Gostowski/PAT rule change

[Fencer]

I'm late in realizing this -- but doesn't the PAT rule change increase the value of a placekicker?

 

[IcyPatriot]

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.

 

[Fencer]

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.

 

[Gwedd]

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.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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.

Over the last three years, kickers are 92.6% when kicking from the opponents' 14, 15, or 16.

 

[Wheelman]

I think it increases the value of a good snap and hold. That's the reason Gostkowski missed a chipshot last season.

 

[RayClay]

I'm still taking a whiz, so there's that.

 

[JJC]

So, let's assume the following:

• 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 PASSING attempts
• 61.7% Success Rate for 2-point conversion RUSHING attempts

Then, statistically:

• 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)

Source: AFA, ctpatspan77 post above

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.

edit - fixed the mixup in passing/rushing percentages

 

[Interception]

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.

So it's more probable than not that we will generally go for two points?

 

[Froob]

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.

Eh, I don't think the game lacked excitement. I'd rather games weren't decided on extra points, especially in the winter.

 

[Fencer]

So, let's assume the following:

• 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

Then, statistically:

• 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)

Source: AFA, ctpatspan77 post above

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.

Second, you of course have to threaten multiple kinds of plays, or else the defense sells out to the run or pass. Of course, personnel packages complicate that discussion, as per the endless discussions around the Butler INT.

 

[JJC]

First, you made a typo somewhere, in that your post both says that running is better than passing and vice-versa.

Thanks for the pointer - edited/corrected. Note to self - never drink and post.

 

[Gwedd]

Eh, I don't think the game lacked excitement. I'd rather games weren't decided on extra points, especially in the winter.

To be honest, that's what I was alluding to. Having that extra-point being a smidge less makable certainly increases the pucker factor towards the end of the game.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think the real value or maybe just added bonus is not in the "near" automatic 1 point, but the defenses knowing what they have to do on the attempt. Basically, you are not as likely to go for 2 points from further away (though maybe BB would be).

Additionally, the 1 yard goal line stop probably factors into more injury potential (not as many people going low...maybe).