One Yard = One Punt
Chalk this up to offseason ramblings...
Last week, the news of Darr becoming a Volunteer got me wondering about how much a punter might actually affect a team's success. So, thanks to the ever-helpful stat tables that the NCAA keeps online, I started playing around with the punting and kicking numbers. (If you change the year in the URL of that link, you can get stats all the way back to 2000.) As often happens in these kinds of treks, my initial questions (does a strong punter influence winning percentage, etc.) turned out to be less interesting than things I hadn't really put much thought into.
First, the answer to my questions: no, having a longer-kicking punter doesn't help win games; no, the distance of a punt doesn't affect the distance of the return. It's not too surprising, really; a punter is on the field for perhaps 5 of the 70-ish plays that a team runs. Getting an extra five to ten yards per punt isn't really much of a big deal in the big picture. The second one surprised me a little bit, but that's the way the data trends. Here are the plots for both.


In neither case does punting distance bear any influence. Eh, worth a shot. By the way, that team that gave up over 20 return yards per punt was South Florida. The best combination of punting distance and low return averages (that lower right data point) was Oklahoma. Tennessee was just about dead center (41.3 yards per punt, 10.3 yards per return).
Basically, teams with strong punters and teams with weak punters have equal opportunity to give up big returns (or to shut down the return). Distance doesn't fix everything; the return defense has to be sharp and/or the kicks have to be high. (The obvious upside is that kicking farther means the returns have farther to go. So I'm not saying that deep kicks don't help; I'm saying they don't affect the return distance from the point that the returner catches the ball.)
What I found of most interest was the relationship between the offense and the punting game.
It shouldn't surprise anybody that better offenses give the punter fewer opportunities. Better offense = more offensive success, and punting = consequence of offensive failure. If you look at the number of punts per game as a function of the offense's number of yards per play, there is a definite and expected trend. Here is the result for all teams from 2006 through 2009.

