Why Not Two Point Conversions?

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

Just some math nerd stuff after reading comments on another kicking thread today. If any of it is wrong, please let me know.

Since 2016, Ghost has made 150 of 159 extra points. That is a 94.3% success rate. We would total the same number of points, on average, if we succeeded on 47.15% of two point conversions.

Let's say our current offense earns four touchdowns a game. Were we to make 55% of two point conversions -- a high success rate but likely achievable with our offense -- we'd earn an average of 0.6 additional points per game. To earn a full point more per game when we score four touchdowns, we'd need to make 59.7% of our two point conversions. With our offense, that seems doable when you factor in the additional focus Belichick and McDaniels would be spending on the play.

What are people's thoughts on making the two point conversion our default choice after touchdowns? There are situations when the higher conversion rate of the one point approach would be preferable/strategic, but in a general sense would you be fine with Belichick trailblazing by making the two point conversion the norm for this offense?

XLIX · Sep 22, 2019

I tell ya this, after the first TD and subsequent missed XP, I predicted BB would go for 2 the rest of the day. Obviously I was wrong but it certainly is in line with the above.

borg · Sep 22, 2019

On behalf of the NE’s O line........kick the ball

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

borg said:
On behalf of the NE’s O line........kick the ball

That is a compelling reason. If we get healthy, though, I wonder.

maust · Sep 22, 2019

The numbers for the 2 point argument often seem compelling but on the field it's about more than just numbers on a screen, the more plays you run down where things get tight the greater the injury risk. A team's hardest to replace big money offensive players aren't at risk on a PAT. I never hear that simple fact brought up in the conversion/PAT discussion but if I were a HC it would be a huge factor in my decision making

dtbrks · Sep 22, 2019

What are the statistics for going for two vs one?? Seems like a lot of missed two point conversions so far this season.

And enough of these stupid ideas. Why doesn’t every team go for two every time???

Cause it doesn’t work.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
The numbers for the 2 point argument often seem compelling but on the field it's about more than just numbers on a screen, the more plays you run down where things get tight the greater the injury risk. A team's hardest to replace big money offensive players aren't at risk on a PAT. I never hear that simple fact brought up in the conversion/PAT discussion but if I were a HC it would be a huge factor in my decision making

You do risk more injury to your offense. However, with the goal often to wear the defense down going for two point conversion can also further wear down the defensive lineman.

Across the first two games, the Patriots averaged 66 plays a game on offense. If we run four additional plays against their base defense, that is roughly 6% more of a burden on their key defensive lineman.

Beyond points, I guess it comes down to whether you want to inflict your will on the opponent or are more worried about them inflicting their will on you. If a team is having injuries on the offensive line like us right now, I can see not wanting to risk depth. But if we are healthy, I can't see any reason not to punish the other team's defensive line a little more.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

dtbrks said:
What are the statistics for going for two vs one?? Seems like a lot of missed two point conversions so far this season.

And enough of these stupid ideas. Why doesn’t every team go for two every time???

Cause it doesn’t work.

Two point conversions, traditionally, are converted at 48% by a run of the mill offense. That is higher than 94% average posted by kickers on extra points since 2016 that divided in half (because of the 2:1 ratio) is 47% (NFL Coaches Are Going For Two More Than Ever. (It Took Them Long Enough.)) . Based on math, going for two is more effective than going for one.

Beyond math, there are legitimate reasons for and against two point conversions. One reason to not go is sustaining injuries to your star players, as noted by a fellow commenter. However, there is the benefit of wearing down the defense so their pass rush is less effective at the end of the game -- giving the Patriots a better chance to face a fatigued defense. In turn, Brady is less likely to get hit and injured during the home stretch when everyone is most desperate.

If anything, I wonder what role tradition -- i.e. stubbornness -- plays in why coaches don't experiment. Your argument that states the reason teams don't do something is because it doesn't work would suggest they tried it and it failed. However, no team has tried. In theory, you are essentially paralleling the "tradition" explanation for why coaches don't experiment with making two point conversions the status quo.

