birdog1960 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) My main argument is that I don't agree with the idea that coaches are "afraid" to attempt more two-point conversions as some have put forth. There simply has to be more compelling evidence of its positive impact for them to invest in it; more than "more points good, less points bad". There are real commitments to preparation and practice, etc. They may seem insignificant and perhaps they are, but you know coaches. The master of playing the percentages is Belichick and when I see him adopt it as his norm, I'll be fully on board. I agree that making the PAT kick more challenging and seeing the corresponding drop in success rate may be a catalyst for more attempts and that body of data will grow to a point of real value. GO BILLS!!! shouldn't this observation result in nearly all coaches playing the percentages? what explains the fact that so many don't? an interesting analysis of the 2 point question: (the same site has an article on a 3rd generation program that calculates when to attempt 2 points versus PAT) http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html bear in mind, this was before the percentages for PAT's dropped from the rule change. Edited June 17, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) shouldn't this observation result in nearly all coaches playing the percentages? what explains the fact that so many don't? an interesting analysis of the 2 point question: (the same site has an article on a 3rd generation program that calculates when to attempt 2 points versus PAT) http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html bear in mind, this was before the percentages for PAT's dropped from the rule change. You'd have to ask other coaches. And all coaches do play the percentages; it's what they do. I think Belichick is the best at it currently. But that doesn't mean I think he is a master of applied analytics. He's a master at matchups and how to exploit them, in what game situations, and in what areas of the field. That has more to do with knowing your opponents than it does a set of data points. GO BILLS!!! Edited June 17, 2016 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It really doesn't. The range of success is 0-100%. Only 13 teams were above 50%. The data is so lacking, it's impossible to draw any conclusions from it. The range of success for kicking a PAT is 91-100% for all but the worst 5 kicking teams. The league was at 47.9% last year on 2's and 94.2% on 1. I've been advocating that the sample size is too small but that doesn't change the fact that currently the data supports it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 The league was at 47.9% last year on 2's and 94.2% on 1. I've been advocating that the sample size is too small but that doesn't change the fact that currently the data supports it. The league average is meaningless, as I pointed out. The range is 100%, and only a few are over 50%. The data does not support it unless you are a team that is over 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 The league average is meaningless, as I pointed out. The range is 100%, and only a few are over 50%. The data does not support it unless you are a team that is over 50%. You can't weigh teams with 1 attempt the same as you would a team with 11 attempts. You have to take the total data for the league. You also can't use 50% as the tipping point when the Bills, for example, converted 85% of their extra points. They would need to be at 42.5% to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) You can't weigh teams with 1 attempt the same as you would a team with 11 attempts. You have to take the total data for the league. You also can't use 50% as the tipping point when the Bills, for example, converted 85% of their extra points. They would need to be at 42.5% to break even. Exactly. So extrapolating a league-wide average to such teams makes no sense. This is the opposite situation for PAT kicks. Some teams are going to be bad at 2 point conversions, some will be much better than others. Yet all teams (even the Bills at 85%--an abnormally low year) are pretty much a lock to get the one point. By your logic, the Bills, a 40% (not 42.5%) 2 point conversion team last year, would have to have dipped to an unheard of sub 80% PAT rate to break even. A PAT kick is essentially undefended, whereas the 2 point conversion is a 4th and goal situation. The league averages right now don't support going for 2 every time. This would only be true when enough 2 point conversions are attempted by all teams to establish a curve. Edited June 17, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I think the Bills could be one of the better teams at this strategy. Tyrod is extremely mobile, it'll be an 11-on-11 game in a shortened area. Greg Roman runs multiple concepts so it's hard for teams to predict. You only need to operate at 50% success rate for the year for it to be viable, anything above that is a net point gain. totally agree with this post... we should be very good at 2 pointers... Rex is Mr. gambler on Defense, why not in this as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts