Albert Haynesworth DT and Nick Harper CB are both game time decisions after failing to practice this week.
The Denver Post is speculating that Brady Quinn QB will likely be shopped this spring to a team like Atlanta, Chicago, or Carolina. Derek Anderson QB is expected to get a lucrative contract extension.
Ahman Green RB has been ruled out for Houston’s game against New Orleans. Ron Dayne is expected to start.
Santana Moss WR is expected to start this week in a huge divisional matchup at Dallas. The Redskins have opened up their offense in the last two weeks and Moss has a great history against Dallas. If ever there were a good game to start Moss, this would be it. Still, consider him to be a #4 option against Dallas.
Dante Hall WR/PR will be active for this weeks game against San Francisco.
Detroit starter Dewayne White DE is listed as doubtful and is expected to miss his second-straight game when Detroit hosts the Giants this weekend.
Recent Browns standout Shaun Smith DE injured his knee in practice on Thursday and is expected to miss this weeks game at Baltimore.
Alex Smith QB is expected to backup Trent Dilfer QB this week despite his injured shoulder and forearm.
Steve Smith WR will be a game-time decision after failing to practice this week. Green Bay’s Charles Woodson has been dominant at CB this year; thus, you are either very brave or very desperate if Smith makes it into your lineup this week.
Chris Brown RB is expected to return from an ankle injury this week. There is no word as to who will backup Lendale White. Some have speculated that Chris Henry will withdraw his appeal and begin serving his 4-game suspension immediately.
Travis Henry RB will finally learn the outcome of his appeal with the NFL on Tuesday of next week. This may be the last week fantasy owners have Henry available to plug into their lineup, although it may be advisable to sit him given that they play the leagues best defense against the run. Henry’s agent sounded optimistic that Henry would be exonerated. Earlier this week, Mike Shanahan argued that Travis has provided sufficient evidence of his innocence and should be allowed to keep his job.
Todd Heap TE is expected to miss this weeks game against Cleveland.
Leonard Davis LG practiced Friday and is expected to start in this weeks game against the Redskins.
Shaun Alexander RB will not play in this weeks game against Chicago. Holmgren intends to hold him out indefinitely until he is convinced that Alexander is healthy enough to play.
Cullen Jenkins DE practiced Friday and is expected to play in this weeks matchup against the Panthers.
Andrew Walter QB and not Jamarcus Russell QB will be the backup for the Raiders this week. Josh McCown QB is doubtful and Daunte Culpepper will start in his stead. Jerry Porter WR is expected to play after full participation in practice Friday.
Dallas Clark TE and Tony Ugoh LT practiced all week and will play this week against the Chiefs.
Wes Welker WR is listed as questionable (team decision) after being limited in practice this week and may miss Sunday’s game against Buffalo. Make sure you check his status before kickoff.
Saint’s Jamaal Brown LT is expected to be inactive this week against Houston. Second year player Zach Strief will start in his place. This could be a major factor as Houston has a pretty good pass defense and Brees has been sacked only 7 times all season, the least often among all NFL starters to have played in 10 games.
Charles Grant DE missed practice Friday and will be a game-time decision for the Saints game against Houston.
Brian Westbrook RB missed practice this week but is expected to play against Miami. Be wary of this matchup; if Philly dominates, Westbrook’s day could be over early. Still, Westbrook’s knee swelling is a chronic condition and shouldn’t worry fantasy owners beyond one weeks rest.
Bob Sanders SS returned to practice Friday and is expected to play this week. Marvin Harrison WR did not practice this week and is not expected to play. Even if he is activated, fantasy owners should stay away from Harrison who would likely be on a snap count.
Derrick Ward RB and Steve Smith WR both failed to practice this week and will miss the Giants game against Detroit. Antonio Pierce LB practiced Friday and is expected to start.
Myrshawn Lynch RB will miss this weeks game against the Patriots. Anthony Thomas is expected to be the starter.
Byron Leftwich QB returns from his injury this week. Bobby Petrino will name Sunday’s starter right before kickoff. Petrino has maintained that Leftwich is his starter when healthy so expect Leftwich to get the nod against Carolina.
