When Should You Go For Two?

[The Big Nebrowski]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Complains about using too small a sample size.

Says that one specific decision should determine if a coach keeps his job or not.

Seems legit.

OMG, you "got me" again, in the 3rd person, in a dry, smug kinda way,again! Yer 2/2, 100%. You must have one of those analytic brain chips or just born really really smart.
I should just give up.

 

[NUance]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Complains about using too small a sample size.

Says that one specific decision should determine if a coach keeps his job or not.

Seems legit.

OMG, you "got me" again, in the 3rd person, in a dry, smug kinda way,again! Yer 2/2, 100%. You must have one of those analytic brain chips or just born really really smart.
I should just give up.

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

I think it may have been touched on here but I also think that the idea of sample size the few opportunities to even go for 2 in a game adds a great deal more uncertainty to what the outcome will be in a given game. I know if I flip a coin 100 times that data will close in on 50/50. But if I only get two flips and I have to bet that they will both be heads that would be a much different type of risk and in a football game obviously the team only gets a few chances. With extra points the % is so high that it doesn't matter that you have a limited number of opportunities.

Now that's what I been trying to say at least a couple of times. Thanks for saying it better.

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

I think it may have been touched on here but I also think that the idea of sample size the few opportunities to even go for 2 in a game adds a great deal more uncertainty to what the outcome will be in a given game. I know if I flip a coin 100 times that data will close in on 50/50. But if I only get two flips and I have to bet that they will both be heads that would be a much different type of risk and in a football game obviously the team only gets a few chances. With extra points the % is so high that it doesn't matter that you have a limited number of opportunities.

Yes I touched on this and while I'm more for the aggressive use of the 2 pointer I do think this is the most valid argument against it. The analytics and numbers say over time you will score more points, and most likely that would be the outcome. The only problem is going 0 for 2 in 1 game and 2 for 2 in the next. The consistency isn't the same as a kick and it can cost you in games which are controlled by a small sample size.

yup yup yup, exactly!

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Complains about using too small a sample size.

Says that one specific decision should determine if a coach keeps his job or not.

Seems legit.

OMG, you "got me" again, in the 3rd person, in a dry, smug kinda way,again! Yer 2/2, 100%. You must have one of those analytic brain chips or just born really really smart.
I should just give up.

that's so cool! IN BRADY WE TRUST!!!

 

[Sargon]

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when to and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Hey listen up the big _____ski.

Quite frankly, everything you just said was wrong.

Quite accurately, the article proved that NFL coaches are terrible at this. So, according to you, they must all be fired immediately. But you failed to point that out to us.

Analytics saves time, eh? LOL. Analytics is the ONLY WAY to determine the most advantageous decision. Something less than a few percent of the US population could do this in their own unassisted brains. Even then, they would be using analytics (in their head). You can't, and you talk again and again like you can.

You seem to like to teach us so I have a question. Who is the most likely person to be unaware when anti-wisdom is being spoken?

 

[Mierin]

Today's Super Duper Analytics Enhanced Bowl: 4th qtr, 0:01 left on the clock, Falcons just scored 6 to pull within 1 pt. What do you do? You go for 2, right? Why, cuz analytics sez so and analytics trump's millionaire coaches' brains. Oh f#*k, Valentine sacks Ryan, game over, thanks for playing, Brady wins record setting 5th Super Duper Bowl and entire Falcons organization is dissolved from the face of the earth the next day. Don't ya just love analytics!

Which reminds me, the last guy, of note, to go for 2 in that situation was one Tom Oz, back when there was no OT, and thank go no analytics, and a sure PAT would have tied it and secured his 1st Natty and euphoria across Husker Nation. God bless Oz's moxy, but in retrospect, the BR Nation and Corn History would have preferred another Natty in the record books.

Um, what is this mumbo jumbo?

The analysis is literally in front of your face at the top of this post and it says there's a tie between going for 2 and kicking the extra point in this situation, therefore it's up to the coaches.