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
You do risk more injury to your offense. However, with the goal often to wear the defense down going for two point conversion can also further wear down the defensive lineman.

Across the first two games, the Patriots averaged 66 plays a game on offense. If we run four additional plays against their base defense, that is roughly 6% more of a burden on their key defensive lineman.

Beyond points, I guess it comes down to whether you want to inflict your will on the opponent or are more worried about them inflicting their will on you. If a team is having injuries on the offensive line like us right now, I can see not wanting to risk depth. But if we are healthy, I can't see any reason not to punish the other team's defensive line a little more.

Why on Earth would I be concerned about the burden I am placing on a team that was already obviously overburdened vs injury risk to my own vs ? Enough with the percentage of plays math how about something far more telling? Today's opponent is looking to get through a 16 game season, the Pats are looking to get through 19-20. It is a fool's errand inviting additional attrition

Deus Irae · Sep 22, 2019

Teams have been trying that this year, and losing because of it, or because of it in part. The math really only matters if you can get enough attempts at the play in one game. Since you're not going to be putting up 10 TDs a game, you're better off taking the PAT, because you're less likely to be chasing the lost point(s).

Generally speaking, going for two when you don't have to is a stupid idea.

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
Two point conversions, traditionally, are converted at 48% by a run of the mill offense. That is higher than 47.5% average posted by kickers on extra points since 2016

47.5%??? WTH are you talking about? Do you watch games? Are you seeing PATs fail better than 50% of the time? If you are you are seeing something very different than everyone on this planet.
PAT success rates are around 94% since 2015
2015- 94.2
2016-93.6
2017- 94.0
2018- 94.3

NFL Season By Season Kicking & Punting | Pro-Football-Reference.com

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
47.5%??? WTH are you talking about? Do you watch games? Are you seeing PATs fail better than 50% of the time? If you are you are seeing something very different than everyone on this planet.
PAT success rates are around 94% since 2015
2015- 94.2
2016-93.6
2017- 94.0
2018- 94.3

NFL Season By Season Kicking & Punting | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I stated that poorly. With two point conversions worth double, I was dividing the 94.2 conversion rate in half so we could compare the efficiency of two point conversions versus the usual one point.

So if you take 94.3 from 2018, you'd have to make 47.15% of two point conversions to break even with what you're already doing.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
Why on Earth would I be concerned about the burden I am placing on a team that was already obviously overburdened vs injury risk to my own vs ? Enough with the percentage of plays math how about something far more telling? Today's opponent is looking to get through a 16 game season, the Pats are looking to get through 19-20. It is a fool's errand inviting additional attrition

I'm assuming you aren't a fan of time of possession and plays run as metrics for success compared to quickly getting off the field? Are you suggesting we benefit scoring the first play of every drive and putting the onus on our defense to sustain any injuries?

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
I stated that poorly. With two point conversions worth double, I was dividing the 94.2 conversion rate in half so we could compare the efficiency of two point conversions versus the usual one point.

So if you take 94.3 from 2018, you'd have to make 47.15% of two point conversions to break even with what you're already doing.

Perhaps if you stopped playing with the math and started looking at things in light of the game itself it might help. That's the problem whenever this conversation comes up. All anyone does is comparative math. 'At 4:23 pm with wind from the southwest and the moon in the seventh house the success rate of PAT's drops .00017%.' Football isn't played by X's & O's, it's played by Jimmys and Joes and unlike the whiteboard they sustain injuries.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

Deus Irae said:
Teams have been trying that this year, and losing because of it, or because of it in part. The math really only matters if you can get enough attempts at the play in one game. Since you're not going to be putting up 10 TDs a game, you're better off taking the PAT, because you're less likely to be chasing the lost point(s).

Generally speaking, going for two when you don't have to is a stupid idea.

