NOTE: see the February 2024 update to this post and my two point conversion analysis here.
On Sunday November 10, 2019, the Carolina Panthers were down 14 against the Packers early in the 4th quarter. They scored a touchdown, putting them down by 8, and they went for a two point conversion. The two point conversion did not succeed. This has been the subject of debate, with journalists both applauding and criticizing the decision.
I created a dynamic programming model to determine whether or not to go for a 2 point conversion. The dynamic programming model is based on Wayne Winston’s book Mathletics, which is a fantastic introduction to sports analytics. The state captures the team with possession, the score differential when they obtain possession, and the number of remaining possessions. When there is one remaining possession, it is the last possession. When there are three remaining possessions, the team with the possession has two scoring attempts. Each possession ends in a touchdown, a field goal, or no score. I assume half of all games end in a tie. The probabilities I used are based on average team statistics. I do not model other decisions, such as whether to go for it on fourth down, although these could further improve a team’s win probability.
The slides are below.
Bottom line: teams should go for two points when they score a touchdown and they are down 10, 8, 3, or 2 or up by 1, 2, 4, or 5 (including the points from scoring the touchdown) near the end of the game. These conclusions hold when there are at least two additional possessions in the game.
If you have the last possession: go for 2 when a touchdown on this last possession puts you down by 2.
If you just scored a touchdown but your opponent will have the last possession: go for 2 when a touchdown puts you down by 2 or up by 1, 4, or 5. You normally will want to go for 2 when a touchdown puts you up by 2 except in this situation, because missing the extra point means your opponent could win with a field goal.
Carolina went for two when down by 8 after scoring a touchdown. According to my math, Carolina made the right choice. However, the best strategy does not guarantee a win nor does it drastically improve the win probability.
We can examine the decision in more detail. When down by 8 with four possessions to go (which matches up with when Carolina went for a two point conversion), a team has one of two choices:
- They could kick an extra point, which would give them a 11.3% win probability if successful (with probability 0.96) or a 7.9% win probability if not successful. Together, this yields a 11.2% win probability.
- They could go for a two point conversion. If they succeed (with probability 0.48), they would have a 18.3% win probability. Otherwise, they would have a 7.9% probability of winning if not successful. Together, this yields a 12.9% win probability.
There are four things to keep in mind:
- Carolina improved their probability of winning by 1.7% by going for two.
- A good process does not guarantee a good outcome.
- Carolina was not likely to win using either approach.
- Carolina could have further improved their win probability by considering other decisions (who is playing, which plays are called, and whether to go for it on fourth down).
My conclusions are summarized in the chart below. For more reading: Benjamin Morris of 538 wrote an article about when to go for two here. My analysis is consistent with his, although we make different comparisons.
November 25th, 2019 at 2:20 pm
Very nice article. What book are you using to teach dynamic programming?
November 25th, 2019 at 2:24 pm
Thanks! I’ve used introductory OR textbooks like Rardin.
I also use Markov Decision Processes by Martin Puterman in my research.
December 4th, 2019 at 11:09 pm
[…] I live in the Houston, TX area now. No snow! We also pay someone to mow our lawn here instead of doing it ourselves. For my friends and family in the north: https://punkrockor.com/2015/02/09/snowblowing-is-np-complete/ Side note: Prof. Radz forgot about me on Monday because he was shoveling snow and caring for his grandkids #MeetingMondays but I anticipated that (because my family regularly checks the weather where our various family members live. WPI also sent out emails). I sent him a detailed update on the various things I do/read that might interest him. I’ll told him about https://punkrockor.com/2019/11/15/when-should-a-football-team-attempt-a-two-point-conversion-instead… […]
September 27th, 2023 at 6:51 am
Laura, I believe the scoring system in football is designed to appeal to a person’s need for instant gratification. Kick the PAT for 1 pt instead of doubling the value with a two-point conversion. When you kick you turn the ball over to the opponent having conceded the opportunity to turn 6 points into 8. The field goal is the best example of the system’s sucker ploy. Kicking a field goal is a turnover. You essentially sell the possession to the opponent for 3 points conceding 3, 4, or 5 points. If you miss the field goal, you not only wasted time, you turned the ball over and gave the opponent a short field. The NFL is loaded with mediocre teams. You can get in the playoffs by winning 9 and losing 8 games. I contend, a team that never punts, never kicks a PAT or field goal unless its to win at the end has a better chance of winning 9 or 10 games than if they played by the conventional norms. In addition, the psychological pressure they put on a defense by going for and converting 4th downs and 2 pt conversions will mount and give the advantage to the offense. What do you think? Is the field goal a sucker play?
January 13th, 2024 at 4:05 am
[…] par FiveThirtyEight recommandait d’en jouer à deux, surtout en fin de partie, mais un analyse séparée par Laura Albert, professeur à l’Université du Wisconsin-Madison, a conclu qu’il […]
January 13th, 2024 at 4:17 am
[…] analysis from FiveThirtyEight recommended going for two, especially late in the game, but a separate analysis by a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Laura Albert, concluded that it is better to […]
January 13th, 2024 at 4:36 am
[…] analysis by FiveThirtyEight recommended going for two, especially late in the game, but a separate analysis by a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor, Laura Albert, concluded it’s best to kick the […]