forums

Lmaoooooooooo at Shanny going for 2 down 8

bowdenbme said:
No miami had tied the game already. Either successful conversion gets you the lead. How useful is a 2 pts lead compared to a 1 pt lead in a must score situation?
Click to expand...
You’re shifting the argument. Someone claimed that Manny went for 2 because he had no confidence in Baxa which in all likelihood was not a factor in the decision. Baxa had made the 3 previous extra points and Manny would have had no way of predicting that he would miss the extra point to tie the game. Going for 2 was a statistical decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
The logic behind it makes zero sense. The odds you make a 2 pt conversion isn’t 50%. That’s like saying the odds you make an extra point are 50%, just bc their are only 2 outcomes. XP’s are made at a 98% clip while conversions are made at about 45%. So you’re telling me it’s smart to try something that’s less than half as likely to succeed?

When you are at home and are the better team you should always play for OT. We were almost a 2 TD favorite which means in OT we would’ve probably been around a -200 favorite to win the game. But please tell us more about how it was great bc Deejay made an unreal play and Baxa missed the next XP.
Click to expand...

Yeah you definitely didn't read the link. Ignored.
 
Manny may have thought we had momentum, and with the 2-point conversion another TD wins the game 36-35. He was almost right. The Baxa Factor threw chaos into the theory.
 
At leas that worked, the freaking excessive celebration penalty that handed great field position on VT's game-winning drive bothers me much worse.

That is likely the 3rd stupid-*** penalty that cost us the 3 games this season. If you can't fix that unduscuplined play by now, it won;t be fixed this year. So anytime we battle back and do something to get us in position to win, we'll find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot, or shoot a bird at somebody.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
Yes bro it’s so smart and so helpful it happens all the time. Oh wait, no it doesn’t. It’s stupid and analytics don’t prove anything. Percentages are heavily skewed toward kicking the XP and extending the game
Click to expand...
I am also upset about many very poor decisions through out the game, but it seems you didn't even read the post nor internalize what it said. I never said it was "smart" or "helpful". I simply explained the statistics behind it in a vacuum. I even said I would probably not have done it there.

"Percentages are heavily skewed"... no, they aren't.. but here you are projecting... Best of luck.
 
subzero said:
In a vacuum, it's a clear cut statistical answer: down 14, going for 2 is an advantageous decision over going for 1 (assuming a score by the opponent "ends" the game either way). In said vacuum, Manny made the correct statistical decision.

It may seem "clear cut" to go for 1 at a glance, but, similar to the Monty Hall problem, there are "hidden statistics" if you will.

Essentially by going for 2, using averages here to make things simple, you leverage a very slightly increased chance in losing the game for an extremely large increased chance in winning that was once no chance.

There are plenty of articles breaking this down if you simply google it. Try "going for 2 down 14" and the results are overwhelming explaining it. See attached.

That said this is in a vacuum-- it doesn't account for details about your offense, red zone offense, conversion % and the reverse for the defense. So outside of that vacuum would I have done it based on our redzone offense, probably not, but maybe knowing Baxa sucks lol.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting problem of weighing an increase in win probability versus a decrease in expected point value. At least in college, I'm not sure this one is clear cut, but as you pointed out, our kicker is terrible.

For, in college, the 2-pt conversion rate is ~41% and the extra point success rate is ~96%. So, a touchdown followed by an extra point attempt yields 6.96 points, while a touchdown followed by a 2-pt attempt yields 6.82 points.

In the NFL, with more efficient play calling and execution and with longer extra points, the math flips slightly favoring 2pt (.96) versus extra point (.94) attempts.

In the case of yesterday's decision, it's only "clear cut" if Manny and Co believed that Baxa makes extra points at a lower than 82% rate. We were the favored team, playing at home, with momentum at the moment of the decision. It's difficult to credit an argument in favor of winning in regulation, which concedes a greater chance to lose in regulation, against playing for overtime when we'd have been the heavy favorite to prevail.
 
subzero said:
In a vacuum, it's a clear cut statistical answer: down 14, going for 2 is an advantageous decision over going for 1 (assuming a score by the opponent "ends" the game either way). In said vacuum, Manny made the correct statistical decision.

It may seem "clear cut" to go for 1 at a glance, but, similar to the Monty Hall problem, there are "hidden statistics" if you will.

Essentially by going for 2, using averages here to make things simple, you leverage a very slightly increased chance in losing the game for an extremely large increased chance in winning that was once no chance.

There are plenty of articles breaking this down if you simply google it. Try "going for 2 down 14" and the results are overwhelming explaining it. See attached.

That said this is in a vacuum-- it doesn't account for details about your offense, red zone offense, conversion % and the reverse for the defense. So outside of that vacuum would I have done it based on our redzone offense, probably not, but maybe knowing Baxa sucks lol.

I am not happy with today's game but love seeing internet posters call others "retarted" when they are the ones who are wrong.
Click to expand...
So in that situation you have about a 63% chance of winning the game as opposed to a 50% chance by just kicking the PAT. It was the right call.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top