Not everyone understood why the Panthers attempted a two-point conversion when they scored a touchdown to cut the Packers' lead to 24-16 on Sunday. But Panthers coach Ron Rivera understood why it was the right call. Rivera said after the game that he has studied the analytics and knows that a two-point conversion attempt when [more]

Continue Reading @ Michael David Smith 

I loved the call because it was the Panthers doing it. I didn't think it would work and would put them in a deeper hole for the rest of the game.

Unsurprising that a coach doesn't understand the context of a statistical model and the assumptions that go into it. The psychological impact of being down by basically 2 scores is huge for us fans and probably the players as well.

This quote comes to mind
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" Statistician George Box

Maybe the global warming zealots can learn something from this?

I thought it was stupid... because if you get the two points, then all you need is two FGS (with two defensive stops) to tie... which with the time left, was less likely, than punching it once with a second TD... and if you then wanted to go for two and the lead, you could.


I get that the analytics say, going for two, on average, leads to more points... but in that participial circumstances, at that time of the game, it just didn't make sense... because the best they could then do is tie... and they'd have to get the extra two points for that.

In those circumstances, the mental toll of missing was too much, to take that chance. Unless maybe you thought there was enough time, to do it three times or something.

I thought it was stupid... because if you get the two points, then all you need is two FGS (with two defensive stops) to tie... which with the time left, was less likely, than punching it once with a second TD... and if you then wanted to go for two and the lead, you could.


I get that the analytics say, going for two, on average, leads to more points... but in that participial circumstances, at that time of the game, it just didn't make sense... because the best they could then do is tie... and they'd have to get the extra two points for that.

In those circumstances, the mental toll of missing was too much, to take that chance. Unless maybe you thought there was enough time, to do it three times or something.

I didn't get it at the time until I read an article that laid it out. Of the four outcomes, only one was trailing and the other were winning or tying. In hindsight, it was a good move by me.

Us going for it on 4th down at end of half ... I would have liked us to take the 3 points. We just aren't that good within two yards. I know, I know, but I said Mike McCarthy should have gone for the jugular! I feel the 3 points plus opening the half with the ball would have sufficed.

I’d say it was “ANALytic”!😂
I saw it as stupid at the time. Which means n the end I’m glad they tried it.
If there had been only a few minutes left and it was their only chance at a tie or win, THEN I’d say it was the right call.

If it was purely analytics, then why not do it after every single touchdown? That's where the pure analytics suggest it's best... not just the last two times.

I just think if you're just gonna save it for the end, then you should save it for the last time. That way your team is playing from further behind mentally if you miss... and gives the other team less time to react.

If it was purely analytics, then why not do it after every single touchdown? That's where the pure analytics suggest it's best... not just the last two times.

I just think if you're just gonna save it for the end, then you should save it for the last time. That way your team is playing from further behind mentally if you miss... and gives the other team less time to react.

Because they were hoping they'd be relying on the extra point to be leading and if missed, a tie.

Why not go for it every time? I think we'll see that grow more and more. Especially at the rate kickers are missing extra points. Analytics say you convert about 48% of 2-point attempts.

Because they were hoping they'd be relying on the extra point to be leading and if missed, a tie.

Yes I agree that hoping was a big part of it, but that "hoping" is NOT "purely analytics" as Rivera said... and in my opinion, that hoping slanted the judgement, and got him to ignore (to a certain degree) the analytics and reactions of a potential miss... As he doesn't seem to factor in the analytical possibility of missing it both times.

Because they were hoping they'd be relying on the extra point to be leading and if missed, a tie.

Why not go for it every time? I think we'll see that grow more and more. Especially at the rate kickers are missing extra points. Analytics say you convert about 48% of 2-point attempts.

I like the idea of going for two if you know you are winning the battle in the trenches. If you are team that easily converts on third and short with a beastly O-line, it makes more sense. If you are more of a scheming team, looking for mismatches, then it probably is better to just take the kick.

Interesting thinking back to the Eagles and Cowboys game where Rodgers threw a very quick pass right after the snap before even seeing what was going on. The one against the Eagles led to the int. The one against the cowboys was odd as it bounced off someones helmet. Would be great to see if MLF cooks up something new and reliable in the red zone based on a quick pass, like exploiting the AI in Madden. Maybe they gave up on it after those two failures.

ZTC said:

Us going for it on 4th down at end of half ... I would have liked us to take the 3 points. We just aren't that good within two yards. I know, I know, but I said Mike McCarthy should have gone for the jugular! I feel the 3 points plus opening the half with the ball would have sufficed.

I think it was dumb not to have kicked the FG.

Yes I agree that hoping was a big part of it, but that "hoping" is NOT "purely analytics" as Rivera said... and in my opinion, that hoping slanted the judgement, and got him to ignore (to a certain degree) the analytics and reactions of a potential miss... As he doesn't seem to factor in the analytical possibility of missing it both times.

If "purely analytics" says to go for 2 when down by 2 scores in the 4th q because IF you succeed then your team will win the game with another TD and PAT, then why don't they save the 2 point conversion attempt for the 2ND TD? Almost no one is going to do that. They will play for the tie and try to win in OT. The only exception would be a horrible team like Miami somehow, against all odds, getting within 1 point of tying New England with 10 seconds to go.

If purely analytics is correct it shouldn't matter if you go for 2 on the first or 2nd TD as long as you do so on one of the two.

"Purely analytics" also says you don't need to punt. Every team should be able to get 2.5 yards per play. That means, according to analytics you get a first down every 4 plays. Even the Jets who have the worst total yards offense averages more than 4 yards per play.

Nobody factors in that when the other team is only up six they’re going to be more aggressive on offense. It’s a stupid argument to go for two, in my opinion

ZTC said:I think it was dumb not to have kicked the FG.

I actually said that out loud, to not be greedy here and take the points. I’m glad it didn’t come back to bite us.

What fans and reporters (and probably owners) forget is that in football, as in poker, the value of playing the odds rarely manifests over the course of a single game. It only becomes evident over time—across entire seasons and even multiple seasons. Just as there's never a guarantee that pocket aces will beat K-10 suited or that 7-2 offsuit won't produce a full house at the flop, there's no guarantee that going for it on fourth down instead of punting or going for the touchdown instead of taking the easy three will win you the game. Indeed, the seminal paper  on this topic estimated that going for it on fourth down within 60 yards of the goal line would only net on average one extra win every three years. But over hundreds and thousands of hands, mathematically sound players who have the intestinal fortitude to withstand the short term variability tend to inexorably build their bankrolls, just as appropriately aggressive coaches who are able to weather the fan and media scrutiny tend to pile up the wins and championships.

I know which side of that equation I'd rather be on.

man, u use big words

man, u use big words

Common mechanism for over compensation.

Common mechanism for over compensation.

Is that kind of like guys that drive fancy expensive cars to make up for OTHER....uh......”shortcomings”???😂

man, u use big words

You should have typed it like this:
“Man, u shure nuff duz youse bigg wurds!”😂

man, u use big words

Well he is a doctor and he probably stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so there's always that too.