Calling on Math to End the 2 pt. conversion argument

[OU Engineer]

From Stewart Mandel's mailbag on SI.com:

"Since you asked for an analysis of Stoops' decision based on quantitative probability, I figured I'd oblige. A basic analysis of the probabilities shows that going for it there greatly increases Oklahoma's chances of winning the game.

The probability of successful two-point conversion is around 44 percent, therefore ...

-- If they go for two, the probability of winning is: P(win) = P(2-point successful)*P(overcome 7 point deficit) + P(2-point failure)*P(overcome 9 point deficit) = 0.44*0.09 + 0.56*0.06 = 7.32%

-- If they kick an extra point (assuming that has a 100 percent success rate), they have to overcome an eight-point deficit. The odds of that happening are about six percent.

Going for two, therefore, increases Oklahoma's odds of winning the game roughly 22 percent, from 6 percent to 7.32 percent.

(Note that these probabilities are coming from NFL stats and the win probability calculator on the Advanced NFL Stats site. I would wager that the benefits of an early two-point conversion are even greater in the college game, where teams make the two-point conversion more frequently and where comebacks are more likely.)
-- Justin, Boise, Idaho

So there you have it. Now I just need Matt Damon to come in and check Justin's math.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/10/27/gene-chizik-mailbag/1.html#ixzz13aJjWiH4"

So now can we all STFU and kick some Buffalo a$$ this weekend?

[Sooners78]

From Stewart Mandel's mailbag on SI.com:

"Since you asked for an analysis of Stoops' decision based on quantitative probability, I figured I'd oblige. A basic analysis of the probabilities shows that going for it there greatly increases Oklahoma's chances of winning the game.

The probability of successful two-point conversion is around 44 percent, therefore ...

-- If they go for two, the probability of winning is: P(win) = P(2-point successful)*P(overcome 7 point deficit) + P(2-point failure)*P(overcome 9 point deficit) = 0.44*0.09 + 0.56*0.06 = 7.32%

-- If they kick an extra point (assuming that has a 100 percent success rate), they have to overcome an eight-point deficit. The odds of that happening are about six percent.

Going for two, therefore, increases Oklahoma's odds of winning the game roughly 22 percent, from 6 percent to 7.32 percent.

(Note that these probabilities are coming from NFL stats and the win probability calculator on the Advanced NFL Stats site. I would wager that the benefits of an early two-point conversion are even greater in the college game, where teams make the two-point conversion more frequently and where comebacks are more likely.)
-- Justin, Boise, Idaho

So there you have it. Now I just need Matt Damon to come in and check Justin's math.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/10/27/gene-chizik-mailbag/1.html#ixzz13aJjWiH4"

So now can we all STFU and kick some Buffalo a$$ this weekend?

Told y'all so!:D

[AirbOUrne]

lol :)

[cmoneyou]

From Stewart Mandel's mailbag on SI.com:

"Since you asked for an analysis of Stoops' decision based on quantitative probability, I figured I'd oblige. A basic analysis of the probabilities shows that going for it there greatly increases Oklahoma's chances of winning the game.

The probability of successful two-point conversion is around 44 percent, therefore ...

-- If they go for two, the probability of winning is: P(win) = P(2-point successful)*P(overcome 7 point deficit) + P(2-point failure)*P(overcome 9 point deficit) = 0.44*0.09 + 0.56*0.06 = 7.32%

-- If they kick an extra point (assuming that has a 100 percent success rate), they have to overcome an eight-point deficit. The odds of that happening are about six percent.

Going for two, therefore, increases Oklahoma's odds of winning the game roughly 22 percent, from 6 percent to 7.32 percent.

(Note that these probabilities are coming from NFL stats and the win probability calculator on the Advanced NFL Stats site. I would wager that the benefits of an early two-point conversion are even greater in the college game, where teams make the two-point conversion more frequently and where comebacks are more likely.)
-- Justin, Boise, Idaho

So there you have it. Now I just need Matt Damon to come in and check Justin's math.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/10/27/gene-chizik-mailbag/1.html#ixzz13aJjWiH4"

So now can we all STFU and kick some Buffalo a$$ this weekend?

The funny part is he leaves out about a quarter of the possible outcomes, but its not worth going into.

[ThinMan]

Did you add into the calculations that our kicker just missed a chip shot FG?

[bmjlr]

Did you add into the calculations that our kicker just missed a chip shot FG?

OU should go for two everytime for this reason alone.

[cmoneyou]

OU should go for two everytime for this reason alone.

If they got it over half of the time ( >50% success rate), it wouldn't be that bad of an idea.

[MoJoOkie]

:pop:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

what we really need is another thread besides the 15 pager going on about the same play

[OU Engineer]

I was dumb enough to think math would end the argument.

I forgot that not everyone thinks like I do.

[TUSooner]

Math is ***ing overrated, especiasly THAT bogus equation. :mad: :D



fml

[sooner518]

I was dumb enough to think math would end the argument.

I forgot that not everyone thinks like I do.

what? with faulty, bogus mathematical equations? youre right

[kevpks]

If we drill Colorado by 40, their probability of winning is zero. That is what is on my mind.

[cmoneyou]

If we drill Colorado by 40, their probability of winning is zero. That is what is on my mind.

This is a logical fallacy.

[TUSooner]

The guy who did that equation was from BOISE, Idaho, by the way. You gonna take his numbers over the word of a guy (me) who scratched like hell just to get an A- in college alegbra before running away from math forever?

Suit yourself !!

[cmoneyou]

The guy who did that equation was from BOISE, Idaho, by the way. You gonna take his numbers over the word of a guy (me) who scratched like hell just to get an A- in college alegbra before running away from math forever?

Suit yourself !!

lol when you put it that way, I do have to suspect BSU's pr department might have something to do with it.

[TUSooner]

This is a logical fallacy.

Scoring more points than the other team is not a win?
And I'll need that explanation in English, please. :D

[yermom]

The guy who did that equation was from BOISE, Idaho, by the way. You gonna take his numbers over the word of a guy (me) who scratched like hell just to get an A- in college alegbra before running away from math forever?

Suit yourself !!

sadly, they do know something about 2pt conversions up there...

[MI Sooner]

I went to that site to try to recreate his work. You need to enter which team has possession, and what the down and distance is to get a win%.

That's a little problem for the kick it scenario, as we'd presumably kick it deep and missouri would get 1st and 10 around the 25. Starting field position doesn't impact the win% too much. Same with if we go for two and get it. But what if we go for two and miss? If you kick it onside, you need to assume the rate at which we'd recover it. Say we get the ball on our own 42 x%, and they get it on their 42 x%. Can't just put in the odds of winning down 9 w/ 6:30 left. Not sure where he gets 6% as the chance of us winning down 9. I think it's quite a bit less.

[OUinFLA]

If they got it over half of the time ( >50% success rate), it wouldn't be that bad of an idea.
as long as you score more than once?

[cmoneyou]

Scoring more points than the other team is not a win?
And I'll need that explanation in English, please. :D

he said if we beat them by 40 points they had no chance to win, He is basing their chance to win on the actual outcome of whether they won or not.

Before the texas game this year you wouldn't say texas had no chance to win because they lost the game by 8, unless you had a crystal ball.

[cmoneyou]

as long as you score more than once?

This is kind of nerdy but you base your decision on potential points.

If you convert 94% of your xps (1 point), each attempt is worth .94 points.

If you convert 50% of your 2 points, each attempt is worth 1 point. Over the course of the season you would end up with more points going for 2. In reality, 2 point conversions are good around 40% of the time so the value of an attempt is around .8 points

[cmoneyou]

This is kind of nerdy but you base your decision on potential points.

If you convert 94% of your xps (1 point), each attempt is worth .94 points.

If you convert 50% of your 2 points, each attempt is worth 1 point. Over the course of the season you would end up with more points going for 2. In reality, 2 point conversions are good around 40% of the time so the value of an attempt is around .8 points

And before anyone brings up emotion and momentum, both should be factored into the predicted conversion rate by the coach. If he thinks he will get the 2 point more than half the time, that is a good enough reason to try it.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/zerosignal/dead-horse.gif

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://media.scout.com/media/forums/emoticons/168/deadhorse.gif

[OUinFLA]

This is kind of nerdy

spek

:D

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/T77snapshot/Beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://dl7.glitter-graphics.net/pub/20/20307gmkq7e4w8p.gif

[TUSooner]

This is kind of nerdy but you base your decision on potential points.

If you convert 94% of your xps (1 point), each attempt is worth .94 points.

If you convert 50% of your 2 points, each attempt is worth 1 point. Over the course of the season you would end up with more points going for 2. In reality, 2 point conversions are good around 40% of the time so the value of an attempt is around .8 points

Yeah well, too bad football scoreboards don't have decimal points.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://www.funnyzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/funny-pictures-pony-mechanic.jpg

[Soonermagik]

Good reasoning, but wrong calculations. The problem is Jimmy Stevens is far from a 100% kicker. I honestly hold my breath on his extra point tries. Some of those extra points barely make it through.

When they let him kick a field goal, I was telling my buddy they should just go for it. And sure enough, he missed again. The kicking game is killing this team. The momentum lost when they do all that work and get nothing is huge.

[cmoneyou]

Good reasoning, but wrong calculations. The problem is Jimmy Stevens is far from a 100% kicker. I honestly hold my breath on his extra point tries. Some of those extra points barely make it through.

When they let him kick a field goal, I was telling my buddy they should just go for it. And sure enough, he missed again. The kicking game is killing this team. The momentum lost when they do all that work and get nothing is huge.

I was just using examples of possible percentages to use. The coach should decide at that moment how confident he is.

[sooner KB]

From Stewart Mandel's mailbag on SI.com:

-- If they go for two, the probability of winning is: P(win) = P(2-point successful)*P(overcome 7 point deficit) + P(2-point failure)*P(overcome 9 point deficit) = 0.44*0.09 + 0.56*0.06 = 7.32%

-- If they kick an extra point (assuming that has a 100 percent success rate), they have to overcome an eight-point deficit. The odds of that happening are about six percent.



That reasoning just can't be right. The probability changes if you swap needing to go for 7 first and 8 second versus 8 first and 7 second? This just doesn't sound right to me. I would try to work out the math, but I have to go to work. Maybe someone will debunk this by the time I get home tonight.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://omglol.kerrolisaa.com/1/10557.jpg

[cmoneyou]

That reasoning just can't be right. The probability changes if you swap needing to go for 7 first and 8 second versus 8 first and 7 second? This just doesn't sound right to me. I would try to work out the math, but I have to go to work. Maybe someone will debunk this by the time I get home tonight.

I can try.

2 point first

.44 x 1 = 44% chance to tie x 50% chance of winning in over time = 22% win
plus you had to add the chance that the coach goes for 2 twice which succeeds .44 x .44 = 19% of the time. You can't add this directly and I am not sure how to fit it in other than a slight advantage to going for 2 early

Kick first

1 x .44 = 44% chance to tie x 50% chance of winning in over time = 22 % but you have no chance to win in regulation with 2 2 pointers.

So there is a slight mathematical favor towards going for 2 early

[cmoneyou]

http://omglol.kerrolisaa.com/1/10557.jpg

NTTAWWT

[C&CDean]

Jeez. If I had to lock the other one, this one is going down too.