[terry]

I previously posted some statistics regarding Michigan State's schedule, MSU's offense, and MSU's defense. Links --

MSU schedule - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...160.0.html
MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html

Below are some statistics for Michigan State's special teams, along with Stanford's stats included for comparison. Numbers in parentheses are the rank among the 123 FBS teams.

Kickoffs and Kickoff Coverage:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Avg. kickoff distance              62.2 (42nd)      62.3 (37th)
Touchback percentage            46.2% (34th)    28.9% (81st)
Opp. yards per return              21.0 (60th)      18.1 (11th)
Net yards per kickoff              39.7 (57th)      42.6 (1st)

Michigan State's kickoff coverage is average, allowing 21 yards per return. Stanford's coverage is excellent, allowing just 18 yards per return. Neither team has allowed a kickoff return for a touchdown.

Overall, MSU gets a net of 39.7 yards per kickoff, which means the opponent's average field position after a MSU kickoff is just past the 25 yard line. Stanford leads the nation with a net of 42.6 yards per kickoff. Opponents' average field position after a Stanford kickoff is just past the 22 yard line.

Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

Kickoff Returns:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Kickoff return avg.                  19.2 (99th)      27.8 (1st)
Returns of 40+ yards                    0 (112th)        6 (2nd)

MSU is below average in kickoff returns, averaging just 19 yards per return. Stanford leads the nation in kickoff returns, averaging almost 28 yards. Stanford has two touchdowns on kickoff returns; MSU has none. Advantage Stanford.

Punts and Punt Coverage:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Avg. punt distance                  42.3 (38th)      42.1 (40th)
Percent of punts returned        23% (25th)      55% (122nd)
Touchbacks                              8 (105th)          1 (5th)
Opp. yards per return              7.2 (54th)        7.2 (52nd)
Net yards per punt                38.3 (29th)      37.8 (39th)

MSU and Stanford have similar punting averages, similar opponent return averages, and similar net yards per punt. Both teams are above average, but not outstanding.

Only 23% of MSU's punts are returned, so opponents don't get much opportunity. Somewhat surprisingly to me, 55% of Stanford's punts are returned, which is the second highest figure in the nation. So, more of Stanford's punts are returned, giving opponents more opportunities.

MSU has 8 touchbacks compared to 1 for Stanford. That's like allowing 8 20-yard returns. That counts against MSU's net punting average.

Neither team has allowed a punt return for a touchdown.

Neither team has had a punt blocked.

Punt Returns:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Punt return avg.                      10.1 (42nd)      8.9 (52nd)
Returns of 20+ yards                    6 (7th)            3 (41st)
Pct. of opp. punts returned        37% (36th)      24% (102nd)

MSU and Stanford both are above average in punt returns, averaging 10.1 and 8.9 yards respectively.

MSU returns a higher percentage of opponents' punts than Stanford does, 37% to 24%. That is probably due in large part to the fact that MSU's opponents punted the ball 5.4 yards farther than Stanford's opponents -- 43.0 yards for MSU opponents, 37.6 yards for Stanford opponents. In fact, Stanford's opponents had the 3rd lowest punting average in the nation, which helps explain why Stanford returned a relatively low percentage of punts.

Neither team has returned a punt for a touchdown.

MSU has blocked one punt; Stanford has blocked two.

Field goals:
                                                  MSU              Stanford 
Field goal attempts                      21 (32nd)        24 (7th)
Field goals made                        18 (15th)          18 (15th)
Field goal percentage              85.7% (17th)    75.0% (58th)
Extra points                            45-48              52-54
Extra point percentage            93.8% (109th)    96.3% (80th)   

MSU is a very accurate field goal kicking team. Michael Geiger took over as the kicker during the NotreDame game and has made 14 of 15 attempts (93.3%), including his last 12 in a row. Geiger has missed more extra points (33-35) than field goals. Geiger is 8 for 8 in the 40-49 yard range. His longest is 49 yards. He has not attempted a field goal of 50 yards or more. MSU has not had a field goal attempt blocked.

