Should the Cowboys have gone for 2 on the 1st or 2nd TD?

[Diehardblues]

It's not Pelluer's fault he was terrible.

I’m not sure what that’s means or the intention.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I’m not sure what that’s means or the intention.

I'm not sure what you are trying to read into my name, so we're both twisting in the wind I guess

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes, but certainty also influences the psyche of the game. For the fan, uncertainty may give more hope that we may make the 2 pt conversion later, but the fan can not actually influence the game. For the coach and players, who actually have to make decisions to impact the outcome of the game, knowing with certainty the situation you are in can be helpful.

If your argument is subjective experience, then McCarthy said he wants to know the outcome of that play as soon as possible. That should be the end of the discussion regardless of math, though the math backs up his opinion too.

But I’m questioning our coaches reasoning of going against conventional wisdom. I don’t accept status quo simply cause he states as such.

It appears we have a segment of fans who are simply defending our coaches decision because that’s what he believed in. Sorry. That’s not how I roll.

 

[pansophy]

But I’m questioning our coaches reasoning of going against conventional wisdom. I don’t accept status who simply cause he states as such.

It appears we have a segment of fans who are simply defending our coaches decision because he’s our cia h and that’s what he believed in. Sorry. That’s not how I roll.

You can't get much better support for his argument than math. How much "conventional wisdom" did money ball change in baseball? He said he was an analytics guy, and this decision is entirely supported by analytics.

 

[Diehardblues]

I'm not sure what you are trying to read into my name, so we're both twisting in the wind I guess

I’ll get to the point. It appears this name is an attempt to remind us of sadder or down times with the Cowboys. Which you admitted in so many words.

Why you’d want your screen name to be a reminder of sad times is suspect to me. And why I’m asking.

 

[Diehardblues]

You can't get much better support for his argument than math. How much "conventional wisdom" did money ball change in baseball? He said he was an analytics guy, and this decision is entirely supported by analytics.

But math doesn’t always apply to the physical and emotional nature of a football game. Ive used analytics in golf as well. But the math doesn’t always apply.

There are other intangible factors which can’t be measured by math. Like adrenaline and momentum for example. The psyche can be huge in sports. Uncertainty isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.

 

[Hennessy_King]

What "mathematical analysis" fails to account for is the human psyche. A "failure" can effect that. It's sort of why AI (supreme mathematical analysis...at least as best as we have so far) can;t completely replace a human pilot.

It also fails to account for the butterfly effect. All subsequent plays would not necessarily have happened in the same way if you fail the two pointer rather than win the one.

I do appreciate how we put math on a high pedestal.....but there's more to this universe than math.

PS....not sure why I choose your comment to post this Mr. King. Maybe it was the surety of your statement? And the insult?

These are grown men getting paid millions and you are here talking about emotions? Maybe beta males would quit but they wouldnt be on my team. Dogs are going to take any challenge on regardless of the situation.

 

[Hennessy_King]

But math doesn’t always apply to the physical and emotional nature of a football game.

Ive used analytics in golf as well. But the math doesn’t always apply. There are other intangible factors which can’t be measured by math. Like adrenaline and momentum for example. The psyche can be huge in sports. Uncertainty isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.

Yes in pop warner. And betas that will cry when things dont go their way.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I fully understand the mathematics . I’m an accounting major . But I don’t agree with its application to the game of football. And why it goes against the normal football wisdom we’ve seen since the 2 point conversion was added.

And in response to the story which they did include the conventional wisdom Im arguing for is I’d argue you can’t look into the future as was suggested. That’s not sound football strategy. It’s risk taking.

What exactly is the argument for delaying? Other than "momentum" or "psychology" pseudo-arguments, I simply don't see a reason to wait.

And the conventional wisdom is changing. Until 2016, nobody went for two in these situations. Since 2016, about 1/3 of teams have opted to go for two. That's how it goes with so many of these things where analytics and CW conflict. There's a hue and cry and lots of pseudo-arguments for why it should be done the old way...and then in a few years it starts to change. Coaches go for it on 4th down way more now than they used to. Baseball has been completely taken over by it. I fully expect this to be the norm in a decade or two.

