GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
I think the conditional probability of this post actually being mathematically correct to be very low.
I think the probability that DJI9424 recently learned about conditional probability to be high.
Down 9 and going for 2
- Thread starter enosmohawk
- Start date
I think the conditional probability of this post actually being mathematically correct to be very low.
I think the probability that DJI9424 recently learned about conditional probability to be high.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
These threads would be a lot shorter if each person would acknowledge the other's point of view...
And then clearly say
"I am making a different point" or
" also, consider this " or
"I see what you are saying" or
" and at the same time consider ...."
people insist on Either OR and it never ends.
And then clearly say
"I am making a different point" or
" also, consider this " or
"I see what you are saying" or
" and at the same time consider ...."
people insist on Either OR and it never ends.
DJI9424
Well-Known Member
You would be mistaken on both counts.
The issue I have with your analysis is that your "58% win" is fully dependent on scoring two touchdowns, thus the idea that it represents a true probability of winning the game is at best a conclusion that can be easily misinterpreted.
Prob(B | A) = Prob(B and A) / Prob (A) is how conditional probability is measured, but in no event can your analysis be construed as a straightforward conditional probability; only from the standpoint that you know what you achieved on the first PAT, thus you know what you need to do on the second. However, I see nothing resembling a conditional probability in your calculations, you are treating each PAT as independent events because you are merely multiplying the Prob(A) by the Prob(B), where A is the PAT after first TD and B is the PAT after the second TD.
The proper way to evaluate the optimum strategy is to compare going for 2 PAT after the first TD strategy against the other two possible strategies, namely 1) Go for 1 PAT first and then go for 2 PAT in all cases, and 2) go for the 1 PAT first and then go for whatever is necessary to achieve a tie game.
I agree, the first strategy is optimum, but it is dependent on the ability to convert the 2 PAT being 36% or better, assuming the probability of converting the 1 PAT is 95%, the chance of winning in OT is 50%, and the certainty of scoring 2 TDs. So, if you are going to employ this strategy, you need to have a good estimate of your chances to convert the 2 PAT, you cannot just assume a global average. And as I have commented previously, I would be hard pressed to place Iowa's in the Purdue game of anything above 30%, especially if I presume the 47% success rate was from the NFL after moving the 2 PAT to the 2 yard line.
Please feel free to respond, I enjoy a good discussion.
I think I'm the only one on it that understands both sides. The only way you can be wrong here is to think either decision is stupid.
As a coach, you need to know in advance of the game what percentage you need to convert to make it worth it. Then decide if you think your chances of converting against that team are greater. It would be more of an educated guess, but still better than even a season average, which has nothing to do with what your average would be vs that particular team.
Either way, it's a very interesting concept and most teams averages would fall above the threshold for making it worth trying. Therefore, since no coaches do it, I think it's reasonable to assume most coaches make bad, uneducated decisions at times. So we should quit saying if all coaches do it, it must be right.
Does anyone remember the exact situation when Kirk kicked the field goal down 8 last year? If so, one of you guys should draw up an equation to see what odds were better. If you can't remember the exact situation, maybe go with 4th and 8 from the 25 with 3 minutes left and 2 timeouts.
One path to victory is to convert the 4th and 8, score from inside the 20, make a 2 point conversion, stop them scoring with a couple minutes left, and win in ot.
The other path is to make a 42 yard field goal, get a 3 and out, and go 70 yards or so in 2 minutes with no timeouts for a touchdown. Whoever wants to try it can assign percentages to each step and see what's the better path. We can always debate and tweak the percentages later. Anyone want to try that?
One path to victory is to convert the 4th and 8, score from inside the 20, make a 2 point conversion, stop them scoring with a couple minutes left, and win in ot.
The other path is to make a 42 yard field goal, get a 3 and out, and go 70 yards or so in 2 minutes with no timeouts for a touchdown. Whoever wants to try it can assign percentages to each step and see what's the better path. We can always debate and tweak the percentages later. Anyone want to try that?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
PC, you aren't the only one who understands "both sides" so sorry about that. You're coming from a strictly mathmatical reality. You're math is not correct. But math lives in a vacuum. Football games do not and life needs context. The context is that there are 60 minutes in each regulation football game. When you are behind and you (presumably) do not want to lose, you're efforts must be to utilize all 60 minutes to your advantage to try and tie or take the lead. In that context, ferentz made a gigantic blunder. he risked the remaining time on the clock, unnecessarily. There was no legitimate reason to risk the chance of failure in going for 2 because a failure ends the game and the remaining time on the clock becomes irrelevant. So, yeah, I see both sides of it. in a vacuum, math is math. In the real world, there are consequences to decisions and in this case, ferentz foolishly risked one last opportunity by rendering the time left on the clock as irrelevant.
So do you think the chance that gives you the best odds to win always comes at the very end of the game? What if you can make a decision with 3 minutes left that increases your odds to win, but if it doesn't work, you have no chance at all from that point on? Would you rather not take that chance, lowering your odds to win, just for the sake of being in the game for 3 more minutes?
This is a purely hypothetical situation and has nothing to do with Kirk's decision. If you say you would rather take the chance with 3 minutes left to increase your odds, it kinda kills the "stay in the game" theory. If you say you would pass on that chance and decrease your odds, then I don't even know what to say.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
now you're talking hypotheticals. there wasn't 3 minutes left in the game. There was 1:04. Again, math is a vacuum; reality isn't.
theboat
Well-Known Member
I can understand why someone would run a zone read on 3rd and 9, but that doesn’t make it any less a dumb decision. You’re confusing finding reason with being acceptable. I can see the reasoning behind going for two, but the risk outweighs the reward.
Holy cow it actually says in my post it's hypothetical and has nothing to do with Kirk's decision. Can you answer my hypothetical question?
theboat
Well-Known Member
theboat
Well-Known Member
Again you change the variable that matters most.
Sports have clocks. And the clocks change the dynamic of the game
How are people's reading comprehension so bad? My post was a question regarding whether it's always the best decision to stay in the game as long as possible. I said right in my post it was strictly hypothetical and had nothing to do with Kirk's decision. Then Arvada responds by telling me it's hypothetical and explains there was less time when Kirk decided to go for 2. Then you say I'm moving the goalposts? I guess this explains a lot.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Of course the dynamic of the decision changes with more time because with time for more than one possession it is no longer critical to keep it to one possession. How is that so hard to understand?
3-4 minutes left. 2 possessions possible.
1 minute left. 1 possession possible.
And yes, I would be ok if he went for 2 in the 3rd quarter since we are throwing out random hypotheticals.
I didn't change a variable. I made up a random hypothetical situation that had nothing to do with Kirk's decision. Maybe I should have put that part in bold?
Why are you talking about number of possessions in my hypothetical situation? I never even said a score.
Again, this was to address whether it's always best to extend the game. That's what Arvada hawk keeps saying. You always want to extend the game. So I asked if he would be willing to give up a higher probability shot with time left, or would he rather take the lower probability shot later, just for the sake of extending the game.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Ok, so now we are just talking about general football concepts? You know what thread this is?
Yyou know what page this thread is on?
