NDL Forum

how long has matt90210 been back?

dakshdar wrote:Competition Committee discussing moving XP try back to the 25 yard line (42 yard attempt) but keeping 2 pt try from same current position.

Would seem weird, but not sure I'd be against it. Drops expected conversion rate for kick from 99.6% to ~83%. You'd basically see a missed PAT every game with that kind of rate.

This just proves everything I have ever said about the NFL. Everything. Why?

As of right now, with the extra point at the two, it is ALREADY FUCKING POSITIVE EXPECTED VALUE TO GO FOR TWO EVERY TIME! You shouldn't even be going for one as it is, now they want to make the worse option .... even worse?

It's hysterical. But I don't blame the NFL. I blame you idiots that are reading this. They know they can do whatever they want and the smart will get outyelled and outcheered by the dumbasses that know nothing.

How's the weather up there on your high horse T?

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:How's the weather up there on your high horse T?

I'd tell you the temperature but your grasp of math sucks so it would be a waste of my breath. Would you like a fable, perhaps?

trendon wrote:Would you like a fable, perhaps?

Id love a good haiku if you got one?

trendon wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:How's the weather up there on your high horse T?

I'd tell you the temperature but your grasp of math sucks so it would be a waste of my breath. Would you like a fable, perhaps?

I get it. Teams should be going for 2 way more than they are (a la Chip Kelly) because statistically, in the long run, it will work out for them.

The league is moving it back to make the PAT harder, which doesn't matter because it's already a worse option and teams almost always do it unless under score-based duress.

I understand what you said, as did probably more than half the league, but you're making it sound like we're all derpy sheep.

You guys are if that wasn't mentioned as soon as the link was posted. I hate football fans. I really do. Dumbest motherfuckers in the world.

And, just to keep insulting people, Kaepernick wants HOW MUCH?! LOL. He might not even be a Top 20 QB and he wants to be the highest-paid?

trendon wrote:You guys are if that wasn't mentioned as soon as the link was posted. I hate football fans. I really do. Dumbest motherfuckers in the world.

And, just to keep insulting people, Kaepernick wants HOW MUCH?! LOL. He might not even be a Top 20 QB and he wants to be the highest-paid?

Coaches don't have the balls to go for 2 consistently because it's outside the NORM. They'd worry that if they lost games, that people would blame their theory that's outside the norm rather than the possibility of other reasons. Same reason a lot of coaches are afraid to go for it on positive 4th down situations, or run well designed fakes.

God forbid the same fear existed back with Rockne... we'd still be running every play

trendon wrote:

dakshdar wrote:Competition Committee discussing moving XP try back to the 25 yard line (42 yard attempt) but keeping 2 pt try from same current position.

Would seem weird, but not sure I'd be against it. Drops expected conversion rate for kick from 99.6% to ~83%. You'd basically see a missed PAT every game with that kind of rate.

This just proves everything I have ever said about the NFL. Everything. Why?

As of right now, with the extra point at the two, it is ALREADY FUCKING POSITIVE EXPECTED VALUE TO GO FOR TWO EVERY TIME! You shouldn't even be going for one as it is, now they want to make the worse option .... even worse?

It's hysterical. But I don't blame the NFL. I blame you idiots that are reading this. They know they can do whatever they want and the smart will get outyelled and outcheered by the dumbasses that know nothing.

I'm not sure it is a positive expected value for every team in the league to go for two every time. In fact, an article from 2010 pointed out that the NFL successful conversion rate for 2-pt plays is below 50% between 2000 and 2009.

Plus, there are strategy implications related to a PAT vs a 2-pt conv that are dependent on game time, game score, and other mitigating details that change on a game-by-game basis.

You're argument may be right for direct statistical analysis (eventually), but football isn't as predicated on stats as some other sports. Even if teams could produce a 50% success rate over a large sample size, you would still have to evaluate game scenario in order to determine which, in the current format, is more beneficial.

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:

trendon wrote:

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:How's the weather up there on your high horse T?

I'd tell you the temperature but your grasp of math sucks so it would be a waste of my breath. Would you like a fable, perhaps?

I get it. Teams should be going for 2 way more than they are (a la Chip Kelly) because statistically, in the long run, it will work out for them.

The league is moving it back to make the PAT harder, which doesn't matter because it's already a worse option and teams almost always do it unless under score-based duress.

I understand what you said, as did probably more than half the league, but you're making it sound like we're all derpy sheep.

Chip Kelly's team was 3 for 8 on 2-pt conversions last year.

The league, as a whole, was 33 for 69, or below the magic 50% mark to have a positive expected return. Granted, the sample size isn't really what you'd want it for a statistical analysis, but this was in the range of an average year according to historical data.

1. How is the expected value of going for 2 higher than kicking the extra point?

2. Name 20 QBs better thank Kaepernick. This should be entertaining.

shel311 wrote:1. How is the expected value of going for 2 higher than kicking the extra point?

2. Name 20 QBs better thank Kaepernick. This should be entertaining.

For 1, Trendon's point is that the percentage for converting a 2-pt conversion "should" be higher than 50%. In that case, for an equal number of PAT vs 2-pt conv, you score more points on the 2-pt conversions. Overall as a league, though, the NFL is not showing that it is capable of converting more than 50% of 2-pt attempts.

This example also is assuming a 100% success rate on PATs, which is more like 99.6%.

Essentially:

1 pt * 0.996 vs 2 pt * 0.50.

If those were the percentages, a 2 pt conv has a positive expected value vs a PAT.

For 2, better than Kaepernick in terms of on a single game or season basis, or better in terms of better bet to sign to a long term contract?

The league converts just under 50% of their two-point attempts but that is because they even suck at picking the plays. Runs are over 60% and passes are nearly 40%. Obviously, if coaches started running after every two-pointer, ther'd be some regression, but we'd be above 49.5% which is where you'd need to be for the play to be positive value.

That said, the value isn't necassarily. Extra points are fourth quarter plays. Until then, it is a point-maximization contest and you should always be trying to get the most points possible.

trendon wrote: but we'd be above 49.5% which is where you'd need to be for the play to be positive value.

But you're not, so it's not a positive expected value. Plus, you're assuming that when there's no reason to assume defenses wouldn't also get better at stopping the play

trendon wrote: it is a point-maximization contest and you should always be trying to get the most points possible.

Which is why you take the actual higher expected value, the extra point.

dakshdar wrote:For 2, better than Kaepernick in terms of on a single game or season basis, or better in terms of better bet to sign to a long term contract?

Pick any of the 3, and he's top 20 for all of em.

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote: but we'd be above 49.5% which is where you'd need to be for the play to be positive value.

But you're not, so it's not a positive expected value. Plus, you're assuming that when there's no reason to assume defenses wouldn't also get better at stopping the play

trendon wrote: it is a point-maximization contest and you should always be trying to get the most points possible.

Which is why you take the actual higher expected value, the extra point.

I forget the topic, but I remember saying I won't discuss math and football with you. I think we were talking about third downs, I forget. Either way, I won't back down now so don't expect any response on me to you about football unless it involves a game score.

And, remember, you aren't arguing with me, but the people who are smarter than both of us ... I am merely championing their cause. If I wasn't on my phone and at work, I'd cite, butmy memory is pretty damn good, so I can pretty much just chant their theories.

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:For 2, better than Kaepernick in terms of on a single game or season basis, or better in terms of better bet to sign to a long term contract?

Pick any of the 3, and he's top 20 for all of em.

That's probably true. However, he's a lot closer to #20 if you rank them in terms of value for a long term contract than he is for a single game or season ranking.

When the 2pt conversion rate is above 50%, you'll be right.

You run this same game all the time, overly exaggerating things. Hell, your main point on this topic is completely, 100% incorrect.

dakshdar wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:For 2, better than Kaepernick in terms of on a single game or season basis, or better in terms of better bet to sign to a long term contract?

Pick any of the 3, and he's top 20 for all of em.

That's probably true. However, he's a lot closer to #20 if you rank them in terms of value for a long term contract than he is for a single game or season ranking.

Agreed, if he signs for $18mil/year, he's definitely going to be further down on the value list.

But as a QB, good luck objectively arguing that 20 are better to whoever decides to do that.

trendon wrote:

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote: but we'd be above 49.5% which is where you'd need to be for the play to be positive value.

But you're not, so it's not a positive expected value. Plus, you're assuming that when there's no reason to assume defenses wouldn't also get better at stopping the play

trendon wrote: it is a point-maximization contest and you should always be trying to get the most points possible.

Which is why you take the actual higher expected value, the extra point.

I forget the topic, but I remember saying I won't discuss math and football with you. I think we were talking about third downs, I forget. Either way, I won't back down now so don't expect any response on me to you about football unless it involves a game score.

And, remember, you aren't arguing with me, but the people who are smarter than both of us ... I am merely championing their cause. If I wasn't on my phone and at work, I'd cite, butmy memory is pretty damn good, so I can pretty much just chant their theories.

The idea that going for 2 on every attempt is a positive value return is a hypothesis (or theory as you stated) until is is proven by statistical evidence.

Moving the XP to be the same distance as a 42 yd FG attempt does in fact create a scenario where the 2 pt conversion is a positive value return vs the XP. You should be happy, rejoice, and embrace this possible change.