Going For 2

[Daryl Muellenberg]

This is how I know you know nothing... The Packers have a better redzone conversion percentage than they do 2 pt conversion percentage.

For the current discussion, a better comparison would be redzone td conversion percentage. In that case, the Packers 2 pt conversion percentage is better. 66% compared to 55%.

 

[Un4GivN]

You obviously have no clue how Vegas odds work. They make the odds so they don't lose money regardless of who wins. If too much money is bet on one team and they don't move the odds, then they can lose money if the wrong team wins. Vegas never loses money on football games.

Really?

Cause there is countless articles that state otherwise....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...patriots-vegas-could-lose-if-new-england-wins

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13653044/las-vegas-sportsbooks-lose-big-opening-nfl-sunday

http://deadspin.com/5972637/the-betting-public-killed-las-vegas-sportsbooks-in-the-2012-nfl-season

And I am the one that doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Un4GivN]

For the current discussion, a better comparison would be redzone td conversion percentage. In that case, the Packers 2 pt conversion percentage is better. 66% compared to 55%.

However you look at the stats... The Packers were twice as likely then to score on a 2 point conversion than to drive the field for points of any kind.

And over 3 times more like to score on 2 point than a first possession touchdown if they win the toss.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Really?

Cause there is countless articles that state otherwise....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...patriots-vegas-could-lose-if-new-england-wins

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13653044/las-vegas-sportsbooks-lose-big-opening-nfl-sunday

http://deadspin.com/5972637/the-betting-public-killed-las-vegas-sportsbooks-in-the-2012-nfl-season

And I am the one that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Ok, I'll admit that I was wrong about them never losing money. But that only happens because Vegas pays out based on the line when the bet was placed. So if they see a trend where more money is being bet on one team, they will move the line so they get more money bet on the other team, hoping to get an even split in which case they are guaranteed the 'vig' usually 10% of which is bet. So yes, it is still possible for them to lose money, but they will move the line to try and avoid it. The following is from an article about how Vegas sets the odds.

Oddsmakers don't try to predict the outcome of the game when setting point spreads. If a team is favored by seven points, that doesn't mean that the oddsmaker necessarily thinks it will win by seven points. The oddsmaker's goal when setting the line is to keep an equal number of bets on both sides of the game. The betting public's perception of the game can be as important as the actual comparison of the two teams.

Why do oddsmakers try to keep the action even on both sides of a bet? A bookie's worst fear is being "sided." This happens when many bets come in on one side of a game. If that side turns out to be the winning side, the bookie will lose a lot of money. Ideally, half the bettors lose, and their money goes to pay off the other half, who won, with the bookie taking the vig.

Oddsmakers are so intent on keeping the action even that they actually move the line in response to betting patterns. If too many bets are coming in for the underdog, then that team might have been given too many points, so the line is moved.

 

[Un4GivN]

Ok, I'll admit that I was wrong about them never losing money. But that only happens because Vegas pays out based on the line when the bet was placed. So if they see a trend where more money is being bet on one team, they will move the line so they get more money bet on the other team, hoping to get an even split in which case they are guaranteed the 'vig' usually 10% of which is bet. So yes, it is still possible for them to lose money, but they will move the line to try and avoid it. The following is from an article about how Vegas sets the odds.

Oddsmakers don't try to predict the outcome of the game when setting point spreads. If a team is favored by seven points, that doesn't mean that the oddsmaker necessarily thinks it will win by seven points. The oddsmaker's goal when setting the line is to keep an equal number of bets on both sides of the game. The betting public's perception of the game can be as important as the actual comparison of the two teams.

Why do oddsmakers try to keep the action even on both sides of a bet? A bookie's worst fear is being "sided." This happens when many bets come in on one side of a game. If that side turns out to be the winning side, the bookie will lose a lot of money. Ideally, half the bettors lose, and their money goes to pay off the other half, who won, with the bookie taking the vig.

Oddsmakers are so intent on keeping the action even that they actually move the line in response to betting patterns. If too many bets are coming in for the underdog, then that team might have been given too many points, so the line is moved.

Are you talking about the spread?

I'm talking about Odds... like payout 22:1 or 1:3

I think you are confused man... Odds and spread are not the same.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Are you talking about the spread?

I'm talking about Odds... like payout 22:1 or 1:3

I think you are confused man... Odds and spread are not the same.

The term odds can be used as a generic term for several different betting terms. So yes, I was talking about the line/spread.

I found this discussion about NFL odds:

=====
You’ll need to know how the rotation number, point spread, moneyline and over/under are used and what each means. Each of these terms may be called by another name. When you come down to it, these are the major terms that can be lumped under the heading odds.

Bookmakers use odds to even out the bets, getting gamblers to wager on both sides of the line by leveling the playing field.
=====

But even the odds payout that you are referring to will change during the season for certain types of bets and not just because 'they made a mistake'. If too much money is being bet on a team that initially has high odds, then I can almost guarantee you that those odds will go down. Odds for a team winning the Super Bowl, for example, change quite often during the season.

But for a single game, the odds payout (as you are referring to) for a straight bet never changes - it is always 11-10. In other words, to win $100 you have to bet $110. So from that standpoint, those odds never change no matter what.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Both the probabilities and the situational flow of the game favored going for two. When the Packers took the lead the Cardinals marched down the field into the red zone and settled for a fg. The next two drives saw the Cardinals March down the field one drive ending in a red zone pick and the other in a td. The fact is the defense played well for part of the game but got gashed in the third and fourth quarter when the game was on the line. Not only did it happen against the Cardinals but last year when the defense wilted against the Seahawks. It should have come as no surprise to see the defense once again wilt in OT. The Packers have won only one of ten OT games under MM. Going to OT resulted in the predictable continuation of a deep trend that could have been avoided. When the Packers scored on the hail Mary I was shouting at MM in vain to go for two since the Packers have proven that they are dismal at winning OT games.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I sure am glad that mathematicians and statisticians aren't the ones coaching or playing the game because we would spend every Monday talking about why the "human element" of the decision at that moment was left out. As fans, we should all know by now that coaches in general play the odds, but they also go with their guts, which just isn't made up of warm and fuzzy or sinking feelings. A good coach is going to look at odds, but he is also going to factor in what he feels his team is capable of at that particular moment (something probabilities do not consider). Gut feelings and knowledge of a teams current situation at the time is something that no matter how much math you do, can not be factored in. In this situation MM was fully aware of the general odds, but he was also fully aware of his gut. His gut told him, kick the almost sure extra point and get back in there and win it in overtime with an offense and a defense that for most of the game was better then AZ. So use math and statistics as hindsight, but had MM gone for 2 and not made it, I guarantee you, there would be more then just math being discussed as the reason for the loss.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Advanced stats say McCarthy should have gone for two. Two point conversion rate is 48.8% league wide and successfully kicking the extra point and winning on the road in OT had a rate of 40.9% with about an 8% better rate of going for two.

Pretty interesting read by a great website if you've got a mind for numbers as well as a minute.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mes-against-middle-school-math/?ex_cid=espnfb

It all depends on the numbers you take into consideration to come up with whatever conclusion you want to. For example, the Packers have converted only 7-of-17 (41.2%) of their two-point conversions since 2012. Crosby has made all extra points since the league made the rule change before this season with road teams winning 41.7% of the overtime games since the rules were changed for the 2010 playoffs as well as the 2012 regular season.

Taking a look at that numbers kicking the extra point results in a 0.5% better chance to win the game.

 

[Vrill]

The only reason I would have went for two at the end is the fact that Arizona was stunned and back on its heels. Nobody had any timeouts (I don't think AZ did?) - So a rushed 2 pointer might have been strongly in our favor.

 

[RRyder]

Apples and oranges as there was still 2 minutes left in regulation, time for both teams to still have a chance to score again depending on how the Jets wanted to play it. It was not an all or nothing proposition like it would have been on Saturday.

Also, just because BB might have played for the tie one time doesn't mean he'd do the same thing every time. It depends on the situation and game flow. I'm sure there have been numerous times on 4th down in his own territory late in a game with a small lead that he punted and trusted his defense rather than going for it.

Well there was the time against Peyton that the Pats were up by one at there OWN 30 and instead of punting on 4th down he decided to go for it instead of punting the ball away. It failed and they lost but hey at least he was "playing to win".

The point that's being missed is the difference between putting all your eggs in one basket versus giving your team a little wiggle room for failure.

Going for 2= Eggs in one basket.

OT= A little wiggle room for error

 

[XPack]

Going for a 2 is a no brainer.

Take a FG and go into OT can have 3 outcomes
(1) The toss may go against you and offence may never see the ball again, or
(2) we win the toss, move the chains and end up in the red zone again, or
(3) A long throw/run score for a win.

Scenario 1 is worse case and has 33% chance of happening.
Scenario 2 is average advantage at best and we still may not score in the drive.
Scenario 3 is probably the best and the one the Defence will be fully geared to stop. Low probability imo.

 

[Half Empty]

Since were being so hypothetical already, lets say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. He gets it. Is he hero?
Let say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. Its batted down in the end zone. Is he stupid for not going for the sure kick into OT?

Yes.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Going for a 2 is a no brainer.

Take a FG and go into OT can have 3 outcomes
(1) The toss may go against you and offence may never see the ball again, or
(2) we win the toss, move the chains and end up in the red zone again, or
(3) A long throw/run score for a win.

Scenario 1 is worse case and has 33% chance of happening.
Scenario 2 is average advantage at best and we still may not score in the drive.
Scenario 3 is probably the best and the one the Defence will be fully geared to stop. Low probability imo.

How do scenario 1 and 2 have different odds? Truth: AZ wins the toss, our offense may never see the field. We win the toss, AZ offense may never see the field. So equal odds to both teams (if all you are using is math).

Scenario #3.....same thing....how does this differ from either team?

If you are going to use math and probabilities, at least have them make some sense. But in doing so, remember they do not take into consideration anything but statistics of a situation over many occurrences. Do they factor in injuries, a coaches confidence level, abilities of said players/teams at the time.....basically the human element?

 

[TJV]

I can just imagine the **** storm if McCarthy had gone for two and they didn't make it.

… This is how I know you know nothing... You don't know what you are talking about man...

Time for yet another apology?

 

[Vrill]

In the end, none of this matters. Hindsight is always 20/20. But I will say that more things can go wrong in OT. Only one thing can go wrong on a 2 point try.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I sure am glad that mathematicians and statisticians aren't the ones coaching or playing the game because we would spend every Monday talking about why the "human element" of the decision at that moment was left out. As fans, we should all know by now that coaches in general play the odds, but they also go with their guts, which just isn't made up of warm and fuzzy or sinking feelings. A good coach is going to look at odds, but he is also going to factor in what he feels his team is capable of at that particular moment (something probabilities do not consider). Gut feelings and knowledge of a teams current situation at the time is something that no matter how much math you do, can not be factored in. In this situation MM was fully aware of the general odds, but he was also fully aware of his gut. His gut told him, kick the almost sure extra point and get back in there and win it in overtime with an offense and a defense that for most of the game was better then AZ. So use math and statistics as hindsight, but had MM gone for 2 and not made it, I guarantee you, there would be more then just math being discussed as the reason for the loss.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that McCarthy was not aware of the odds, and that if he was he treated them as the uninformed opinions of "nonfootball" guys, or some other laughable excuse for ignoring new ideas. McCarthy has shown that, when it comes down to it, he's just as conservative as the vast majority of professional coaches and, like many other coaches, he coaches to lose by as little as possible as opposed to coaching to win.

I can understand it, not even sure I would do it differently even though I would acknowledge it's the wrong way to go. McCarthy played for OT, the incorrect decision, but because every other conservative football guy would do the same, and historically teams have done this, he doesn't face any REAL criticism. Had he gone for two, the correct but far less accepted strategy, and failed, he would have been under attack from the media from everywhere. As I said, he coached so that his loss would be as acceptable as possible.

I would also add that, generally, "gut feeling" in sports is a euphemism for something with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This whole debate is funny, because it is "after the fact" and those yelling that the Packers should have gone for 2 are trying to look smart using statistics and probabilities for their rationale, when in reality their view is also colored by the outcome. Not to mention that on straight probability, the decision either way is close to 50/50, as is overtime.

Take these situations and apply the same logic:

Packers offense has dominated all day long, moving the ball up and down the field but due to 5 turnovers, find themselves behind 24-17. AZ has scored their 24 points mainly off the turnovers and hasn't done much on offense. Packers march down and score a touchdown as time expires. Do you pull out the probability and stats sheet and go for 2?

Now reverse that game:

Packers offense has been sputtering all day long and not moved the ball and its only points have come as a result of some timely turnovers by AZ. They find themselves down 24-17 and Janis returns a punt 90 yards for a TD as time expires. Do you go for 2?

 

[Mondio]

This whole debate is funny, because it is "after the fact" and those yelling that the Packers should have gone for 2 are trying to look smart using statistics and probabilities for the rationale, when in reality their view is also colored by the outcome. Not to mention that on straight probability, the decision either way is close to 50/50, as is overtime.

Take these situations and apply the same logic:

Packers offense has dominated all day long, moving the ball up and down the field but due to 5 turnovers, find themselves behind 24-17. AZ has scored their 24 points mainly off the turnovers and hasn't done much on offense. Packers march down and score a touchdown as time expires. Do you pull out the probability and stats sheet and go for 2?

Now reverse that game:

Packers offense has been sputtering all day long and not moved the ball and its only points have come as a result of some timely turnovers by AZ. They find themselves down 24-17 and Janis returns a punt 90 yards for a TD as time expires. Do you go for 2?

if you end up losing in OT, absolutely

 

[Un4GivN]

I can just imagine the **** storm if McCarthy had gone for two and they didn't make it.

Could you imagine the recognition he would be getting if he won... And was proven that he did it for the right reasons. Game changer.

Time for yet another apology?

I would say when the context fits it's ok... But I do understand your point.

He really did throw something out there that was completely untrue (example the packers rezone scoring TD percentage is low. Which by league standard it was slightly below average. But still much higher than the chances of scoring any type of points from a neutral starting position.)

I sure am glad that mathematicians and statisticians aren't the ones coaching or playing the game because we would spend every Monday talking about why the "human element" of the decision at that moment was left out.

Here is a funny little tidbit from a friend of mine... Not related to this completely but interesting none-the-less. A friend of mine is currently working on getting a doctorate in statistical psychology. The "human element" that you speak of isn't actually real unsolvable part of life. It is regarded in science as a statement used to describe a set of actions that we don't fully understand yet.

Her current project has her working on being able to statistically analyze a person's genes, previous experiences, and personality types in order to basically predict all of their future actions. With enough knowledge it is possible to determine what every person will do in every situation given a choice.

This is a HUGE funding project from corporate america. Billions of dollars go into researching how certain group dynamics work together in order to get the most production with the people they have their disposal. So knowing when someone will challenge authority, or work harder to prove themselves, the odds of certain 5 people coming up with the best possible answer, and the personality types it takes to create the most successful group.

The thing about humans is one day everything we do will be predicable using statistical analyses and by researching past behaviors . We are a product of who we are (genes) and the experiences that we have had over our lives (the people we meet and keep close, good things and bad). Emotions can be quantified just like anything else.

