Krieg's list
New member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2014
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Holy moly!!! A two page thread without anyone correctly pointing out that this choice was essentially a coin flip? All these posters calling Pete a fool for choosing tails, when *EVERYBODY* knows you always choose heads! What a moron!!! :sarcasm_off:
League 2pt conversion average: ~48%
League PAT average: ~95%
So the expected point value for either kind of attempt is more or less a wash, at roughly 0.95 pts/atttempt. Absent late game point differential considerations, there is no distinct advantage to kicking or going for it.
Case where SEA goes for 2 (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
48% 2pt success -- SEA 2 score lead
2.6% (52% x 5%) SEA fail 2pt and NE missed PAT -- SEA 2 score lead
49.4% (52% x 95%) SEA fail 2pt and NE kick good -- Tied game
Result: 50.6% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.
Case where SEA kicks PAT (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
4.75% (5% x 95%) SEA kick fails and NE kick good -- Tied game
0.25% (5% x 5%) SEA kick fails and NE kick fails -- SEA 2 score lead
45.6% (95% x 48%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt good -- Tied game
49.4% (95% x 52%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt fails -- SEA 2 score lead
Result: 49.65% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.
So based on NFL league averages of kick and 2pt PATs, the decision to go for it was actually a slightly higher percentage play, albeit with some non-arithmetic strategic disadvantages*. Hardly an "obvious" decision to kick, it was actually the better play based purely on NFL average** conversion percentages, with the caveats below.
* Mainly, by going for 2 yourself early, you provide the trailing team with valuable information. With 4 mins left and NE down 9 points, they could adjust their tempo to attempt to score quickly to maximize their chance at 2 scores. By instead choosing to kick, 95% of the time they can delay the inevitable 2pt conversion attempt to the opponent, who, not knowing the outcome of the attempt, will almost always choose to maximize their chances for scoring a single TD, usually failing to leave sufficient time should a second score be needed after a failed 2pt attempt. This is the main argument I can see against going for 2 while ahead 7 pts. In a situation with less time on the clock and/or an opponent with fewer timeouts left, this time concern becomes less significant and the choice for a 1 or 2pt attempt is mostly personal preference as there is no appreciable statistical difference.
** I am not about to open up a can of worms on individual team conversion rates, let alone offensive vs defensive personnel matchups, "momentum", "Bevell is a moron", etc. I'm merely trying to point out that this wasn't even an important decision, it really was akin to calling tails instead of heads, nothing to get worked up over. The playcall and the result weren't good, but the decision to go for 2 didn't really cost Seattle anything.
League 2pt conversion average: ~48%
League PAT average: ~95%
So the expected point value for either kind of attempt is more or less a wash, at roughly 0.95 pts/atttempt. Absent late game point differential considerations, there is no distinct advantage to kicking or going for it.
Case where SEA goes for 2 (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
48% 2pt success -- SEA 2 score lead
2.6% (52% x 5%) SEA fail 2pt and NE missed PAT -- SEA 2 score lead
49.4% (52% x 95%) SEA fail 2pt and NE kick good -- Tied game
Result: 50.6% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.
Case where SEA kicks PAT (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
4.75% (5% x 95%) SEA kick fails and NE kick good -- Tied game
0.25% (5% x 5%) SEA kick fails and NE kick fails -- SEA 2 score lead
45.6% (95% x 48%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt good -- Tied game
49.4% (95% x 52%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt fails -- SEA 2 score lead
Result: 49.65% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.
So based on NFL league averages of kick and 2pt PATs, the decision to go for it was actually a slightly higher percentage play, albeit with some non-arithmetic strategic disadvantages*. Hardly an "obvious" decision to kick, it was actually the better play based purely on NFL average** conversion percentages, with the caveats below.
* Mainly, by going for 2 yourself early, you provide the trailing team with valuable information. With 4 mins left and NE down 9 points, they could adjust their tempo to attempt to score quickly to maximize their chance at 2 scores. By instead choosing to kick, 95% of the time they can delay the inevitable 2pt conversion attempt to the opponent, who, not knowing the outcome of the attempt, will almost always choose to maximize their chances for scoring a single TD, usually failing to leave sufficient time should a second score be needed after a failed 2pt attempt. This is the main argument I can see against going for 2 while ahead 7 pts. In a situation with less time on the clock and/or an opponent with fewer timeouts left, this time concern becomes less significant and the choice for a 1 or 2pt attempt is mostly personal preference as there is no appreciable statistical difference.
** I am not about to open up a can of worms on individual team conversion rates, let alone offensive vs defensive personnel matchups, "momentum", "Bevell is a moron", etc. I'm merely trying to point out that this wasn't even an important decision, it really was akin to calling tails instead of heads, nothing to get worked up over. The playcall and the result weren't good, but the decision to go for 2 didn't really cost Seattle anything.