I just think it was way to early to go for 2 and if you miss you are chasing that 2 for the rest of the game.
Must be another bad coach
- Thread starter AWS1022
- Start date
Regarding going for 2 at the end of the game. Whatever analytics are being used are wrong. If it says go for two, the algorithm ignores “keeping the game alive due to time remaining.”
Going for two is 43% chance of that happening.
Going for one is 94%.
Tell me again why there is a decision with 2 minutes to go?
Going for two is 43% chance of that happening.
Going for one is 94%.
Tell me again why there is a decision with 2 minutes to go?
Because, if you know you still need two more scores, your strategy changes. The chances of winning are small regardless, but at least you now know that you can’t work the middle of the field at all, should kick the long FG quickly to go for a second onsides kick, etc.
Who cares if you know what you need to do after missing the first two point conversion? It is totally irrelevant because you have effectively lost the game. Now if there is more time left and you have timeouts and don't need to go into desperation mode with onside kicking then that changes things. But we are discussing the PSU vs Mich situation.
Furthermore if you are down 8 you know what you need to do also. I guess there is some big deal about if you kick the EP and go down 8 then still having the risk of missing the two point conversion later means you should not kick the EP when down 8 to begin with.
These aren't strictly independent outcomes. I don't have the time or desire to go through all the data to determine the actual values, so I'm using back-of-the-envelope calculations and some common sense. Not sure about the 2-point tries, but the kicks for sure are impacted by what happened before. One guy in the NFL (Brett Maher) missed 4 kicks in a single game. I don't have as much problem with going for 2 there.
See above. What I don't like is the coaching by rote. It makes sense if your kicker already missed one to say we're going for 2. I've seen coaches go for 2 when you wouldn't normally because you are worried about the kicker and not what some chart says. It also makes some sense if there is more time left. The downside of going for 2 with little time left down 9 is that you are still down 2 possessions if you don't make it. Felkins hasn't missed a PAT all year, so you were almost assured of only being down one score. Also, in a situation like that you have maybe found a little momentum late, and missing a 2-point conversion hurts that momentum, especially when you know that you now have to make up two scores instead of one.
In either case, your odds of winning in that situation are pretty low. I think the reason it bothered me, in this case, is because of what happened in the other 56 minutes or so preceding and what has happened over the past 10 years with Franklin in big games, and it was just one more thing.
I get what your saying but in the scenario we're discussing with the time left there's no planning for 2 scores. If you have 3 timeouts with 3 minutes left (especially with the 2 minute warning in the NFL) that changes things but with 1:59 and I believe 2 timeouts the game is over unless you kick the XP there.
We have to focus on--what is the likelihood we convert the 2 point conversion there--was anyone confident?
and the players know the game is 99.99% over and play accordingly. Like it or not, that is reality.
The chances of winning are essentially zero after missing the first two point conversion unless the other team puts all O Linemen out there for the onside kicks. Game strategy goes out the window.
Hey, it's 30-0 with 2 minutes left so we know we need to get the ball back 4 times and we need to make 3 straight two point conversions then after the 4th TD we kick an EP to win. Or better yet only convert two 2 point conversions then kick 2 EPs and we are in OT! So you're telling me I have a chance!!
Many of you are arguing that if you're down by 9, you kick the PAT and cut the lead to 8, because if you go for two and miss, the game is essentially over. But that ignores the fact that if you kick the PAT, you will still have to go for two on the next TD, and if you miss that one, the game will be over. So it really comes down to facing the music now or facing it later.
Yes but you also only need to recover one onside kick. Down 9 means you need the TD then kick the EP to go down 2 then have to recover a 2nd onside kick. Down 8 you only need to get one onside kick. Of course, you need to convert a 2pt play at some point which apparently we are incapable of.
Dude the fact that the Lions made a 2 point try earlier in the game had no impact on their odds of making the second.
