Should the Pats be going for 2-point Conversions?

SlowGettingUp · Sep 16, 2015

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kicking-after-a-touchdown-now-lacks-a-point-1442353209

I'll post some of it here in case this is a behind a paywall for some:

Successfully kicking an extra point has long been the least impressive accomplishment in sports. From 2010-14, NFL kickers took 5,869 extra points and missed only 42. The play had become such an afterthought that the league made it more difficult this season, making the extra point a 33-yard kick rather than a 20-yard chip shot.

The plan already is working: four of 75 extra points were missed in Week 1 after 15 of 218 were missed in the preseason. Now, not only is the extra point no longer automatic, it may not even be worth trying—ever.

The NFL’s notoriously conservative coaches have viewed the two-point attempt as a risky maneuver suitable only late in games when the score demands it. But that thinking is based on the assumption that extra points are a given. Looking at the new percentages, the smart play may be to attempt 2-point conversions after every touchdown. Since 2010, teams made 2-point conversions at a rate of roughly 48%, making them worth 95.6 points per 100 attempts. Extra points, by comparison, were worth 99.3 points per 100 attempts from 2010 to 2014.. But if NFL kickers continue kicking the new 33-yard kick at a rate of 93.5%—the combined preseason and regular season rate in 2015—the 2-point conversion suddenly becomes the more logical choice on paper.

Plus there’s room for improvement, as some teams are clearly better at the play than others. The Giants, Steelers, Rams and Bears are a combined 38-for-45 on 2-pointers since 2010, while the Packers, Jets, Browns and Chiefs collectively are 4-for-31. A simple way to boost 2-point success may be merely calling more runs, which are converted 53.6% of the time compared with 46.4% on passing plays.
....

So two things are different for the Pats that move the decision in opposite directions - Gostkowski and the new all-tight-end goal-line package. If we assume Gostkowski is going to be at say 96% (up from league average so far of 94.7%) then we would only need a better than 48% conversion rate on 2-pointers to make it worth (on average) going for the 2.

Thoughts?

ctpatsfan77 · Sep 16, 2015

"We have a good kicker. Sorry." —Bill Belichick in 2011 on the revised KO rules

ctpatsfan77 · Sep 16, 2015

To elaborate a little more fully: I expect that the Patriots will remain fairly conservative on XPs; they will go for 2PCs when strategy suggests it is logical to do so, but not otherwise.

RobertWeathers · Sep 16, 2015

I'm sure Ernie Adams is hunkered down with some dudes at MIT trying to figure this out.

PatsGuy · Sep 16, 2015

Ghost is now the highest-paid kicker in the league complements of the Pats. And now they're going to go for the two point conversion?

Galeb · Sep 16, 2015

I think that if you go for 2 a lot, you create a lot more tape of your redzone offense for future opponents to study.

1960Pats · Sep 16, 2015

I think the theory makes sense on average, but I would need to know the individual kicker's % more than the overall league %. If a kicker is less accurate from 30+ then the 2 pointer is worth it.

1960Pats · Sep 16, 2015

ctpatsfan77 said:
"We have a good kicker. Sorry." —Bill Belichick in 2011 on the revised KO rules

Does Bill know about the rule change?

BobDigital · Sep 16, 2015

Overall IMO they will score more points if they go for 2 every time but you will have days where you go 1-3 or 0-4 and that is what loses you a game were as going 5-5 might not help you win.

Personally I think with Gronk/Chandler we can likely get it over 60% of the time so we probably should. I think we are saving that for the playoffs though.

ctpatsfan77 · Sep 16, 2015

1960Pats said:
Does Bill know about the rule change?

(A) Seeing as he proposed it, probably not.

(B) Equally importantly, Gostkowski is almost unarguably a better kicker now than he was in 2011.

fxkane · Sep 16, 2015

What's lacking in those stats is that 2 point conversion average is slanted somewhat by the surprise factor. If teams start opting for it, it will suddenly become more like scoring a TD from the 2. Check out what that percentage is. Trust me it will be much lower. In any case, if defenses are more trained and ready, that success percentage will drop off.

Pats will only employ it late in the game, or under pretty horrible weather conditions.

NormZauchin · Sep 16, 2015

Wouldn't the Patriots always going for the two point conversion be a type of cheating?

QuantumMechanic · Sep 16, 2015

BobDigital said:
Overall IMO they will score more points if they go for 2 every time but you will have days where you go 1-3 or 0-4 and that is what loses you a game were as going 5-5 might not help you win.

Personally I think with Gronk/Chandler we can likely get it over 60% of the time so we probably should. I think we are saving that for the playoffs though.

Good teams playing lesser teams want to pick a low-variance strategy since that increases the odds their superiority will win out. That's the same reason why a good team wants there to be lots of possessions -- the more possessions, the more chances for their superiority to win out.

Conversely, bad teams want high-variance strategies because it increases the odds of an outlier event happening -- which is what they need to be able to win. That's why lesser teams try to slow the game down and limit the number of possessions.

It's analogous to going to a casino and playing a game where the odds are close to even (say betting evens on roulette) and trying to turn $100 into $200. If you bet the $100 on a single bet you have close to a 50/50 chance of achieving your goal. If you make 10 $10 bets you are virtually guaranteed to fail to make your goal since with repeated trials the house edge will grind you down. And 100 $1 bets would be even worse.

Or think of it in terms of bell curves (admittedly not directly applicable, but gives a visualization). Say NE averages 28 points a game and team X averages 17 points a game. If both teams play very low-variance strategies (i.e. the bell curves are very narrow around the averages) they will finish relatively close to their average performances. Obviously good for NE and bad for team X. But if X plays a high-variance strategy (average stays the same but the curve gets a lot "fatter") it increases the odds it can finish above its average (and of course increases the odds it can finish below its average) and therefore gives itself a better chance to win.

RelocatedPatFan · Sep 16, 2015

As long as Gronk isn't in for FG/EP blocking, I'm good with the 1 point (or whatever BB decides

)

Fencer · Sep 16, 2015

Galeb said:
I think that if you go for 2 a lot, you create a lot more tape of your redzone offense for future opponents to study.

My thoughts exactly.

Fencer · Sep 16, 2015

QuantumMechanic said:
If you make 10 $10 bets you are virtually guaranteed to fail to make your goal since with repeated trials the house edge will grind you down. And 100 $1 bets would be even worse.

Your basic point is outstanding, but there's some confusion.

Suppose I decide to keep gambling until I've either doubled my money or lost it. If I'm playing a game in which I'm expected to lose, then the smaller the number of trials/hand/throws/events, the better my chance of succeeding. http://www.casinocenter.com/risk-of-ruin/ spells that out somewhat. I think that's the point you were making.

But what I quoted above doesn't exactly say that. If I want to double my money, dividing it in 10 parts and betting each part once is a horrendous strategy, if I stop afterwards, for reasons much simpler and more drastic than what you said -- after all, if I lose ANY of the 10 bets, I fail.

However, I'd win some of those bets, so I wouldn't have to stop until I'd also bet my winnings, my winnings on the winnings, and so on. That's still worse than risking the money all at once -- and at this point in the discussion the reasons are indeed of the kind you gave.

IcyPatriot · Sep 16, 2015

Galeb said:
I think that if you go for 2 a lot, you create a lot more tape of your redzone offense for future opponents to study.

This .......

Froob · Sep 16, 2015

Really hate the new length....I'd rather old one and have a lot more OT and tied games late than missed XP and 2 pt conversations.

unoriginal · Sep 16, 2015

BobDigital said:
Overall IMO they will score more points if they go for 2 every time but you will have days where you go 1-3 or 0-4 and that is what loses you a game were as going 5-5 might not help you win.

Personally I think with Gronk/Chandler we can likely get it over 60% of the time so we probably should. I think we are saving that for the playoffs though.

Along with QuantumMechanic's variance take and Galeb's videotape angle, I would like to elaborate on the above.

NFL football is largely a situational game, and one of the most important situations in football is whether you score a TD or kick a FG once your offense gets inside the red zone.

Teams that win consistently usually win the turnover battle. But beyond that, there are few measures that correlate better with scoring more than your opponent than red zone efficiency. Hence, good teams that you will require every point you can get in order to beat will probably be really good at red zone defense. Better than average. So if you go for 2, unless you have a goalline-package matchup in your favor (4 TEs against smurf safeties perhaps...) you will probably score less than by kicking it.

The XP is essentially an unopposed play. The defense doesn't affect it at all. Against good teams not named the Colts, you are kicking it. Against bad teams, it probably doesn't matter.

Wax Frog · Sep 17, 2015

Froob said:
Really hate the new length....I'd rather old one and have a lot more OT and tied games late than missed XP and 2 pt conversations.

Yeah, this could get annoying real fast

[for the nitpickers - no, they aren't points, they're location markers!

]

Should the Pats be going for 2-point Conversions?

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Wall of Fame

Independent Investigator & pliable af

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Similar threads