Kevin Jones RB is expected to remain the starter the rest of the season but his workload may be diminished as his foot is ailing. Expect to see more of T.J. Duckett or special teams standout Aveion Cason.
Despite being listed as probable, Brian Griese QB will backup Rex Grossman against Seattle. Grossman was pretty good last year against Seattle in two starts. If he plays well, Lovie Smith may give him back his job.
Laveraneus Coles WR practiced all week and will play in Week 11.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
No Article this Week
I regret to say that I won't be writing anything this week. My workload is higher than normal and blogging is a casualty. I appreciate those of you who are regularly checking for content. I'll be back to business next week and promise to give you some extra content to make up for the lost week. Check back on Thanksgiving!
Friday, November 9, 2007
Don't Believe the Hackett Hype
Before we get too engrossed in an analysis of D.J. Hackett, lets all remind ourselves of one crucial fact: Matt Hasselbeck attempted 47 passes last week. That's 12 more than his season average of 35. Let that sink in for a moment and we'll continue...
At the beginning of the season Hackett was touted as a breakout candidate based on his membership in the 3rd-year wide receiver club. When the season started, several things occurred that doused the high hopes of fantasy owners. To start, Holmgren remembered that he had agreed to pay Nate Burleson $30 million only a year earlier. To resolve this dissonance, he decided to go with a timeshare at split end. One week later, Hackett suffered a high ankle sprain and disappeared for several weeks.
Currently, Hackett is still embedded in a timeshare at flanker with Burleson (who had 6 targets to Hackett's 8 last week). Given Engram's prominent role in the offense, Hackett's targets are likely to further decrease once Branch returns from an injury. What's more, this guy has never been great. Last year in 12 starts Hackett produced 5 quality starts (1 of which was a "great" performance) and killed fantasy owners 7 times.
While I agree that Hackett shows a lot of promise, I think its foolhardy to plug this guy into your lineup as if he were Braylon Edwards returning from an injury. He hasn't shown us anything yet. Instead, fantasy owners should continue to plug in proven commodities like Brandon Marshall, Shaun McDonald, Bobby Engram, or Chris Chambers until Hackett proves to be more than just a fad.
 | While I'm happy for fantasy owners who cashed in on his 6-yard TD grab in week 9, I'm not so sure they should faithfully plug him into their lineups every week. After all, Hackett was only targeted 8 times last week (17% of passing plays) while Engram, who is apparently the number 1 receiver in Seattle--that is, until Deion Branch returns--was targeted 21 times. Also, let's not forget that Hackett's performance was only a 12-point outing which, as those of you who read my last blog post should recall, is an average performance by historical standards. |
At the beginning of the season Hackett was touted as a breakout candidate based on his membership in the 3rd-year wide receiver club. When the season started, several things occurred that doused the high hopes of fantasy owners. To start, Holmgren remembered that he had agreed to pay Nate Burleson $30 million only a year earlier. To resolve this dissonance, he decided to go with a timeshare at split end. One week later, Hackett suffered a high ankle sprain and disappeared for several weeks.
Currently, Hackett is still embedded in a timeshare at flanker with Burleson (who had 6 targets to Hackett's 8 last week). Given Engram's prominent role in the offense, Hackett's targets are likely to further decrease once Branch returns from an injury. What's more, this guy has never been great. Last year in 12 starts Hackett produced 5 quality starts (1 of which was a "great" performance) and killed fantasy owners 7 times.
While I agree that Hackett shows a lot of promise, I think its foolhardy to plug this guy into your lineup as if he were Braylon Edwards returning from an injury. He hasn't shown us anything yet. Instead, fantasy owners should continue to plug in proven commodities like Brandon Marshall, Shaun McDonald, Bobby Engram, or Chris Chambers until Hackett proves to be more than just a fad.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
High-Scoring WR’s that Kill Your Fantasy Team
What if I told you that starting Reggie Williams against the Titans this week was a better play than starting Kevin Curtis against the Redskins? You’d call me crazy, right? How about if I told you that Shaun McDonald is a safer play than Roy Williams? Many would find that hard to swallow. Well, this week I’m going to argue that all of the above are sound advice. To understand why, please read on.
