Thread: Extra Point/2-Point Conversion Tracking

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Just realized I never gave the final update form week 2. Here are the totals as they stand now:

2-Point Conversions: 8/15, 53.3%, 1.06 pts per attempt
Extra Points: 146/155, 94.1%, .94 points per attempt

So through 2 complete weeks, the two pointer is a better decision by .12 points per attempt.

Totals for week 3

Extra Points: 80/84, 95.2%
2-Point Conversions: 4/10, 40%

Season Totals:

Extra points: 226/239, 94.5%, .945 points per attempt
2-point conversions: 12/25, 48%, .96 points per attempt

So with this not being a very good week for two pointers, the gap has shrunk a little. Having said that, the two pointer is still slightly the better play through three weeks.

I look forward to seeing how the two pointer impacts strategy in the postseason.

So much for the Steelers sticking with going for two.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

So much for the Steelers sticking with going for two.

They ain't bout dat life

Here are the week 4 stats, less tonight's game, which I will add at its conclusion.

XP: 57/61 (93.4%), .93 points per attempt
2PT: 3/4 (75%), 1.5 points per attempt

Another pretty good week for the two point conversion.

BTW, the one that missed was Atlanta, and they went for it after scoring their last TD of the game that got them to 48 points. It's pretty hilarious that they went for 2 just to get the 50-burger. Too bad they missed it.

I want Marvin Lewis to do it more.

Originally Posted by King87

I want Marvin Lewis to do it more.

Any team with a good offense like Cincy that could reasonably expect to make it half the time should only ever go for 2. Obviously excluding certain endgame situations like being down 6 and scoring a TD, or scoring a TD to go up 8 and an XP making it a 2 score game.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Any team with a good offense like Cincy that could reasonably expect to make it half the time should only ever go for 2. Obviously excluding certain endgame situations like being down 6 and scoring a TD, or scoring a TD to go up 8 and an XP making it a 2 score game.

Only BETTER than 50/50 is worthwhile. The problem's not the expected value, but the variance: Coaches won't reject a sure thing for double or nothing unless forced. Thus the NFL's TRIED forcing them by moving back PATs so they're not a sure thing, but 13 yds doesn't make enough of a difference; it only lowers the chance of success (and thus expected value) a few hundredths. Think about it this way:

How much is going for 4th and G at the 1 STILL debated? Proportionally, it's pretty much the same play: A nigh automatic kick vs. a 50/50 play for twice the points. If we say a PAT (2 or otherwise) is another expected point, going for it can score MORE than twice as much. Especially since going for it and FAILING is STILL worth 2 expected points, because it leaves the opponents pinned at their goal line: Making the FG nets all of ONE more point, at the cost of a chance for FIVE more. Yet the pros and cons are still debated, if less than a decade or two ago, and: How often do teams go for it from the TWO yard line?

Maybe we should put it to coaches in those terms: Would you prefer a FG try from the 15 or going for it on 4th and G at the 2? That IS pretty much the same choice (except for resulting field position.)

Joel, with Cincy's personnel, do you think they should try it out (going consistently for two)?

Originally Posted by King87

Joel, with Cincy's personnel, do you think they should try it out (going consistently for two)?

Not with a 50% variance, no. I mean, from my couch, I've ALWAYS wanted to go for 2, because, long term, it's at worst a break even proposition for even average offenses. But I don't have to walk out to a press conference each week and explain why a division rival or playoff opponent beat us by a single point. Push the PAT back to the 25 or 30 and I might feel differently, but from the 15 we're talking a missed PAT every 20 TDs. That's just not often enough to justify going for the 2 PAT in hope of making it 11+ times in 20. 0.96 EV is better than 0.95, but 0.05 variance is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE better than 0.5.

Anyway, a missed PAT once clinched the division for Denver, and beat Cincy to almost get us to the playoffs another time, so why would I mess with that? Not our fault the '86 'Skins didn't have the skill nor focus to make a measly 19 yd kick (though they did have enough to reach that seasons NFCCG, and beat us 42-10 in a SB a year later.)

I'm a little behind right now, but here are last Monday night's stats added in and the 4 week totals as well:

Week 4:

XP: 59/63 (93.6%), .937 points per attempt
2PT: 3/4 (75%), 1.5 points per attempt


XP: 285/302, 94.3%, .943 points per attempt
2PT: 15/29, 51.7%, 1.03 points per attempt

So after this week, the odds have swung further in favor of the two point conversion, with it being almost .1 points per attempt better. Despite that, this week featured the fewest two point conversions attempted. The amount of attempts had gone up every week with 6 in week 1, 8 in week 2, and 10 in week 3. But this week it dropped to 4. Now there were some byes so fewer games were played, but that is still quite a drop. It's disappointing that teams (especially ones with great offenses and/or shaky kickers) have not worked up the courage to start going for two more often.

I'd go for two every time. I ONLY have to be 50% to come out the same (barring game deciding situations where 1 point is a must). If i'm 51% or higher on conversions, than I'm ahead. Kick that first xp, and from that point forward, going for 2. However, with Manning and our offense, we kick it as we have a much better chance of converting the kick than the 2pc.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'd go for two every time. I ONLY have to be 50% to come out the same (barring game deciding situations where 1 point is a must). If i'm 51% or higher on conversions, than I'm ahead. Kick that first xp, and from that point forward, going for 2. However, with Manning and our offense, we kick it as we have a much better chance of converting the kick than the 2pc.

The Steelers appeared to actually be adopting this strategy until Big Ben got hurt. Will be interesting to see if they go back to it when he comes back. They are the PERFECT team to do it. They have a horrible kicking situation and a great offense. With Vick I can get them kicking, but with Big Ben it's a no brainer to go for it.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

The Steelers appeared to actually be adopting this strategy until Big Ben got hurt. Will be interesting to see if they go back to it when he comes back. They are the PERFECT team to do it. They have a horrible kicking situation and a great offense. With Vick I can get them kicking, but with Big Ben it's a no brainer to go for it.

Well.. Vick is pretty mobile, so that does add even more for a defense to account for when trying to protect thost 2 yards. If Vick can somehow just get close to his pass attempts.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'd go for two every time. I ONLY have to be 50% to come out the same (barring game deciding situations where 1 point is a must). If i'm 51% or higher on conversions, than I'm ahead. Kick that first xp, and from that point forward, going for 2. However, with Manning and our offense, we kick it as we have a much better chance of converting the kick than the 2pc.

So we should play even MARGINAL odds when they suit us, but when they don't they're "just numbers" and history can't repeat itself? Sounds like a good ol' case of curve-fitting.

Mind, the stated strategy isn't a bad one, it's just... that 50% variance is imposing when the kick's almost automatic. The only time I want to risk a high variance is when I know the opponent's so much better I need a lot of luck to win; any time I think WE'RE better, I want luck as far away as possible from our superior talent and skill.