Teachable Moment: That's why you go for two early

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Yeah, I would like to see the 2pt conversion rate inside 1 minute and compare it to the rate at any other time.

If that rate is lower then I might go with McCarthy's plan. If it's higher I stick with the XP plan to get it to 8 points.

All single plays are in a bubble. Just because they failed with 5 minutes does not mean they would have failed at the end of the game.

I understand all other things being equal you may have 1/1000 chance better of winning if you go for the 2 early.
A few things.

You have to be a little careful about the two-point conversion rates inside a minute (where they're all obvious) or other times, because until a few years ago, you could do a 2-point conversion as a fake extra point. You can't do that any more (different line of scrimmage). Surprise plays (like surprise onside kicks) have a higher success rate than plays where everyone knows what's coming.

Second, we don't know all the other factors that go into the decision. You know who knows a lot more about that than us? McCarthy. And he chose to go the way he did.

Third, if you had two choices and one gave you a 1/1000 chance better of winning, why would you not take that choice?

Finally, since 2016, the overall success rate is 49%. The success rate inside the last 2 minutes is 42%. But I think that's misleading. Inside two minutes, teams almost always are doing it because they have to. Many of the others are teams choosing to do it because they think they have some particular advantageous play in their arsenal. In this case, with the same offense against the same defense, I don't see why there would be a difference.
 

GhostOfPelluer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
5,309
Think about what you just said. You're saying that IF the 2 point attempt was good, but it wasn't, that the coaches would want to be down by only 7 and then saying that by kicking the extra point and waiting until the last TD to attempt the 2 point try was missed and the Cowboys would have lost. Now lets look at 2 things. First because the actual 2 point attempt failed you automatically assume that it would fail if they waited and did it after the last TD not knowing for sure if they even would have used the same play. The Cowboys have how many plays that they could run from the 2 yard line and so it's written in stone that they would have tried that same play then? the second thing is since the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys the way it went, who's to say they wouldn't have smiled on them if that 2 point failed on that last TD? But if that 2 point attempt worked then the Cowboys wouldn't have tried that 2% on-side kick and would have kicked away and played defense and went for the win in OT.
.
.
You have posted no evidence that shows the 2-point effort is more likely to be successful later, which is the only way it makes more sense to kick first.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
Cherry picking data surrounding the success rate of two point conversions is analogous to cherry picking data on a coin toss of 1000 tosses where say tosses 65-100 landed on heads 60% of the time and then concluding that tosses 65-100 had a 60/40 heads/tails probability ratio before each toss.

No. It was still 50/50.

A 42% conversion rate inside a minute doesn’t mean that the probability for the success of the play before its ran is not 48% (or 49% whichever is correct). When the data sample is large and expansive enough you’ll get your statistical average success/fail ratio and that’s what decisions should be based from.
 
Last edited:

GhostOfPelluer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
5,309
Yeah, I would like to see the 2pt conversion rate inside 1 minute and compare it to the rate at any other time.

If that rate is lower then I might go with McCarthy's plan. If it's higher I stick with the XP plan to get it to 8 points.

All single plays are in a bubble. Just because they failed with 5 minutes does not mean they would have failed at the end of the game.

I understand all other things being equal you may have 1/1000 chance better of winning if you go for the 2 early.
The only way it makes sense to kick first and go for two later is if there is data supporting an increased rate of success on game-tying 2-point conversion attempts late in games.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Cherry picking data surrounding the success rate of two point conversions is analogous to cherry picking data on a coin toss of 1000 tosses where say tosses 65-100 landed on heads 60% of the time and then concluding that tosses 65-100 had a 60/40 heads/tails probability ratio before each toss.

No. It was still 50/50.

A 42% conversion rate inside a minute doesn’t mean that the probability for the success of the play before its ran is not 48% (or 49% whichever is correct). When the data sample is large enough you’ll get your statistical average success/fail ratio and that’s what decisions should be based from.
There's good reason to think that optional 2-point attempts (think of Pittsburgh a few years ago, going for 2 all the time because they felt they had the advantage) will have a higher success rate than mandatory 2-point attempts. But the 2-pointer Sunday was a mandatory one either way, so there's no reason to think the success chance would be different.

There is one way in which waiting does (infintesimally) improve your chances of success on the two-pointer. It gives an extra couple minutes for an Atlanta defensive injury. (Of course, it also gives a couple minutes for Dak or Zeke to get hurt, too).
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
There's good reason to think that optional 2-point attempts (think of Pittsburgh a few years ago, going for 2 all the time because they felt they had the advantage) will have a higher success rate than mandatory 2-point attempts. But the 2-pointer Sunday was a mandatory one either way, so there's no reason to think the success chance would be different.

