Dynasty League Football Forum

bjd5211 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:16 pm Say it's 2nd down from the exact same some spot you would take a 2 point conversion, you have a pass play with the only receiver that gets open is across the middle, but it's in a very tight window between two defenders that could pick it off, but completing it is the only chance of converting on that specific play. The smarter play in this instance is to just throw it out the back of the endzone and have another 2 downs to give you a better opportunity to put points on the board than risk turning it over and coming away with nothing.

Now you have the exact same scenario but it's a 2 point conversion rather than goal to go. Your only chance of coming away with points is on this one play, and you will be kicking off to the other team no matter the outcome. You make that throw into the tight window and hope the receiver can make the play and you can salvage the only opportunity you will have to come away with points. If it gets picked off it's almost certainly the same result as if it's incomplete, because while yes it's possible they return it for a 2 of their own, that is highly unlikely especially from the middle of the field.
You have almost nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing this on the 2 point conversion attempt, but you that risk is monumental on the TD attempt.


There are just so many factors that make them different, and there are multiple positive outcomes on most goal to go opportunities that don't necessarily have to result in a score on that one play. On a 2 point conversion though there is only one positive outcome possible on the play, and you only get the one chance to complete it.

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:29 pm

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:29 am as i said earlier, i don't give a funk about the percentage of conversion and its variance: let the head coach assess his chances and feed them to the analyst, who could also do some calculations for every percentage and say which is the minimum one needed for the trick to work, so we don't really need to know that number, especially if pulled by a non-representative sample.

whatever methods the analyst uses, it will give an expected outcome (piss easy to do, basically what the head coach fancies his conversion rate to be times the TDs) and most important of all an uncertainty over this value, let's forget the term variance.
whatever the method, given the small amount of tries, this uncertainty will be significant.
so having an expected outcome which is marginally better than for the 1pt conversion, but with an uncertainty much larger than the gap between the two, means that you can't really tell what method is better or worse (especially considering that there are a lot of variables that we are not considering).

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:37 amBut just pooping on the premise because the data isn't broken down enough for you and using the term "variance" doesn't mean the data was irrelevant or the math is meaningless like you're trying to imply.

math is meaningless if wrongly applied. applying gaussian statistics to NFL samples and not even assessing uncertainties will mostly result in irrelevant conclusions.

So you're essentially saying that we should stick with the status quo just because. What more uncertainty do you have on a 2 pt conversion that you don't have on any other play throughout the course of a game? What amount of uncertainty has suddenly crept into the 2 pt conversion that renders 25 years of its existence and success/failure irrelevant? Are we not properly valuing the uncertainty of Bane burrowing tunnels underneath Gotham and blowing up the field right as the snap occurs?

The math is properly applied to the data set given. Obviously you would want to break that set into different subsets to get a clearer picture for an individual team or whatever data split you want to look at, but the overall numbers and "expected points for" are what they are when you look at the last 25 years. The change hasn't necessarily come from the 2 pt conversion itself, but the drop in certainty of the XP from the move back. The overall probability of an event and finding the probability of an event given (insert additional event/data here) would yield a clearer picture for whatever you're looking for specifically. However, just looking at the conversion rates over the last 5 seasons including this one, 4 out of the 5 seasons yielded at least half of the league converting their 2 pt attempts at a rate of at least 50%. Prior to that it was rare to have over half the league be successful at that clip, and typically about a third of the league never converted one over the course of the season. So the current trends (probably has a lot to do with the changes made to allow for more offense) are lending one to believe the 2 pt conversion is the way to go.

Each individual team would need to look at their ability to succeed and how the coach wants to play it moving forward, but you wouldn't just ignore the previous history and success rates when you are trying to formulate your gameplan if you have gotten that far. The issue is that it is much easier to do what everyone else is doing than think outside of the box, no matter how good the data is. If you kick the PAT and lose in overtime, it is what it is. If you go for 2 and aren't successful and lose at the end of the game because of it, people will call for your head. Everyone loved Pederson when he went for it on 4th down all the time, and he was successful and won a SB using that strategy all year. As soon as it doesn't work though, everyone turns on you awfully quick. Most can't take the emotion out of sports to make decisions like that. That's why you get the classic answer of "I went with my gut" sound bite. Most people believe perception is reality, and the long standing perception is to just kick the PAT. It made sense mathematically when it was a 15 yard kick, but it doesn't make as much sense any more mathematically.

ericanadian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:30 pm
While technically different, you’re only looking to see if it’s relevant to pass or fail. I don’t care if it results in an incomplete or a pick or whatever, so all I would care about is how often does this happen and how often does it result in success for the QB taking the shot. I suspect this is happening on less than 25% of plays from this distance and I also suspect the success rate is like 10% or less. 2.5% impact on the pass/fail rate seems pretty irrelevant to me.

bjd5211 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:48 pm

ericanadian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:30 pm
While technically different, you’re only looking to see if it’s relevant to pass or fail. I don’t care if it results in an incomplete or a pick or whatever, so all I would care about is how often does this happen and how often does it result in success for the QB taking the shot. I suspect this is happening on less than 25% of plays from this distance and I also suspect the success rate is like 10% or less. 2.5% impact on the pass/fail rate seems pretty irrelevant to me.

But the definition of pass or fail is different on both scenarios. Every two point conversion attempt that doesn't result in points is a failure, but not every goal to go opportunity that doesn't result in a TD is a failure.

jman3134 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:31 pm

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:29 pm

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:29 am as i said earlier, i don't give a funk about the percentage of conversion and its variance: let the head coach assess his chances and feed them to the analyst, who could also do some calculations for every percentage and say which is the minimum one needed for the trick to work, so we don't really need to know that number, especially if pulled by a non-representative sample.

whatever methods the analyst uses, it will give an expected outcome (piss easy to do, basically what the head coach fancies his conversion rate to be times the TDs) and most important of all an uncertainty over this value, let's forget the term variance.
whatever the method, given the small amount of tries, this uncertainty will be significant.
so having an expected outcome which is marginally better than for the 1pt conversion, but with an uncertainty much larger than the gap between the two, means that you can't really tell what method is better or worse (especially considering that there are a lot of variables that we are not considering).




math is meaningless if wrongly applied. applying gaussian statistics to NFL samples and not even assessing uncertainties will mostly result in irrelevant conclusions.

So you're essentially saying that we should stick with the status quo just because. What more uncertainty do you have on a 2 pt conversion that you don't have on any other play throughout the course of a game? What amount of uncertainty has suddenly crept into the 2 pt conversion that renders 25 years of its existence and success/failure irrelevant? Are we not properly valuing the uncertainty of Bane burrowing tunnels underneath Gotham and blowing up the field right as the snap occurs?

The math is properly applied to the data set given. Obviously you would want to break that set into different subsets to get a clearer picture for an individual team or whatever data split you want to look at, but the overall numbers and "expected points for" are what they are when you look at the last 25 years. The change hasn't necessarily come from the 2 pt conversion itself, but the drop in certainty of the XP from the move back. The overall probability of an event and finding the probability of an event given (insert additional event/data here) would yield a clearer picture for whatever you're looking for specifically. However, just looking at the conversion rates over the last 5 seasons including this one, 4 out of the 5 seasons yielded at least half of the league converting their 2 pt attempts at a rate of at least 50%. Prior to that it was rare to have over half the league be successful at that clip, and typically about a third of the league never converted one over the course of the season. So the current trends (probably has a lot to do with the changes made to allow for more offense) are lending one to believe the 2 pt conversion is the way to go.

Each individual team would need to look at their ability to succeed and how the coach wants to play it moving forward, but you wouldn't just ignore the previous history and success rates when you are trying to formulate your gameplan if you have gotten that far. The issue is that it is much easier to do what everyone else is doing than think outside of the box, no matter how good the data is. If you kick the PAT and lose in overtime, it is what it is. If you go for 2 and aren't successful and lose at the end of the game because of it, people will call for your head. Everyone loved Pederson when he went for it on 4th down all the time, and he was successful and won a SB using that strategy all year. As soon as it doesn't work though, everyone turns on you awfully quick. Most can't take the emotion out of sports to make decisions like that. That's why you get the classic answer of "I went with my gut" sound bite. Most people believe perception is reality, and the long standing perception is to just kick the PAT. It made sense mathematically when it was a 15 yard kick, but it doesn't make as much sense any more mathematically.

The question would then be how does each individual team assess their ability to succeed on 2pt conversions? Do they apply league average?

Would success rates drop off from 50% if 2pt conversions were being used all the time vs. when they are absolutely necessary to tie a game? Somehow I don't think there is a solid enough sample set to say definitively one way or the other and just assuming a 50% success rate at all points in the game (2nd quarter 2 pt conversion vs. 4th) ignores the human element.

ericanadian wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:59 pm

bjd5211 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:48 pm

ericanadian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:30 pm
While technically different, you’re only looking to see if it’s relevant to pass or fail. I don’t care if it results in an incomplete or a pick or whatever, so all I would care about is how often does this happen and how often does it result in success for the QB taking the shot. I suspect this is happening on less than 25% of plays from this distance and I also suspect the success rate is like 10% or less. 2.5% impact on the pass/fail rate seems pretty irrelevant to me.

But the definition of pass or fail is different on both scenarios. Every two point conversion attempt that doesn't result in points is a failure, but not every goal to go opportunity that doesn't result in a TD is a failure.

Disagree. How is it not a failure? The team lost a down and gained nothing of relevance from it. If I have a midterm and fail it, it doesn’t matter if I can take it again. It’s still a failure.

bjd5211 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:43 pm

ericanadian wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:59 pm

bjd5211 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:48 pm

But the definition of pass or fail is different on both scenarios. Every two point conversion attempt that doesn't result in points is a failure, but not every goal to go opportunity that doesn't result in a TD is a failure.

Disagree. How is it not a failure? The team lost a down and gained nothing of relevance from it. If I have a midterm and fail it, it doesn’t matter if I can take it again. It’s still a failure.

You can get closer to the goal line or set the defense up for an even better play; the offense doesn't have to score on one play like they do on a 2 point conversion.