[Hank 91]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

[Hank 91]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

[BobK]

Thanks for your reasoning and research
However I sure hope this doesn’t become a Rivals type tread

[BobK]

Thanks for your reasoning and research
However I sure hope this doesn’t become a Rivals type tread

[stupac2]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

[stupac2]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

[BostonCard]

Hi Hank,

Thank you for looking into this; I was going to link your very nice article.  I think it would be helpful to know what the denominator has been.  How often have we had a fourth quarter lead of two possessions or less and turtled (versus remained aggressive)?

Since we have no turtling-induced losses, presumably all of those wound up as wins.  I'd be curious to know what happened to the scoring in those situations.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hi Hank,

Thank you for looking into this; I was going to link your very nice article.  I think it would be helpful to know what the denominator has been.  How often have we had a fourth quarter lead of two possessions or less and turtled (versus remained aggressive)?

Since we have no turtling-induced losses, presumably all of those wound up as wins.  I'd be curious to know what happened to the scoring in those situations.

BC

[martyup]

Hank, thanks for keeping the intellectual with the brutality.  It is brutal for Stanford fans to watch our team go full "turtle."  But, I prefer winning ugly to losing.

[martyup]

Hank, thanks for keeping the intellectual with the brutality.  It is brutal for Stanford fans to watch our team go full "turtle."  But, I prefer winning ugly to losing.

[Hank 91]

Hi Hank,

Thank you for looking into this; I was going to link your very nice article.  I think it would be helpful to know what the denominator has been.  How often have we had a fourth quarter lead of two possessions or less and turtled (versus remained aggressive)?

Since we have no turtling-induced losses, presumably all of those wound up as wins.  I'd be curious to know what happened to the scoring in those situations.

BC

Without looking into it, I'd guess that only the score and yardage gained is different. In other words, it might look like Shaw was being aggressive in certain situations, but that might only be because the offensive line was dominating and the running backs were piling up yardage and scoring fourth quarter touchdowns. This is only coming from memory, but I think that even when the offense has been at its best, Shaw has always called off the dogs. Of course, there was that late touchdown from Rector to Hogan in the Rose Bowl when Hogan "forgot" that he wasn't supposed to check out of the run...

[Hank 91]

Hi Hank,

Thank you for looking into this; I was going to link your very nice article.  I think it would be helpful to know what the denominator has been.  How often have we had a fourth quarter lead of two possessions or less and turtled (versus remained aggressive)?

Since we have no turtling-induced losses, presumably all of those wound up as wins.  I'd be curious to know what happened to the scoring in those situations.

BC

Without looking into it, I'd guess that only the score and yardage gained is different. In other words, it might look like Shaw was being aggressive in certain situations, but that might only be because the offensive line was dominating and the running backs were piling up yardage and scoring fourth quarter touchdowns. This is only coming from memory, but I think that even when the offense has been at its best, Shaw has always called off the dogs. Of course, there was that late touchdown from Rector to Hogan in the Rose Bowl when Hogan "forgot" that he wasn't supposed to check out of the run...

[JPR36]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

I guess Leach is the exception that proves the rule there (yes, I realize you said "pretty much").
The Chipster when he was at Oregon might be another example.
Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

[JPR36]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

I guess Leach is the exception that proves the rule there (yes, I realize you said "pretty much").
The Chipster when he was at Oregon might be another example.
Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

[Goose]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

Yes, more points makes winning more probable. However, getting those points by "taking risks" may not. Ditto with getting first downs. In all cases, if it works, you are a hero, and if it doesn't, you are a goat (except on the internet, where you can be a goat even when it does work). I believe that your comment that pretty much every football coach is "too conservative" is telling. Football has been around for a while. The coaches that are still in the business are there because they still have jobs. Over the years, a certain body of collective experience has produced what you consider an overly conservative approach in those who coach.
It may be that fans and administrators weight errors of being "to conservative" as less bad than errors of being "too aggressive", and therefore following a sub-optimal strategy (being "too conservative") is rewarded in the marketplace. However, football being as competitive as it is makes this condition improbable. The idea that almost everybody is just being stupid is difficult to justify, IMHO. Every possible approach has been attempted, and if always going for it on fourth and one no matter what actually worked, people would be doing it.
It is also clearly true that coaches whose teams are not doing well tend to be more aggressive (less conservative) than coaches whose teams are doing well. If you expect to win anyway, you don't blow it by "taking chances". If you expect to lose unless something "abnormal" happens, you take the chance, because if you do lose, it was expected anyway, so no big deal. It also must be said that the definition of "conservative" is greatly influenced by outcome. Cristobal takes heat for being "to aggressive" when he calls a running play instead of punting. If the punt gets blocked OTOH, he is an idiot for not just running. So, what is "truly conservative" in that case? Take a knee and give the ball to Stanford?
David Shaw is probably in the conservative wing of the coaching profession (which you consider too conservative as a group). That is potentially a different problem. However, as long as he is doing "well enough" to keep recruiting adequately and to keep the "fan base" (such as it is) happy, there is little chance that will change.