 

[Red Five]

I just want to chime in and say this thread is glorious!

 

[Old Nebraska Guy]

Ya know, all the numbers that I have read in this thread are from the NFL. Everyone knows the NFL 2-point try is from the two yard line and the NCAA try is from the three, right. I think that yard is significant. For example, and I know someone on here actually knows this, what is the percentage of NU converting third and three. You may have to factor in the "short field" too. If the NFL with the best QB's, WR's, & RB's in the country are successful half the time from the two yard line how is your average college team going to do from the three?

 

[Mierin]

Ya know, all the numbers that I have read in this thread are from the NFL. Everyone knows the NFL 2-point try is from the two yard line and the NCAA try is from the three, right. I think that yard is significant. For example, and I know someone on here actually knows this, what is the percentage of NU converting third and three. You may have to factor in the "short field" too. If the NFL with the best QB's, WR's, & RB's in the country are successful half the time from the two yard line how is your average college team going to do from the three?

The OP said it's NFL based so it might not translate to college. I think everyone replying is keeping that mind.

That said a play from the 3 yard line might be preferrable for a passing team.

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when to and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Hey listen up the big _____ski.

Quite frankly, everything you just said was wrong.

Quite accurately, the article proved that NFL coaches are terrible at this. So, according to you, they must all be fired immediately. But you failed to point that out to us.

Analytics saves time, eh? LOL. Analytics is the ONLY WAY to determine the most advantageous decision. Something less than a few percent of the US population could do this in their own unassisted brains. Even then, they would be using analytics (in their head). You can't, and you talk again and again like you can.

You seem to like to teach us so I have a question. Who is the most likely person to be unaware when anti-wisdom is being spoken?

Plz pardon the delay, just got back from a love triste w Khatia Buniatishvili and Cecile de la France...
Now, where were we, oh yes, analytics, here's question for you, Mr. Smart Guy. I couldn't help but notice the term "analytics" has the word "anal" in it. Do you, from a moral standpoint, think that is right?

Your queries, though, I wll now proceed to answer in reverse order, ahem:

3) John Q American. Scratch that, the Pope, any Pope. No, scratch that, it's gotta be that Ape the popular minority put in the oval office. I'll stick w that.

2)Human brain or brains. I'm sorry to say that, first of all, your apparent full submission to the Analytic God fills me with pathos AND...boredom. BUT, unfortunately, Sir, you grossly, GROSSLY, underestimate the human brain, which happens to be the most amazingly and sophisticatedly evolved "thing" in the known universe. To claim, as you did, that analytics "decision making" supercedes the immense processing power of the human brain in patently FALSE and I defer you to any competant neuroscientist and/or linguist to find out more about that on your own. They are still just scratching trhe surface of understanding the amazing workings and potential of the human brain. It pains me to think that you may devalue your own brain like all the technocratic nerds apparently want us to do.

I'll follow up with: Mozart. And that would be "checkmate". Ok, I'll add Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Spinoza, I will take their brains over your analytics "brain" everyday of the week and twice n Sunday. What brain(s) invented analytics? That's right, human brains and not the other way around and you can remember that when you're genuflecting to your Robot God too.

Brady. Checkmate again. What was the analytics prediction % of a N.E. Victory in the 4th qtr when they were down 28-9 or wtever. So much for analytics. Brady has a human brain.

1) Yes, in the context to which I referred yes, fire them all--except Belichick, of course. Thankfully, somehow, someway coaches and players were somehow able to conduct the ame of football--just as well--before the human brain invented analytics.

Analytics is to football as a "sampled trumpet" is to Miles Davis.

Thanks for playing...

 

[Xmas32]

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

I just want to chime in and say this thread is glorious!

You have excellent taste. Sir!

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

I think i have the flu...

 

[lo country]

I think i have the flu...

Its going around here..... No bueno