Steelers and the two point conversation

supafly said:

I can see your argument, but I don't see a penalty getting called there too often. Even after watching it over and over, it doesn't appear to me to be anything obvious.

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

That and the fact that there were two other defenders right there. That one had a low probability of being complete regardless.

Click to expand...

i agree with you guys--it would have been hard for the refs to see it with all of the other action going on. and it was low probability. but it was more than just incidental contact as it actually affected gronk's ability to go for the ball. here's what he said afterward:

"Was I held? I don’t know," Gronkowski said. "I felt like I was held because I couldn’t even jump. I felt like (Broncos cornerback Aqib Talib) had me. He’ll probably text me later and be like 'Yo, I was holding you, bro.' I felt like he was, but sometimes you go back and look at it and he wasn’t. It is what it is, though. I think the ball was going out of bounds on that, anyway, too, but we fought on the next drive and we did what we had to do to score."

Click to expand...

USA Today: Patriots' Rob Gronkowski thought he was held on crucial fourth down

gronk usually goes out of his way not to make excuses or complain (even in the quote above), so if he says talib's jersey tug kept him from going after the ball, i believe him.

anyway, talib got away with it, so it was a savvy veteran move by him.

Seems to me like you treat it like retirement investments: The more time you have left, the more risks you take. So early in the game, always go for two. As the game goes on and the situations become more defined, you take the sure point.

Froob said:

That deadly Steelers sideline has crunched some numbers and sounds like Ben wants to go for 2 everytime. We're guaranteed to get 2 pt conversations pushed back too if they beat the Ravens on a 2 pt conversation right?

Ben Roethlisberger wants to go for 2 every time? Why it's not nuts

On a serious note, curious to see if BB and Dr. Pink Stripes (if he's real) are crunching some numbers themselves.

Click to expand...

BB isn't going to crunch numbers because the steelers are going to do something stupid.
I have no doubt he had already analyzed this at a much much deeper level that Tomlin has.

Fencer said:

I doubt the Steelers' success rate of 8-11 would be sustainable in a larger sample size.

There's also the coaching issue that it's one more kind of play to work out. A traditional PAT is just like a FG that you're going to practice anyway, with little variation from one try to another. But just how many 4th-and-goal-to-go plays are you going to have in your arsenal?

E.g., recall the Super Bowl in which we all knew what the Pats' play call would be on a 2-point conversion, even before it was clear the try would occur? Yet in subsequent years, the Pats have finally deemphasized the direct-snap play, and I'm not sure that anything else has replaced it for reliability.

Click to expand...

Lol we all knew before it was called.

AndyJohnson said:

BB isn't going to crunch numbers because the steelers are going to do something stupid.
I have no doubt he had already analyzed this at a much much deeper level that Tomlin has.

Click to expand...

Tomlin always seems to get aggressive at the wrong times.

Froob said:

Tomlin always seems to get aggressive at the wrong times.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Fencer said:

I doubt the Steelers' success rate of 8-11 would be sustainable in a larger sample size.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, although they went 4/4 the year before in 2014, as well. That's 12/15 attempts for them over the past two seasons.

Dorito Dink said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

If there was ever a time the NFL should have come down hard on somebody...

bbobbo said:

you mean the 4th and 6 play? he's definitely grabbing gronk's jersey with his left hand. the second video shows it best.

Click to expand...

The refs missed it though, they were concentrating on seeing if Gronk was pushing off.

Dorito Dink said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

Should have been docked a 1st round draft pick and Tomlin suspended for 4 games...

at least if the league had any "integrity".

Froob said:

Tomlin always seems to get aggressive at the wrong times.

Click to expand...

He coaches emotionally

Dorito Dink said:

Once they moved back the XP, I was thinking most teams with good offenses would go for 2 every time. The league average is somewhere around 50% for success rate but obviously if you have a good offense your success rates will be higher thus making statistical sense to go for 2.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You're comparing a 0.95 probability of getting 1 point to a (say) .50 probability of getting 2 points. Sure, the expected values are about equal, but the variances are rather different, with GF2 having the higher variance.

Generally, a superior team will want to take a low variance strategy, especially when the EVs are comparable. (Because if you're better you want a tight spread of possible outcomes so that most outcomes are close to your superior mean performance. Conversely, if you're worse you want a wide spread of possible outcomes in the hopes that many outcomes will be far away from (and above) your inferior mean performance.)

QuantumMechanic said:

Not necessarily. You're comparing a 0.95 probability of getting 1 point to a (say) .50 probability of getting 2 points. Sure, the expected values are about equal, but the variances are rather different, with GF2 having the higher variance.

Generally, a superior team will want to take a low variance strategy, especially when the EVs are comparable. (Because if you're better you want a tight spread of possible outcomes so that most outcomes are close to your superior mean performance. Conversely, if you're worse you want a wide spread of possible outcomes in the hopes that many outcomes will be far away from (and above) your inferior mean performance.)

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

Said differently, given the same expected values of approximately 1.0 point per attempt (kicking would be slightly less than 1.0), a team would generally prefer the steady stream of 1's versus the more variable stream of 0's and 2's. It would require a significant premium (i.e., a conversion rate of something well above 50%) for a team to select the two point option as their default strategy.

Situations matter as well. Say your 2 point conversion rate is 90%, so your expected points per attempt is 1.8 (versus slightly less than 1.o f0r kicking). Clearly, your default would be to go for two all the time, right?

Okay. Now imagine you have just scored a TD to tie the game with no time remaining. Since you only need one point to win, you obviously go for one - the approach with the higher probability of success irrespective of the expected value. I know it's an obvious example but it does illustrate (in a very simple and practical way) QM's excellent point that variance matters.

Going for 2 every time gives teams a lot more looks at your goal line offense.

bbobbo said:

you're thinking of an earlier play on 4th and 6 at 2:25 in the 4th quarter that talib was holding on:


here's the 2-pt play:


tags: gfycat broncos gronk gronkowski talib

Click to expand...

Exactly @bbobbo. That was the play I was thinking about. Thanks for finding it and clearing that up.

Froob said:

If there was ever a time the NFL should have come down hard on somebody...

Click to expand...

Can you imagine if Belichick did what Tomlin did? My god... he'd have been suspended for the year no doubt, possibly worse...

If anyone on the Patriots did that, there would be a media maelstrom that would come down on the team, with unprecedented punishments being levied by the league office. An entire off season would be spent discussing it on BPSN, NFL Network, CNN, talk radio, etc.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Consider using a mobile QB on the go for 2 plays.

Click to expand...

So you are affirmatively advocating sitting Brady for G-man.

Yes, time to Move On

1960Pats said:

Exactly @bbobbo. That was the play I was thinking about. Thanks for finding it and clearing that up.

Click to expand...

If only the Pats had taken a FG in that spot.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Two things here:

(1) The 2PC has a success rate near 50% right now. But is that because of or in spite of its relative rarity?

(2) Even if that might be true for most teams, with Gostkowski, it's basically a wash.

Click to expand...

1.) I'd say the sample size is not relevant when it comes to 2 pts attempts. For two point attempts, that success or failure is the ONLY thing that matters so players on both sides of the ball are going all out to do everything they can do get the outcome in their favor.

With onside kicks, now that's a stat where sample size is relevant in which surprise onside kicks have a different outcome probability than expected onside kicks. As such, if a team were to onside kick everytime the current stats wouldn't do it justice b/c the prior stats would have more surprise onside kicks from a percentage standpoint.