I have told her flat out, that I hate the concept... I don't want a life were someone can predict my choices for me. Knows my moves before I do them. But speaking in complete science. It is possible and it will happen at some point. We really aren't as "unpredictable" as we think.

 

[Un4GivN]

How do scenario 1 and 2 have different odds? Truth: AZ wins the toss, our offense may never see the field. We win the toss, AZ offense may never see the field. So equal odds to both teams (if all you are using is math).

What you are not taking into account is regression to the mean... Arizona is much better compared to our defense, than our offense is to their defense. They have a higher probability of scoring on any given drive than the Packers do. Thus the longer the game goes on, the harder it will be to fight those odds. Its why you see so many underdogs jump out to leads but not be able to hold on till the end.

Just like if you toss a coin 5 times, you could get heads 5 times. Do it 10,000 times and you are much more likely to have a 50/50 split by then.

Same thing in football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What you are not taking into account is regression to the mean... Arizona is much better compared to our defense, than our offense is to their defense.

But this is my exact point. Some are strictly using Probability and statistics to support each side of going for it or not. When in reality, there are so many other factors, most being the human element. This isn't flipping a coin or looking at a chart that says "51 % of 2 point attempts fail".

I think if someone woke you out of a dead sleep and you knew nothing about the game and what had transpired prior to the Janis touchdown, you would not be fully equipped to be confident in answering the question of "Do we go for 2?" You would want to know anything and everything that happened during the game that led up to that moment. Yes, the AZ offense and Defense were suppose to be better then the Packers that day, but were they up to that point?

 

[Un4GivN]

This whole debate is funny, because it is "after the fact" and those yelling that the Packers should have gone for 2 are trying to look smart using statistics and probabilities for their rationale, when in reality their view is also colored by the outcome. Not to mention that on straight probability, the decision either way is close to 50/50, as is overtime.

This has been proven over and over and OVER AND OVER.

It was not 50/50... it was closer to 57-37 (They are two completely separate odds and do not need to and will likely not add up to 100). Read some of the articles throughout this thread.

The only truly 50/50 odds in that game was the coin tosses.

And this isn't a new issue... Coaches have been criticized for this since they moved the FG back, google it. It's everywhere. The reason it is because discussed at length here is the decision ended the season. Someone, one day will have the balls to do break the mold.

 

[Un4GivN]

But this is my exact point. Some are strictly using Probability and statistics to support each side of going for it or not. When in reality, there are so many other factors, most being the human element. This isn't flipping a coin or looking at a chart that says "51 % of 2 point attempts fail".

That is exactly what it is... Doesn't matter if Green bay didn't score the whole game. OR scored 1000 points. You are trying to say the data from 1 game should over-rule the average. And that is not the way it works. Regression to the mean is the most likely scenario.

Which funny enough is exactly what happened. Arizona's #1 ranked offense took 3 or 4 plays to score on young and sometimes undisciplined defense middle of the road defense that throughout the game over-acheived. All the shoulda coulda wouda doesn't matter. What happened is exactly what should be predicted to happen. That was the most likely scenario if Arizona got the ball if you look at the season as a whole when comparing Arizona offense vs Green Bay defense.

"Human element" isn't an actual thing... It is just used to describe what you can't understand.

 

[XPack]

If you are going to use math and probabilities, at least have them make some sense. But in doing so, remember they do not take into consideration anything but statistics of a situation over many occurrences. Do they factor in injuries, a coaches confidence level, abilities of said players/teams at the time.....basically the human element?

My point being point 1 and 2 I mention are not better than the situation where we have to make the choice between FG/2Ptr. Going for FG may in theory give you better options, but having a offence that just scored a TD and has momentum in their way should sway this in favour of a 2 pointer. By going for FG we introduce too many variables and it's more of a gamble than a 2 pointer.