[Goose]

We already hashed this out in the game thread, but my problem is that Shaw didn't "play the percentages". The percentages say that getting more first downs, or even some points, would've made ASU much less likely to win. Shaw played against the percentages and we didn't get unlucky. That's not a wise course of action.

In general the answer to "Is Shaw too conservative?" is "Yes, but...", with the "but" there because pretty much every football coach is too conservative. They're slowly learning to get better (Doug Peterson winning an Owl is changing things pretty significantly in the NFL) but damn near every one is too conservative.

Yes, more points makes winning more probable. However, getting those points by "taking risks" may not. Ditto with getting first downs. In all cases, if it works, you are a hero, and if it doesn't, you are a goat (except on the internet, where you can be a goat even when it does work). I believe that your comment that pretty much every football coach is "too conservative" is telling. Football has been around for a while. The coaches that are still in the business are there because they still have jobs. Over the years, a certain body of collective experience has produced what you consider an overly conservative approach in those who coach.
It may be that fans and administrators weight errors of being "to conservative" as less bad than errors of being "too aggressive", and therefore following a sub-optimal strategy (being "too conservative") is rewarded in the marketplace. However, football being as competitive as it is makes this condition improbable. The idea that almost everybody is just being stupid is difficult to justify, IMHO. Every possible approach has been attempted, and if always going for it on fourth and one no matter what actually worked, people would be doing it.
It is also clearly true that coaches whose teams are not doing well tend to be more aggressive (less conservative) than coaches whose teams are doing well. If you expect to win anyway, you don't blow it by "taking chances". If you expect to lose unless something "abnormal" happens, you take the chance, because if you do lose, it was expected anyway, so no big deal. It also must be said that the definition of "conservative" is greatly influenced by outcome. Cristobal takes heat for being "to aggressive" when he calls a running play instead of punting. If the punt gets blocked OTOH, he is an idiot for not just running. So, what is "truly conservative" in that case? Take a knee and give the ball to Stanford?
David Shaw is probably in the conservative wing of the coaching profession (which you consider too conservative as a group). That is potentially a different problem. However, as long as he is doing "well enough" to keep recruiting adequately and to keep the "fan base" (such as it is) happy, there is little chance that will change.

[qwerty49]

LOL the answer is “of course he is.”  This is the Mother of All Don Quixote topics IMO. I think I’ve long given up on this issue and tried to accept the results, as boring and frustrating as they may be.  I’ll reserve the right to bitch and moan in real time, because it’s not as entertaining as I would like it to be, but it’s Shaws job to get the W, so there.

You’ve worn me down, David, I surrender. And I confess that 7 games into this season I still don’t know how good (or bad) your team really is.  I thought at the start of the year 8-4 — please prove me wrong!

[qwerty49]

LOL the answer is “of course he is.”  This is the Mother of All Don Quixote topics IMO. I think I’ve long given up on this issue and tried to accept the results, as boring and frustrating as they may be.  I’ll reserve the right to bitch and moan in real time, because it’s not as entertaining as I would like it to be, but it’s Shaws job to get the W, so there.

You’ve worn me down, David, I surrender. And I confess that 7 games into this season I still don’t know how good (or bad) your team really is.  I thought at the start of the year 8-4 — please prove me wrong!

[JPR36]

LOL the answer is “of course he is.”  This is the Mother of All Don Quixote topics IMO. I think I’ve long given up on this issue and tried to accept the results, as boring and frustrating as they may be.  I’ll reserve the right to bitch and moan in real time, because it’s not as entertaining as I would like it to be, but it’s Shaws job to get the W, so there.