There is one way in which waiting does (infintesimally) improve your chances of success on the two-pointer. It gives an extra couple minutes for an Atlanta defensive injury. (Of course, it also gives a couple minutes for Dak or Zeke to get hurt, too).

What was the Steelers conversion rate and was the data sample large enough to be statistically significant?

I’ll grant the conversion rates will vary by team year to year but I’d be shocked if one team’s conversion rates are statistically significant relative to the league averages.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
What was the Steelers conversion rate and was the data sample large enough to be statistically significant?

I’ll grant the conversion rates will vary by team year to year but I’d be shocked if one team’s conversion rates are statistically significant relative to the league averages.
That was just an example. The point is that, like fake punts, the decision to go for 2 when you don't have to can and should be informed by information about matchups and tendencies, which is real information that is really available to teams. Just like surprise onside kicks (back in the day) were much more successful than mandatory onside kicks, optional 2-point attempts should be more successful than mandatory ones: your prior should not be that they will have the same success rate. I would suggest that the data I posted is at least suggestive of that effect, if not dispositive. Inside 2 minutes of the 4th quarter, virtually all attempts are mandatory. The optional attempts come earlier.
 

aikemirv

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
9,713
A few things.

You have to be a little careful about the two-point conversion rates inside a minute (where they're all obvious) or other times, because until a few years ago, you could do a 2-point conversion as a fake extra point. You can't do that any more (different line of scrimmage). Surprise plays (like surprise onside kicks) have a higher success rate than plays where everyone knows what's coming.

Second, we don't know all the other factors that go into the decision. You know who knows a lot more about that than us? McCarthy. And he chose to go the way he did.

Third, if you had two choices and one gave you a 1/1000 chance better of winning, why would you not take that choice?

Finally, since 2016, the overall success rate is 49%. The success rate inside the last 2 minutes is 42%. But I think that's misleading. Inside two minutes, teams almost always are doing it because they have to. Many of the others are teams choosing to do it because they think they have some particular advantageous play in their arsenal. In this case, with the same offense against the same defense, I don't see why there would be a difference.

Thank you! - I have no problem when you can show that lower success rate in the last 2 minutes - that is absolutely justifiable. I don't think it is misleading because urgency on the defensive side and focus are probably a bit higher. I also think a Db is going to hold and grab a bit more when the game is absolutely on the line and they get away with more than they get called for.

I just wanted to see some numbers and I could not find any. I understand both sides and physchologically I like kicking the extra point.

If I had an option to choose something that had a 49% probability versus a 50% probability I would choose the option I was mentally/emotionally/physchologically more comfortable with and one I thought my team could handle better.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,896
Reaction score
6,803
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

If they convert the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they miss the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they convert a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. If they fail a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. The information is there no matter what. There is nothing wrong with kicking the XP in that situation. That doesn't mean the other option is necessarily correct or wrong, either.

If you convert that XP, you know you are down by 8 and you treat it as if you need two scores because a TD and a 2 point conversion is two scores. You are racing the clock no matter what, so you are trying to stop them on any of their possessions and you are trying to score. I don't believe the decision they made is any better or worse than attempting the XP at that time. They were in chaos mode no matter what they decided. It comes down to preference only. There is no option that is more right or wrong than the others. That is just silly.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
That was just an example. The point is that, like fake punts, the decision to go for 2 when you don't have to can and should be informed by information about matchups and tendencies, which is real information that is really available to teams. Just like surprise onside kicks (back in the day) were much more successful than mandatory onside kicks, optional 2-point attempts should be more successful than mandatory ones: your prior should not be that they will have the same success rate. I would suggest that the data I posted is at least suggestive of that effect, if not dispositive. Inside 2 minutes of the 4th quarter, virtually all attempts are mandatory. The optional attempts come earlier.

that’s interesting. I’d like to see if data backs up optional conversions being more successful than mandatory. This is getting into gambling/statistical nerd stuff that has really turned the game into an analytics dream.

however, I’m not really seeing the analogy to optional onside kicks though. The increased success rate for those would seem to be primarily due to a surprise variable.

you can’t really do a surprise 2 point conversion.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
If they convert the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they miss the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they convert a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. If they fail a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. The information is there no matter what. There is nothing wrong with kicking the XP in that situation. That doesn't mean the other option is necessarily correct or wrong, either.

If you convert that XP, you know you are down by 8 and you treat it as if you need two scores because a TD and a 2 point conversion is two scores. You are racing the clock no matter what, so you are trying to stop them on any of their possessions and you are trying to score. I don't believe the decision they made is any better or worse than attempting the XP at that time. They were in chaos mode no matter what they decided. It comes down to preference only. There is no option that is more right or wrong than the others. That is just silly.
If they convert the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they miss the XP, they know how many scores they need. If they convert a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. If they fail a 2 point try, they know how many scores they need. The information is there no matter what. There is nothing wrong with kicking the XP in that situation. That doesn't mean the other option is necessarily correct or wrong, either.

