ChiefsPlanet - Correlations Between Punting and Defense and Punting and Winning

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Saccopoo Memorial Draft Forum (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=29)

- - Correlations Between Punting and Defense and Punting and Winning (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=314962)

Correlations Between Punting and Defense and Punting and Winning

Well, you guys think I'm a nut... So here it is, the data you've all been waiting so patiently for. I've included the Excel Workbook I used. the 20##P tabs are punting stats, the 20##D are defensive stats with correlations to punting, and the 20##WL tabs are W/L records with correlations to punting. I even made a sheet with all the glorious data in one spot.

There is no strong correlation between having a good punter and how good an NFL defense is and there is no strong correlation between having a good punter and win percentage. So, next time you want to defend a contract to a punter for millions per year, I'm going to tell you that you're an idiot. So long as a punter is NFL caliber, he's simply good enough.

Below are the correlation coefficients. I'll leave it to you folks to pour through the rest of it on your own.

Spoiler!

News flash:

Dustin Colquitt isn’t making 4 mil per year on his new contract like you said which is what originally started this debate. It’s a slightly above average deal. Also, I don’t think anybody would expect a good punter to have much of a correlation to winning statistically, since they’re ****ing punters.

That still doesn’t mean it’s useless to have a good one week in and week out. You know what’s worse? Paying a guy like Donald Stephenson 4 mil per which is the kind of shitty contract a lot of teams have.

Now, go show us some analytics on short WR’s as proof Tyreek Hill won’t work out at WR! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 13519997)

Sure, teams have shitty contracts. Most of them are shitty teams.

If a punter doesn't have much correlation to winning, why over pay or pay one more than the minimum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 13520176)

Sure, teams have shitty contracts. Most of them are shitty teams.

If a punter doesn't have much correlation to winning, why over pay or pay one more than the minimum?

Don’t fool yourself, just about every team has a shitty contract or two.

Colquitt isn’t being overpayed like he was the last two years. I’m not defending that contract. This one is slightly above average though, and I understand why they chose to keep him around, even though I probably would’ve let him walk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 13520192)

When you're paying guys playing a physical game like this, of course there will be contracts that don't work out. It happens.

I just wasn't sure where the hate towards kccrow was coming from. Seems he's got the data here to show what he's stating.

I think people tend to get confused about analytics and probabilities.

For instance, you used short wr's. I'd imagine there would be a certain size that tends to be more successful. Doesn't mean that a shorter one can't be or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 13520201)

He said we were paying Colquitt 4 mil per year and continues to act like that’s the case, which is false. His contract is 12th for Punters. Not that bad at all.

He just annoys me sometimes because he thinks he knows more than the pros when he’s just another idiot on a message board like us, hence me bringing up his stupid take on Hill.

Looks to me like it's 2.5 mil average for the next 3 years

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 13520204)

I think people tend to get confused about analytics and probabilities.

For instance, you used short wr's. I'd imagine there would be a certain size that tends to be more successful. Doesn't mean that a shorter one can't be or whatever.

That’s basically what he was saying, even after Hill’s rookie year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 13520214)

That’s basically what he was saying, even after Hill’s rookie year.

Well, after his rookie year, he wasn't the most polished WR and was a bit more gadget than he is now.

But I didn't see where he posted that so I won't comment on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 13520218)

Well, after his rookie year, he wasn't the most polished WR and was a bit more gadget than he is now.

But I didn't see where he posted that so I won't comment on it.

I’m sorry, but saying that Hill’s height was going to be the thing that kept him from being a good WR at that point was reeruned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 13520220)

I’m sorry, but saying that Hill’s height was going to be the thing that kept him from being a good WR at that point was reeruned.

You don't think height can be a limiting factor at certain positions?

One more thing, we’re paying our Kicker peanuts and have been for most, if not all, of Reid’s tenure. That certainly softens the blow of overpaying a little for a good/reliable Punter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 13520222)

You don't think height can be a limiting factor at certain positions?

Yes I do, but an inch clearly wasn’t going to make or break Hill after seeing his natural ability in 2016, and I would never flat out write somebody off because of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 13520226)

One more thing, we’re paying our Kicker peanuts and have been for most, if not all, of Reid’s tenure. That certainly softens the blow of overpaying a little for a good/reliable Punter.

So, I do have issue here.

Just because they're paying one position peanuts doesn't mean it's still not an issue to overpay another spot that doesn't necessarily bring value.

You could pay your kicker and punter less and use that money for a different spot that makes a bigger difference.

I think it's obvious however, that the front office and coaching staff here value the punter more than Kccrow does, but that doesn't make it wrong