You’ve worn me down, David, I surrender. And I confess that 7 games into this season I still don’t know how good (or bad) your team really is.  I thought at the start of the year 8-4 — please prove me wrong!

8-4 appears quite likely to me. I don't think we are going to beat both Wazzu and Washington, and another loss besides that hardly seems out of the question. 
If you find that depressing, just think back to the olden days (like Walsh I's second season) when that record was considered highly satisfactory.

[JPR36]

LOL the answer is “of course he is.”  This is the Mother of All Don Quixote topics IMO. I think I’ve long given up on this issue and tried to accept the results, as boring and frustrating as they may be.  I’ll reserve the right to bitch and moan in real time, because it’s not as entertaining as I would like it to be, but it’s Shaws job to get the W, so there.

You’ve worn me down, David, I surrender. And I confess that 7 games into this season I still don’t know how good (or bad) your team really is.  I thought at the start of the year 8-4 — please prove me wrong!

8-4 appears quite likely to me. I don't think we are going to beat both Wazzu and Washington, and another loss besides that hardly seems out of the question. 
If you find that depressing, just think back to the olden days (like Walsh I's second season) when that record was considered highly satisfactory.

[Redrum]

I guess I'm just a pathetic, wounded soul who embodies the phrase "the enemy of the great is the good".  Or maybe I'm stuck in the Buddy years when 8-wins would be beyond all human imagination.  But 8-4 seasons don't seem like the harbinger of doom.  Getting reamed by Notre Dame or losing to USC  or Cal makes me draw on my stash of anti-depressants.  Now that the Huskies have hired a competent coach,  I might add them to the list.  Don't know what to think of WSU.  Glad to beat them, don't loath them.

[Redrum]

I guess I'm just a pathetic, wounded soul who embodies the phrase "the enemy of the great is the good".  Or maybe I'm stuck in the Buddy years when 8-wins would be beyond all human imagination.  But 8-4 seasons don't seem like the harbinger of doom.  Getting reamed by Notre Dame or losing to USC  or Cal makes me draw on my stash of anti-depressants.  Now that the Huskies have hired a competent coach,  I might add them to the list.  Don't know what to think of WSU.  Glad to beat them, don't loath them.

[troyc]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

Take a look at the Cougs' final drive at USC this season, when they started playing for a field goal instead of going for six.

Or 2015 at Oregon, when they scored a TD with seconds left in regulation but passed up the chance to go for two and the win. (instead, they went to OT and won there)

So, yes, even Mike "Swing Your Sword" Leach has his moments when he keeps it in the scabbard.

Troy C

By the way, it's probably as good a time as any to mention that I talk about "turtling" in the latest TreeCast podcast (posted yesterday afternoon), which also features interviews with Tavita Pritchard and WSU radio voice Matt Chazanow. Listen here. Even better, subscribe here.

[troyc]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

Take a look at the Cougs' final drive at USC this season, when they started playing for a field goal instead of going for six.

Or 2015 at Oregon, when they scored a TD with seconds left in regulation but passed up the chance to go for two and the win. (instead, they went to OT and won there)

So, yes, even Mike "Swing Your Sword" Leach has his moments when he keeps it in the scabbard.

Troy C

By the way, it's probably as good a time as any to mention that I talk about "turtling" in the latest TreeCast podcast (posted yesterday afternoon), which also features interviews with Tavita Pritchard and WSU radio voice Matt Chazanow. Listen here. Even better, subscribe here.

[Austroturf]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

The general consensus on this board is that Shaw did not turtle against OK State in the 2012 Fiesta Bowl (after the 2011 season), because that requires having a lead and defending it; but playing conservatively did lose the game.  Tied at 38 and driving, Shaw did not want to risk his secure FG position and, instead of putting the game on Luck's arm, decided to try Williamson's foot.  With plenty of time for some passing plays at the end-zone, Shaw kept it on the ground and ran the clock down to only a few seconds.  We all know how that turned out.  