If you convert that XP, you know you are down by 8 and you treat it as if you need two scores because a TD and a 2 point conversion is two scores. You are racing the clock no matter what, so you are trying to stop them on any of their possessions and you are trying to score. I don't believe the decision they made is any better or worse than attempting the XP at that time. They were in chaos mode no matter what they decided. It comes down to preference only. There is no option that is more right or wrong than the others. That is just silly.

nonsense. The amount of time we had to score after recovering the onside kick, which was enough that we didn’t need to press or be in panic mode, was DIRECTLY attributable to MM going for the two point conversion at 4:57 instead of waiting to play for the tie and attempting it with say 30 seconds in the game. THIS is primarily why what MM did was the right call every day/all day. It’s the best way to manage game time to maximize your potential to win the game.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,769
Reaction score
58,264
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.
Oh lord, no.

It's about possessions. It's always about possessions. You have the opportunity to turn the game into a one possession game, you do it. Every time without fail.

Atlanta intentionally gave us that game. One of the best receivers ever dropped a perfectly thrown TD pass, then 5 Falcons stood around a spinning ball and allowed us to win the game.

If you had that same scenario 1,000 more times, Dallas would lose 1,000 times.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,896
Reaction score
6,803
nonsense. The amount of time we had to score after recovering the onside kick, which was enough that we didn’t need to press or be in panic mode, was DIRECTLY attributable to MM going for the two point conversion at 4:57 instead of waiting to play for the tie and attempting it with say 30 seconds in the game. THIS is primarily why what MM did was the right call every day/all day. It’s the best way to manage game time to maximize your potential to win the game.

They would have been in the exact same situation had they attempted and missed the XP at that time.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
that’s interesting. I’d like to see if data backs up optional conversions being more successful than mandatory. This is getting into gambling/statistical nerd stuff that has really turned the game into an analytics dream.

however, I’m not really seeing the analogy to optional onside kicks though. The increased success rate for those would seem to be primarily due to a surprise variable.

you can’t really do a surprise 2 point conversion.
Not anymore, that's true. But it's still a decision you get to make. So you'd make the decision when you believe you have the advantage (either because you think you're stronger than they are in short-yardage situations or because you think there's a particular favorable matchup you can exploit), and you'd go the other way when you don't have the advantage. Because you have the choice, the success rate should be higher, or else all the information you have available to you through film study and scouting is useless, which I have a hard time believing.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
They would have been in the exact same situation had they attempted and missed the XP at that time.

yeah but when you attempt an extra point you have a zero percent chance of getting within seven points. With a 2 point conversion you have a 48/49% chance of getting within seven points.

That’s WHY MM did it because we absolutely had to have a two point conversion at some point just to have a chance to tie the game.

why put it off?

There is no good reason.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Oh lord, no.

It's about possessions. It's always about possessions. You have the opportunity to turn the game into a one possession game, you do it. Every time without fail.

Atlanta intentionally gave us that game. One of the best receivers ever dropped a perfectly thrown TD pass, then 5 Falcons stood around a spinning ball and allowed us to win the game.

If you had that same scenario 1,000 more times, Dallas would lose 1,000 times.
Oh boy.

First of all, of course. Down 15 points with 5 minutes left, you're almost certainly going to lose no matter what you do.

Secondly, an 8-point game is not a one-possession game. It might be, but there's a 50% chance it's a two-possession game. You don't know how many possessions you need when you're 8 points down. Dallas had the opportunity to turn it into a 7-point game, a true one-possession game, and they took it. Didn't work, but at least they knew what to do next. If they kicked the xp and failed the two-pointer at the end, game over.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
Not anymore, that's true. But it's still a decision you get to make. So you'd make the decision when you believe you have the advantage (either because you think you're stronger than they are in short-yardage situations or because you think there's a particular favorable matchup you can exploit), and you'd go the other way when you don't have the advantage. Because you have the choice, the success rate should be higher, or else all the information you have available to you through film study and scouting is useless, which I have a hard time believing.

Gotcha. Which only plays further into the fact that MM made the right choice given he’s far more informed than anyone else on the planet regarding his team.
 

Beaker42

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,050
Reaction score
7,366
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.
LOL so you don’t make it and STILL LEAVE YOURSELF DOWN TWO SCORES......BRILLIANT!!!

That’s why you DON’T go for 2 there. You take the sure point to make it a 1 score game.
 
Top