Sport Analytics says Claeys going for 2 had only 4% swing

Donate To GopherHole
E

El Amin Fan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
875
Points
113
I was not a fan of the decision, but interesting analysis here

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

I wonder what the difference is between 31-23 and 32-23?
 

GophersInIowa said:
I wonder what the difference is between 31-23 and 32-23?
Click to expand...
My guess is that the opponents' win probability would have moved from 2.5% down to around 0.5% - so ballpark it a 2% swing that way if the 2-pt. was successful.
 


What would swing have been if OSU player picks the pass and makes it 30-25.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 



Leidner's pass on the two point conversion was awfully close to being picked off and returned for a two point OSU score.
 

I'll take it everytime. I like having a coach who willing to step on an opponents throat when he has the chance. Worse case seven point game, opponents still needs a touchdown to tie and you can put the ball in their court and see if they have the balls to go for the win. Claeys believes in his defense, and as long as you have that belief than IMO there's no problem with going for two to close it out.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
What would swing have been if OSU player picks the pass and makes it 30-25.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm thinking those probabilities (which are extremely slim) are included in that analysis.

This is the reason I hated the call. We had a HIGHprobablity of winning with 7 pt lead. We had a much HIGHER probablity with 8pts, and that last very marginal point in gain was it worth the risk?

I feel like we should be better than that. Kick the extra point, kick the ball deep, and finish the game.
 



Winasota Gopher said:
I'm thinking those probabilities (which are extremely slim) are included in that analysis.

This is the reason I hated the call. We had a HIGHprobablity of winning with 7 pt lead. We had a much HIGHER probablity with 8pts, and that last very marginal point in gain was it worth the risk?

I feel like we should be better than that. Kick the extra point, kick the ball deep, and finish the game.
Click to expand...

I thought of it like this. Do I trust our offense to make 3 yards and lock up the win? Or do I trust our defense to either keep them out of the endzone and/or stop them on a two point conversion? Option 2 is far more likely with our team. That said, that decision is one of my lesser worries. The rest of the mistakes were more concerning.
 

Get Butt Beliema's "card" that dictates what you do for a conversion after each TD at every given time and at any different point differential in the game.

Now that he is out of the B1G, perhaps he'd share the "card".

Then we would NEVER have to second guess on this decision. Never argue the card....:clap:
 

The problem I had going for two, was the play call. When you sprint out, you have reduced the field my half. You end up forcing the pass, as Leidner did. I was expecting the outside zone or perhaps the tight end delay back across the field. Some kind of run/pass option. It looked like this play was pass all the way.
 

ESPN: Minnesota's Tracy Claeys has edgy approach to two-point conversion

But Minnesota came back out of the timeout and went for two, which failed when Mitch Leidner's pass fell incomplete. Twitter was abuzz with people -- myself included -- wondering what Claeys was thinking. Was the kicker hurt? Did Claeys not know the score? Was there a misprint on his two-point conversion chart?

None of the above. Claeys wanted to go up by nine points, rendering it impossible for the Beavers to tie the game on one last possession. He didn't believe that Oregon State coach Gary Andersen would go for two -- and the win -- even if Minnesota failed to execute the two-point try.

"My opinion is that 95 percent of the time, those that teams go down and score late, they’re going to kick the extra point and go to overtime," Claeys said. "And so I would rather take the chance on getting 3 yards and ending the game."

http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/pos...eys-has-edgy-approach-to-two-point-conversion

Go Gophers!!
 



The math changes my opinion of this. I was in the WTF?!?! crowd. Now I'm in the that was a well calculated risk. Way to coach crowd.
 

I'm in the "I would have kicked the PAT, but don't think he's an idiot for going for 2 and can defend the decision" crowd.
 

I like Claeys- but he has not been around Gopher football long enough to know that a '4% swing' is way more than enough to lose a game on some crazy sh*t.
 

Personally, I don't think you should have a strategy that is so welcoming of going to overtime.

If you kick and make it (97%?), the chance of losing in regulation is ~0, and the chance of even going to overtime is the joint probability of [OSU driving the field for a score with timeouts and four downs] * [OSU converting on the 2PT]. As the OP shows, that's a really low number
 

On the road, I'd go for 2. At home, I'd go for the kick.
 

badgergopher said:
Personally, I don't think you should have a strategy that is so welcoming of going to overtime.

If you kick and make it (97%?), the chance of losing in regulation is ~0, and the chance of even going to overtime is the joint probability of [OSU driving the field for a score with timeouts and four downs] * [OSU converting on the 2PT]. As the OP shows, that's a really low number
Click to expand...

It such a marginal difference it's curious that he chose to do it. Conventional wisdom would kick. He's not gaining THAT MUCH by going for it. 1:30, we have timeouts, they have timeouts. You're 3 inbound tackles w/o 1st downs from winning the game.... Just such an odd choice on a game like that in a situation like that. I'd rather him not even pay attention to the 2pt conversion and spend that timeout prepping his defense for the upcoming series. Instead he made a lot of people, likely his defense included, extremely uneasy anticipating another "here we go again" scenerio.
 

The other way to look at it is that by going for two and failing we more than doubled our chances of losing. The reason the win probability only moved slightly is that there was probably only a 10-15 percent chance (at best) of OSU scoring a touchdown with that little time left.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
I'm thinking those probabilities (which are extremely slim) are included in that analysis.

This is the reason I hated the call. We had a HIGHprobablity of winning with 7 pt lead. We had a much HIGHER probablity with 8pts, and that last very marginal point in gain was it worth the risk?

I feel like we should be better than that. Kick the extra point, kick the ball deep, and finish the game.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is how I feel too. Kick the extra point and make the opponent do two difficult things: 1) score a quick TD and 2) make a 2 point conversion.
 

DougMN said:
I like Claeys- but he has not been around Gopher football long enough to know that a '4% swing' is way more than enough to lose a game on some crazy sh*t.
Click to expand...

A most excellent point.
 

Even if the odds of winning only decreased by 4%, they still DECREASED! You're supposed to use Math to INCREASE your odds of winning.
 

DougMN said:
I like Claeys- but he has not been around Gopher football long enough to know that a '4% swing' is way more than enough to lose a game on some crazy sh*t.
Click to expand...

Man, do I know what you mean....
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Even if the odds of winning only decreased by 4%, they still DECREASED! You're supposed to use Math to INCREASE your odds of winning.
Click to expand...

What were the odds of winning if they had converted the 2 point conversion? I'll hang up & listen....
 

I thought it made the game more fun so what the hell...keep rolling the dice. What, a lose would have cost us a shot at a national championship or something? Did you see the game...Pizza Bowl or Yankee bowl bound regardless.
 

To get the two, we probably would have to pass; ditto Oregon State. But they can pass. Bad call.
 

Jack jones said:
The problem I had going for two, was the play call. When you sprint out, you have reduced the field my half. You end up forcing the pass, as Leidner did. I was expecting the outside zone or perhaps the tight end delay back across the field. Some kind of run/pass option. It looked like this play was pass all the way.
Click to expand...

Yes, really poorly designed play...is it possible somebody didn't do what they were supposed to? Only Half the field available and I only saw one double covered receiver as a possible receiver. And as the play was executed Leidner had no option to run either...not and gain any yardage anyway. Puzzling... for a math guy your options are pretty limited this play has a chance.

But choosing to put yourself in 4th and 40 in an attempt to close out the game doesn't make much sense either.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
It such a marginal difference it's curious that he chose to do it. Conventional wisdom would kick. He's not gaining THAT MUCH by going for it. 1:30, we have timeouts, they have timeouts. You're 3 inbound tackles w/o 1st downs from winning the game.... Just such an odd choice on a game like that in a situation like that. I'd rather him not even pay attention to the 2pt conversion and spend that timeout prepping his defense for the upcoming series. Instead he made a lot of people, likely his defense included, extremely uneasy anticipating another "here we go again" scenerio.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much why he did do it. Just like receiving the kickoff...mathematical benefit of the chance to get one more offensive series. Goes against conventional wisdom.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom