One or two?

[sschind]

Not when you lose by one

Its still better, its just not enough.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Its still better, its just not enough.

Two points would result in a tie though which is way better than losing by one.

 

[Mondio]

is missing on 2 points and losing by 1 better too?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

is missing on 2 points and losing by 1 better too?

There are situations when going for two will result in a team winning because of it and other times not converting will result in a loss. I'd rather have the Packers playing more aggressively.

 

[Mondio]

so if they maintain an ungodly average of like 2 for 11 or whatever it was, should they stay aggressive? and get 6 repeatedly rather than 7?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

so if they maintain an ungodly average of like 2 for 11 or whatever it was, should they stay aggressive? and get 6 repeatedly rather than 7?

The best offense in football should be able to improve on two-point conversions. As I've mentioned before they scored a TD on 15 of 25 plays (60%) from the 2-yard line on regular downs over the same period.

Maybe Clements will start calling running plays going for two.

 

[Mondio]

you would think so, but then the best offense in the league failed miserably at going for 2, so what "should be" and what "was" were 2 entirely different things. Why? I don't know, i guess it's why we play the game

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not when you lose by one

But it is when you win by 1.

 

[Ogsponge]

But it is when you win by 1.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round

 

[HardRightEdge]

And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round

They surely do...and in the end people fall back on what they know.

 

[Ogsponge]

They surely do...and in the end people fall back on what they know.

Agreed, all I am saying is that will be interesting to see how coaching decisions shake out with this new rule this year.

 

[adambr2]

I don't know if you can necessarily correlate the success of an offense to how well they are going to convert 2 point conversions. Even looking at success rates for runs inside the 2, a regular offensive play from the 2 is really only comparable to a 2 point conversion if it's 4th down. It's a bit different mentality if they have multiple downs to get in versus one play.

Here's some charts on the success rate of the 2: http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2014/

There's not a strong correlation between a good offense and high success rate. The Bears and Steelers had a perfect success rate, as did the Vikings and Bills. Look back in previous years and the trend is pretty much the same. That said, you could argue that the sample size is small and you might see a bigger correlation if the 2 point conversion became a regular part of the game.

Since the 2 point conversion came to the NFL, the success rate is only 44.79%, or just under .9 expected points, where an extra point is still somewhere in the .95 to .97 range.

Even if you assume the success rate should be a bit better now in the modern offensive happy NFL, I still don't see the evidence that a 2 offers better odds or that it is at worst anything more than a wash.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even looking at success rates for runs inside the 2, a regular offensive play from the 2 is really only comparable to a 2 point conversion if it's 4th down. It's a bit different mentality if they have multiple downs to get in versus one play.

The Packers haven't tried a single fourth down from the 2-yard line since Rodgers became the starter, so it's impossible to evaluate it that way.

Since the 2 point conversion came to the NFL, the success rate is only 44.79%, or just under .9 expected points, where an extra point is still somewhere in the .95 to .97 range.

Even if you assume the success rate should be a bit better now in the modern offensive happy NFL, I still don't see the evidence that a 2 offers better odds or that it is at worst anything more than a wash.

Pro Football Reference provides game play stats starting with the 1998 season and while the difference is marginal the two point conversion has had a higher expected points value ever since.

Over the last 17 seasons teams have converted 46.9% of the two point conversion (0.938 EP) while kickers made 89.8% of the field goals with the play starting from the 15.

There's no statistical evidence suggesting it's better to continue to kick the extra point with the new rules.

 

[adambr2]

Pro Football Reference provides game play stats starting with the 1998 season and while the difference is marginal the two point conversion has had a higher expected points value ever since.

Over the last 17 seasons teams have converted 46.9% of the two point conversion (0.938 EP) while kickers made 89.8% of the field goals with the play starting from the 15.

There's no statistical evidence suggesting it's better to continue to kick the extra point with the new rules.

That's really not true, there is statistical evidence both ways, it's just a matter of how one chooses to interpret the evidence and what size sample size you choose to look at. With the sample size I gave, extra points come out ahead. With the one you gave, the 2 comes out ahead.

If you look at last season, the new extra point comes out ahead (.967 expected vs. .966) based on .967 on 32-33 yard FGs and 48.3% on the 2).

If you look at the last 3 seasons, the 2 point comes out ahead .972 vs .944.

However, this FG data takes all FGs into account regardless of placement. Your data from PFF on FGs since 1998 I assume also does not take ball placement on the field into account. With the new extra point, it's reasonable to believe that the percentage will be higher as kickers will be able to kick from the center and not forced to kick from the hashes. PFF has FGs from the center from a 30-35 range made at a .976 percentage the last 2 years, which would beat pretty much any multi-year sample for the 2 on expected points. http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...nfls-new-pat-rule-unlikely-to-make-big-impact

There is a lot of data on this that can be interpreted to show that either decision is advantageous depending on how you want to look at it. There simply isn't enough definite evidence yet to make a definite conclusion about which is the better percentage play going forward, and probably won't be until we get several years of the new rule.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's really not true, there is statistical evidence both ways, it's just a matter of how one chooses to interpret the evidence and what size sample size you choose to look at. With the sample size I gave, extra points come out ahead. With the one you gave, the 2 comes out ahead.

If you look at last season, the new extra point comes out ahead (.967 expected vs. .966) based on .967 on 32-33 yard FGs and 48.3% on the 2).

If you look at the last 3 seasons, the 2 point comes out ahead .972 vs .944.