 

[JD_KaPow]

What "mathematical analysis" fails to account for is the human psyche. A "failure" can effect that. It's sort of why AI (supreme mathematical analysis...at least as best as we have so far) can;t completely replace a human pilot.

It also fails to account for the butterfly effect. All subsequent plays would not necessarily have happened in the same way if you fail the two pointer rather than win the one.

I do appreciate how we put math on a high pedestal.....but there's more to this universe than math.

PS....not sure why I choose your comment to post this Mr. King. Maybe it was the surety of your statement? And the insult?

But how do you value those things? Do you have any evidence that the team would play better (which is basically what you're saying) if they went for one instead of two there? If you're going to overrule the math, you have to have some sound model that leads you to do it. Such a model could certainly exist, but I don't see that anybody has one in this case. The main argument seems to be, "the team will be bummed out and won't play as hard." But I find that one very hard to believe without evidence: these are professional athletes who've been through a ton of adversity and tough games. This is what they do. The Cowboys certainly didn't behave that way Sunday.

The non-math arguments I see cut the other way. With a 9 point lead, the Falcons are far more likely to play a soft prevent-type defense on the next drive, allowing the Cowboys to reach scoring position more easily. Remember, they could have kicked the FG first if that drive had stalled out. The Cowboys need to play with more urgency, because they know they need 2 scores. And they did.

By deferring the 2-pointer, you're basically taking the onside kick option off the table for yourself. You're giving up something with real value--not a ton of value because it will probably fail, but value nonetheless. You need to be sure you're getting something more valuable back to make that trade.

 

[pansophy]

But math doesn’t always apply to the physical and emotional nature of a football game.

Ive used analytics in golf as well. But the math doesn’t always apply. There are other intangible factors which can’t be measured by math. Like adrenaline and momentum for example. The psyche can be huge in sports. Uncertainty isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.

If we agree that the 2pt conversion is 50/50 whether they try it early or late, then where does this factor in? There is a ton of social neuroscience literature that shows uncertainty is psychologically threatening whereas certainty alleviates it.

You can't argue the team was deflated after missing the 2pt conversion because they went on to score again and get a miracle onside kick. Players must be resilient in the face of disappointment. Unlike fans who can let their emotions go up and down with every success and failure, coaches and players always talk about moving on to the next play, next game.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I’ll get to the point. It appears this name is an attempt to remind us of sadder or down times with the Cowboys. Which you admitted in so many words.

Why you’d want your screen name to be a reminder of sad times is suspect to me. And why I’m asking.

I did not admit as much, and that's not the intention. I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, and the name is an homage to those who have been through thick and thin with this team, including when it was at its worst. It's a way of recognizing the real fans who didn't jump ship when the going got rough.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

But how do you value those things? Do you have any evidence that the team would play worse (which is basically what you're saying) if they went for one instead of two there? If you're going to overrule the math, you have to have some sound model that leads you to do it. Such a model could certainly exist, but I don't see that anybody does in this case. The main argument seems to be, "the team will be bummed out and won't play as hard." But I find that one very hard to believe without evidence: these are professional athletes who've been through a ton of adversity and tough games. This is what they do. The Cowboys certainly didn't behave that way Sunday.

The non-math arguments I see cut the other way. With a 9 point lead, the Falcons are far more likely to play a soft prevent-type defense on the next drive, allowing the Cowboys to reach scoring position more easily. Remember, they could have kicked the FG first if that drive had stalled out. The Cowboys need to play with more urgency, because they know they need 2 scores. And they did.

By deferring the 2-pointer, you're basically taking the onside kick option off the table for yourself. You're giving up something with real value--not a ton of value because it will probably fail, but value nonetheless. You need to be sure you're getting something more valuable back to make that trade.

