This week, things have been so exciting in the NFL that talk has turned to two-point conversions. Ben Roethlisberger, who played for the one team that noticeably adjusted their strategy by going for two early in games, advocated going for it on all PATs. (Last year, the Steelers frequently went after the first touchdown of the game, and converted 8 of 11 overall).
Mike McCarthy of the Green Bay Packers also came out and said the team was practicing going for two more often. Today, Bucky Brooks even added this gem.
Pardon my skepticism, but I’ll assume that watching Steph Curry is not going to lead coaches to suddenly become more aggressive. This talk, until I see evidence otherwise, ranks up there with talk of “being more physical” and “we are going to get [insert name of two running backs] on the field at the same time.”
Last year, the rules were changed that should have incentivized coaches to become more aggressive when it came to going for two, when the PAT kick attempt was moved back and no longer automatic. The net impact? Teams went for the PAT kick after 95% of all touchdowns in 2014, with most two-point attempts coming in late game situations. In 2015, under the new rules, it was 93%, with only slight changes in strategy.
Basically, coaches were told that their favorite cereal would cost double, while the similar-tasting alternative would stay the same, and they continued to pay a surplus. Tradition is hard to break.
While the rule change made it no longer a clear decision, it was a clear decision for most of the decision makers.
The math–which is to say the actual results from past games where those same coaches are making decisions–held up to what was predicted. PAT kicking success rates largely mirrored what kickers had done on field goals from that distance (imagine that) and made 94% of all kicks. In comparison, kickers converted a near-automatic 99.3% the previous year from the shorter distance.
Two-point attempts, meanwhile, were a 50/50 proposition. You might hear numbers cited that two-point attempts are successful 47 or 48% of time. This is because of bad accounting. Attempts where there are a bad snap, or where the scoring play doesn’t matter and the team kneels on it (such as an end of game touchdown like the Packers beating the Lions on a hail mary) are still included.
In true two-point attempt situations, teams converted 44 of 87 (50.6%) in 2015. (all data via pro-football-reference). In 2014, it was 29 of 58 (50%). So basically, it is a coin flip. And when two points is a coin flip, and one point is no longer automatically one point, it is a slight advantage to going.
Coaches like to cite the gut, and taking into account other factors. You should absolutely take into account other factors, such as your offensive situation, the opponent defense in short yardage, the game situation, and yes, the quality of your kicker on mid-range kicks, as well as kicking weather conditions.
The problem is the gut needs to be adjusted. I can’t tell you which are wrong, but when coaches are opting for one alternative 93% of the time, when it should be a close decision or slightly in favor of the other alternative, many of them are using tradition instead of gut.
I’ll believe that strong hold of inertia is broken when I actually see it, and not with talk in June.
from The Big Lead http://ift.tt/23eU2dX
No comments:
Post a Comment