No. Early in games, you try to maximize the points you will score.
We obviously agree that if you’re down 8 at the end of a game and score a touchdown, you should go for two to tie the game. The reason for this is that two points are worth more than twice as much as one point in this situation. One point is essentially meaningless. The same logic dictates going for two in the game situation in this thread.
Got it. Thanks.
Still think this ignores some of the perceptions/realities of momentum shifts (waiting for cites to show those as perceptions), and the fact that the probability of making a TPC will vary from team to team. Some of those maligning coaches are likely not taking this into account.
First, I’ll say that this is a bit of a hijack I’ve started and doesn’t really apply to the original question. But all I’m saying by that is that needing 7 is not the same as needing 8.
In this side-discussion situation of being down 15, you want to kick the PAT first and go for 2 second. What is the advantage of this vs. going for 2 first and kicking the PAT second? Because I say the advantage of going for 2 first is that you then know whether the 2 PC successful, and you can adjust your strategy accordingly.
Again, this is separate from the main discussion.
Momentum and hot streaks and clutch are all roughly the same argument. If it’s real, it should show up in data, but it doesn’t. What is momentum, and when does it come into play? It’s easy enough to ascribe to a game or a season in hindsight, but that’s just a method of narration, not a real statistical phenomenon. What exactly do you want a citation for?
You claim that it doesn’t show up in the data. Meaning you’ve seen data or seen a report of some data where someone has looked for this trend and it wasn’t to be found. The cite we want is that data or the report of that data. Surely you’re not claiming a fact based on data without having any actual data.
But it underlines the fundamental disconnect. How do you reconcile this with the idea you youself posted not five posts upthread that you shouldn’t go for two “early” in games because you want to maximize your points. Now you’re saying that you should go for 2 when you expect to score two more touchdowns after this current one. Expecting to score two more touchdowns, for most teams, means you’re in the early part of the game.
We are agreed that if there is lots of time left, of course you kick the higher percentage PAT. (Assuming <50% 2PC.) If there is only time left for two scores, and you’re down by 15, always go for the PAT first because if you miss a 2PC the game is over, while if you make it you haven’t won anything. (You still need the second touchdown.) Your next drive you may as well just punt the ball. Your idea of “adjusting your strategy accordingly” by definition implies there is still time for more touchdowns after you score two. That’s by definition “early”, where you yourself said you should go for one.
I really don’t understand your position. It conflicts with itself.
Well, it depends on how you define momentum. We can start with this
http://www.johntreed.com/fttmomentum.html
That said, I don’t really think teams go for 2 too rarely, and often think they shouldn’t when they do. The problem with this analysis is that it assumes the opponent won’t score again, and unless we are very late in the 4th quarter or playing the Bucs, that isn’t a fair assumption. In order to make the best decision one needs to consider the odds of a fg/td happening as well, and the associated win probabilities.
Like I said, though, you’ll have to tell me which trend. I can’t give you an elegant answer to whether momentum exists for the same reason I can’t give you one about any other subjective descriptor – it’s subjective. People are studying data all the time looking for evidence of clutch or hot streaks or momentum as a result of discussions just like this one. It’s frustrating business, because the subjectivity involved in step one can be reintroduced at the conclusion to reject the data out of hand. Because, after all, football isn’t a game of chance, people aren’t numbers, etc. etc.
Of course, if it does exist, I’d expect one of these studies to have found it by now, considering how influential it seems to be, but I’ve not seen such a study.
Look at it this way: Down by 15 with 2:30 and two timeouts, you score a touchdown. You’re as likely to succeed on your needed 2PC now as later, right? And you’re definitely going to try one at some point, yes? Right now, you don’t know whether the attempt will succeed or fail, and you’re better off getting that information as soon as possible, because if it’s going to be successful you’ll want to kickoff, but if it’s going to fail you’ll onside kick. By going for the 2PC first, you gain information (i.e. whether your attempt will succeed) at 2:30 remaining, when it can still do you some good. If you don’t find out that you miss the 2PC until there’s 0:10 left and you’ve scored your second TD, the information can’t help you because you will have already missed your opportunity to onside kick.
I think some sort of mystical ‘momentum’ can and is overrated, but in the OP’s scenario, where your team has outscored the other team by two touchdowns in the closing minutes, there might be sound reasons to think that you have the better team at that point. Assuming the scores were on solid offensive drives, with solid defensive stops in between, rather than two flukey 99-yard turnover returns as the other team was about to score, then it’s quite possible that for some reason – key injury to the other team, good halftime adjustment by your team, better conditioning for your team, whatever – your team really is better at this point, and has better than 50/50 chance of winning in OT.
Obviously, that depends on the actual situation (in the case of the two fluke turnovers, you probably have less than 50/50 chance to win), which we don’t know about from the OP point of view, but over all situations, I’d suspect on average the team scoring two late unanswered TDs has a slightly better chance of winning in OT. [Of course, anyone who can produce actual data on this is welcome].
I don’t see any data for football in there; instead, I see an assumption that football is the same as basketball, baseball and tennis.
To be honest, though, I’m not married to the idea of quantifiable momentum anyway, and in this situation at most I’d toss it in as a decision tiebreaker if everything else amounts to a coin flip. (I would weight “do I think this 2PC play will work?” about a hundred times stronger than game momentum.)
Yes.
Yes.
Wrong.
You’re kidding, right? You’re actually saying that the smart play is to maximize the chances you’ll do an onside kick? That’s the smart play?