No it doesn’t. With two minutes to go and two timeouts, the game ended. There is no strategy going forward outside of a lightning strike. Onside kick once and score. Onside kick a second time and score. That is not a strategy with 2 minutes to go.
98% chance of extending the game. 2 percent chance of ending it.
Or 52% chance of ending it and it did.
Get to 8 down and solve that 2pt riddle later, if you get the chance.
Your logic is flawed on many levels. Here is just one: “The chances of winning are small regardless”. The two options are incomparable. If you miss the 2 with 1:59 left, the game is OVER. Don’t equate the .009% chance left to win with the chances of winning with the virtually automatic PAT.
Of course you have to convert the 2 point conversion if you kick the PAT to make it an 8 point game but as you point out if you go for 2 in a 9 point game and fail the game is over. It makes even more sense to kick the PAT to make it an 8 point and hence one score game in college since the PAT in college is much shorter than the NFL and is as close to automatic as it gets. I disagreed with both of Franklin’s 2 point calls.
I'm not arguing for or against it. I see both sides. I believe in playing to the strength of your team and making decisions based off of that.
Not if you miss the 2 pt when your are down by 2. Whether you think you have any shot to recover it at that point is irrelevant; you will still go out there and kick it, pray you recover it, and have enough time to get a play off and kick a potential game winner.
The analytics say go for two on both cases that PSU went for them. If you watch a lot of football you would see a lot of teams doing the same thing especially as underdogs. Whether it’s right or wrong most of the coaches today follow them straight from the book. I wouldn’t have gone for either but I’m not a coach.
Again, there is no reason to believe that the odds are better of converting the 2 point conversion after a second TD than after a first. So, if you're going to miss it, what is the better time to miss it? It's obviously early, since it still gives you the very remote chance of pulling it off. Missing it late, and you could have just completely ended the game.
Everyone gets focused on the "keeping the game alive" aspect...while the other route still gives you one miniscule window of still winning (and that window gets larger and larger with more time left, though many will still incorrectly criticize a coach that goes for 2 and misses in this same scenario if there are 4, 8, or 15 minutes left in a game, since he "could have made it a one possession game").
Disagree that the analytics said to go for the first two pointer against Michigan. We should have kicked the XP in that spot in my opinion (which still in the first half).
However, Franklin followed them with the second one against Michigan, and also the one against Ohio St when we scored after being down 14 (and was also criticized for it even though it's obviously the right call).
The below analysis says that, down 9 with fewer than 2 minutes left, your odds are slightly better by kicking the extra point.
Go For 2
This is a dive into NFL data after moving the extra point try back. NFL favors going for 2 more often than college because of the new distance for the extra point.
PSU’s two point try down 14-9 at the end of the first half was absolutely the correct call.
However, PSU not going for the touchdown in the first quarter when on the Michigan 3 yard line was a bad decision.
And if you go for 2 with minutes to go and not get it game is over period
Do you think if he would have kicked the EP in the second quarter we would have won the game?Well I hate to brag but...
Haha!
No seriously, what I said was "most coaches" would likely not have gone for 2 in that situation but would rather have kicked the extra points and stayed alive.
That's still my view...though my unscientific impression is that more coaches than in the past do opt to throw the dice and basically risk whatever small chance they've still got on going for two right off the bat.
I also said it wouldn't have been an issue if not for the misguided decision to go for 2 after the touchdown late in the first half. Down 14-9 at that point in the game...you go for two...miss...and then spend the rest of the game chasing the point you gave away. Sometimes it catches up to you.
People seem to think that keeping the game alive is the point, rather than actually winning the game. It's like trailing 3 games to 2 in the world series and having your ace pitcher start game 6 on short rest instead of saving him for game 7 when he could be more effective. (Not a perfect analogy, but some similarities.)
winning the game is the point, but going for two in a situation where missing it basically ends the game is really a bad decision. The likelihood of a successful two point conversion is lower than getting a one point conversion.
I liken it to the college basketball "refusing to foul when up 3" at the end of the game. I've heard the argument that you shouldn't foul because it's possible for the other team to make the first, miss the second, and then hit a 3 to win it in regulation, where if you don't foul, the worst case is to go to Overtime.
"Not losing in regulation" shouldn't be the primary driver in that decision...it should be about whatever gives you the best chance at winning. And I'd rather do that, rather than worry about optics about keeping the game alive longer.
You can’t win the game with either a 1 or 2 point try with 2 minutes to go and down by 9 and 2 timeouts.
But you can lose it. There was a 52% chance of that happening.
Kick the extra point and you are still alive. Keeping the game going is mandatory and he had a 94% chance of doing that. So our coach decided that 52% chance of losing was better than 6%.
“Keeping the game alive” in that exact situation puts you in the best position to win. The fact that you still may lose later is also the point. Sure….you still may lose, but you cannot win if you don’t ensure you are down by 8.
This situation is irrelevant to the end of the 1st half.
So if you get the PAT and then score another TD and then you go for two and miss it, somehow that DOESN'T end the game?
Say your team is down 3 games to 2 in the World Series and your ace starter is due to pitch game 7, when he will be sufficiently rested. But he's so much better than your game 6 starter that even on short rest, he would give you a better chance to win game 6. What do you do?
Me...I do whatever gives me the overall best chance to win and throw him game 7. If he can only pitch one of the two games and the best chance of winning is him on full rest, then I'd rather cobble together a game 6 rotation, rather than lower my overall chances of winning by throwing him game 6 even though it means I'm less likely to extend the series.
(but I know that you and I are on the same page here)
Ultimately it doesn't really matter. The optics are worse but ultimately you need the 2 with the first or second touchdown. Extending the game and missing it later is the same end result. You could even argue its better to miss after the first because you can try to strategize for 2 additional possessions vs missing after the second and not having any time left to do anything about it.
Franklin created the mess going for it at the end of the first.
Erial…..You park your ace on the bench and lose Game 6, you may just find yourself managing in the Eastern League the next spring.
If you work for an incompetent GM, that could happen. Put it this way: would you rather have a 60% chance of winning game 6 followed by a 40% chance of winning game 7 or a 40% chance of winning game 6 followed by a 70% chance of winning game 7?
If my owner fires me because I made the move that gave my team the best chance to win, then so be it. Thankfully, more and more are seeing the light when it comes to maximizing the chances of winning and embracing analytics.
Once upon a time, fans/announcers/owners thought that it was idiotic to put 3 infielders on one side of the infield and leave the entire other side open. However, it because so successful that they had to change the rules.
Should be a no-brainer...but I'd guess that most would put all their eggs in the Game 6 basket, thinking that extending the series is the most important thing.
If they got their friends free tickets to game 7, then I could understand that kind of thinking. 😄
If anyone tried that 25-30 years ago when there were real baseball players they would have gotten killed. Real players like Joe Morgan, Mad Dog Maddox, Richie Hebner, Dave Cash and hundreds of others would just pull the ball and have triples every at bat.
Now we just have home run hitters that swing so hard they have zero control of the bats.
Yes, he was. And he beat it with a double and a 2/5 game. Did same next game and ran out a bunt. Teams quit doing it, After he served three years in the military it was used against him the World Series and he still did ok but not good, going 5/25. Thanks for making my point.
So it was run a occasionally against pull hitters. But not like it has been the last ten years. Hitters were hitters then. Now they just swing for the fences as home runs gets them on tv, social media, interviews, and big contracts.
Ted Williams: Last to .400, among first to face shifts?
In 1941, Ted Williams batted a remarkable .406. Seventy-five years later, that performance sticks out for two reasons.Most obviously, no Major Leaguer has reached the .400 plateau since. But Williams' prowess at the plate that season, combined with an opposing manager's desperate creativity...
www.mlb.com
And if those guys where hitting the pitching of today, they are likely striking out a crap-ton more.
Similar threads
