Fencer
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 14,293
- Reaction score
- 3,986
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I heard the 15 yard placement only hurts the chances of success by 1.4%. But it's better than before IMO ... maybe they make it the 20 next time.I'm late in realizing this -- but doesn't the PAT rule change increase the value of a placekicker?
I heard the 15 yard placement only hurts the chances of success by 1.4%. But it's better than before IMO ... maybe they make it the 20 next time.
I thought I was seeing success rates from the new distance cited as generally being 90-95%, in which case your figure would be low.
You would more likely than not end up with 17 more points, which is 33% better, then by simply kicking from the new distance each time.
Eh, I don't think the game lacked excitement. I'd rather games weren't decided on extra points, especially in the winter.Regardless, I have no problem with this rule change. IIRC, Coach Belichick was the one who suggested it in the first place. It makes the game more interesting, that's for sure, and the PAT attempt less certain.
All of this, to my mind, is a good thing.
So, let's assume the following:
Then, statistically:
- 55 TD's per season
- 99.5% Success Rate with the old kicking distance for PAT
- 92.6% Success Rate with new kicking distance for PAT
- 47.9% Success Rate for 2-point conversion attempts (excluding failed kicks)
- 43.4% Success Rate for 2-point conversion RUNNING attempts
- 61.7% Success Rate for 2-point conversion PASSING attempts
Source: AFA, ctpatspan77 post above
- 68 pts per season by always going for 2pts (running)
- 55 pts per season by always kicking (old distance)
- 53 pts per season by always going for 2pts (mixed)
- 51 pts per season by always kicking (new distance)
- 48 pts per season by always going for opts (passing)
Seems there would be a distinct bias in favor of running the ball for 2pts every time. You would more likely than not end up with 17 more points, which is 33% better, then by simply kicking from the new distance each time. Caveat: Game situation and conditions could dictate choosing otherwise.
First, you made a typo somewhere, in that your post both says that running is better than passing and vice-versa.
Eh, I don't think the game lacked excitement. I'd rather games weren't decided on extra points, especially in the winter.