The two-point conversation scenario revisited

Ice_Ice_Brady · Nov 17, 2014

Last night the Colts illustrated the exact scenario I posed last season about a strategic decision in football. I posed this exact same situation and it led to a good discussion, so I thought I would post it again since it happened in a Patriots game.

The Colts trailed by 15 points early in the fourth quarter and scored a touchdown, making the score 28-19. Conventional football wisdom is that, in this scenario, a team should kick the extra point, delaying the two-point conversion until later on in the game. The Colts took this approach and made the score 28-20 with 13:32 left in the game.

I argue that this was, in fact, not the right decision due to the value of known versus the unknown. That is, it's likely the Colts will eventually need to attempt a two-point conversion, but we do not know whether or not the attempt will be successful.

Supposing that last night's game turned out differently, let's say the Colts kicked the extra point to move to 28-20 and got the ball back late in the game and scored a touchdown to cut the lead to 28-26 then missed the extra point. The question is, wouldn't it have been better to know- with more time remaining- the number of possessions that will be needed- and therefore the correct play calling and time management strategies?

Instead of kicking the extra point, what if the Colts had instead gone for 2. If they make it, the score is 28-21. If they miss it, the score is 28-19, a two-possession game. But at least in the latter scenario, they still have a full quarter to strategize how to come back.

Thoughts?

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

It was absolutely the wrong decision and I've never understood the reluctance for teams to do that. Delaying the conversion attempt only creates a scenario where that single play decides whether you lose or keep playing. Doing it early (particularly in this case where there was still nearly a full quarter), allows you to react to it in advance.

On a side note, I commend Indy on the decision to go for it on 4th and 10 with so much time left. They had no chance of stopping NE, so the only chance of victory was to score a TD right there and then. Sure, it also increased the odds of allowing a 50-burger, but what is the difference between a 15 point loss and a 22 point one?

Good on you, Colts.

Canuck · Nov 17, 2014

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Last night the Colts illustrated the exact scenario I posed last season about a strategic decision in football. I posed this exact same situation and it led to a good discussion, so I thought I would post it again since it happened in a Patriots game.

The Colts trailed by 15 points early in the fourth quarter and scored a touchdown, making the score 28-19. Conventional football wisdom is that, in this scenario, a team should kick the extra point, delaying the two-point conversion until later on in the game. The Colts took this approach and made the score 28-20 with 13:32 left in the game.

I argue that this was, in fact, not the right decision due to the value of known versus the unknown. That is, it's likely the Colts will eventually need to attempt a two-point conversion, but we do not know whether or not the attempt will be successful.

Supposing that last night's game turned out differently, let's say the Colts kicked the extra point to move to 28-20 and got the ball back late in the game and scored a touchdown to cut the lead to 28-26 then missed the extra point. The question is, wouldn't it have been better to know- with more time remaining- the number of possessions that will be needed- and therefore the correct play calling and time management strategies?

Instead of kicking the extra point, what if the Colts had instead gone for 2. If they make it, the score is 28-21. If they miss it, the score is 28-19, a two-possession game. But at least in the latter scenario, they still have a full quarter to strategize how to come back.

Thoughts?

Say the score was 28-20, Indie scores now 28-27, NE kicks a field goal 31-27, Indie scores a TD now 34-31. NE has a chance at end of game to score a TD or kick a FG to tie. If Indie had went with the 2 point conversion and lost then NE might only need a FG to win. If Indie had converted the 2 point conversion then maybe NE would need a TD to win. That's only a few scenarios that could happen with scoring.

I think it's conventional wisdom to take the point after because there are so many variables that could happen with scoring with so much time left in the game. A few variables in scoring and you could lose the game by not kicking the extra point. The same argument can be made for going for a TD on 4th down instead of kicking a FG earlier in the game.

Mostly you are taking a lower percentage play to increase the overall percentage of you winning. Don't make the play and you decrease your overall percentage of winning. Since it's a lower percentage play, the odds are you are making it worse for yourself rather then better.

In the Indy-NE game kicking the point after or making the 2 point conversion still made it a one possession game. Missing the 2 point conversion would have made it a 2 possession game.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

Canuck said:
In the Indy-NE game kicking the point after or making the 2 point conversion still made it a one possession game. Missing the 2 point conversion would have made it a 2 possession game.

Exactly. Wouldn't you rather know right then and there that it was still a two possession game so you could adjust accordingly?

As for the scoring alternatives, it was far too late for Indy to play that game. The only reasonable scenario in which they could win was scoring two TDs and stopping NE. Since a two point conversion was required at some point, you might as well do it right away.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Nov 17, 2014

Canuck said:
Say the score was 28-20, Indie scores now 28-27, NE kicks a field goal 31-27, Indie scores a TD now 34-31. NE has a chance at end of game to score a TD or kick a FG to tie. If Indie had went with the 2 point conversion and lost then NE might only need a FG to win. If Indie had converted the 2 point conversion then maybe NE would need a TD to win. That's only a few scenarios that could happen with scoring.