Stanford as a team has made 75% of field goals. Jordan Williamson has made 80% (16-20). Two of Williamson's four misses were from beyond 50 yards, so Williamson is 16 for 18 inside 50 yards (with one of the two misses blocked). Williamson's long this season is 48 yards. Ukropina is 2 for 4 in field goals, with one blocked.

[terry]

I previously posted some statistics regarding Michigan State's schedule, MSU's offense, and MSU's defense. Links --

MSU schedule - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...160.0.html
MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html

Below are some statistics for Michigan State's special teams, along with Stanford's stats included for comparison. Numbers in parentheses are the rank among the 123 FBS teams.

Kickoffs and Kickoff Coverage:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Avg. kickoff distance              62.2 (42nd)      62.3 (37th)
Touchback percentage            46.2% (34th)    28.9% (81st)
Opp. yards per return              21.0 (60th)      18.1 (11th)
Net yards per kickoff              39.7 (57th)      42.6 (1st)

Michigan State's kickoff coverage is average, allowing 21 yards per return. Stanford's coverage is excellent, allowing just 18 yards per return. Neither team has allowed a kickoff return for a touchdown.

Overall, MSU gets a net of 39.7 yards per kickoff, which means the opponent's average field position after a MSU kickoff is just past the 25 yard line. Stanford leads the nation with a net of 42.6 yards per kickoff. Opponents' average field position after a Stanford kickoff is just past the 22 yard line.

Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

Kickoff Returns:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Kickoff return avg.                  19.2 (99th)      27.8 (1st)
Returns of 40+ yards                    0 (112th)        6 (2nd)

MSU is below average in kickoff returns, averaging just 19 yards per return. Stanford leads the nation in kickoff returns, averaging almost 28 yards. Stanford has two touchdowns on kickoff returns; MSU has none. Advantage Stanford.

Punts and Punt Coverage:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Avg. punt distance                  42.3 (38th)      42.1 (40th)
Percent of punts returned        23% (25th)      55% (122nd)
Touchbacks                              8 (105th)          1 (5th)
Opp. yards per return              7.2 (54th)        7.2 (52nd)
Net yards per punt                38.3 (29th)      37.8 (39th)

MSU and Stanford have similar punting averages, similar opponent return averages, and similar net yards per punt. Both teams are above average, but not outstanding.

Only 23% of MSU's punts are returned, so opponents don't get much opportunity. Somewhat surprisingly to me, 55% of Stanford's punts are returned, which is the second highest figure in the nation. So, more of Stanford's punts are returned, giving opponents more opportunities.

MSU has 8 touchbacks compared to 1 for Stanford. That's like allowing 8 20-yard returns. That counts against MSU's net punting average.

Neither team has allowed a punt return for a touchdown.

Neither team has had a punt blocked.

Punt Returns:
                                                MSU              Stanford 
Punt return avg.                      10.1 (42nd)      8.9 (52nd)
Returns of 20+ yards                    6 (7th)            3 (41st)
Pct. of opp. punts returned        37% (36th)      24% (102nd)

MSU and Stanford both are above average in punt returns, averaging 10.1 and 8.9 yards respectively.

MSU returns a higher percentage of opponents' punts than Stanford does, 37% to 24%. That is probably due in large part to the fact that MSU's opponents punted the ball 5.4 yards farther than Stanford's opponents -- 43.0 yards for MSU opponents, 37.6 yards for Stanford opponents. In fact, Stanford's opponents had the 3rd lowest punting average in the nation, which helps explain why Stanford returned a relatively low percentage of punts.

Neither team has returned a punt for a touchdown.

MSU has blocked one punt; Stanford has blocked two.

Field goals:
                                                  MSU              Stanford 
Field goal attempts                      21 (32nd)        24 (7th)
Field goals made                        18 (15th)          18 (15th)
Field goal percentage              85.7% (17th)    75.0% (58th)
Extra points                            45-48              52-54
Extra point percentage            93.8% (109th)    96.3% (80th)   

MSU is a very accurate field goal kicking team. Michael Geiger took over as the kicker during the NotreDame game and has made 14 of 15 attempts (93.3%), including his last 12 in a row. Geiger has missed more extra points (33-35) than field goals. Geiger is 8 for 8 in the 40-49 yard range. His longest is 49 yards. He has not attempted a field goal of 50 yards or more. MSU has not had a field goal attempt blocked.

