrific assumption this actually is!! The truth is you gotta go for two.

Assuming you always make the extra point, and two even teams, and you will get 1 final score at the end of the game, you obvously go OT and have a 50-50 chance to win.

If you have just a 40% chance to make a two point conversion, then obviously you now have can win by 2 scenarios (remember all analysis assumes you will get in the endzone again, otherwise nothing matters).

1. Go for two, make it (and then win with your next TD) prob= 40%.

2. Go for two, miss it (and then go for two again and make it, and then win in OT. Prob = .6 * .4 * .5= 12%

So even with very conservative 40% conversion assumption, we can see that going for two after the 1st TD gives you a 52% chance to win.........and this assumes kicking is 100% foolproof.....which we all know isn't the case.

The bottom line: THe math is crystal clear. No logical person could disagree with this. Given the go for two down 8 is so clear, surely any logical person would start sweating bullets about his preconceived notion that one should kick for 1 when down 4.

Now I agree the analysis becomes more complex when down by 4. To sum it up mathematically, your expectation when kicking is almost 1.0 points, going for two is more like .80-.90 points. So obviously, early in the game, going for two is a mistake (but not much of one, it has a trivial cost in expectation).

However, by going for two when down 8 or 4 late in the game, you will win lots of games by 1 point only, and you will never lose by just 1, therefore over the long run, your opponents will ever so slightly outscore you, but you will win more games (since you will win evey game decided by 1 point).

Getting off topic a bit, I might add that this is a VERY complicated situation when down 4. I'm fine with someone saying "Let me think about this" or "Let me run some simulations". Those saying "I'm right, that is it" I simply don't relate to. I will say the "old school" thinking is that one should never gamble. There is a feeling that one "deserves" 7 points for a TD, and one should never fool with this. The math of course says something different.

I don't know why we debate letting the opponent score when you are down 1 out of timeouts. A sharp 8 year old knows this.

A better question is what to do when tied with a 4th and 1 on the opponents 10 with 1:15 left, and the opponent with 1 timout left. The answer is to go for it, and it is not even close. Assuming the kicker is a stud, and a team makes the 1st down 60%, they will win the game around 80% of the time going for it. When kicking the 3, they win WAY less than this.

Yet 90% of the old schoolers would kick in this situation. The Virginia team faced this situation vs. Cuse and actually made the right call, and bet bashed by the media. Why? Because people HATE any play call resembling a gamble, even if it is totally justified.

 

[ChuckSims]

Save the mathematical assumptions for the robot geeks that have no emotion and believe everything is equal.. All you have to do is look at a teams offense like the Ravens for example and know going for 2 late in the game trailing by 4 would be so assinine it defies logic. Does your mathematics account for time remaining? How bout a teams shitty offense? Or how bout the opponents defense? Or how bout a team letdown and the crowd booing the team off the field when the 2 point conversion fails when trailing by 4.

Put down the bong Fez, and concentrate on picking winners for this week-end.

:fballch3:

 

[redpimp]

Hell, using your dipshit logic, I guess the Redskins had a 0% chance to score that first touchdown last night, since they had gone 0 for the game up to that point. Oops.

Gentlemen, here we have undeniable logic that we are dealing with a certified imbecile!!!! Here is where you can tell if a person understands a lick of football or not!!!! Any half wit idiot who can understand basic football defenses could have seen there was a good possibility that the Redskins would score again using the very same play they scored their first touch down with!!! It goes to show your inability to even understand simple defensive formations..You must be the only idiot in America hopelessly baffled by the events of monday night football and cant comprehend the simple mathematical logic that shows that there was a very good chance that this play would be open again... (In lay mans words, if the cowboys defense kept up the same bad plays that gave up the first touch down, then of course even inept Joe gibbs would take the advice of his WR who told him to chuck it to him!!!)

You are some wannbe bozo pretending to understand football yet infact you dont understand a lick of it!!!! Played football my ass!!!!

Am done bandying words with you mr Energizer bunny!!!!!