Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:10 PM, J5V said:

I think it's been shown that the success rate justifies going for two points. Depends how good your offense can execute I suppose.

Expand  

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:22 PM, Eternal optimist said:

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

Expand  

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:32 PM, J5V said:

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

Expand  

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

Posted

Its probably going to come down to who makes the best half-time adjustments, but the Als gotta put some pressure on Harris. He has enough time back there to look like an all-star.

Posted (edited)
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:45 PM, JCon said:

Montreal is getting chippy. Flags are going to start to fly if they're not careful. They can't really afford that. 

Expand  

Lots of chippiness pre whistle according to Rod the pin head. Yeah!🙄

Edited by GOLD MEMBER
Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:47 PM, 66 Chevelle said:

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

Expand  

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:51 PM, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

Expand  

ok, now I'm following the conversation... he threw me off when he started out complimenting your explanation... never mind me, lol... I'm caught up now, thx!

Posted
  On 2019-11-10 at 7:51 PM, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

Expand  

From my point of view, one of the biggest pluses about two point conversions is that they demonstrate the confidence of their coaches in their offences. But its all about context.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...