After scanning through dozens of frantic message board posts from perplexed fantasy owners, some pervasive themes emerge. Among these is the stereotypical “who to start at WR” post which tends to involve three or four of the waiver wire’s finest wide receivers. Opinions in these forums vary wildly and the reliability of the information is suspect, to say the least.
To help shed some light on these matchups, I performed a qualitative analysis of wide receiver production for the previous three NFL seasons. Using weekly scoring statistics for every top 40 fantasy wide receiver over the period, I calculated the average weekly score and determined a relevant range which constitutes a “good” performance. Anything greater than this average was termed a “great” performance; anything less was termed a “poor” performance. Here are the average number of each type and the percentage of each type by rank:
As you can see, top-ranked wide receivers tend to have a plethora of “great” performances while the bottom-ranked wide receivers tend to have a paucity of “great” performances. This is not surprising. What I did find surprising is the fact that there is very little variation in “good” performances among the three groups. More on this later.
Let’s be honest, fantasy leagues are won or lost on “great” performances. Most of us recall (either fondly or with regret) the three-week scoring explosion provided by Billy Volek (aka “Voltron”) and Drew Bennett during the fantasy playoffs in 2004. We draft guys like Marvin Harrison and Terrell Owens to give us these high-octane performances and, for the most part, they live up to their draft value.
When searching for a safe waiver wire pickup, we usually aren’t expecting a “great” performance. Rather, we are in search of a player that isn’t going to kill our fantasy team by giving us a “poor” performance. It is also worth mentioning that sometimes “great” performers kill fantasy teams. For instance, what if you knew that for every “great” performance a player would produce two “poor” performances? Would you still plug them in faithfully?
In what follows, we’ll get to the bottom of all of these questions.
Weekly scoring data for the past three NFL seasons was used to determine the average score and mean absolute deviation (MAD) for the population. Week 17 data was thrown out for obvious reasons. An average of 10.5 points per week was found with a MAD of 5.7. All injury weeks were removed from the sample; thus, this average may seem high at first glance.
A “standard” scoring format was used (1pt per 10 yards and 6 points per TD). I realize that PPR leagues are proliferating rapidly and, given sufficient demand, would be happy to provide those numbers in a future post; however, these findings should give some general insights with respect to all scoring formats.
Using a range of 1 MAD, I estimated a “good” performance to be any score between 8 and 13 fantasy points. Anything less than 8 was rated a “poor” performance; anything greater than 13 was rated a “great” performance.
Next, I combined the “good” and “great” performances and referred to this total as the number of “quality starts” (QS). One might argue that a beneficial wide receiver should, at a minimum, provide at least as many quality starts as they do “poor” performances. As we will see in a moment, a high point total doesn’t ensure that this is the case.
Here are the results from 2004:
Most striking to me is the rank of Ashley Lelie who, despite finishing only 24th overall, produced 11 QS’s. His total is better than five other top 10 wide receivers, including Drew Bennett who, despite his infamy, produced 3 fewer QS’s. Jerry Porter was surprisingly bad with 6 QS’s, which is fewer than any other bottom 10 wide receiver from that year, with the exception of Larry Fitzgerald (who he tied).
Here are the results from 2005:
There aren’t as many surprises in this year, although there are some notable performers. 22nd ranked Deion Branch was a great value for fantasy owners, providing 9 QS’s. Reggie Wayne, who would make big strides the following year, gave us an astonishing 10 QS’s. Jerry Porter and Lee Evans both provided an abysmal 10+ poor performances meaning that they absolutely killed any team that utilized them as a #3 WR.
Here are the results from 2006:
It is perhaps not that surprising to see Chad Johnson ranked so low. Many of you probably remember that Ocho Cinco was incredibly average last year with the exception of his back-to-back 30+ point games. T.J. Houshmanzadeh was a far better wide receiver than Chad Johnson, registering more than twice as many “great” performances and 25% more QS’s. Is it any surprise that T.J. “whosurmama” has played so much better than Chad this season?
