Is it possible to look at cases only where the trailing team scored the two regulation TDs required to fully test the theory? I.e., strip out times where they went for two/kicked the XP but then never scored again anyway.
Could you tell me what you think this analysis would show? The decision of kicking the XP or going for 2 happens before you know how the defense will respond on the next drive.
Have there been cases where the team trailing by 14 scored twice, and then failed on *both* 2-point attempts, costing them an opportunity to go to OT? Then I can buy there's a downside to go for 2 down 8.
Great post. I would lean more to this being a case of insufficient sample size or possibly selection bias (presumably teams that are down by 14 are more likely to have weaker offenses and thus poorer 2P conversion rates?). I think the broader point of confirming analytics with actual data is absolutely valid, though.
I'd be interested in the "down 5" and possibly "down 4" data - the original 538 post called those out also as places where teams should be more aggressive with the 2P vs 1P decision, also.
the coaches who chose G2D8 are not a fair random sample; it is not the case that 10% of the time the team behind gets sorted into the experiment arm and goes for it. There are (presumably) a couple guys who in this situation have decided to do it and generally do, given the opportunity. If those guys have shitty teams, you'd expect them to fail more.
My man, it has worked exactly twice, and I have described the cases in detail. It is clearly not a random sample, and the G42D8 strategy working is an aberration not a statistical regularity.
Is it possible to look at cases only where the trailing team scored the two regulation TDs required to fully test the theory? I.e., strip out times where they went for two/kicked the XP but then never scored again anyway.
Could you tell me what you think this analysis would show? The decision of kicking the XP or going for 2 happens before you know how the defense will respond on the next drive.
I guess my thought is that if you fail to score the second TD, there's no way of knowing whether the first XP/2PT decision was "correct" or not.
Have there been cases where the team trailing by 14 scored twice, and then failed on *both* 2-point attempts, costing them an opportunity to go to OT? Then I can buy there's a downside to go for 2 down 8.
Ben,
Great post. I would lean more to this being a case of insufficient sample size or possibly selection bias (presumably teams that are down by 14 are more likely to have weaker offenses and thus poorer 2P conversion rates?). I think the broader point of confirming analytics with actual data is absolutely valid, though.
I'd be interested in the "down 5" and possibly "down 4" data - the original 538 post called those out also as places where teams should be more aggressive with the 2P vs 1P decision, also.
the coaches who chose G2D8 are not a fair random sample; it is not the case that 10% of the time the team behind gets sorted into the experiment arm and goes for it. There are (presumably) a couple guys who in this situation have decided to do it and generally do, given the opportunity. If those guys have shitty teams, you'd expect them to fail more.
My man, it has worked exactly twice, and I have described the cases in detail. It is clearly not a random sample, and the G42D8 strategy working is an aberration not a statistical regularity.