I never claimed they would "play worse". I claimed that it is POSSIBLE play would be "different". The Butterfly Effect.

I also never made a claim one way or the other regarding when to try 2 pointers.

But here we are, arguing both of these things?

I simply proposed the idea that there is more than pure math to consider here...especially after the fact. Butterfyl Effect with a touch of Schrödinger's cat. We've already "looked in the box".

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

These are grown men getting paid millions and you are here talking about emotions? Maybe beta males would quit but they wouldnt be on my team. Dogs are going to take any challenge on regardless of the situation.

I said nothing about "emotions". And here we are arguing about it.

Human condition and interaction has more than just emotions. Unless you'd call Zeke mowing down a goal line defender "emotional".

 

[Diehardblues]

I did not admit as much, and that's not the intention. I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, and the name is an homage to those who have been through thick and thin with this team, including when it was at its worst. It's a way of recognizing the real fans who didn't jump ship when the going got rough.

Right.. lol

“which is interesting and a little sad.”

There's nothing interesting about Pelluer. It’s all sad.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Failure didn't seem to effect the team in this case. And I think that can be mitigated if the team knows you are going for 2 in that situation and the reasons behind it. And the butterfly effect arguably favors going for 2 early as well.

"arguably favors"? I don't know enough about quantifying The Butterfly Effect to agree with that. "Arguably"...That is for sure!

I am simply saying events COULD be very different with a different action. One way or the other...certainly.

 

[pansophy]

I never claimed they would "play worse". I claimed that it is POSSIBLE play would be "different". The Butterfly Effect.

I also never made a claim one way or the other regarding when to try 2 pointers.

But here we are, arguing both of these things?

I simply proposed the idea that there is more than pure math to consider here...especially after the fact. Butterfyl Effect with a touch of Schrödinger's cat. We've already "looked in the box".

The biggest psychological factor at play if you wait until the 2nd TD to try a 2pt conversion is having to plan for 2 contingencies rather than 1. You have to manage the game like it may be a 1 possession game and a 2 possession game at the same time. Under what circumstances is having to plan for two possibilities instead of one going to be better?

 

[Hennessy_King]

I said nothing about "emotions". And here we are arguing about it.

Human condition and interaction has more than just emotions. Unless you'd call Zeke mowing down a goal line defender "emotional".

You are saying guys would play different because they would feel there is no hope. Real men are going to rise up to the occasion. Hence why dak is player of the week this week.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I never claimed they would "play worse". I claimed that it is POSSIBLE play would be "different". The Butterfly Effect.

I also never made a claim one way or the other regarding when to try 2 pointers.

But here we are, arguing both of these things?

I simply proposed the idea that there is more than pure math to consider here...especially after the fact. Butterfyl Effect with a touch of Schrödinger's cat. We've already "looked in the box".

Sure, that's all well and good, but so what? If you don't have any idea which way the butterfly effect will cut, and you don't have any idea in which way the play would be different, why would you not make your decision on the math?

 

[DanA]

I’m not sure you are anticipating you’re making the 2 point conversion on 2nd try. You must still plan the time in case you don’t needing an onside kick. The only difference is keeping the 1 possession possibility in play as long as possible.

I’d also argue that despite the mathematical certainty practically the same that the the emotion and momentum on the 2nd try could be greater. Not something we can actually measure but simply a hunch or intangible factor.

It's not the same.

Scenario 1: Lets say we got the 2 point conversion with 5 minutes on the clock. We follow that up with a 3 and out and have 4:30 on the clock needing 7 points.
Scenario 2: Lets say we take the 1 point with 5 minutes on the clock. We follow that up with a 3 and out and have 4:30 on the clock needing 8 points

When you take the two point conversion fundamentally changes things. In scenario 1 you are trying to leave as little time on the clock after your final drive. In scenario 2 you are telling me you are trying to leave as much time on the clock as possible in case you need a second possession. By leaving time on the clock, if you make the two point conversion then you give them time to drive the field and kick a game winning field goal.