In my view, the Michigan State loss in the 2014 Rose Bowl (after the 2013 season) was an extended case of turtling and showed Shaw at his most aggravatingly conservative.  Yes, Stanford only led 17-14 at the half; but MSU made adjustments and became significantly more aggressive in the second half, with Connor Cook passing a lot more, while Shaw stuck stubbornly to the run-game, which simply was not working.  Then, with MSU leading 24-17 and Stanford needing at least a TD to tie, Shaw kicked a FG with 4:15 left on the clock from the MSU 22.  The team had not been that close to the goal line all second half; but rather than go for it to get the tie and force OT, Shaw kicked the FG and hoped to get a chance to score a TD later in the game.  Well, our D did get the stop; and we got the ball back with 2:40 on our own 29.  But did Shaw then air it out to get down the field for the winning TD? Four straight runs of 4, 4, 1 and 0 yards ended the game.  

There are other cases, as well, some resulting in victories, others in defeat.  Answer to your question: yes, Shaw is too conservative.  Has he lost a game due to turtling?  Technically, he may still perfect in this area.

[Austroturf]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

The general consensus on this board is that Shaw did not turtle against OK State in the 2012 Fiesta Bowl (after the 2011 season), because that requires having a lead and defending it; but playing conservatively did lose the game.  Tied at 38 and driving, Shaw did not want to risk his secure FG position and, instead of putting the game on Luck's arm, decided to try Williamson's foot.  With plenty of time for some passing plays at the end-zone, Shaw kept it on the ground and ran the clock down to only a few seconds.  We all know how that turned out.  

In my view, the Michigan State loss in the 2014 Rose Bowl (after the 2013 season) was an extended case of turtling and showed Shaw at his most aggravatingly conservative.  Yes, Stanford only led 17-14 at the half; but MSU made adjustments and became significantly more aggressive in the second half, with Connor Cook passing a lot more, while Shaw stuck stubbornly to the run-game, which simply was not working.  Then, with MSU leading 24-17 and Stanford needing at least a TD to tie, Shaw kicked a FG with 4:15 left on the clock from the MSU 22.  The team had not been that close to the goal line all second half; but rather than go for it to get the tie and force OT, Shaw kicked the FG and hoped to get a chance to score a TD later in the game.  Well, our D did get the stop; and we got the ball back with 2:40 on our own 29.  But did Shaw then air it out to get down the field for the winning TD? Four straight runs of 4, 4, 1 and 0 yards ended the game.  

There are other cases, as well, some resulting in victories, others in defeat.  Answer to your question: yes, Shaw is too conservative.  Has he lost a game due to turtling?  Technically, he may still perfect in this area.

[BostonCard]

Despite the revolution taking place in basketball, despite Theo Epstein ending the two greatest curses in sports, despite AlphaGo going 60-0 against top human players, despite all evidence to the contrary, football stubbornly clings to the notion that experience always trumps analysis. Although NFL coaches have a level of expertise about the game of football that most of us will never approach, it’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they’ve collectively demonstrated an inability to master basic tactical decisions — like when you should go for 2 points when your team is down 2 points (spoiler: pretty much always).

Good discussion about the math showing that coaches generally don't go for two points frequently enough in this article on fivethirtyeight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...ry-twitter

On two point conversions, I think there are definitely situations where coaches maximize their probabilities of "staying in the game the longest" rather than maximizing their chances to win.  There are two specific examples cited, where coaches almost always pick the conservative choice, despite it not being win-optimizing:

If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively.6

If you’re down 4 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because being down 2 points instead of 3 helps you more than being down 4 points instead of 3 hurts you. This one is a bit more counterintuitive, but if you think ahead, the second point means a future field goal could win the game (and if you don’t convert, you just have to adjust to go for winning touchdowns instead of tying field goals).

BC

[BostonCard]

Despite the revolution taking place in basketball, despite Theo Epstein ending the two greatest curses in sports, despite AlphaGo going 60-0 against top human players, despite all evidence to the contrary, football stubbornly clings to the notion that experience always trumps analysis. Although NFL coaches have a level of expertise about the game of football that most of us will never approach, it’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they’ve collectively demonstrated an inability to master basic tactical decisions — like when you should go for 2 points when your team is down 2 points (spoiler: pretty much always).

Good discussion about the math showing that coaches generally don't go for two points frequently enough in this article on fivethirtyeight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...ry-twitter

On two point conversions, I think there are definitely situations where coaches maximize their probabilities of "staying in the game the longest" rather than maximizing their chances to win.  There are two specific examples cited, where coaches almost always pick the conservative choice, despite it not being win-optimizing:

If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively.6

If you’re down 4 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because being down 2 points instead of 3 helps you more than being down 4 points instead of 3 hurts you. This one is a bit more counterintuitive, but if you think ahead, the second point means a future field goal could win the game (and if you don’t convert, you just have to adjust to go for winning touchdowns instead of tying field goals).

BC

[cardcrimson]

Too conservative? I have no idea his political leanings, and don't think they matter. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Too conservative? I have no idea his political leanings, and don't think they matter. . . .

[stupac2]

The coaches that are still in the business are there because they still have jobs. Over the years, a certain body of collective experience has produced what you consider an overly conservative approach in those who coach.

Right, because it's completely impossible for a collection of people to be uncritical about examining the status quo and received wisdom and as a consequence make mistakes frequently and repeatedly. Completely impossible.

Look at the link BC posted, and that's just one of many, many instance where football coaches make decisions that are "safe" by the standards of coaching but make you less likely to win.

[stupac2]

The coaches that are still in the business are there because they still have jobs. Over the years, a certain body of collective experience has produced what you consider an overly conservative approach in those who coach.

Right, because it's completely impossible for a collection of people to be uncritical about examining the status quo and received wisdom and as a consequence make mistakes frequently and repeatedly. Completely impossible.

Look at the link BC posted, and that's just one of many, many instance where football coaches make decisions that are "safe" by the standards of coaching but make you less likely to win.

[Austroturf]

Despite the revolution taking place in basketball, despite Theo Epstein ending the two greatest curses in sports, despite AlphaGo going 60-0 against top human players, despite all evidence to the contrary, football stubbornly clings to the notion that experience always trumps analysis. Although NFL coaches have a level of expertise about the game of football that most of us will never approach, it’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they’ve collectively demonstrated an inability to master basic tactical decisions — like when you should go for 2 points when your team is down 2 points (spoiler: pretty much always).

Good discussion about the math showing that coaches generally don't go for two points frequently enough in this article on fivethirtyeight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...ry-twitter

On two point conversions, I think there are definitely situations where coaches maximize their probabilities of "staying in the game the longest" rather than maximizing their chances to win.  There are two specific examples cited, where coaches almost always pick the conservative choice, despite it not being win-optimizing:

If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively.6

If you’re down 4 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because being down 2 points instead of 3 helps you more than being down 4 points instead of 3 hurts you. This one is a bit more counterintuitive, but if you think ahead, the second point means a future field goal could win the game (and if you don’t convert, you just have to adjust to go for winning touchdowns instead of tying field goals).

BC

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

[Austroturf]

Despite the revolution taking place in basketball, despite Theo Epstein ending the two greatest curses in sports, despite AlphaGo going 60-0 against top human players, despite all evidence to the contrary, football stubbornly clings to the notion that experience always trumps analysis. Although NFL coaches have a level of expertise about the game of football that most of us will never approach, it’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they’ve collectively demonstrated an inability to master basic tactical decisions — like when you should go for 2 points when your team is down 2 points (spoiler: pretty much always).

Good discussion about the math showing that coaches generally don't go for two points frequently enough in this article on fivethirtyeight:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...ry-twitter

On two point conversions, I think there are definitely situations where coaches maximize their probabilities of "staying in the game the longest" rather than maximizing their chances to win.  There are two specific examples cited, where coaches almost always pick the conservative choice, despite it not being win-optimizing:

If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively.6

If you’re down 4 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because being down 2 points instead of 3 helps you more than being down 4 points instead of 3 hurts you. This one is a bit more counterintuitive, but if you think ahead, the second point means a future field goal could win the game (and if you don’t convert, you just have to adjust to go for winning touchdowns instead of tying field goals).

BC

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

[d4cohn]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

No, but I can come up with at least one instance where Mike Leach's over-aggressive play-calling, late in the game with a lead,
led to an epic collapse and loss: 2013 New Mexico Bowl against Colorado State, where Washington State blew a 15 point lead with less than 10 minutes to go on the clock (interesting parallel with our game against ASU in terms of score/time remaining). Washington State had two incomplete passes, stopping the clock on their first drive to finish off the game, then fumbled on their own 31, completing their ignominous collapse to a Group of 5 team. I can't even imagine the reaction if say, we had lost to SDSU last year by blowing a 15 point lead in the fourth quarter.

And if Leach's WR doesn't make an epic catch on a ball that could/should have been picked with a seven point Cougs lead with ~4:00 to go in their own territory, we might have added last week's game to the all-time list of blown games.

[d4cohn]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

No, but I can come up with at least one instance where Mike Leach's over-aggressive play-calling, late in the game with a lead,
led to an epic collapse and loss: 2013 New Mexico Bowl against Colorado State, where Washington State blew a 15 point lead with less than 10 minutes to go on the clock (interesting parallel with our game against ASU in terms of score/time remaining). Washington State had two incomplete passes, stopping the clock on their first drive to finish off the game, then fumbled on their own 31, completing their ignominous collapse to a Group of 5 team. I can't even imagine the reaction if say, we had lost to SDSU last year by blowing a 15 point lead in the fourth quarter.

And if Leach's WR doesn't make an epic catch on a ball that could/should have been picked with a seven point Cougs lead with ~4:00 to go in their own territory, we might have added last week's game to the all-time list of blown games.

[Row80Critic]

I think the agida surrounding Shawn is about more than just the blown lead scenario.  I am a Shaw fan, so not bashing, but I wish he had 10% more Walsh and 10% less Willingham.

[Row80Critic]

I think the agida surrounding Shawn is about more than just the blown lead scenario.  I am a Shaw fan, so not bashing, but I wish he had 10% more Walsh and 10% less Willingham.

[Austroturf]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

No, but I can come up with at least one instance where Mike Leach's over-aggressive play-calling, late in the game with a lead,
led to an epic collapse and loss: 2013 New Mexico Bowl against Colorado State, where Washington State blew a 15 point lead with less than 10 minutes to go on the clock (interesting parallel with our game against ASU in terms of score/time remaining). Washington State had two incomplete passes, stopping the clock on their first drive to finish off the game, then fumbled on their own 31, completing their ignominous collapse to a Group of 5 team. I can't even imagine the reaction if say, we had lost to SDSU last year by blowing a 15 point lead in the fourth quarter.

And if Leach's WR doesn't make an epic catch on a ball that could/should have been picked with a seven point Cougs lead with ~4:00 to go in their own territory, we might have added last week's game to the all-time list of blown games.

In some respects, Leach's MO also cost his team the game against Stanford in 2015 (though it took a missed WSU FG as time expired for Stanford to escape Pullman with the W).  Leading 28-27 with 3:33 to go in the 4th quarter, WSU had 1st and 10 at their own 45.  Instead of running to bleed time off the clock, the Cougs continued to pass; and the second pass of that series was intercepted by Quenton Meeks, which set up Stanford's game-winning FG.  

When asked by a journalist during the post-game presser whether clock-management had been an issue in the 4th quarter, Leach replied: "What are you, an idiot or something?  Next question".

[Austroturf]

Just curious if anyone can come up with an instance where the Pirate played it too conservatively.
He sure didn't on that last drive against the Ducks last Saturday.

No, but I can come up with at least one instance where Mike Leach's over-aggressive play-calling, late in the game with a lead,
led to an epic collapse and loss: 2013 New Mexico Bowl against Colorado State, where Washington State blew a 15 point lead with less than 10 minutes to go on the clock (interesting parallel with our game against ASU in terms of score/time remaining). Washington State had two incomplete passes, stopping the clock on their first drive to finish off the game, then fumbled on their own 31, completing their ignominous collapse to a Group of 5 team. I can't even imagine the reaction if say, we had lost to SDSU last year by blowing a 15 point lead in the fourth quarter.

And if Leach's WR doesn't make an epic catch on a ball that could/should have been picked with a seven point Cougs lead with ~4:00 to go in their own territory, we might have added last week's game to the all-time list of blown games.

In some respects, Leach's MO also cost his team the game against Stanford in 2015 (though it took a missed WSU FG as time expired for Stanford to escape Pullman with the W).  Leading 28-27 with 3:33 to go in the 4th quarter, WSU had 1st and 10 at their own 45.  Instead of running to bleed time off the clock, the Cougs continued to pass; and the second pass of that series was intercepted by Quenton Meeks, which set up Stanford's game-winning FG.  

When asked by a journalist during the post-game presser whether clock-management had been an issue in the 4th quarter, Leach replied: "What are you, an idiot or something?  Next question".