However, this FG data takes all FGs into account regardless of placement. With the new extra point, it's reasonable to believe that the percentage will be higher as kickers will be able to kick from the center and not forced to kick from the hashes. PFF has FGs from the center from a 30-35 range made at a .976 percentage the last 2 years, which would beat pretty much any multi-year sample for the 2 on expected points. http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...nfls-new-pat-rule-unlikely-to-make-big-impact

There is a lot of data on this that can be interpreted to show that either decision is advantageous depending on how you want to look at it. There simply isn't enough definite evidence yet to make a definite conclusion about which is the better percentage play going forward, and probably won't be until we get several years of the new rule.

I don´t think a single season offers enough data to be considered a meaningful sample size nor does it make sense to compare the success rate of two-point conversions over 21 seasons to the field goal percentage of a single season.

Teams have converted on 49.1% of the two-point conversions over the last three season (taking succesful and unsuccesful aborted extra-point kicks out of the equation), resulting in an EP of .982, slightly higher than for kicks from the center of the field in the 30-35 yards range.

You´re right though that I was wrong that there´s no statistical evidence suggesting kicking the extra point is the better option as small sample sizes over the last two season suggest differently (47.6% success rate going for two since the start of the 2013 season). Long-term data mostly recommends trying the two-point conversion though.

 

[adambr2]

I don´t think a single season offers enough data to be considered a meaningful sample size nor does it make sense to compare the success rate of two-point conversions over 21 seasons to the field goal percentage of a single season.

Teams have converted on 49.1% of the two-point conversions over the last three season (taking succesful and unsuccesful aborted extra-point kicks out of the equation), resulting in an EP of .982, slightly higher than for kicks from the center of the field in the 30-35 yards range.

You´re right though that I was wrong that there´s no statistical evidence suggesting kicking the extra point is the better option as small sample sizes over the last two season suggest differently (47.6% success rate going for two since the start of the 2013 season). Long-term data mostly recommends trying the two-point conversion though.

Taking the aborted 2 point tries out of the equation is indeed important as that just throws off the true data if they're included, just as I believed the same about considering all 32-33 yard FGs instead of just straight ones.

I do see where you're coming from, I guess my main point is that even when just considering all statistical evidence and assuming that no momentum shift takes place after a early miss, the remaining margin either way is just so minimal and could swing either way depending on a few different factors, that I can't really argue with it one way or another.

McCarthy's interpretation of the statistics based on the homework I assume he's done is that the XP is still the better play. Personally, I find it really tough to conclude either way based on the sample sizes that we have. I expect that most coaches (for now) will err on the side of familiarity and stick with the extra point until they have stronger evidence that it's the weaker play.

 

[TJV]

This horse may not be dead, but I think it’s unconscious. No matter what HCs think about which option is most advantageous, one thing (perhaps) we can all agree with: They should emphasize defending the TPC (two-point conversion) more than they have in the past.

 

[adambr2]

This horse may not be dead, but I think it’s unconscious. No matter what HCs think about which option is most advantageous, one thing (perhaps) we can all agree with: They should emphasize defending the TPC (two-point conversion) more than they have in the past.

To beat the unconscious horse a little more, I'm not a huge fan of the new rule. It doesn't change the 2, it just changes the PAT odds from a 99% rate to a 96-97% rate and makes it a very murky statistical choice.

The short and simple solution would have just been to make all PATs from the one yard line. The PAT would still be near automatic, but the expected points for a 2 pt attempt (at least 1.1 vs. .99) would be so clear that I think you might have seen significant changes where the 2 pt attempt might have become the norm except in clear 1 point advantage situations (example: a team leads by 2 and scores a TD late in a game).

It also would have avoided having 2 different lines of scrimmage for the attempt which I find to be pretty awkward.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To beat the unconscious horse a little more, I'm not a huge fan of the new rule. It doesn't change the 2, it just changes the PAT odds from a 99% rate to a 96-97% rate and makes it a very murky statistical choice.

The short and simple solution would have just been to make all PATs from the one yard line. The PAT would still be near automatic, but the expected points for a 2 pt attempt (at least 1.1 vs. .99) would be so clear that I think you might have seen significant changes where the 2 pt attempt might have become the norm except in clear 1 point advantage situations (example: a team leads by 2 and scores a TD late in a game).

It also would have avoided having 2 different lines of scrimmage for the attempt which I find to be pretty awkward.

I would have liked the NFL to move all PATs to the 1-yard line. Surprisingly teams have scored a TD on only 46.3% on fourth down from the 1-yard line over the last five seasons.

 

[Mondio]

I do agree with that, if they want to see more 2pt tries, then line it up closer. Move that carrot in just a bit and see who reaches for it. Not a fan of moving the kick back, I don't think it does anything. I do like that they made it a live ball play though. I think it always should have been.

 

[TJV]

The short and simple solution would have just been to make all PATs from the one yard line.

As a poster I agree with a lot posted in post #41:

If the NFL wants to encourage more 2 point conversions there are easy ways to accomplish that. Move the 2 point conversion to the 1 yard line. Or leave it where it is and just eliminate PAT kicks.

 

[adambr2]

I would have liked the NFL to move all PATs to the 1-yard line. Surprisingly teams have scored a TD on only 46.3% on fourth down from the 1-yard line over the last five seasons.

Surprising, do you have the pass/run splits on that?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

so if they maintain an ungodly average of like 2 for 11 or whatever it was, should they stay aggressive? and get 6 repeatedly rather than 7?

No, they should get better at converting.

 

[Mondio]

No, they should get better at converting.

of course they should, but we don't live in a should be world. That was in response to the assertion that our offense, being one of the best in the league, should stay aggressive. Well one of the highest scoring offenses in the league was horrible at converting on 2 pt. tries. Just pointing out that what "should be" isn't always what "is".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Surprising, do you have the pass/run splits on that?

Teams ran the ball on 61.2% of those plays. The success rate was slightly higher throwing the ball (46.8%) than rushing it (45.9%).