Well, this is exactly what analytics-based decision making is all about. There's a huge amount of data from which the expected points added can be calculated for going for it vs. punting on 4th down, based on a large number of variables, such as field position, score differential, time remaining, and a host of others. Factor into that lots more variables having to do with the team's historical success in similar situations, the opponent's success stopping conversions in these situations, specific matchups available, etc. and you can calculate the right decision from an analytical standpoint. Probably lots of tables are computed before the game, and real-time outputs are available from the analytics guy's software on those Microsoft Surfaces the coaches have.
Then the coach has to factor in momentum, injuries, whether he thinks he has a play with a high probability of success, etc.
Point is, you CAN'T make a blanket statement that going for it isn't very valuable and failing costs points, or that the risk/reward is imbalanced so it makes zero sense. Perhaps that's usually true, but it's not necessarily true. Too many factors go into it, and throughout our lifetimes on which we base all of our intuitions, analytics show that coaches have historically been MUCH too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, and going for 2-point conversions.
But it's human nature to remember the stark costs of failing, and forgetting the value added by succeeding. And coaches get a lot more criticism from failing, than accolades from succeeding. So, coaches and fans continue to lean more toward thinking it's a bad idea to go for it in general, than we should.
This is not an endorsement of any specific decision that Kingsbury has made - just a general observation.
...dave