Stanford as a team has made 75% of field goals. Jordan Williamson has made 80% (16-20). Two of Williamson's four misses were from beyond 50 yards, so Williamson is 16 for 18 inside 50 yards (with one of the two misses blocked). Williamson's long this season is 48 yards. Ukropina is 2 for 4 in field goals, with one blocked.

[Spartandawg]

Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.     

[Spartandawg]

Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.     

[terry]

Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.   

MSU's official statistics say that MSU had no punts blocked this year:

PUNTING              No.  Yds  Avg Long  TB  FC I20 Blkd
----------------------------------------------------------
Sadler, Mike          70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0
Total..........            70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0

http://www.msuspartans.com/sports/m-foot...mcume.html

The box score for the Ohio State game does not show any MSU punts being blocked. It shows that MSU had a 19 yard punt in the 4th quarter, but it's not recorded as a blocked punt.

MSU's 8 touchbacks is quite a high figure. MSU punted 70 times, so the 8 touchbacks represent 11.4% of all MSU punts. That ranks 95th in the nation. Stanford had 1 touchback on 47 punts for a touchback rate of 2.1%, which ranks 9th in the nation.

I'm not going to do a field position analysis on punts, but you're welcome to do it. In my opinion, the discrepancy in touchbacks is large enough to be a significant difference between the two teams, no matter what field position they had.

I'd be curious about your reaction to my posts on MSU's offense and defense, if you want to post in those threads.

MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html

[terry]

Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.   

MSU's official statistics say that MSU had no punts blocked this year:

PUNTING              No.  Yds  Avg Long  TB  FC I20 Blkd
----------------------------------------------------------
Sadler, Mike          70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0
Total..........            70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0

http://www.msuspartans.com/sports/m-foot...mcume.html

The box score for the Ohio State game does not show any MSU punts being blocked. It shows that MSU had a 19 yard punt in the 4th quarter, but it's not recorded as a blocked punt.

MSU's 8 touchbacks is quite a high figure. MSU punted 70 times, so the 8 touchbacks represent 11.4% of all MSU punts. That ranks 95th in the nation. Stanford had 1 touchback on 47 punts for a touchback rate of 2.1%, which ranks 9th in the nation.

I'm not going to do a field position analysis on punts, but you're welcome to do it. In my opinion, the discrepancy in touchbacks is large enough to be a significant difference between the two teams, no matter what field position they had.

I'd be curious about your reaction to my posts on MSU's offense and defense, if you want to post in those threads.

MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html

[Spartandawg]

[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9230.msg79334#msg79334 date=1387772629]
Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.   

MSU's official statistics say that MSU had no punts blocked this year:

PUNTING              No.  Yds  Avg Long  TB  FC I20 Blkd
----------------------------------------------------------
Sadler, Mike          70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0
Total..........            70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0

http://www.msuspartans.com/sports/m-foot...mcume.html

The box score for the Ohio State game does not show any MSU punts being blocked. It shows that MSU had a 19 yard punt in the 4th quarter, but it's not recorded as a blocked punt.

MSU's 8 touchbacks is quite a high figure. MSU punted 70 times, so the 8 touchbacks represent 11.4% of all MSU punts. That ranks 95th in the nation. Stanford had 1 touchback on 47 punts for a touchback rate of 2.1%, which ranks 9th in the nation.

I'm not going to do a field position analysis on punts, but you're welcome to do it. In my opinion, the discrepancy in touchbacks is large enough to be a significant difference between the two teams, no matter what field position they had.

I'd be curious about your reaction to my posts on MSU's offense and defense, if you want to post in those threads.

MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html
[/quote]

Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?  I think that saves us from having to look up field position stats. 

In addition, my sources say Sadler averaged 42.4 yards/punt compared to 42.1 yards for Rhyne.  In other words, I believe MSU's 8 touchbacks are somewhat inconsequential.

