I don't really understand the disagreement. The main disagreement seems to be that others say it increases the win probability by 12% assuming you score the needed touchdown afterwards, and the author says that it's not really 12% because there's a 90% chance you won't score the touchdown? On its face, I tend to agree with the others that that's irrelevant.

In the linked blog post with the actual statistics in it, she argues that it only increases your chance from 11.2% to 12.9%, so it only really increases your chances by 1.7%. But that just seems to be dishonestly reframing the numbers so people think a 1.7% absolute increase is nothing. But that really is a 15% increase in win chance. It sounds like the data says the 2 points is even better than its proponents claim?

His only other argument is that failing the conversion psychs a team out, which I respect, but that's still just a bare assertion. I don't know why you'd get so mad at statistics for ignoring your feelings. People are complex and absent data otherwise, I would think it just as plausible that the added pressure and imminentness increases performance.