Kickoff Specialist

[Danimal]

Merry Christmas

[Iowachargers]

I guess all I want for Christmas is a kickoff specialist.

[Steve]

No one made such an assumption other than yourself.

The huge flaw in your argument is only taking into account scoring drives off kickoffs and not taking into account the field position game on non scoring drives.

It is part of the way your argument is crafted. You made a linear assumption based on how you compare the number and yardage without factoring in the difference in points scored by feild position.

You are correct, my argument doesn't factor in scoring kick returns, but since that is like 1 return per year, regardless of strategy, that is not really a factor either way.

Again, points scored is not a linear function of field position and becomes much less when you factor in the probability of field position. Since that is a peak around the 25 or so, that heavily skews the expected outcome to kicking and trying to pin the other team.

[oneinchpunch]

It is part of the way your argument is crafted. You made a linear assumption based on how you compare the number and yardage without factoring in the difference in points scored by feild position.

No, actually I didn't. I didn't even come close to your assumption.

But I do enjoy the extent you go to to try and make the assumption that the kickoffs are a strategic choice and not based on the inability of the Chargers kicker to reach deep in the end zone with decent hang time.

[Steve]

No, actually I didn't. I didn't even come close to your assumption.

But I do enjoy the extent you go to to try and make the assumption that the kickoffs are a strategic choice and not based on the inability of the Chargers kicker to reach deep in the end zone with decent hang time.

And how you make assumptions based on nothing at all

[oneinchpunch]

And how you make assumptions based on nothing at all...

...other than the games themselves and stats that back it up.

You believe Novak can kick it deep in the endzone with a decent hangtime?

He could at the beginning of the season. The first couple of games. But he doesnt have the leg for it.

[Steve]

No, if he could they wouldn't return the ball. The important thing is that he kicks the ball shorter, so they HAVE to bring it out. If a team takes a touchback, you can't get a holding call against the other team. You WANT them to bring it out and screw up. And they can't do that if you kick into the endzone all the time. The other team can simply take the safe move and take the touchback.

I am pretty sure that the Chargers aren't trying to put the ball in the endzone and they don't care, because kicking for touchbacks isn't the best strategy. Only people like you who can't think the thing through believe that it is. You incredibly simplified things and you missed everything that is important. You have to look at what teams do with the ball on average.

Things that are important
1). Expected points allowed by feild position.
2). Pdf of kickoffs (probability density function-where do kickoffs actually land on average) -> put that and the previous graph together to tell how many points you actually allow
3). average length of offensive drive (to tell you where the chargers will get the ball back- since field position equals points)
5). Offensive playcalling tendency for the other team when they start backed up to their own goalline (the inflection points on the chart are caused by offenses getting conservative to protect themselves). This is the important part, because most of the time, when teams start deep in their own territory, they get really conservative, and on those drives, the other team rarely gets as many yards as the average.

Put all those things together, you are in much better position to kick short of the goalline. Yes, on average, they WILL get better field position. There is no denying that. What those stats do not show is that not all yards are created equal, which is what you are assuming. However, as the graph shows, for the most part, they aren't going to do anything with it. And on those few drive you do pin the other team, you are far more likely to score points (especially TD). Sometimes directly (which is the negative points on the graph) and sometimes on the ensuing drive (off a turnover or a punt).

[richpjr]

Steve, if what you are saying is true, all teams would be kicking high and short to go for this potential added scoring bonus when the other team screws up. But that isn't happening. Almost two thirds of all teams in the league have touchbacks on more than 50% of their kicks. Only 6 teams have touchbacks on less than 41% of their kicks. Only 1 team has touchbacks on 13% of their kicks.

[Yubaking]

No, if he could they wouldn't return the ball. The important thing is that he kicks the ball shorter, so they HAVE to bring it out. If a team takes a touchback, you can't get a holding call against the other team. You WANT them to bring it out and screw up. And they can't do that if you kick into the endzone all the time. The other team can simply take the safe move and take the touchback.

I am pretty sure that the Chargers aren't trying to put the ball in the endzone and they don't care, because kicking for touchbacks isn't the best strategy. Only people like you who can't think the thing through believe that it is. You incredibly simplified things and you missed everything that is important. You have to look at what teams do with the ball on average.

Things that are important
1). Expected points allowed by feild position.
2). Pdf of kickoffs (probability density function-where do kickoffs actually land on average) -> put that and the previous graph together to tell how many points you actually allow
3). average length of offensive drive (to tell you where the chargers will get the ball back- since field position equals points)
5). Offensive playcalling tendency for the other team when they start backed up to their own goalline (the inflection points on the chart are caused by offenses getting conservative to protect themselves). This is the important part, because most of the time, when teams start deep in their own territory, they get really conservative, and on those drives, the other team rarely gets as many yards as the average.

Put all those things together, you are in much better position to kick short of the goalline. Yes, on average, they WILL get better field position. There is no denying that. What those stats do not show is that not all yards are created equal, which is what you are assuming. However, as the graph shows, for the most part, they aren't going to do anything with it. And on those few drive you do pin the other team, you are far more likely to score points (especially TD). Sometimes directly (which is the negative points on the graph) and sometimes on the ensuing drive (off a turnover or a punt).

Your expected points analysis is incorrect based upon the very chart you cited and the actual kickoff return data supplied by OIP.

First, from the 10 to the 20 yard line and from the 20 to the 30 yard line, the expected points chart is nearly linear. There is a tiny gain of about 0.1 points by the time you reach the 10 versus when you reach the 30 in terms of the difference in expected points from the value at the 20. But that tiny gain is more than offset by the fact that the vast majority of returns, as documented by OIP, are beyond the 20.

The result is that a team is worse off kicking the ball short, assuming that the team had the choice to go for TBs, when it comes to expected points. Your reference to a drastically sloping non-linear gain by pinning a team back is completely unsupported nonsense. Even if you pin a team all the way back to 5 yard line on a kickoff, which is rare even with a penalty or fumble, the expected points gain is no better than what is lost by allowing the much more common event of a return to the 40 yard line or so.

Surrendering a return past the 40 is more common than pinning a team back inside the 5 yard line on a kickoff and produces a worse result in terms expected points difference versus the value at the 20 line.

Essentially, your own cited chart and the actual kickoff return data we have shows that your analysis is dead wrong. Your inability to recognize this makes me wonder if you are correctly reading the chart because there is no way that you can combine OIP's data and the chart and conclude that kicking short is the best strategy versus kicking TBs.

You didn't seem follow the punt rule for gunners even after I quoted it for you, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you aren't putting together the data with the chart, but I have to admit that I am surprised. You went to the trouble of citing the expected points chart, but you have failed to combine it with the data that we have to see which approach is really better.

You are just dead wrong. And that probably has everything to do with the fact that no team that has a kicker that can get regular TBs uses the strategy you are suggesting in normal kickoff situations.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

But it gives the defence a smaller field...

[TABF]

How come all the threads about kickers end up being Looooooong and mean.

[oneinchpunch]

Steve, if what you are saying is true, all teams would be kicking high and short to go for this potential added scoring bonus when the other team screws up. But that isn't happening. Almost two thirds of all teams in the league have touchbacks on more than 50% of their kicks. Only 6 teams have touchbacks on less than 41% of their kicks. Only 1 team has touchbacks on 13% of their kicks.

Not even Steve believes what he's saying. But he took a position and will now defend it without fail. Often with very wordy posts. Almost the same as the poster he argues with the most.

Unwilling to admit they're wrong and the amount of words per post will show you how right they are