The trend is exactly what you'd expect: better offense = fewer punts. What's nice about the data, though, is how easy it is to guess how often a team should be punting. Basically, for every extra yard per play that the offense manages, the punter punts one fewer time per game. If the offense gets 5 yards per play, the punter will see the field about 5.5 times per game on average. The variance is such that a very simple rule is available:
4 offensive yards per play --> 6 to 7 punts per game
5 offensive yards per play --> 5 to 6 punts per game
6 offensive yards per play --> 4 to 5 punts per game
etc.
If you really want to make it simple, just keep the lower punts per game number. Then you get a very clean equation:
(Punts per Game) + (Offensive Yards per Play) = 10
Simple, huh? Just hold up all your fingers, subtract away the yards per play, and the remaining fingers tell you how often your punter should see the field. (Alabamans should subtract one.)
It's not the trend that's of real interest because it's so obvious, but having a handy rule of thumb is nice. I don't know how useful it'll be to have, but there it is. Now, for a bit of oddity: the outliers.
2007 is a fun year. The biggest outlier of 2006 through 2009 is that low point - just above 6 yards per play and just below 2 punts per game. (6 + 2 = 8 = very low indeed.) I give you Paul Johnson in his final year as Navy's coach. That next lowest PPG value (2.3 punts/game) is Mike Leach. In fact, the service academies and the Pirate come up quite frequently as being the most punter-unfriendly. (Florida with Tebow also scored very low on punt frequency.) Also in 2007: the lowest yards per play (3.52) turned out to be below the expectation on punts per game (6.3). Say hello to Notre Dame. Also, the most punt-crazy team of these four years was 2006 Utah State, for what it's worth.
Anyhow, there you go. One yard = one punt, and yards plus punts equals 10. Simple enough that even a punter can remember it.
22 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
*blink*
I think my head just exploded.
I wonder if this has ever been examined by Coaches when looking at Special teams performance
"Gentlemen, it is better to have died as a small boy than to fumble this football." John Heisman
It is definitely good info...
…but I very much doubt that it is the type of info that will help you in sports betting.
...just apologize for not thanking me.
The trend itself isn't all that useful during a game,
but I do think it can help gauge the aggressiveness of the coaching staff. People like Johnson and Leach do turn out to be less likely to punt than others, which is something we all probably knew intuitively. The next step would be to track a team year-to-year and see if they consistenly overpunt or underpunt.
More interested...
in the relationship between hangtime and long returns… and punts inside the 20/10/5 and points scored both against the defense, and by the offense on the next possession.
Me too.
If I could find hangtime data, I’d love to play around with it.
by David Hooper on Jul 8, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Could be a project this year...
I might try and scrape together some sort of sample when I remember.
Do they keep hangtime stats?
If such data has been kept, it has likely been painstakingly compiled by an individual or group of individuals…and not for purposes of releasing said data to the general public.
On the other hand, the NFL might keep it. And any conclusions that could be drawn from NFL data would apply with equal force to college.
...just apologize for not thanking me.
Hooper
Slightly off topic, but you do you remember the back-and-forth several of us last year about which stats should be most heavily weighted.
I remember that you weighted defensive stats more heavily on the basis of some research by Doc Saturday, but that you eventually came to the conclusion that you weighted it too heavily. I actually remember going back and reading the Doc Saturday research and not being terribly convinced that his conclusions were supported by statistically significant evidence. And I’m sure I shared this opinion at some point along the way.
I further remember you tossing out the idea of doing some fairly mathematically heavy playing around with stats and correlations (using regressions, neural networks, maybe even some genetic algorithms (I could be making that last one up), etc.) to see if you could figure out a better way to weigh our blogpoll.
I realize how ambitious a project that would have been, and I will think no less of you if you decided to scrap it altogether to catch up on reading or learn to play the piano or something. But just wanted to check.
...just apologize for not thanking me.
Yes, I remember.
I haven’t been able to work on it at all this summer. Between my internship, my class, an end of summer qualifying exam, and about 4 or 5 papers that I really need to get journal-ready, that has kinda fallen to the side.
Right now, I’m hoping to work on it during the school year a bit. I’ll have all that stuff behind me, I won’t have any more classes to take, and I’ll be actively involved with football numbers anyhow.
Yup.
I believe there were a few of us – I_S being the other one I can recall immediately offhand.
Simulated Gameday Experience - just like the real thing, only we have smoke machines.
by Chris Pendley on Jul 8, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
And good news on that front:
I’ve figured out how to make executable files with MATLAB, and I’m learning how to make GUIs. By the time I get around to working something up, I might actually be able to distribute it.
/fingers crossed
I was told there would be no math...
Nice analysis, Hooper. One of the reasons I love this site.
Pandemonium Reigns
by Pandemonium Reigns on Jul 8, 2010 2:48 PM EDT reply actions
This stemmed from our earlier conversation... Awesome follow-thru
better offense = fewer punts
We were exploring the value of #1 special teams recruiting class – comparing ranking in punting vs winning pct.
We observed that good offenses would result in shorter punts and fewer punts. More successful offenses move the ball further (more yards per play) before requiring a punt and leave a shorter field to punt (reducing punting avg). They also score more frequently, requiring fewer punts per game. We wondered if a measure of offensive performance would correlate better with the need for punts and winning….
You guys do an awesome job of thinking things through and empirically backing up our intuition.
COEXISTence is difficult when core beliefs are mutually exclusive and those on the other side keep blowing up buildings, people, etc.
Muhammed sez: "Don't Lase Me Bro!"
Since I'm RTT's knuckle-dragger....
The math is waaay past me, but the charts are pretty!!
"I condone fun things" ~~ Cortland Finnegan
Hello ladies. Look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me.
Not at all
I was recently diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, one of the symptoms of which is an inability to concentrate. COmes in handy when the wife asks me to do the dishes too. :)

by 
























