Always Going for 2

by dmstorm22 on Nov 17, 2009 2:43 PM EST

All over the blogosphere, people rightly mathematically defended Belichick for going for it. Fine, the Math works.

Well, the Math also says that historically teams convert two-point conversions over 50% of the time, which makes that over the long run, teams would score more going for 2 every time than kicking an extra point. Say you miss one, but make the next two, there is a net gain of 1 point. Maybe there is a game where you don't get many, and lose, but there also may be a game where you hit all of them and make a close dogfight a relatively easier game.

So, the Math works, should teams always go for 2?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The math doesn't work

The rate is almost certainly worse than 50% when playing against a good team. And even if it is 50% or better when playing against a bad team, if they’re bad then why do you need the help?

Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.

by szquirrel on Nov 17, 2009 3:38 PM EST reply actions

What the statistic doesn't show is

teams sometimes have special short-yardage plays designed for those situations, that are very succesful and therefore increase the percentage of making the 2 point conversion. If it is done routinely, the plays used would also be normal and maybe easier to defend. I think most of the coaches are very conservative, and they only use 2 point conversions when needed. Even if they had a couple of tricky plays to use, I’d bet they’d rather use them for another “touchdown” short yardage situation. Moreover, fans and media are very conservative, and this would drive them crazy. So, I just don’t see this happening, except for Madden online play.

GO COLTS!

by fpacheco on Nov 17, 2009 3:41 PM EST reply actions

Fpacheco nails it

Note that this reasoning (that changing styles will in turn change the stats) doesn’t apply as much to the Pats going for it on 4th down…they consistently go for it, and teams know they consistently go for it, so the stats should (at least somewhat) reflect these adjustments.

by dsvirsky on Nov 17, 2009 4:19 PM EST reply actions

that said

Maybe if you have a ridiculously huge offensive line and an unstoppable power back, going for two makes more sense?

by dsvirsky on Nov 17, 2009 4:20 PM EST reply actions

I'm not trying to use what Belichick did to defend going for 2

but, I’m saying that if using Math as a basis for going for it more often, than math states that if a team converts 50% of its 2-point conversions, it is essentailly the same thing in the long run of kicking the extra point every time.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 17, 2009 4:24 PM EST reply actions

if the chance of converting the 2 point is ~50%

then its actually closer to neutral EV (expected value). I know you’re probably going to say, ’well the chances of making the extra point are 99%, so 1×.99 = .99 and 2×.5 = 1, but I think the PAT conversion is probably a little higher than 99%.

And the 2 point conversion success rate shouldn’t be looked at from a leaguewide standpoint. Clearly, for example, the EV of the Eagles in 2ptc tries is a negative value. Whereas the Steelers in the early 2000s when Bettis was unstoppable over short distances, it was probably a positive EV for them.

Never doubt Peyton Manning, he’ll make you look silly

Im a douchebag, an asshole, and I'm rarely right.

by SpazMo on Nov 17, 2009 7:50 PM EST reply actions

This is the NFL

There should be no more free gimme points crap.

I have said this for many years, and I still feel the same way now. The NFL should do away with the extra point attempt and require it to be a 2pt conversion on every TD. That would force the game into a whole new level of competition…as well as doing away with essentially free points.

by DevilsReject on Nov 18, 2009 8:26 AM EST reply actions