Analytics question - going for 2 points the entire game

[s1uggo72]

Has this been discussed: nowadays whenever the D jumps offside on a PAT, go for 2 is the default.

I agree going for 2 from the 1 is a no brainer

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

How? You don't like to see teams going for it instead of kicking field goals and punts?

Not unnecessarily so, no. Modern analytics were born out of a lop-sided rulebook that favors offensive output vs staunch defense. Sometimes a punt is an exceptional play, and especially so in an era when defenses were on equal footing as offenses.

As for extra points, I would guess that coaches who make a habit of going for 2 early frequently find themselves chasing points late. Why steal a point away from your team based on some football nerd’s faulty math?

 

[Grant Green]

Not unnecessarily so, no. Modern analytics were born out of a lop-sided rulebook that favors offensive output vs staunch defense. Sometimes a punt is an exceptional play, and especially so in an era when defenses were on equal footing as offenses.

As for extra points, I would guess that coaches who make a habit of going for 2 early frequently find themselves chasing points late. Why steal a point away from your team based on some football nerd’s faulty math?

Analytics ultimately factors in to a pretty small part of the game. Saying it's ruining the game seems pretty hyperbolic.

And you know that analytics does say to punt or kick field goals too right? So next time you see a field goal attempt, you may have to blame analytics. And i

Its rise has nothing at all to do with the game being a more offensive game. It was initiated in baseball in the 90s and then transitioned to other sports. The timing is coincidental.

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

Analytics ultimately factors in to a pretty small part of the game. Saying it's ruining the game seems pretty hyperbolic.

And you know that analytics does say to punt or kick field goals too right? So next time you see a field goal attempt, you may have to blame analytics. And i

Its rise has nothing at all to do with the game being a more offensive game. It was initiated in baseball in the 90s and then transitioned to other sports. The timing is coincidental.

Fair analysis. Perhaps it’s just better to say that I’m officially an old fart who misses the sport where defenses were allowed to shove the opposing team around without fear of yellow hankies being tossed at them. Maybe too many coaches just have bad analysts on their staffs?

 

[Grant Green]

Fair analysis. Perhaps it’s just better to say that I’m officially an old fart who misses the sport where defenses were allowed to shove the opposing team around without fear of yellow hankies being tossed at them. Maybe too many coaches just have bad analysts on their staffs?

Well, I think that's a different issue altogether. That seems an attempt to maximize viewers by changing the rules to promote offense. It's probably been successful.

I don't disagree with you. The late hit calls on Qbs had become a little silly (and I'm all for protecting the qb).

 

[s1uggo72]

Well, I think that's a different issue altogether. That seems an attempt to maximize viewers by changing the rules to promote offense. It's probably been successful.

I don't disagree with you. The late hit calls on Qbs had become a little silly (and I'm all for protecting the qb).

The problem I have w the late hits on QBs it seems it is QB dependent. There’s no such thing as hitting say Kenny Pickett late. Go have at it. Russ Wilson? Don’t get close to him.

 

[Pennstatel0]

What was PSUs points per attempt against Illinois in 2022?

They made 1 of6. So 0.33

 

[Pennstatel0]

There are many data points that go into a model in order to determine the output variable you are looking for. Each model may or may not be different based on many other variables based on your team and the team you are playing. Hopefully the person that put together the mode did not put together a biased model which may or may not weight some data points over others. I am sure there are some models that say if you go for 2 on your first TD when the other team has not scored you gives you a larger percentage of winning the game which may have factored into those decisions. I know teams that always went for 2 no matter what because they didn't have a reliable kicker that could always make the xtra point. There are so many things that go into the analytics in each and every situation and you have to hope/trust your analytics team is creating valid models the can predict desired outcomes.

The problem with building these models is that it is literally impossible to validate them. The only way to truly validate one of these models with a 95% confidence limit is to try 30 or so 2 pt attempts against the same team, with the same players available. Otherwise, you can have a model with a billion inputs, including wide speed, air temperature, QBs short shuttle speed, etc, but have no idea how predictive your model is.

 

[Pennstatel0]

Again, the math is extremely clear on when to go for 2 if you're going to go for it after one of the two scores. Going for it after the first opens up another path to victory. Why would you pass on it after the first if you're considering going for it after the second one? Go for it after the first and miss, and you still have the chance to send it to OT when you "have" to convert. Go for it after the second and miss, and you've lost.

The math simply cannot be clear when you don’t know the value of the key variable. That’s how math works.