Plaxico Burress and Mushin Muhammad were both remarkably consistent given their rankings. The oft-started Mike Furrey, Isaac Bruce, and Mark Clayton absolutely killed fantasy teams despite their top-30 ranking.
Also of note here is the fact that Chris Henry was a fantastic value for fantasy owners in 2006. If he is still available in your league, he is definitely worth a look.
As you can see, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence which suggests that total points is often an inadequate gauge of a wide receivers true value. In the next section, we’ll take a look at this years numbers and see how some of the more popular bye-week saviors—such as Ike Hilliard, Brandon Marshall, and Kevin Walter—have fared.
Using data for the first 9 weeks, I tabulated QS’s and then projected each players total over a 15 game season. Here is the data:
Let me start by saying that what T.J. Houshmanzadeh has accomplished so far this season is simply remarkable. In the last 3 years, no fantasy player has posted greater than 13 QS’s, Houshmanzadeh has a good chance of surpassing that mark this season. Also, unless you are absolutely stacked at wide receiver, Larry Fitzgerald should be starting for you every week. He isn’t single-handedly winning any games this year, but his consistency is phenomenal. In addition to these two, Brandon Marshall, Bobby Engram, Shaun McDonald, Chris Chambers, and Reggie Williams have all been surprisingly consistent this year.
There is also some bad news for fantasy owners. First, the verdict is still out on Steve Smith and Joey Galloway. Both have provided a handful of “great” performances but, overall, they’ve hurt fantasy owners more than they’ve helped. Patrick Crayton, Hines Ward, and especially 12th ranked Kevin Curtis have absolutely killed fantasy teams. These are three names I consistently see listed as starters; if you own these players, you should consider trading them for some of the guys mentioned above.
Some other popular waiver wire pickups are Ike Hilliard, Kevin Walter, and Antwaan Randle El. All three failed to break the top 40 WR’s by projected QS’s and should not be starting for your team under any circumstances.
I hope you found this information helpful. I would love to hear your opinions or questions. There is more that can be done with this data for the purposes of fantasy drafts. As next year’s draft approaches, I’ll revisit this topic. Good luck!
After scanning through dozens of frantic message board posts from perplexed fantasy owners, some pervasive themes emerge. Among these is the stereotypical “who to start at WR” post which tends to involve three or four of the waiver wire’s finest wide receivers. Opinions in these forums vary wildly and the reliability of the information is suspect, to say the least.
To help shed some light on these matchups, I performed a qualitative analysis of wide receiver production for the previous three NFL seasons. Using weekly scoring statistics for every top 40 fantasy wide receiver over the period, I calculated the average weekly score and determined a relevant range which constitutes a “good” performance. Anything greater than this average was termed a “great” performance; anything less was termed a “poor” performance. Here are the average number of each type and the percentage of each type by rank:
As you can see, top-ranked wide receivers tend to have a plethora of “great” performances while the bottom-ranked wide receivers tend to have a paucity of “great” performances. This is not surprising. What I did find surprising is the fact that there is very little variation in “good” performances among the three groups. More on this later.
Let’s be honest, fantasy leagues are won or lost on “great” performances. Most of us recall (either fondly or with regret) the three-week scoring explosion provided by Billy Volek (aka “Voltron”) and Drew Bennett during the fantasy playoffs in 2004. We draft guys like Marvin Harrison and Terrell Owens to give us these high-octane performances and, for the most part, they live up to their draft value.
When searching for a safe waiver wire pickup, we usually aren’t expecting a “great” performance. Rather, we are in search of a player that isn’t going to kill our fantasy team by giving us a “poor” performance. It is also worth mentioning that sometimes “great” performers kill fantasy teams. For instance, what if you knew that for every “great” performance a player would produce two “poor” performances? Would you still plug them in faithfully?
In what follows, we’ll get to the bottom of all of these questions.
Methodology
Weekly scoring data for the past three NFL seasons was used to determine the average score and mean absolute deviation (MAD) for the population. Week 17 data was thrown out for obvious reasons. An average of 10.5 points per week was found with a MAD of 5.7. All injury weeks were removed from the sample; thus, this average may seem high at first glance.
