12-23-2013, 01:48 PM
I don't think the analysis you want to do can be done with the stats you have, because the counterfactual to 8 touchbacks and 22 balls downed inside the 10 yard line is not 30 balls downed outside the 30 yard line.
First off, the denominator is not quite right. Some of those 22 punts downed inside the 10 were kicked from around midfield or from MSU territory and were unlikely to have been touchbacks anyways; they are balls that the Sandler kicked as hard as he could that wound up downed inside the 10. The question is how many of the punts were kicked from within the opponents 45 yard line.
Now, let's say that Sandler was aiming for the punt to be downed at the 5 yard line, but obviously there is some fluctuation around that target. Some of them (8 to be precise) will be kicked 5 yards or more too far and will be touchbacks; a fair number (somewhat less than 22, see my comment above) will be punted within 5 yards of the target and will be downed within the 10, and some (impossible to tell how many, without going through the play-by-play) will be downed outside the 10. The question is whether the benefit of aiming for, say, the 7 yard line would have been worth the risk. Presumably in that case, fewer than 8 kicks would have been touchbacks, but of the n kicks that weren't touchbacks, they would have, on average, been a couple yards better field position for the opposition.
Ultimately, it depends on what that denominator of punts was (punts that could have gone into the end zone). If, for the sake of argument, it was 28 (eight touchbacks, say 15 kicks inside the 10, and another 5 kicks just outside the 10), then the risk/benefit benefits targetting a slightly shorter spot if 1 touchback is avoided for every yard of worse field position on the 20 kicks that don't go into the end zone. Figuring out that risk/benefit ratio cannot be done with the summary data we have.
BC
First off, the denominator is not quite right. Some of those 22 punts downed inside the 10 were kicked from around midfield or from MSU territory and were unlikely to have been touchbacks anyways; they are balls that the Sandler kicked as hard as he could that wound up downed inside the 10. The question is how many of the punts were kicked from within the opponents 45 yard line.
Now, let's say that Sandler was aiming for the punt to be downed at the 5 yard line, but obviously there is some fluctuation around that target. Some of them (8 to be precise) will be kicked 5 yards or more too far and will be touchbacks; a fair number (somewhat less than 22, see my comment above) will be punted within 5 yards of the target and will be downed within the 10, and some (impossible to tell how many, without going through the play-by-play) will be downed outside the 10. The question is whether the benefit of aiming for, say, the 7 yard line would have been worth the risk. Presumably in that case, fewer than 8 kicks would have been touchbacks, but of the n kicks that weren't touchbacks, they would have, on average, been a couple yards better field position for the opposition.
Ultimately, it depends on what that denominator of punts was (punts that could have gone into the end zone). If, for the sake of argument, it was 28 (eight touchbacks, say 15 kicks inside the 10, and another 5 kicks just outside the 10), then the risk/benefit benefits targetting a slightly shorter spot if 1 touchback is avoided for every yard of worse field position on the 20 kicks that don't go into the end zone. Figuring out that risk/benefit ratio cannot be done with the summary data we have.
BC