Question of the Day - 15 November 2022

[Editor's Note: This answer is written by Blair Rodman, whose book All About Sports Betting is in production.]

It all started with baseball, when Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane adopted Bill James’ analytical evidence-based approach to baseball, becoming known as "sabermetrics," as depicted in the 2011 film Moneyball. The success of the A’s has led other sports teams to investigate analytical methods that have turned the old-school thinking in sports on its head.

This approach has shown up in football over the past few years, with widely and long-accepted strategies, such as when to punt instead of going for it on 4th down, kicking the extra point as opposed to going for two, etc., being analyzed and new data-based strategies emerging. An example of this is the play you ask about.

When the Eagles scored a touchdown with about five minutes left in the game, the 6 points put them ahead by 10. Kicking the extra point would have put the Texans within a touchdown, 2-point conversion, and field goal of tying the game. By successfully going for 2, they would be up 12 and it would take two TDs to catch them. If the 2-point conversion failed, the Eagles would still have been up 10 and the Texans would have been a TD and field goal away from a tie.

I don’t know all the math, but the 2-point conversion makes sense to me, even though I had under 45.5 and lost -- and would love to scream fix!

You'll see lots of other examples of teams not punting on 4th down and going for 2 after a touchdown much more than in the old days.

Another example of new thinking is a defense letting the other team score. Say Team A is down by 1, on the opponent’s 10-yard line, and set to let the clock run down, then kick an easy field goal with time running out to win the game. The best chance for Team B is to let Team A score a touchdown on the next play, thereby conserving some time and giving them a chance to come back and win. It would be a long shot for Team B to come back and score a TD to win with little time on the clock, but it’s a better chance than having an NFL kicker miss a chip-shot FG.

An amusing example of this strategy gone awry occurred in 2020, when Falcon’s running back Todd Gurley was reminded in the huddle by QB Matt Ryan to go down short of the goal line, thereby letting them run down the clock and set up the winning FG. But it’s hard to go against what you’ve been taught your whole life if you’re a running back, so Gurley’s instinct to score propelled him toward the end zone and, too late, he remembered his mission, but couldn’t stop and his momentum carried him in for the score. While it was good for my fantasy team, it wasn’t so good for the Falcons, as the Lions came back to win when they should have had zero chance.

Any of these previously atypical, but now common, plays will inevitably be bad for some bettors and good for others, but it doesn’t mean the games are fishy or the players have pointspread and over/unders in mind.

To suspect any major-league coach or player, who likely earns a multiple-million-dollar salary, to make a decision because some friends had a bet one way or the other is absurd. If shenanigans happen, especially now with the focus on sports betting, the leagues and sports books would most likely ferret it out and severe punishment would be imposed.

If you’re a bettor and you stick to high-profile events, your chances of being cheated are slim. However, if you delve into minor events, such as low-level tennis or soccer matches, or Russian ping pong, as was bet by quite a few during COVID due to a lack of options, match fixing is much more common and has been detected. I know the perpetrators in tennis and soccer were assessed severe penalties, likely with lifetime suspensions. Not sure about the Russians. Maybe they were sent to the Ukraine front!