I submit that the TD rate following a onside kick attempt is indistinguishable no matter how much time is left: 1 second or 60 minutes. (Because you ain’t getting the onside kick. Period.)
Going for two after the first touchdown does nothing to reduce the number of touchdowns you need. Right? All it can do make you need more scoring drives.
Also, when did touchdowns get to be arbitrarily easy and not time consuming? Think about it: you score a TD and go for two so you can know whether or not you need two scores. You miss. Now you need a touchdown and a field goal in 2:30. So how quickly must you get the first one? By, say, 1:30 left? That’s 1 minute to score a field goal – kicking the moment you get in range – and 1:30 for a TD. AFTER a successful onside kick.
Isn’t it much easier to score a touchdown with 2:30 left than it is with 1:30 left? Weren’t you trying to convince me of something similar a couple months ago? Doesn’t that make it smarter to guarantee yourself a chance with only a single scoring drive?
I probably shouldn’t have brought this up, because it’s a bit of a different argument than the main thread, but anyway.
VarlosZ explained it pretty well. The situation I am talking about is where you were down 15, late in the game, and have just scored a TD to get within 9. I think we agree that the strategy is to get a PAT, a TD, and a 2PC to tie the game, and the question is whether to go for 2 now or when we get the second TD.
You have said that it’s better to go for one now, and two later, because if you miss the 2 now the game is over. But the game is just as over if you miss the 2 later. Unless you think you’re more likely to get the 2PC after the second touchdown compared to after the first, I don’t see why you would have any preference for which TD gets the 2 point try.
The advantage of going for the 2 on the first TD is that you get the information at that point about whether the 2PC was successful. This is a pretty minor advantage, since we’re talking about very late in the game, so you’re right that there’s not much strategy change you can do. But there is some, even if it’s some one-in-a-thousand scenario of recovering two onside kicks or something.
The second 2PC has nothing to do with it. The second touchdown is much more likely to be scored if that’s the only score you need. That’s because you can take your time, put together a good drive, etc… If you need two scores, you’re going to have to rush as fast as you can and fling it all down the sideline and you’ll be much more likely to fail miserably.
just for the record - this is not the OP scenario, where the six on the TD brought you to within 8
No, I’m saying this: depending on whether your 2PC (whenever you wind up trying it) is a success or a failure, it will either be (or have been) better to kickoff or onside kick after your first TD. The only way you can know which course will be better *before *you have to decide is to try the 2PC after the first TD.
I don’t follow. Are you saying that the probability of success for an expected onside kick is 0%? That’s obviously false.
It’s not going for two that makes you need more scoring drives, since you’re going to go for two at some point no matter what. It’s *failing *at your 2PC, now or later, that makes you need more scoring drives, and it’s better to know how many scoring drives you’ll need ASAP so can adjust your strategy.
I can’t argue this point without convincing you of the above, so I won’t.
That’s a total cop-out. Leave it there and I’ll claim victory.
Or you could just address the nicely condensed post 54.
“Claim victory?” Why, I do believe you’re serious.
Why do you so consistently misinterpret what people are saying to you if you’re actually interested in the topic at hand? You ask ridiculous rhetorical questions at an alarming rate, and it’s very frustrating to read.
In any event, no, that is very obviously not anything like what VarlosZ said. What he said was that of the two scenarios, the preferable one is the one where, if you fail to get the conversion, you can still make an attempt to win the game.
Diagram it out. With 2:30 to play, you score a touchdown and make the score 15-6. Two possible paths you could take -
get the PAT, kick off, try to get the ball back, score, go for two.
– if you fail the two point try here, you lose. Your chances of winning are equal to the chances of you converting a PAT, getting the ball back, scoring a touchdown, and getting a two-point conversion.
go for two.
– A. if you get it, kick off, try to get the ball back, score, get PAT.
– B. if you don’t get it, onside kick, try to get two more scores.
Your chances of winning in 2 are equal to your chances of getting the conversion, getting the ball back, scoring a touchdown, and getting a PAT plus your slim chance of succeeding with 2B. Whatever likelihood you assign to 2B, and since everything else is equal, it’s a chance that you simply wouldn’t have if you went with option 1.
This is definitely true. My argument is that this doesn’t make the overall strategy of a PAT on the first TD better. With your strategy, after you take your time, put together a good drive, and score a TD, you still have to make the 2PC. Here is how I see the two scenarios:
A. Kick the PAT on the first TD, go for two on the second TD. You need to:
B. Go for two on the first TD. You need to:
It seems to me that the chances of success are the same in both cases.
The advantage I am claiming is that in B, if you miss the 2PC, you have the (very small) chance to successfully rush down the field, flinging passes as you say. This has a small chance of success, but I’m claiming it has a larger chance of success than the similar situation when you fail on the 2PC after the second TD.
I’d go for one.
Case A- Overtime is acceptable. Going for one means I can get a TD plus XP to tie the game. If I go for 2 and miss it, that means if I get a TD I would be forced to once again go for 2 in order to force OT. If I’m not afraid of overtime, I’ll go for one. No brainer in my opinion.
Case B- Overtime is Not Acceptable. Still going for one. If I go for two and miss it, that means I need two more possessions to win. (maybe TD/PAT + FG, in either order). If I go for two and make it, then I can win with TD+PAT. I say get within 7 first, get the ball back, try to score a TD, then you can go for 2 points and a win at that point.