I see your point if you fail the first conversion. If you make the first conversion, however, you are outpacing your usual amount. In the end, if you are excellent near the goal line the two point conversion would seem like a great option. For the Patriots right now, however, it sounds like they would fail to make the two at least 47% of the time based on responses.

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
I'm assuming you aren't a fan of time of possession and plays run as metrics for success compared to quickly getting off the field? Are you suggesting we benefit scoring the first play of every drive and putting the onus on our defense to sustain any injuries?

Wow are you bad at this, I intimated nothing of the sort. It's like having a discussion with Andy Light.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
Perhaps if you stopped playing with the math and started looking at things in light of the game itself it might help. That's the problem whenever this conversation comes up. All anyone does is comparative math. 'At 4:23 pm with wind from the southwest and the moon in the seventh house the success rate of PAT's drops .00017%.' Football isn't played by X's & O's, it's played by Jimmys and Joes and unlike the whiteboard they sustain injuries.

Why do we even play our starters in the second half when ahead if injuries are such a major deal?

When I posted this thread, I was weighing injuries versus wearing down the opposing team. I can see not trying to win the game if it protects the team long-term. However, I don't typically like making moves that don't help you to win in the here and now. And the math that you are criticizing states that, in the short term, the two point conversion improves our likelihood of winning the game.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
Wow are you bad at this, I intimated nothing of the sort. It's like having a discussion with Andy Light.

You stated the reason we shouldn't go for two is that "...it is a fool's errand inviting additional attrition...". By that logic, if we score quicker on offense our star players risk less injury because they are on the field less. In turn, your approach to two point conversions does intimate that time of possession and inflicting attrition on the defense is less important than preserving our guys in the grand scheme of things.

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
Why do we even play our starters in the second half when ahead if injuries are such a major deal?

When I posted this thread, I was weighing injuries versus wearing down the opposing team. I can see not trying to win the game if it protects the team long-term. However, I don't typically like making moves that don't help you to win in the here and now. And the math that you are criticizing states that, in the short term, the two point conversion improves our likelihood of winning the game.

Your math, which was fuzzy at best was represented by "Let's say our current offense earns four touchdowns a game. Were we to make 55% of two point conversions -- a high success rate but likely achievable with our offense -- we'd earn an average of 0.6 additional points per game."
My point is quite simple, why would I want to incur 6% more risk to my hardest to replace players for an increase of .6 points per game?

Angelpats · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
Two point conversions, traditionally, are converted at 48% by a run of the mill offense. That is higher than 94% average posted by kickers on extra points since 2016 that divided in half (because of the 2:1 ratio) is 47% (NFL Coaches Are Going For Two More Than Ever. (It Took Them Long Enough.)) . Based on math, going for two is more effective than going for one.

Beyond math, there are legitimate reasons for and against two point conversions. One reason to not go is sustaining injuries to your star players, as noted by a fellow commenter. However, there is the benefit of wearing down the defense so their pass rush is less effective at the end of the game -- giving the Patriots a better chance to face a fatigued defense. In turn, Brady is less likely to get hit and injured during the home stretch when everyone is most desperate.

If anything, I wonder what role tradition -- i.e. stubbornness -- plays in why coaches don't experiment. Your argument that states the reason teams don't do something is because it doesn't work would suggest they tried it and it failed. However, no team has tried. In theory, you are essentially paralleling the "tradition" explanation for why coaches don't experiment with making two point conversions the status quo.

I like your reasoning, it’s math based. It’s unbiased, but it’s the human element that has to be assessed.

Why Not Two Point Conversions?

Would you agree with the Patriots making two point conversions the default choice after touchdowns?

Yes

No

Why aren't you posting about Antonio Brown?

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Just Another Guy

In the Starting Line-Up

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Just Another Guy

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Just Another Guy

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Just Another Guy

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Just Another Guy

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Just Another Guy

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Similar threads