[Spartandawg]

[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9230.msg79334#msg79334 date=1387772629]
Well done.  One correction... MSU did have a punt blocked against Ohio State.  Not sure why that didn't show up in your research.

As for the number of punt touchbacks (8-1), I'm not sure there is much relevance to the discrepancy without incorporating number of attempts and field position.  I'm guessing MSU has significantly more attempts than Stanford, considering our defense outscored our offense during the first few weeks of the season.  8 times as many?  Don't know.  How about average starting field position of the offense?  Maybe MSU has more pooch attempts.   

MSU's official statistics say that MSU had no punts blocked this year:

PUNTING              No.  Yds  Avg Long  TB  FC I20 Blkd
----------------------------------------------------------
Sadler, Mike          70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0
Total..........            70 2960  42.3  69  8  18  30    0

http://www.msuspartans.com/sports/m-foot...mcume.html

The box score for the Ohio State game does not show any MSU punts being blocked. It shows that MSU had a 19 yard punt in the 4th quarter, but it's not recorded as a blocked punt.

MSU's 8 touchbacks is quite a high figure. MSU punted 70 times, so the 8 touchbacks represent 11.4% of all MSU punts. That ranks 95th in the nation. Stanford had 1 touchback on 47 punts for a touchback rate of 2.1%, which ranks 9th in the nation.

I'm not going to do a field position analysis on punts, but you're welcome to do it. In my opinion, the discrepancy in touchbacks is large enough to be a significant difference between the two teams, no matter what field position they had.

I'd be curious about your reaction to my posts on MSU's offense and defense, if you want to post in those threads.

MSU offense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...184.0.html
MSU defense - http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...212.0.html
[/quote]

Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?  I think that saves us from having to look up field position stats. 

In addition, my sources say Sadler averaged 42.4 yards/punt compared to 42.1 yards for Rhyne.  In other words, I believe MSU's 8 touchbacks are somewhat inconsequential.

[Bruce Wang]

Speaking of MSU special teams, here's a prescient mash note that Dantonio sent to his punter the day after he committed:

https://twitter.com/Sadler_3/status/4144...00/photo/1



I'm making the same prediction. He will indeed punt in the Rose Bowl.  Many many times.

[Bruce Wang]

Speaking of MSU special teams, here's a prescient mash note that Dantonio sent to his punter the day after he committed:

https://twitter.com/Sadler_3/status/4144...00/photo/1



I'm making the same prediction. He will indeed punt in the Rose Bowl.  Many many times.

[FarmBoy]

I'm making the same prediction. He will indeed punt in the Rose Bowl.  Many many times.

May he be MSU's player of the game!

[FarmBoy]

I'm making the same prediction. He will indeed punt in the Rose Bowl.  Many many times.

May he be MSU's player of the game!

[rollwrig]

Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.

[rollwrig]

Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.

[MSUFAN4320]

Perhaps it's trivial to go on about it, but Ryan Shazier of OSU definitely blocked a punt in that game. The MSU site got that wrong.

I would be hesitant to knock Sadler based exclusively on your research. He's an excellent punter.

[MSUFAN4320]

Perhaps it's trivial to go on about it, but Ryan Shazier of OSU definitely blocked a punt in that game. The MSU site got that wrong.

I would be hesitant to knock Sadler based exclusively on your research. He's an excellent punter.

[terry]

Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

Hey, I'm just telling you what's in the box score and in MSU's official stats. I relied on the stats and box score on MSU's website and in MSU's Rose Bowl media guide. It sounds like there's a mistake in MSU's stats. According to the NCAA Statistician's Manual, when a punt is deflected but travels forward anyway, the statistician is supposed to determine whether "the distance of the punt is materially affected." If so, it's supposed to be recorded as a blocked punt. It sounds like this one, which went 19 yards, should have been scored as a blocked punt.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?

I think 8 touchbacks are too many. Perhaps the punter may have been too caught up in trying to land the ball inside the 10, which resulted in his putting too many punts in the end zone. He would have done better for his team by putting fewer punts in the end zone, even if that meant putting fewer punts inside the 10.

In addition, my sources say Sadler averaged 42.4 yards/punt compared to 42.1 yards for Rhyne.  In other words, I believe MSU's 8 touchbacks are somewhat inconsequential.

That doesn't follow. Those figures are gross punting averages. They don't take into account the yards lost due to touchbacks. Sadler would have been better off with a somewhat lower punting average and fewer touchbacks. If Sadler had put those 8 punts at the 15 yard line instead of in the end zone, his punting average for the season would have gone down 1.7 yards but his team would have been better off. (By the way, Sadler averaged 42.3 yards, not 42.4, according to MSU's stats and the NCAA stats.)

[terry]

Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

Hey, I'm just telling you what's in the box score and in MSU's official stats. I relied on the stats and box score on MSU's website and in MSU's Rose Bowl media guide. It sounds like there's a mistake in MSU's stats. According to the NCAA Statistician's Manual, when a punt is deflected but travels forward anyway, the statistician is supposed to determine whether "the distance of the punt is materially affected." If so, it's supposed to be recorded as a blocked punt. It sounds like this one, which went 19 yards, should have been scored as a blocked punt.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?

I think 8 touchbacks are too many. Perhaps the punter may have been too caught up in trying to land the ball inside the 10, which resulted in his putting too many punts in the end zone. He would have done better for his team by putting fewer punts in the end zone, even if that meant putting fewer punts inside the 10.

In addition, my sources say Sadler averaged 42.4 yards/punt compared to 42.1 yards for Rhyne.  In other words, I believe MSU's 8 touchbacks are somewhat inconsequential.

That doesn't follow. Those figures are gross punting averages. They don't take into account the yards lost due to touchbacks. Sadler would have been better off with a somewhat lower punting average and fewer touchbacks. If Sadler had put those 8 punts at the 15 yard line instead of in the end zone, his punting average for the season would have gone down 1.7 yards but his team would have been better off. (By the way, Sadler averaged 42.3 yards, not 42.4, according to MSU's stats and the NCAA stats.)

[terry]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9230.msg79324#msg79324 date=1387756434]
Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.
[/quote]

Ukropina gets very few touchbacks on kickoffs (4 of 42). But Stanford's kickoff coverage team has been so good that Ukropina's shorter kickoffs haven't really hurt us.

[terry]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9230.msg79324#msg79324 date=1387756434]
Stanford's kickoffs have been almost evenly split between two kickers, Williamson and Ukropina. Williamson's kickoffs carry 3.6 yards farther than Ukropina's (64.1 to 60.5). Williamson's touchback percentage is 48.8%, compared to 9.5% for Ukropina. The coaches have not said whether Williamson will be healthy enough to kick off in the Rose Bowl.

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.
[/quote]

Ukropina gets very few touchbacks on kickoffs (4 of 42). But Stanford's kickoff coverage team has been so good that Ukropina's shorter kickoffs haven't really hurt us.

[terry]

Perhaps it's trivial to go on about it, but Ryan Shazier of OSU definitely blocked a punt in that game. The MSU site got that wrong.

I would be hesitant to knock Sadler based exclusively on your research. He's an excellent punter.

I think Sadler's stats show that he's a very good punter. The only drawback is the number of touchbacks.

[terry]

Perhaps it's trivial to go on about it, but Ryan Shazier of OSU definitely blocked a punt in that game. The MSU site got that wrong.

I would be hesitant to knock Sadler based exclusively on your research. He's an excellent punter.

I think Sadler's stats show that he's a very good punter. The only drawback is the number of touchbacks.

[BostonCard]

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.

It is worth noting that I think Pete Alamar's strategy is to try to avoid having the other team take a touchback.  The rule changes instituted last year (kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30) and touchbacks starting at the 25 instead of the 20, mean that the risk/benefit ratio of taking your chances with a return favor the coverage team more than they used to.  Prior to two years ago, if you had a kicker who could routinely put it in the end zone, it was worth it since the opponent got at the 20 and returnable kicks were frequently taken out beyond the 20 (and occasionally busted out for a big play).  Now, with our coverage team starting at the 35, we can usually down a returned inside the 25 and wind up leaving the opponent in a worse position than if they simply took a knee.

The only exception is a kickoff with the lead late in the game, when it makes sense to avoid the possibility of a big return.

BC

[BostonCard]

A buddy and I had a running bet on whether Ukropina would be able to get his kicks into the end zone. At the time it seemed like he would never get it that far. Looking at these numbers though, it seems like it wasn't that big of an impact. Thanks for the great info.

It is worth noting that I think Pete Alamar's strategy is to try to avoid having the other team take a touchback.  The rule changes instituted last year (kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30) and touchbacks starting at the 25 instead of the 20, mean that the risk/benefit ratio of taking your chances with a return favor the coverage team more than they used to.  Prior to two years ago, if you had a kicker who could routinely put it in the end zone, it was worth it since the opponent got at the 20 and returnable kicks were frequently taken out beyond the 20 (and occasionally busted out for a big play).  Now, with our coverage team starting at the 35, we can usually down a returned inside the 25 and wind up leaving the opponent in a worse position than if they simply took a knee.

The only exception is a kickoff with the lead late in the game, when it makes sense to avoid the possibility of a big return.

BC

[stupac2]

It is worth noting that I think Pete Alamar's strategy is to try to avoid having the other team take a touchback.  The rule changes instituted last year (kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30) and touchbacks starting at the 25 instead of the 20, mean that the risk/benefit ratio of taking your chances with a return favor the coverage team more than they used to.  Prior to two years ago, if you had a kicker who could routinely put it in the end zone, it was worth it since the opponent got at the 20 and returnable kicks were frequently taken out beyond the 20 (and occasionally busted out for a big play).  Now, with our coverage team starting at the 35, we can usually down a returned inside the 25 and wind up leaving the opponent in a worse position than if they simply took a knee.

The only exception is a kickoff with the lead late in the game, when it makes sense to avoid the possibility of a big return.

BC

This is exactly why I thought that rule change was moronic. (At least if the goal was actually a safer game via more touchbacks, which they always claimed.) It seems like they thought that the kicking team would always just boot it as far as they could, and that the returning team was deciding whether to take the touchback or not. But that's clearly not the case, and touchbacks on kickoffs never should have been moved out to the 25.

[stupac2]

It is worth noting that I think Pete Alamar's strategy is to try to avoid having the other team take a touchback.  The rule changes instituted last year (kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30) and touchbacks starting at the 25 instead of the 20, mean that the risk/benefit ratio of taking your chances with a return favor the coverage team more than they used to.  Prior to two years ago, if you had a kicker who could routinely put it in the end zone, it was worth it since the opponent got at the 20 and returnable kicks were frequently taken out beyond the 20 (and occasionally busted out for a big play).  Now, with our coverage team starting at the 35, we can usually down a returned inside the 25 and wind up leaving the opponent in a worse position than if they simply took a knee.

The only exception is a kickoff with the lead late in the game, when it makes sense to avoid the possibility of a big return.

BC

This is exactly why I thought that rule change was moronic. (At least if the goal was actually a safer game via more touchbacks, which they always claimed.) It seems like they thought that the kicking team would always just boot it as far as they could, and that the returning team was deciding whether to take the touchback or not. But that's clearly not the case, and touchbacks on kickoffs never should have been moved out to the 25.

[BostonCard]

This is exactly why I thought that rule change was moronic. (At least if the goal was actually a safer game via more touchbacks, which they always claimed.) It seems like they thought that the kicking team would always just boot it as far as they could, and that the returning team was deciding whether to take the touchback or not. But that's clearly not the case, and touchbacks on kickoffs never should have been moved out to the 25.

I think that is a general truism of the game.  Anything which benefits one side will be to the detriment of the other... so if it makes more sense the rule changes favor the returning team taking a knee, the kicking team will adjust by making it harder for the returning team to take a knee.  That being said, I think most teams lack the kickoff coverage accumen where a touchback doesn't still favor the kicking team.  Given that MSU's stats (21 yard opposing return) are pretty close to the median (they rank 60 out of 125 D1 teams), that means that if their average returnable kickoff starts at the 4 yard line, it is a toss-up of which is better.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is exactly why I thought that rule change was moronic. (At least if the goal was actually a safer game via more touchbacks, which they always claimed.) It seems like they thought that the kicking team would always just boot it as far as they could, and that the returning team was deciding whether to take the touchback or not. But that's clearly not the case, and touchbacks on kickoffs never should have been moved out to the 25.