A “standard” scoring format was used (1pt per 10 yards and 6 points per TD). I realize that PPR leagues are proliferating rapidly and, given sufficient demand, would be happy to provide those numbers in a future post; however, these findings should give some general insights with respect to all scoring formats.
Using a range of 1 MAD, I estimated a “good” performance to be any score between 8 and 13 fantasy points. Anything less than 8 was rated a “poor” performance; anything greater than 13 was rated a “great” performance.
Next, I combined the “good” and “great” performances and referred to this total as the number of “quality starts” (QS). One might argue that a beneficial wide receiver should, at a minimum, provide at least as many quality starts as they do “poor” performances. As we will see in a moment, a high point total doesn’t ensure that this is the case.
Data
Here are the results from 2004:
Most striking to me is the rank of Ashley Lelie who, despite finishing only 24th overall, produced 11 QS’s. His total is better than five other top 10 wide receivers, including Drew Bennett who, despite his infamy, produced 3 fewer QS’s. Jerry Porter was surprisingly bad with 6 QS’s, which is fewer than any other bottom 10 wide receiver from that year, with the exception of Larry Fitzgerald (who he tied).
Here are the results from 2005:
There aren’t as many surprises in this year, although there are some notable performers. 22nd ranked Deion Branch was a great value for fantasy owners, providing 9 QS’s. Reggie Wayne, who would make big strides the following year, gave us an astonishing 10 QS’s. Jerry Porter and Lee Evans both provided an abysmal 10+ poor performances meaning that they absolutely killed any team that utilized them as a #3 WR.
Here are the results from 2006:
It is perhaps not that surprising to see Chad Johnson ranked so low. Many of you probably remember that Ocho Cinco was incredibly average last year with the exception of his back-to-back 30+ point games. T.J. Houshmanzadeh was a far better wide receiver than Chad Johnson, registering more than twice as many “great” performances and 25% more QS’s. Is it any surprise that T.J. “whosurmama” has played so much better than Chad this season?
Plaxico Burress and Mushin Muhammad were both remarkably consistent given their rankings. The oft-started Mike Furrey, Isaac Bruce, and Mark Clayton absolutely killed fantasy teams despite their top-30 ranking.
Also of note here is the fact that Chris Henry was a fantastic value for fantasy owners in 2006. If he is still available in your league, he is definitely worth a look.
As you can see, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence which suggests that total points is often an inadequate gauge of a wide receivers true value. In the next section, we’ll take a look at this years numbers and see how some of the more popular bye-week saviors—such as Ike Hilliard, Brandon Marshall, and Kevin Walter—have fared.
2007 QS’s and Implications for Matchup Management
Using data for the first 9 weeks, I tabulated QS’s and then projected each players total over a 15 game season. Here is the data:
Let me start by saying that what T.J. Houshmanzadeh has accomplished so far this season is simply remarkable. In the last 3 years, no fantasy player has posted greater than 13 QS’s, Houshmanzadeh has a good chance of surpassing that mark this season. Also, unless you are absolutely stacked at wide receiver, Larry Fitzgerald should be starting for you every week. He isn’t single-handedly winning any games this year, but his consistency is phenomenal. In addition to these two, Brandon Marshall, Bobby Engram, Shaun McDonald, Chris Chambers, and Reggie Williams have all been surprisingly consistent this year.
There is also some bad news for fantasy owners. First, the verdict is still out on Steve Smith and Joey Galloway. Both have provided a handful of “great” performances but, overall, they’ve hurt fantasy owners more than they’ve helped. Patrick Crayton, Hines Ward, and especially 12th ranked Kevin Curtis have absolutely killed fantasy teams. These are three names I consistently see listed as starters; if you own these players, you should consider trading them for some of the guys mentioned above.
Some other popular waiver wire pickups are Ike Hilliard, Kevin Walter, and Antwaan Randle El. All three failed to break the top 40 WR’s by projected QS’s and should not be starting for your team under any circumstances.
