Comments on: Going For Two http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/ The Scoop on Fantasy Sports Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:29:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: chad http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45667 chad Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:29:38 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45667 I fully agree that going for two when down by 3 touchdowns is smart at any point in the game... sadly, making a comeback from 4 scores down is fairly rare, and more than that, nearly impossible. but I'm totally with you. once I finish getting a better sample together, I'd like to see what the stanford alum can come up with... after all, I went to public school...(and we don't even have a football team) I fully agree that going for two when down by 3 touchdowns is smart at any point in the game… sadly, making a comeback from 4 scores down is fairly rare, and more than that, nearly impossible.
but I’m totally with you. once I finish getting a better sample together, I’d like to see what the stanford alum can come up with… after all, I went to public school…(and we don’t even have a football team)

]]> By: Robby http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45267 Robby Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:45:56 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45267 PS - Chad, the down 2 TDs late theory also extends to any team down by multiple TDs in a game, esp. in the 2nd half. Think about it. PS – Chad, the down 2 TDs late theory also extends to any team down by multiple TDs in a game, esp. in the 2nd half. Think about it.

]]> By: Robby http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45263 Robby Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:45:10 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45263 I would say that if you feel you have a 50% chance or better of converting a 2-point play (fine, 49% or better) you should go for it. One counter to this argument is whether or not a team's conversion rate goes down the more they try it? Does a team have one or two really good conversion plays that they need to keep in the bag so as not to blow their load early before needing to use it in a really valuable situation? Ummm, probably not, but worth thinking about at least... I would say that if you feel you have a 50% chance or better of converting a 2-point play (fine, 49% or better) you should go for it. One counter to this argument is whether or not a team’s conversion rate goes down the more they try it? Does a team have one or two really good conversion plays that they need to keep in the bag so as not to blow their load early before needing to use it in a really valuable situation? Ummm, probably not, but worth thinking about at least…

]]> By: Brett http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45179 Brett Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:35:20 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45179 Nice work Robbie Nice work Robbie

]]> By: chad http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45082 chad Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:05:59 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45082 .... That is my counter to your point that, "That early in the game, it is virtually impossible to determine what is going to happen to the score later" which is exactly why if you are over the league average, you should try to get the maximum expected gain, which for teams that convert more that 48% should go for two as much as possible in the first half. Regardless of unpredictability, i don't think anyone argues that maximizing your scoring in the first half puts you in a better position to win the game. Even if it would only end up making a 2 or 3 point difference by the half, could be very well the difference maker in the second half. …. That is my counter to your point that, “That early in the game, it is virtually impossible to determine what is going to happen to the score later” which is exactly why if you are over the league average, you should try to get the maximum expected gain, which for teams that convert more that 48% should go for two as much as possible in the first half. Regardless of unpredictability, i don’t think anyone argues that maximizing your scoring in the first half puts you in a better position to win the game. Even if it would only end up making a 2 or 3 point difference by the half, could be very well the difference maker in the second half.

]]> By: chad http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-45067 chad Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:46:17 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-45067 robby, nice article. I'm all about theoretical discussion as well as statistical analysis... I'm super busy this week through today, but If people are interested, I'll show you guys what I came up with for the Chargers... but you're right Robby, statistical significance is actually very important to this issue. The issue of small sample size plays a huge role in the variance of the success rate of two point conversions from year to year. to alleviate that issue, what I've begun to do, but is quite time consuming, is to assume that any 3rd and goal between2 and 3 yards to goal (subtracting the situations where they would choose to go for it on 4th, should they fail, meaning down by more than 3 very late in the game) then that 3rd and goal from the 2 situation would be touchdown or field goal, essentially similar to a 2 point conversion situation. although it's not identical, the situation is close enough to significanly boost the number of the sample size. Anyway, i'm workign with the chargers, mainly because i'm most familiar with recovering their stats. I'm pressed for time right now, but i'll email my full analysis to 3D when i'm done later this weekend. but also regarding dalton's argument, he's right there are certain scoring situations that make it just silly to go for two. I think in the first half though, and this is where my thoughts are different than most, if you're one of the teams that is above the NFL average of success rate, you should be going for two every time in the first half. robby, nice article. I’m all about theoretical discussion as well as statistical analysis…
I’m super busy this week through today, but If people are interested, I’ll show you guys what I came up with for the Chargers… but you’re right Robby, statistical significance is actually very important to this issue.
The issue of small sample size plays a huge role in the variance of the success rate of two point conversions from year to year.

to alleviate that issue, what I’ve begun to do, but is quite time consuming, is to assume that any 3rd and goal between2 and 3 yards to goal (subtracting the situations where they would choose to go for it on 4th, should they fail, meaning down by more than 3 very late in the game) then that 3rd and goal from the 2 situation would be touchdown or field goal, essentially similar to a 2 point conversion situation. although it’s not identical, the situation is close enough to significanly boost the number of the sample size. Anyway, i’m workign with the chargers, mainly because i’m most familiar with recovering their stats.

I’m pressed for time right now, but i’ll email my full analysis to 3D when i’m done later this weekend.

but also regarding dalton’s argument, he’s right there are certain scoring situations that make it just silly to go for two. I think in the first half though, and this is where my thoughts are different than most, if you’re one of the teams that is above the NFL average of success rate, you should be going for two every time in the first half.

]]> By: RotoScoop http://www.rotoscoop.com/2007/11/going-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-44842 RotoScoop Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:31:00 +0000 http://rotoscoop.com/blog/2007/11/14/going-for-two/#comment-44842 My main argument, which you touched on Robby, is that coaches are far too often short-sighted in looking at the scoreboard and don't give enough credit to the fact that many different scoring scenarios can come about, yet they want a nice round number immediately. My main argument, which you touched on Robby, is that coaches are far too often short-sighted in looking at the scoreboard and don’t give enough credit to the fact that many different scoring scenarios can come about, yet they want a nice round number immediately.

]]>