Convert Percentages

[BigBlue]

Anybody got a calculator?

In Calgary tonight 3 missed converts by Paredes ..... Maher was having trouble too with a miss and blocks or deflections of his kicking ... of course it was an unusual night, but it got me thinking about an old topic  here on this site:

Why are teams not going for a 2 point convert more often .... right now teams are doing them only (more or less) when they have momentum, or, when they can tie the score or change the differential to 3 points

How much worse off would a team be if they tried all 2 point converts (except if at games end they just needed that single point)?

Another point from preseason: last play of the game, just scored a TD; one coach tried the 2 pointer to win instead of the "safe" play of tying it up with the single point convert ... and he lost the game when it failed.

But in real life, not preseason, if on one play you can win with a two point convert, would you not want to keep control of your own destiny? Anything can happen in overtime, right?

So if you are confident of your offense why not put it all on the line on one short conversion play? (Coaches wanting to keep their jobs or needing to preserve their reputation need not answer.) Who has that kind of conviction and courage?

[TrueBlue4ever]

Last year the success rate on one point converts was 91%. The two point convert was tried a total of 85 times, with 53 of them being successful, a 62.35% success rate. No team was worse than 50% (Wpg, Sask and Tor all went 2 for 4). Hamilton was the best at it, going 9 for 10. So even if the 1 point convert was 100% successful, it would make more sense to go for 2 every time, because statistically, you will score more points overall as long as the 2 point success rate stays above 50%.

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Last year the success rate on one point converts was 91%. The two point convert was tried a total of 85 times, with 53 of them being successful, a 62.35% success rate. No team was worse than 50% (Wpg, Sask and Tor all went 2 for 4). Hamilton was the best at it, going 9 for 10. So even if the 1 point convert was 100% successful, it would make more sense to go for 2 every time, because statistically, you will score more points overall as long as the 2 point success rate stays above 50%.

Classic stats guy analysis!  I've heard this many times but here's where it falls apart.  The "average" is nice but it doesn't hold up in reality because some games you'll hit it 100% of the time and some games 0% of the time.  And when you lose that game by 2 points and you went 0/3 on 2-point conversions you're singing a very different tune!

[Jpan85]

All I know is Medlock is ? 

[17to85]

28 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

All I know is Medlock is ? 

only stat that matters. 

[SPuDS]

i like the idea of going for 2 more often but when the 1 is such a gimme even at a further distance, hard to not just take the points.. playing catch up on the other hand, having the 2 point convert being easier then before is a nice bonus these days tho.

[WBBFanWest]

As soon as teams started going for 2 routinely, there would be more film on them and, over time, you would likely see the successful attempts percentage start to drop.  On top of that, you need to factor in the wear and tear that going for two places on your team versus the wear and tear you get from kicking.  It's a lot more involved that simply saying 2 is better than 1.

[JohnnyOnTheSpot]

Also factor in the point spread at the time. If you only need one, that's what you do. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

5 hours ago, Atomic said:

Classic stats guy analysis!  I've heard this many times but here's where it falls apart.  The "average" is nice but it doesn't hold up in reality because some games you'll hit it 100% of the time and some games 0% of the time.  And when you lose that game by 2 points and you went 0/3 on 2-point conversions you're singing a very different tune!

But by that exact same logic, a team that goes 3/3 and wins by 2 points will say that going for it was the difference between winning and losing. The incorrect assumption is that the single point is automatic, when it no longer is (1 in 10 will miss), and you are giving away points by not taking the sure 1. Look at BC-Edmonton last week. Lions missed two 1 point converts and lost the game by 3. had they gone for 2 and made both (the stats say they have a better chance than not of getting them both) that's 4 extra points and they win the game instead of losing. So your "reality" argument cuts both ways. The numbers suggest that the reward would outweigh the risk over the long term, and that the "reality" is that more teams will benefit and win close games by going for it where the stats indicate a better than 50/50 chance of success than will lose games by taking that risk.

Now I'll easily concede that situational dynamics overrules everything, the point simply is that it isn't the overwhelming losing proposition some might believe it to be, and the single isn't the gimme it used to be. (NOTE: Justin Medlock does not approve this message). That's the whole point of the rule change.

Edited June 30, 2017 by TrueBlue4ever