I hope you found this information helpful. I would love to hear your opinions or questions. There is more that can be done with this data for the purposes of fantasy drafts. As next year’s draft approaches, I’ll revisit this topic. Good luck!
Monday, November 5, 2007
You are now able to leave comments
There was a settings issue that was disabling unregistered users from leaving comments. I've corrected the problem and now anybody who wishes should be able to do so. Thank you to those who brought this to my attention.
Friday, November 2, 2007
More Time for Travis Henry Owners
| According to an article in today's Denver Post, Travis Henry's appeal hearing with the New York state court has been moved to November 16, 2007. This is fantastic news for Henry owners who believed they may be without Henry as early as Week 10. Should Henry lose his appeal, the NFL would likely suspend him. Assuming that he appeals this decision, it would be at least another 1-2 weeks before his suspension went into effect. This means that Week 12 against Chicago is the earliest he would begin serving his suspension. |  |
While many in the media seem to think an eventual suspension is inevitable, I have a more optimistic outlook on Travis Henry's case. Travis was drug tested in August pursuant to a child support action taken against him in New York. Results of this test show extremely low levels of THC in his urine. Upon hearing of these results, the NFL immediately requested the "B" urine sample to conduct their own tests.
One tenet of Henry's defense is that he was potentially denied sufficient representation when the NFL tested his "B" sample. When a player submits a urine sample, it is separated into two separate samples called the "A" bottle sample and the "B" bottle sample. The NFL Drug Policy states that, once a player has failed his "A" bottle sample, he may request the "B" bottle sample be tested. According to this document, "The player may not be present at the "B" bottle test, but, at his own expense, he may be represented at the "B" bottle Test by a qualified toxicologist not affiliated with a commercial laboratory." Henry provided such a toxicologist, but the NFL claims he was affiliated with an outside lab. If Henry can prove the NFL inappropriately dismissed his expert, he may defeat the charge.
A second defense affronted by Henry is that the THC levels in his urine were so small that they could only have been caused by second-hand exposure to the drug. To corroborate this claim, Henry has submitted polygraph test results and a hair sample. If Henry can establish that the first test was a false positive, he may convince the New York courts to suppress the "B" sample test results altogether.
Henry is certainly the underdog in this process, but to suggest that his suspension is inevitable is premature. If supported by the evidence, Henry has some strong arguments which could end up saving his season (and probably his career). Regardless, today's news is good for fantasy owner's who now get to ignore this nightmare for another two weeks.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Demystifying Kicker Production
Which kicker should I start week 9? Shayne Graham or Josh Brown? ESPN.com says Shayne Graham is the 3rd best kicker this week while Josh Brown is only 13th. CBS, on the other hand, claims that Graham is only the 12th best kicker while Brown is 8th. Why all the inconsistency? Are these guys just guessing, or what? Let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this…
What conditions represent a good matchup for a kicker? Here is a list of the most common recommendations I’ve seen:
The last item is silly. It is neither logical nor supported by the data.
The first item, I argue, is given far too much weight. Given that 3/4’s of kickers make 80% of their field goals or more, I don’t think this accuracy effect is large. What’s more, two of the most inaccurate kickers in the league this season play in domes (Wilkins and Mare). Higher accuracy also has no effect on the number of field goals attempted. Detroit, for instance, plays in a dome yet is on a pace to allow only 10 field goals this season.
Items 2 and 3 seem to be cutting to the heart of the matter. These two arguments are seemingly in conflict with one another. One argues that playing a tougher defense will result in more kicker points while the other suggests that playing a weaker opponent will yield a similar result. So which is better, a tough or weak opponent? Let’s get into the data.
Using statistics from Pro Football Weekly and NFL.com I gathered the following data for all 32 NFL teams dating back to the 2003 NFL regular season:
In addition to red zone touchdown efficiency, third down efficiency may also be a factor; however, red zone touchdown efficiency is, by my estimation, a linear function of third down efficiency. As such, I opted to exclusively look at red zone efficiency as it should theoretically be the more descriptive of the two.
Kicker points allowed is based on the actual point total of all field goals and extra points scored. No modifications were made based on the distance of these field goals. Field goal distance is an exogenous explanatory variable given that the range of the kicker has nothing to do with the defensive opponent. I may revisit this topic in a future blog.
I utilize the following population model for this study:
KPPG = β0 + β1(RZ%) + β2(PPG) + u
Where RZ% is the opponent red zone touchdown efficiency (%), PPG is total points per game allowed, and KPPG is kicker points per game allowed.
Here are the results:
Interpretation:
Not surprisingly, the effect of PPG on KPPG is very large. Thus, we can confidently pick matchups where a kicker is playing a defense that yields a lot of total points. The impact of defenses RZ% suggests that a low percentage of touchdowns will result in more field goals; however, this effect is very small. So while a strong defense has some impact on kicker scoring, magnitude of the PPG effect is much, much larger. Thus, total points allowed by a defense should have far greater weight in your matchup decision than RZ%.
As you can see, the model turns out to be fairly predictive. The regression equation predicts the following matchup strength based on NFL statistics through week 8:
What conditions represent a good matchup for a kicker? Here is a list of the most common recommendations I’ve seen:
- Go with the dome kicker. Kickers are perceived to be more accurate in domes.
- Look for a heavy defensive matchup. When playing good defenses, teams are forced to settle for more field goals and, hence, kickers score more.
- Go for a kicker in a high scoring game. An above-average score should result in above average scoring for the kicker.
- Try and get kickers that are playing on MNF or SNF. They seem to step up in those games.
The last item is silly. It is neither logical nor supported by the data.
The first item, I argue, is given far too much weight. Given that 3/4’s of kickers make 80% of their field goals or more, I don’t think this accuracy effect is large. What’s more, two of the most inaccurate kickers in the league this season play in domes (Wilkins and Mare). Higher accuracy also has no effect on the number of field goals attempted. Detroit, for instance, plays in a dome yet is on a pace to allow only 10 field goals this season.
Items 2 and 3 seem to be cutting to the heart of the matter. These two arguments are seemingly in conflict with one another. One argues that playing a tougher defense will result in more kicker points while the other suggests that playing a weaker opponent will yield a similar result. So which is better, a tough or weak opponent? Let’s get into the data.
Methodology
Using statistics from Pro Football Weekly and NFL.com I gathered the following data for all 32 NFL teams dating back to the 2003 NFL regular season:
- Points Allowed per Game
- Red Zone TD Efficiency (%)
- Kicker Points Allowed
In addition to red zone touchdown efficiency, third down efficiency may also be a factor; however, red zone touchdown efficiency is, by my estimation, a linear function of third down efficiency. As such, I opted to exclusively look at red zone efficiency as it should theoretically be the more descriptive of the two.
Kicker points allowed is based on the actual point total of all field goals and extra points scored. No modifications were made based on the distance of these field goals. Field goal distance is an exogenous explanatory variable given that the range of the kicker has nothing to do with the defensive opponent. I may revisit this topic in a future blog.
Data
I utilize the following population model for this study:
KPPG = β0 + β1(RZ%) + β2(PPG) + u
Where RZ% is the opponent red zone touchdown efficiency (%), PPG is total points per game allowed, and KPPG is kicker points per game allowed.
Here are the results:
Interpretation:
- An increase of 1 PPG is correlated with an increase in .25 KPPG.
- An decrease of .01 RZ% (red zone touchdown efficiency increase of 1%) is correlated with a decrease of -.05 KPPG.
Findings
Not surprisingly, the effect of PPG on KPPG is very large. Thus, we can confidently pick matchups where a kicker is playing a defense that yields a lot of total points. The impact of defenses RZ% suggests that a low percentage of touchdowns will result in more field goals; however, this effect is very small. So while a strong defense has some impact on kicker scoring, magnitude of the PPG effect is much, much larger. Thus, total points allowed by a defense should have far greater weight in your matchup decision than RZ%.
As you can see, the model turns out to be fairly predictive. The regression equation predicts the following matchup strength based on NFL statistics through week 8:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)