I think that is a general truism of the game.  Anything which benefits one side will be to the detriment of the other... so if it makes more sense the rule changes favor the returning team taking a knee, the kicking team will adjust by making it harder for the returning team to take a knee.  That being said, I think most teams lack the kickoff coverage accumen where a touchback doesn't still favor the kicking team.  Given that MSU's stats (21 yard opposing return) are pretty close to the median (they rank 60 out of 125 D1 teams), that means that if their average returnable kickoff starts at the 4 yard line, it is a toss-up of which is better.

BC

[Spartandawg]

[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9230.msg79352#msg79352 date=1387803981]
Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?

I would say 8 touchbacks are too many. I would say perhaps the punter may have been too caught up in trying to land the ball inside the 10, which resulted in his putting too many punts in the end zone. He would have done better by putting fewer punts in the end zone, even if that meant putting fewer punts inside the 10.
[/quote]


Your logic is counterintuitive to say the least.  If we only average Sadler's 22 punts inside the 10 yard line along with his 8 touchbacks, the starting field position for the opponent is the 12.66 yard line.

And that number is extremely inflated because I calculated for all 22 punts to land ON the 10 yard line, not inside of it.  It also doesn't take into account his #3 national ranking for punts inside the 20.

Sadler's numbers are extraordinary by both NCAA and NFL standards. 

[Spartandawg]

[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9230.msg79352#msg79352 date=1387803981]
Then I guess I don't know what qualifies as a blocked punt if the Ohio State player blocking it with his hand doesn't count.

What if I were to tell you that MSU's Ray Guy Award semifinalist punter leads the nation with 22 punts downed inside the 10 and ranks third in punts inside the 20?

I would say 8 touchbacks are too many. I would say perhaps the punter may have been too caught up in trying to land the ball inside the 10, which resulted in his putting too many punts in the end zone. He would have done better by putting fewer punts in the end zone, even if that meant putting fewer punts inside the 10.
[/quote]


Your logic is counterintuitive to say the least.  If we only average Sadler's 22 punts inside the 10 yard line along with his 8 touchbacks, the starting field position for the opponent is the 12.66 yard line.

And that number is extremely inflated because I calculated for all 22 punts to land ON the 10 yard line, not inside of it.  It also doesn't take into account his #3 national ranking for punts inside the 20.

Sadler's numbers are extraordinary by both NCAA and NFL standards. 

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[terry]

I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

[terry]

I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

[Spartandawg]

I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

Well, sure.  If he kicked every punt 5 yards shorter, had zero touchbacks, or pinned every punt on the 1 yard line, that would definitely be an improvement.

I questioned the assertion that MSU's 8 touchbacks to Stanford's 1, without any context, was in some way a relevant statistic and indicative of the strengths and/or weaknesses of each punter.

Son of a bitch.  I just deleted an entire paragraph accidentally.  Basically, I said Sadler's ability to punt inside the 20, 10 and even 5 yard line on so many occasions completely negates the 8 touchbacks from a field position standpoint.  And starting field position seems like the logical, singular measure of success for a pooch punter? 
 
How many touchbacks are too many?  What if a punter has zero touchbacks but struggles to land punts inside the 20 on a consistent basis?  Or if they have 15 touchbacks, yet every other punt sticks at the 5 yard line?


 

[Spartandawg]

I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

Well, sure.  If he kicked every punt 5 yards shorter, had zero touchbacks, or pinned every punt on the 1 yard line, that would definitely be an improvement.

I questioned the assertion that MSU's 8 touchbacks to Stanford's 1, without any context, was in some way a relevant statistic and indicative of the strengths and/or weaknesses of each punter.

Son of a bitch.  I just deleted an entire paragraph accidentally.  Basically, I said Sadler's ability to punt inside the 20, 10 and even 5 yard line on so many occasions completely negates the 8 touchbacks from a field position standpoint.  And starting field position seems like the logical, singular measure of success for a pooch punter? 
 
How many touchbacks are too many?  What if a punter has zero touchbacks but struggles to land punts inside the 20 on a consistent basis?  Or if they have 15 touchbacks, yet every other punt sticks at the 5 yard line?


 

[stupac2]

Regardless of his touchbacks, he's a pretty funny dude: https://twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/41...9100422144

[stupac2]

Regardless of his touchbacks, he's a pretty funny dude: https://twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/41...9100422144

[MSUFAN4320]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9230.msg79406#msg79406 date=1387835645]
I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

Well, sure.  If he kicked every punt 5 yards shorter, had zero touchbacks, or pinned every punt on the 1 yard line, that would definitely be an improvement.

I questioned the assertion that MSU's 8 touchbacks to Stanford's 1, without any context, was in some way a relevant statistic and indicative of the strengths and/or weaknesses of each punter.

Son of a bitch.  I just deleted an entire paragraph accidentally.  Basically, I said Sadler's ability to punt inside the 20, 10 and even 5 yard line on so many occasions completely negates the 8 touchbacks from a field position standpoint.  And starting field position seems like the logical, singular measure of success for a pooch punter? 
 
How many touchbacks are too many?  What if a punter has zero touchbacks but struggles to land punts inside the 20 on a consistent basis?  Or if they have 15 touchbacks, yet every other punt sticks at the 5 yard line?[/quote]

We played the majority of our games in nasty conditions. Rain, swirling wind, etc. I'd be curious to go back and look at those touchbacks and see how many were affected by the weather. Don't want to make excuses, but I'm guessing Sadler will enjoy punting in the fair Pasadena conditions.

[MSUFAN4320]

[quote author=terry link=topic=9230.msg79406#msg79406 date=1387835645]
I agree with Boston Card. Let me see if I can illustrate the point with some hypothetical numbers.

Spartandawg says Sadler had 22 kicks downed inside the 10 yard line. We know he had 8 touchbacks. So that's 30 punts that ended up inside the 10 yard line. Let's assume that if Sadler had kicked every one of those 30 punts 5 yards shorter, he could have avoided the 8 touchbacks and that those 8 punts would have been downed on the 3 yard line instead of going into the end zone. But he would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts.

On balance, Sadler would have been better off kicking all of them 5 yards shorter. He would have gained 17 yards of field position on 8 punts by putting the ball at the 3 yard line instead of having a touchback, for a total of 136 yards gained. He would have lost 5 yards of field position on the other 22 punts, for a total loss of 110 yards. The yards gained would have been more than the yards lost. Sadler's personal stats would be worse -- his gross average would be about 2 yards lower. But the average field position for the team, on balance, would be better.

Of course, it's more complicated. Among other things, you would have to consider the game situation, because yards are not always of equal value. But you can see from the example that shorter kicks can result in better average field position if they prevent touchbacks.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that touchbacks are bad. Sadler is a good punter. I just think he has too many touchbacks.

Well, sure.  If he kicked every punt 5 yards shorter, had zero touchbacks, or pinned every punt on the 1 yard line, that would definitely be an improvement.

I questioned the assertion that MSU's 8 touchbacks to Stanford's 1, without any context, was in some way a relevant statistic and indicative of the strengths and/or weaknesses of each punter.

Son of a bitch.  I just deleted an entire paragraph accidentally.  Basically, I said Sadler's ability to punt inside the 20, 10 and even 5 yard line on so many occasions completely negates the 8 touchbacks from a field position standpoint.  And starting field position seems like the logical, singular measure of success for a pooch punter? 
 
How many touchbacks are too many?  What if a punter has zero touchbacks but struggles to land punts inside the 20 on a consistent basis?  Or if they have 15 touchbacks, yet every other punt sticks at the 5 yard line?[/quote]

We played the majority of our games in nasty conditions. Rain, swirling wind, etc. I'd be curious to go back and look at those touchbacks and see how many were affected by the weather. Don't want to make excuses, but I'm guessing Sadler will enjoy punting in the fair Pasadena conditions.