You wrote "Indy scores now 28-27". Are you implying that they would not go for 2 in the fourth quarter when they are down by 2?

I don't think unlikely scenarios justify the decision of kicking the extra point at that juncture in the game.

Canuck · Nov 17, 2014

Oswlek said:
Exactly. Wouldn't you rather know right then and there that it was still a two possession game so you could adjust accordingly?

As for the scoring alternatives, it was far too late for Indy to play that game. The only reasonable scenario in which they could win was scoring two TDs and stopping NE. Since a two point conversion was required at some point, you might as well do it right away.

I guess I don't see the logic of how a two possession game actually increases your chances of winning later in the game if you know it early rather then keeping it a one possession game

Fencer · Nov 17, 2014

First challenge: Does the team that's ahead gain a similar information advantage? I don't think so. First, whether you're 7, 8, or 9 points ahead, you'd really like a FG; a TD is only a little better than a FG is. Second, the discussion is moot anyway unless the team that's behind is successfully staging a comeback.

Second challenge: Might something happen whereby you decide to forgo a 2-pt attempt at all? I don't see it as likely either. (There is one case I can think of, in which the lead goes from 8 to 10 points via a safety, but that's too unlikely to worry about.)

OK -- the argument is pretty reasonable.

fxkane · Nov 17, 2014

THE COLTS ABSOLUTELY MADE THE RIGHT & PROFESSIONAL DECISION. This is not even a question. The 2 should always be a LAST RESORT and always near the end of the game. Going for two early in a close game is sort of like doing on onside kick with 7 minutes left. It's bad strategy and it sends a message of desperation.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

Canuck said:
I guess I don't see the logic of how a two possession game actually increases your chances of winning later in the game if you know it early rather then keeping it a one possession game

Because your "one score/two score" descriptions are really just a semantic issue. Regardless of the order you need two TDs and a 2pt conversion. Looking a little deeper:

XP/2pt
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You've likely orchestrated this to the point that there is little time on the clock to react. In this case, missing the 2pter means a loss.

2pt/XP
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You now have the remainder of the game (in this case, nearly a full quarter) to react to your 9 point deficit.

In both cases if you make the 2 pointer you are tied. If you choose to delay the 2pter, it creates the false security of still being within one score, but a 2pt failure virtually guarantees a loss. Your odds of being able to miss the 2pter and still win are substantially higher if you do it first.

I suppose that a case could be made that there is an emotional advantage to waiting. Maybe you feel the team is more likely to score both TDs if they feel the game is close and they'll check out if they score a TD and still trail by two scores. But that is the only advantage to waiting.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

fxkane said:
THE COLTS ABSOLUTELY MADE THE RIGHT & PROFESSIONAL DECISION. This is not even a question. The 2 should always be a LAST RESORT and always near the end of the game. Going for two early in a close game is sort of like doing on onside kick with 7 minutes left. It's bad strategy and it sends a message of desperation.

This is complete nonsense. The Colts' position was one of desperation, the coaches would simply be reacting appropriately to it.

QuantumMechanic · Nov 17, 2014

As I said in the previous thread on this, too many coaches (and fans, but coaches get paid to make decisions and so should know better) confuse "postponing the moment of certain loss" with "maximizing the chance to win". They are often the same, but not always, and this scenario is one of those times.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

rlcarr said:
As I said in the previous thread on this, too many coaches (and fans, but coaches get paid to make decisions and so should know better) confuse "postponing the point of certain loss" with "maximizing the chance to win". They are often the same, but not always, and this scenario is one of those times.

Well said. This is why I commended them for going for it on 4th and 10. Sure, it ends the game right then and there if you fail, but punting would just be delaying the inevitable. Only a conversion would have done anything to improve Indy's chance of victory.

Canuck · Nov 17, 2014

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
You wrote "Indy scores now 28-27". Are you implying that they would not go for 2 in the fourth quarter when they are down by 2?

I don't think unlikely scenarios justify the decision of kicking the extra point at that juncture in the game.

It's one of many variables of scoring that could happen in the game. It could have been 28-28 or 28-27 or 28-26 or many other scores. I just picked one variable that showed they could lose by not kicking the extra point or I or you could pick variables that could show how they could win by converting the two point conversion. It's why I said it was a few scenarios that could happen with scoring. It's just an example not a justification

Canuck · Nov 17, 2014

Oswlek said:
Because your "one score/two score" descriptions are really just a semantic issue. Regardless of the order you need two TDs and a 2pt conversion. Looking a little deeper:

XP/2pt
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You've likely orchestrated this to the point that there is little time on the clock to react. In this case, missing the 2pter means a loss.

2pt/XP
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You now have the remainder of the game (in this case, nearly a full quarter) to react to your 9 point deficit.

In both cases if you make the 2 pointer you are tied. If you choose to delay the 2pter, it creates the false security of still being within one score, but a 2pt failure virtually guarantees a loss. Your odds of being able to miss the 2pter and still win are substantially higher if you do it first.

