from Amazon
Monday, July 26, 2010
More clutch kicking
Phil gives us more. I’m less intrigued by this, which could be caused by selection bias:
If, in a non-clutch situation, your odds of making a field goal were 5.45:1 (which works out to 84.5%, the overall 2008 NFL average), then, to get your clutch odds, you multiply 5.45 by 0.72. And so your corresponding odds in a clutch situation would be 3.93:1 (80%). It’s a small drop—less than five percentage points overall—but statistically significant nonetheless.
And more intrigued by this:
The authors found that the odds of making a PAT were very much higher than the odds of making a field goal of exactly the same distance—an odds ratio of 3.52. That means that if the odds of making a PAT are 100:1, the odds of making the same field goal are only 28:1. What could be causing that difference? It could be a problem with the model, or it could be that there is indeed something different about a PAT attempt.
100:1 means 99%, and 28:1 means 97%. It’s a small difference, but still hard to believe. Phil asks:
Therefore, in a clutch situation, could it be that FGs are intrinsically more difficult, just because the offense has to play more conservatively, but the defense can play more aggressively?
It’s a good observation. Pretty much, it seems that no one really tries to defend the PAT, but they try really hard on the FG. I’d also be surprised that there’s enough data points with FG (directly) on the 5-yard scrimmage line. So, it has to rely on some sort of best-fit equation? Maybe the regression equation doesn’t capture the pattern in success rates on FG, such that it breaks down at the extremes?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date