I suppose that a case could be made that there is an emotional advantage to waiting. Maybe you feel the team is more likely to score both TDs if they feel the game is close and they'll check out if they score a TD and still trail by two scores. But that is the only advantage to waiting.

You just gave one long scenario where the 2 point conversion makes a difference and that's just what it is, a scenario. It has little resemblance to what happened in the real game.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

Canuck said:
You just gave one long scenario where the 2 point conversion makes a difference and that's just what it is, a scenario. It has little resemblance to what happened in the real game.

I am completely baffled by this response. I didn't offer one long scenario, I illustrated every possibility around a late game situation where you trail by 15 as well as rationale for why going for 2 first improves your odds of winning.

You might want to read my comment again.

Oswlek · Nov 17, 2014

Here is a pertinent article.

http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/

The money quote:

The counterargument goes something along the lines of “just take the points, that way it is a one-score game.” Essentially, people are afraid of missing the two-point attempt and trailing by 9 points. But it’s not a one-score game. Trailing by 8 isn’t a one-score game if you are going to fail on your two-point try. And there’s no reason to think your odds of converting a 2-point attempt are higher when trailing by 2 than by 9. Trailing by 8 is a 1.5-possiession game; half the time it is a 1-possession game, and half the time it is a 2-possesion game. To simply put your head in the sand and say “I don’t wanna know!!” may keep hope alive longer but it lowers your odds of winning.

This is pretty good, too.

There are many hypothetical scenarios where it would really matter to know whether you are going to be successful on your two-point conversion. Say you’re down 15 with 7 minutes to go and score a touchdown. You stop the other team, get the ball back, and drive to their 25. You’re out of timeouts and there are 3 minutes to go. It’s 4th and 10. At that point, wouldn’t your decision to go for it change if you were down by 9 instead of 8? Down 8, teams go for it because they consider it a one-score game. But if you’re going to miss the 2-point conversion, now you’d want to kick the field goal.

Knowledge is power. You need to get a two-point conversion at some point, and knowing whether you’re going to convert is important information. There is no reasonable reason not to go for 2 after your first touchdown. Yes, missing out on the two-point conversion earlier could be demoralizing. But what would you call missing out on a two-point conversion with 5 seconds left when trailing by 2?

KTMbi · Nov 17, 2014

What are the odds of scoring a 2-pt conversion attempt?
If they are over .500, teams should try them in every TD. If not, they should use them just in scenarios where it is the only chance to remain alive in a game.

Canuck · Nov 17, 2014

Thanks, now I know why you made your argument the way you did.

From the article:

Missing the 2-point attempt at any point is going to drastically lower your team’s odds of winning.

If you are going to convert the 2-point attempt, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you go for it early or late. If you’re going to miss it, going for it earlier significantly improves your odds of pulling off a miraculous comeback, precisely because you’re got almost no chance if you miss it late. If you are going to miss your two-point attempt, you’re in much worse shape finding that out with 1 minute left than with 7 minutes left.

Over that same period, there have been 81 times when a team scored a 4th-quarter touchdown when trailing by 15 points, cutting the lead to 9 (pending the extra point or two-point conversion). Only 5 of those teams went on to win the game, with the most recent occurrence happening last year when theDolphins were Tebowed.

So when trailing by 15 in the 4th quarter, even after scoring a touchdown, your odds of winning aren’t very good. But of those 81 teams that scored a fourth-quarter touchdown to cut the lead to 9, only nine of them went for two after the touchdown. While the time remaining could play a part in the decision, the fact is most of the other 72 teams made a strategic error in kicking the extra point when trailing by 9 points.

(Still not sure from above whether the nine that went for the 2 point conversion won or lost the game considering only 5 games were won out of the 81. Not sure why the author left that part out. Also not sure if the 2 point conversions were at the end of game or earlier)

TruthSeeker · Nov 17, 2014

Oswlek said:
It was absolutely the wrong decision and I've never understood the reluctance for teams to do that. Delaying the conversion attempt only creates a scenario where that single play decides whether you lose or keep playing. Doing it early (particularly in this case where there was still nearly a full quarter), allows you to react to it in advance.

Going for the 2-pointer right away also gives you the opportunity (if you miss) to go for two 2-pointers should the opponents score another TD and you're down by 16. It is indeed significantly better to go for the 2-pointer immediately in most scenarios. I think the main reason teams don't is 1) tradition and 2) keeping hopes alive (it's a significant let-down should you miss the 2-pointer and now are down by 2 scores).

TruthSeeker · Nov 17, 2014

KTMbi said:
What are the odds of scoring a 2-pt conversion attempt?
If they are over .500, teams should try them in every TD. If not, they should use them just in scenarios where it is the only chance to remain alive in a game.

I've heard that the latest stats show it's around 40%.

The two-point conversation scenario revisited

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Pro Bowl Player

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Burn it all down!

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Rookie

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads