What's Vinatieri worth (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

 

[Dynasty]

He's worth being paid 10-20% more than any other kicker. My favorite team better resign my favorite player.

 

[CalBear]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

 

[thatguy]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

You may not be able to show statistically that guys like Vinatieri are clutch kickers. You could argue that he has merely been lucky enough to have made the handful of clutch kicks he has attempted. There just isn't enough data to get any kind of statistical significance, especially since his career % is already fairly high. But, it is clear that the pressure does not seem to affect him, and thus we can at least say that he kicks as well during the clutch as he does normally.However, Feely proved that he is not a clutch kicker, that he likely kicks worse in the clutch than he does normally. If we throw out the 56 yard attempt, then he missed two in a row from the low 40 yard range. Before that, he was 5-5 from 40-50 yards on the season. You could argue that he was merely unlucky, and that his % from that distance merely regressed to the mean at a very inopportune time. But the manner in which he missed that last one, with the ball falling far short as it did, is enough to tell me that he choked, and is therefore not a clutch kicker.

 

[Bri]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

 

[Keys Myaths]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

If kickers folded under pressure, they wouldn't be in the NFL to begin with.Every kick in the NFL is being watched my millions of people...every kick is pressure-packed, since that's all you do.

Also, even before you get to the NFL, every kick you're making is an attempt to get there...pressure-packed because you're playing for at least a 500k annual salary.

 

[CalBear]

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

I haven't done a study on this particular subject. But various studies have been done on similar subjects, and generally they find that the conventional wisdom is either incorrect or incapable of being demonstrated statistically. That is, if you attempt to define "clutch kicking," and then use it to predict whether a particular kicker will make a particular kick, it doesn't work; the kicker will be about as likely to make the "clutch" kick as to make any other kick.Two areas that have been studied in this fashion are clutch hitting in baseball, and "hot" shooting in basketball. Neither seems to actually exist; success in clutch hitting in the past is not useful to predict success in clutch hitting in the future, and similarly, someone who just made three shots in a row is no more likely to make his fourth shot than he was the first.

The number of opportunities a kicker gets to make a clutch kick is tiny; far too small to study statistically on an individual basis. People's memory is also very short, and they are perfectly willing to discount (for example) the two kicks Vinatieri missed in the Super Bowl and remember only the one he made. If Jay Feeley had made the third kick to win the game this weekend, would he now be considered a clutch kicker?

My hypothesis is that Vinatieri, as a career 80% FG kicker, has about an 80% chance to hit a typical field goal in a clutch situation. Once someone has a reputation as a clutch kicker (or hitter), announcers and fans tend to discount his misses and credit his hits as examples of his clutch ability. If clutch kicking doesn't exist, Vinatieri will still make four successful clutch kicks for everyone one he misses; it's very easy to construe that as being a great clutch kicker, if you want to.

 

[thatguy]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

If kickers folded under pressure, they wouldn't be in the NFL to begin with.Every kick in the NFL is being watched my millions of people...every kick is pressure-packed, since that's all you do.

Also, even before you get to the NFL, every kick you're making is an attempt to get there...pressure-packed because you're playing for at least a 500k annual salary.

So... what're you saying? Feely shouldn't be in the NFL? He clearly folded.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

If kickers folded under pressure, they wouldn't be in the NFL to begin with.Every kick in the NFL is being watched my millions of people...every kick is pressure-packed, since that's all you do.

Also, even before you get to the NFL, every kick you're making is an attempt to get there...pressure-packed because you're playing for at least a 500k annual salary.

So... what're you saying? Feely shouldn't be in the NFL? He clearly folded.

No, he didn't. He missed a few kicks.Remember, Josh Brown almost missed the game winner. The field wasn't great that day, and Feely had a few tough kicks that didn't go his way. It happens.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way.  Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl.  He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

I haven't done a study on this particular subject. But various studies have been done on similar subjects, and generally they find that the conventional wisdom is either incorrect or incapable of being demonstrated statistically. That is, if you attempt to define "clutch kicking," and then use it to predict whether a particular kicker will make a particular kick, it doesn't work; the kicker will be about as likely to make the "clutch" kick as to make any other kick.Two areas that have been studied in this fashion are clutch hitting in baseball, and "hot" shooting in basketball. Neither seems to actually exist; success in clutch hitting in the past is not useful to predict success in clutch hitting in the future, and similarly, someone who just made three shots in a row is no more likely to make his fourth shot than he was the first.

The number of opportunities a kicker gets to make a clutch kick is tiny; far too small to study statistically on an individual basis. People's memory is also very short, and they are perfectly willing to discount (for example) the two kicks Vinatieri missed in the Super Bowl and remember only the one he made. If Jay Feeley had made the third kick to win the game this weekend, would he now be considered a clutch kicker?

My hypothesis is that Vinatieri, as a career 80% FG kicker, has about an 80% chance to hit a typical field goal in a clutch situation. Once someone has a reputation as a clutch kicker (or hitter), announcers and fans tend to discount his misses and credit his hits as examples of his clutch ability. If clutch kicking doesn't exist, Vinatieri will still make four successful clutch kicks for everyone one he misses; it's very easy to construe that as being a great clutch kicker, if you want to.

Have you seen Bill James latest work on the subject of clutch hitting? He's now saying it cannot be proven that there's no such thing as clutch hitting.http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/009148.php

Hot shooting in basketball definitely exists. If you've played basketball before, and you made 11 three pointers in a row...or missed 11 in a row, then you know that hot shooting exists. It's that simple.

 

[CalBear]

Hot shooting in basketball definitely exists. If you've played basketball before, and you made 11 three pointers in a row...or missed 11 in a row, then you know that hot shooting exists. It's that simple.

Really, it's not that simple. I've certainly been on the basketball court and felt hot or cold. But every hot or cold streak comes to an end. The statistical question is, does the existence of a current streak have any predictive value for the next shot? That is, if my overall shooting percentage is 50%, and I have made n shots in a row, am I more than 50% likely to make shot n+1? The answer appears to be "no," that while there are sequences of hot shooting or hitting, the sequences are not predictive, and are congruent with the expected amounts of randomness in the data pool. Someone making five baskets in a row isn't any more likely to make the sixth. There are some players who will display more streakiness than others, but no more than would be predicted by a purely random model.As for the Bill James point, he's saying there is too much noise in the data to scientifically demonstrate whether clutch hitting does or does not exist. Certainly, every study is greeted with dozens of "what about this factor?" questions which are not easily answered. (For example, there is a selection bias for clutch hitting; close and late in games. What if some players hit better with the sun lower or down, or have better endurance so hit better late in the game? What if they hit fastballs better than curveballs and so hit closers better than starters? etc.) I can concur that these phenomena are difficult to study. But the plausible research tends to show the conventional wisdom as fallacy.

 

[Dragon Bones]

From a fantasy perspective - NOT MUCH!Patriots are more likely to go for it now on 4th down than ever before

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Hot shooting in basketball definitely exists.  If you've played basketball before, and you made 11 three pointers in a row...or missed 11 in a row, then you know that hot shooting exists.  It's that simple.

Really, it's not that simple. I've certainly been on the basketball court and felt hot or cold. But every hot or cold streak comes to an end. The statistical question is, does the existence of a current streak have any predictive value for the next shot? That is, if my overall shooting percentage is 50%, and I have made n shots in a row, am I more than 50% likely to make shot n+1? The answer appears to be "no," that while there are sequences of hot shooting or hitting, the sequences are not predictive, and are congruent with the expected amounts of randomness in the data pool. Someone making five baskets in a row isn't any more likely to make the sixth. There are some players who will display more streakiness than others, but no more than would be predicted by a purely random model.As for the Bill James point, he's saying there is too much noise in the data to scientifically demonstrate whether clutch hitting does or does not exist. Certainly, every study is greeted with dozens of "what about this factor?" questions which are not easily answered. (For example, there is a selection bias for clutch hitting; close and late in games. What if some players hit better with the sun lower or down, or have better endurance so hit better late in the game? What if they hit fastballs better than curveballs and so hit closers better than starters? etc.) I can concur that these phenomena are difficult to study. But the plausible research tends to show the conventional wisdom as fallacy.

I agree on your points about basketball. Because I made 6 shots in a row, that does not make it more likely that I will make the 7th. But that's not the same as saying "hot shooting" does not exist. If you've made 6 in a row, you're in a hot streak...or in the zone. Whatever you want to call it, it exists. Same thing in baseball.What I find interesting is that you never see a professional athlete or a former professional athlete proposing that cluth or hot do not exist. They know there's something there, but they are unable to put a statistical formula to it.

Here's an interesting article by Tipping Point & Blink author Malcolm Gladwell called The Art of Failure:

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_08_21_a_choking.htm

I think it's a very good read for this topic, especially for the original subject of the failures of NFL kickers and Vinatieri's subsequent value.

 

[CalBear]

I agree on your points about basketball. Because I made 6 shots in a row, that does not make it more likely that I will make the 7th. But that's not the same as saying "hot shooting" does not exist. If you've made 6 in a row, you're in a hot streak...or in the zone. Whatever you want to call it, it exists. Same thing in baseball.

What I find interesting is that you never see a professional athlete or a former professional athlete proposing that cluth or hot do not exist. They know there's something there, but they are unable to put a statistical formula to it.

Here's an interesting article by Tipping Point & Blink author Malcolm Gladwell called The Art of Failure:

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_08_21_a_choking.htm

I think it's a very good read for this topic, especially for the original subject of the failures of NFL kickers and Vinatieri's subsequent value.

One of the seminal works on this subject was Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky's "The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences" (PDF). Gilovich is a cognitive psychologist, studying not basketball so much as the human tendency to misidentify patterns. We easily define random sequences that happen to go a certain way as being meaningful, no matter how obvious the randomness is. Once, while playing the board game Risk (which involves a lot of die rolls), I rolled eight ones in a row. The human tendency is to identify this as a pattern; a cold streak, in this case. It's certainly possible to look at it afterwards and identify it as a cold streak, even though it was just the operation of random chance. The only meaningful thing, from a statistical perspective, is whether, after rolling seven ones in a row, I was more or less likely to roll an eighth one. I contend that my chances were still one in six; that I was not a "bad" die roller, and there was no force acting other than probability and chance. (That didn't help when I actually rolled an eighth one; but I didn't roll a ninth).

Vinatieri's reputation as a clutch kicker started with the Raiders game in the snow. He made a couple of amazing kicks in that game, no doubt. But the point is, once the reputation of being a clutch kicker exists, once our brains have seized on that as a pattern, we are very good at choosing data points which fit the pattern and discarding those which don't. So, two missed field goals in the Super Bowl are discarded as not fitting the pattern--"An unusual miss for Vinatieri!"--and the one made field goal is siezed upon as verifying the pattern--"Another clutch kick from Vinatieri!"

Since this is an area of human perception that is pretty well understood, I think it is prudent to take the hypothesis that these ephemeral phenomena do not really exist; that instead we are forcing events into patterns based on known human tendencies to do so.

 

[thatguy]

Interesting article, quite true:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_...XAwBHNlYwM3NTU-

To those who doubt Adam Vinatieri's value, just look at this past week's games, when the Giants, Bucs and Cowboys all lost because kickers couldn't convert in the clutch.

As Jay Feely, Matt Bryant and Billy Cundiff proved this week, it's a lot easier to kick in the middle of a game than when the outcome is on the line.

Vinatieri, whose last-second field goals won two Super Bowls for New England, knows all about that.

He has established himself as the best kicker of this era and one of the best in NFL history with his clutch kicks. It's not simply percentage — he ranks seventh on the career list at .818 — but it's because he comes through when it counts most.

Feely of the Giants, Bryant of the Bucs and Cundiff of the Cowboys all failed, leaving their playoff-contending teams with bitter losses.

(snip)

It's pretty unlikely that clutch kicking really exists in a statistically meaningful way. Vinatieri also missed two field goals in the Super Bowl. He's a good kicker, but overrated.

can you elaborate on that?

If kickers folded under pressure, they wouldn't be in the NFL to begin with.Every kick in the NFL is being watched my millions of people...every kick is pressure-packed, since that's all you do.

Also, even before you get to the NFL, every kick you're making is an attempt to get there...pressure-packed because you're playing for at least a 500k annual salary.

So... what're you saying? Feely shouldn't be in the NFL? He clearly folded.

No, he didn't. He missed a few kicks.Remember, Josh Brown almost missed the game winner. The field wasn't great that day, and Feely had a few tough kicks that didn't go his way. It happens.

Dude, did you see that last kick he missed? It was horrible. It didn't even make it to the uprights, by a good 3 or 4 yards. He choked. If you want to see my take on it, read my post above, but Feely choked big time and we don't need stats to tell us this.

 

[Bri]

The Patriots have won eight straight overtime games and ownthe longest overtime winning streak in NFL history, includingplayoff games. The streak includes New England’s 16-13 “SnowBowl” win over Oakland in the 2001 Divisional Playoffs(01/19/02).MOST CONSECUTIVE OVERTIME VICTORIESWins Team Dates8* ................... New England....................2000-present7..................... Denver.............................1978-19856..................... Washington......................1976-19876..................... Pittsburgh ........................1994-19975..................... Many Times*-Includes one playoff gameWORKING OVERTIMEThe Patriots have won their last eight overtime games (includingthe playoffs). New England’s eight-game overtime winning streakis the longest in NFL history. New England has not lost inovertime since Buffalo won 16-13 at Foxboro Stadium on Nov. 5,2000. Since that time, the Patriots have won eight straight,including five games in which they scored on their firstpossession of overtime.NEW ENGLAND’S OVERTIME STREAKWINNING FINALDATE OPP PLAY DRIVE INFO SCORE11/23/03 at HST 28-yd FG 9 plays, 76 yds; 3:39 23-2010/19/03 at MIA 82-yd TD 1-82; 0:12 19-1312/29/02 vs. MIA+ 35-yd FG 7-43; 2:03 27-2409/22/02 vs. KC+ 35-yd FG 9-53; 4:40 41-3801/19/02 vs. OAK+* 23-yd FG 15-61; 8:29 16-1312/16/01 at BUF+ 23-yd FG 8-75; 3:18 12-910/14/01 vs. SD+ 44-yd FG 6-51; 2:59 29-2612/17/00 at BUF 24-yd FG 14-83; 5:56 13-1011/05/00 vs. BUF 32-yd FG 6-52-2:50 L, 13-16ADAM VINATIERI is the second leadingscorer in Patriots history, totaling 1,125points in his nine-plus seasons with theclub. He is five points behind GinoCappelletti, the franchise’s all-time leadingscorer. Vinatieri made the team as arookie free agent in 1996 and has scored100 points or more in each of his first nineseasons, joining Jason Elam of the Denver Broncos as the onlytwo kickers in NFL history to accomplish the feat. Vinatieri haskicked the most field goals in Patriots history, having tallied 257successful boots in a Patriots uniform.LEADING SCORERS IN PATRIOTS HISTORY# SCORING TD PAT/PATA 2-Pt FG/FGA PTS1 Gino Cappelletti 42 346/358 2 176/334 1,1302 Adam Vinatieri 0 352/359 1 257/314 1,1253 John Smith 0 308/323 0 128/191 692IRON MANAdam Vinatieri has played in 155 consecutive regular-seasongames, establishing the second longest consecutive game streakin franchise history. Vinatieri, who has also played in 15 straightplayoff games and has not missed a game in his 10-year career,passed Gino Cappelletti’s mark of 152 consecutive games, whichwas established from 1960-70, on Nov. 13 at Miami. Vinatierinow trails only Raymond Clayborn’s record of 161 consecutivegames, established from 1977-87.AUTOMATIC ADAMADAM VINATIERI has nailed two game-winning field goals so farthis season, bring his career total of game-winning boots to 20.Vinatieri is the only kicker in NFL history to kick a game-winningfield goal in the final minute of the Super Bowl and hasaccomplished the feat twice, including his 48-yarder to winSuper Bowl XXXVI and a 41-yarder to win Super Bowl XXXVIII.Out of the Patriots’ six playoff wins in 2001 and 2003, four weredecided on game-winning boots by Vinatieri. His game-winnersare listed below:ADAM VINATIERI’S GAME-WINNERS IN 2005Date Opponent Yds Time Final Score10/09/05 at Atlanta 29 0:17 31-2809/25/05 at Pittsburgh 43 0:01 23-20A list of Vinatieri’s game-winning field goals prior to thisseason can be found on page 225 of the 2005 PatriotsMedia Guide.ADAM VINATIERI QUICK HITS Vinatieri has been successful on 23 consecutive fourth-quarterfield goal attempts, dating back to Dec. 8, 2002, when hemissed a 43-yarder against the Buffalo Bills at GilletteStadium. Since the beginning of the 2001 season, Vinatieri is 22-for-23(95.7 percent) in the fourth quarter when the Patriots areeither leading or behind by a touchdown or less. Vinatieri has hit 28 of his last 29 field goals (96.6 percent) inthe second half, dating back to the 2003 regular-seasonfinale.NFL ALL-TIME MOST ACCURATE KICKERSPLAYER TEAM PCT. FGM/FGA1. Mike Vanderjagt Colts 87.4 209/2392. Phil Dawson Browns 83.7 128/1533. Matt Stover Ravens 82.8 370/4474. Jeff Wilkins Rams 82.0 242/295Ryan Longwell Packers 82.0 218/2666. David Akers Eagles 81.9 149/1827. Adam Vinatieri Patriots 81.8 257/3148. Olindo Mare Dolphins 81.6 209/2569. John Carney Saints 80.9 381/471

 

[Bri]

Calbear, not baiting, genuinely curious what you have to say to the above post. I enjoy your math breakdowns and well.....

 

[INTERGALACTIC SUPERSTAR]

IRON MAN

LMFAO @ any kicker being called an Iron Man. Brady is the one that should get ALL the credit for driving his team down the field, and put Vinatieri in a position to do what he's payed for and kick the winning FG.

 

[Bri]

see Feagles

 

[AnonymousBob]

I'm a big fan of Billy Beane-you know, the baseball GM who breaks everything down with numbers. However, I don't believe everything can be measured-things like clutch hitters, kickers, passers, etc I think exist, if only in the very persons mind. They've shown people with a positive outlook tend to get sick less and recover quicker-does that not show the power of the human mind? I believe some players have an ability-mentally-to push aside all doubt and say "Ya know what? I'm going to do this." People with that kind of mentality IMO are much more likely to come through in the "clutch" if only because self-doubt doesn't hold them back any.

 

[CalBear]

Calbear, not baiting, genuinely curious what you have to say to the above post. I enjoy your math breakdowns and well.....

I think Vinatieri is a good kicker who has gotten a lot of opportunities. Game-winning FGs is a stat similar to fourth-quarter comebacks for a QB; you're mostly measuring the number of times you're in a position to make such a FG. Look at the overtime field goals. He's made seven of them, only one of those over 35 yards. Let's look at the other six. In the past two years, Vinatieri is 15 of 16 on field goals inside 40 yards. So we should not be surprised at all to find that he made six field goals of 35 yards or shorter; that is absolutely the expected result. And in general, there just isn't enough data to be statistically significant in these kinds of slices.

 

[Rovers]

One of the sharpest engineers I ever worked with said that engineers who revert to mathematics to explain something often do that because they otherwise can't explain something... they really don't understand it. If it can't be mathmatically proven, it can't happen. But it does, all the time, in this case, concerning hot streaks and choking. I think anyone who played sports with any accumen for it knows.... I've been "in the zone" and I've choked. I never needed any math to tell me which it was, either. In baseball, the ball looks bigger. The pitches look slower. The bat feels lighter. You KNOW you will get a hit. You're on a hot streak, hitting .450 for two weeks and you know it. On the flip side, those times I've choked, I felt it coming. Nervousness in the legs. Tightening of the mucsles. Confidence replaced by fear of failure. Some athletes respnd to pressure, some respond to it some of the time. That response could be either positive or negative. Are there enough numbers in Vinateri's career to see what his % is when a game winning kick is on the line? And compare that too "regular" FG attempts? Without having the numbers, I would venture to say his % is conciderably higher than usual with the game on the line. Numbers only tell part of the story, and can at times be very misleading. Take a guy like Doug Brien last year. Cal Bear referred to his stats in Giant's stadium vs. Nugents in another htread. Brien came out looking pretty good. What the numbers didn't show was how as the season progressed, and the games got more important, Brien tanked. After leading the NFL in accuracy, or being top 3, he went 7 for 12, and 6 for 11 from 42 and less in the last 5 games of the year, including playoffs. Brien chokes.Numbers are numbers. People, especially great people in their given fields are dynamic, and the special ones respond in a special way when the pressure goes up. It's when they are at their best. Vinateri is at his best when he's under the most pressure. "Gamer" is not in any math formula. Yes, he is the best kicker of his era, and he's worth plenty.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself. But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable. If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences. We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel. So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question. The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

 

[AnonymousBob]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself.  But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable.  If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences.  We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel.  So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question.  The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

That's a big problem right there. Even if 'hotness' is only in that persons mind, it DOES exist. A person who feels hot is likely to do better than a person who's thinking "Awww, I don't think I can do this."Just because you can't measure the caliber of a persons thoughts doesn't mean they're not there.

Your entire argument has been they are NOT ENOUGH kick attempts to show 'clutch' exists. By that same logic, there are NOT ENOUGH kick attempts to disprove its existence either.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself. But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable. If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences. We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel. So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question. The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

That's a big problem right there. Even if 'hotness' is only in that persons mind, it DOES exist. A person who feels hot is likely to do better than a person who's thinking "Awww, I don't think I can do this."Just because you can't measure the caliber of a persons thoughts doesn't mean they're not there.

Your entire argument has been they are NOT ENOUGH kick attempts to show 'clutch' exists. By that same logic, there are NOT ENOUGH kick attempts to disprove its existence either.

I think there are enough kicks...but it's impossible to define.What is clutch? A pressure kick in the mind of one kicker won't be pressure in the mind of another.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What is clutch? A pressure kick in the mind of one kicker won't be pressure in the mind of another.

That is a good question as well, but I think we're getting too deep. There's absolutely no way to answer that.

 

[Keys Myaths]

What is clutch? A pressure kick in the mind of one kicker won't be pressure in the mind of another.

That is a good question as well, but I think we're getting too deep. There's absolutely no way to answer that.

That's exactly my point.I don't think there's ever going to be a way to prove/disprove it, other than conjecture, because we can't define what "clutch" really is.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What is clutch?  A pressure kick in the mind of one kicker won't be pressure in the mind of another.

That is a good question as well, but I think we're getting too deep. There's absolutely no way to answer that.

That's exactly my point.I don't think there's ever going to be a way to prove/disprove it, other than conjecture, because we can't define what "clutch" really is.

Oh, I got your point-and a very good one it was. I was just saying I think we're getting too deep for a fantasy football forum. I'd much rather talk about the latest update on TO, Fritz, etc.

 

[Keys Myaths]

What is clutch? A pressure kick in the mind of one kicker won't be pressure in the mind of another.

That is a good question as well, but I think we're getting too deep. There's absolutely no way to answer that.

That's exactly my point.I don't think there's ever going to be a way to prove/disprove it, other than conjecture, because we can't define what "clutch" really is.

Oh, I got your point-and a very good one it was. I was just saying I think we're getting too deep for a fantasy football forum. I'd much rather talk about the latest update on TO, Fritz, etc.

Heh.OMG...Fritz to TO would be the best combo EVAH.

 

[Rovers]

Agreed CalBear.... I've heard many great baseball players talk about how it's the mental approach to the game that makes a difference... it's 80%... but that is not measuable. It's spawned this whole sports phsycology industry about viualising. That guy didn't help Brien much in SD or Pittsburgh though.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself. But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable. If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences. We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel. So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question. The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be to say, "We know "hotness" exists, so why isn't the math sophisticated enough to measure it yet." Hot shooting, hot hitting -- they're there, and we know they're there. You just haven't found a way to measure them yet.

I remember a similar argument about defensive metrics in baseball. For years, baseball numbers experts would argue for their archaic defensive metrics, which showed lousy defenders with the highest defensive metrics and great defenders as some of the worst in the game. They stuck to their guns until years later when they completely reversed course. The measurables were insufficient.

 

[Bri]

Calbear, not baiting, genuinely curious what you have to say to the above post. I enjoy your math breakdowns and well.....

I think Vinatieri is a good kicker who has gotten a lot of opportunities. Game-winning FGs is a stat similar to fourth-quarter comebacks for a QB; you're mostly measuring the number of times you're in a position to make such a FG. Look at the overtime field goals. He's made seven of them, only one of those over 35 yards. Let's look at the other six. In the past two years, Vinatieri is 15 of 16 on field goals inside 40 yards. So we should not be surprised at all to find that he made six field goals of 35 yards or shorter; that is absolutely the expected result. And in general, there just isn't enough data to be statistically significant in these kinds of slices.

honestly, I think your long post a few up was sweet and I even bookmarked it to re-read and maybe analyze some myself in the offseason. In regards to this one, it seems you really belittle it by pointing to the distance of a handful of kicks.If you define clutch kicking as overtime kicks, he hasn't missed since 2000.

If you define clutch kicking as 4th quarter kicks, he has missed one(22 of 23) since 2001.

If you define clutch kicking as game winning, he's kicked 20 game winners.

While clutch kicking may be hard to define + it may be defined differently based on one's opinion, one of the above has gotta qualify as clutch kicking.

To minimize it by saying they weren't far enough isn't a fair evaluation IMO. Is it easier to kick 6 close ones when compared to 6 far ones? absolutely. Is going 5-6 years NOT missing easy? I don't think so. I suppose "easy" isn't something simple to define. The only way I can imagine is it would mean that you could find many other kickers that "never" miss in the 4th quarter and overtime too. Since(I guess without research) you can't then it's gotta be an accomplishment.

 

[Mike Herman]

Calbear, not baiting, genuinely curious what you have to say to the above post. I enjoy your math breakdowns and well.....

I think Vinatieri is a good kicker who has gotten a lot of opportunities. Game-winning FGs is a stat similar to fourth-quarter comebacks for a QB; you're mostly measuring the number of times you're in a position to make such a FG. Look at the overtime field goals. He's made seven of them, only one of those over 35 yards. Let's look at the other six. In the past two years, Vinatieri is 15 of 16 on field goals inside 40 yards. So we should not be surprised at all to find that he made six field goals of 35 yards or shorter; that is absolutely the expected result. And in general, there just isn't enough data to be statistically significant in these kinds of slices.

honestly, I think your long post a few up was sweet and I even bookmarked it to re-read and maybe analyze some myself in the offseason. In regards to this one, it seems you really belittle it by pointing to the distance of a handful of kicks.If you define clutch kicking as overtime kicks, he hasn't missed since 2000.

If you define clutch kicking as 4th quarter kicks, he has missed one(22 of 23) since 2001.

If you define clutch kicking as game winning, he's kicked 20 game winners.

While clutch kicking may be hard to define + it may be defined differently based on one's opinion, one of the above has gotta qualify as clutch kicking.

To minimize it by saying they weren't far enough isn't a fair evaluation IMO. Is it easier to kick 6 close ones when compared to 6 far ones? absolutely. Is going 5-6 years NOT missing easy? I don't think so. I suppose "easy" isn't something simple to define. The only way I can imagine is it would mean that you could find many other kickers that "never" miss in the 4th quarter and overtime too. Since(I guess without research) you can't then it's gotta be an accomplishment.

Great discussion/thread guys!!!Whether or not Vinatieri is clutch, whether or not "clutch" can be defined, and whether or not there is any value in trying to attach stats to the question, I think we need to keep delving into such matters. That's part of what FBG and this board are all about. "Hardcore football info". Once the info/analysis is out there, each individual can decide for themselves whether it has any value, and if so how to use it.

P.S. sorry about the speechifying. It's hard not to get worked up over some good K talk.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself. But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable. If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences. We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel. So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question. The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be to say, "We know "hotness" exists, so why isn't the math sophisticated enough to measure it yet." Hot shooting, hot hitting -- they're there, and we know they're there. You just haven't found a way to measure them yet.

I remember a similar argument about defensive metrics in baseball. For years, baseball numbers experts would argue for their archaic defensive metrics, which showed lousy defenders with the highest defensive metrics and great defenders as some of the worst in the game. They stuck to their guns until years later when they completely reversed course. The measurables were insufficient.

Baseball defense really isn't an apt analogy; defense is a complex thing with many conflating factors. (Think similarly about the difficulty in doing a statistical analysis on football defense--it would be virtually impossible to determine the best defenders statistically).Field goal kicking is a set of discrete events which are easily measurable; they are almost as easy to judge statistically as free throw shooting or pole vaulting. (Slightly more difficult, because more than one player is involved. Maybe it's Vinatieri's long snapper who is the clutch performer).

Let's consider a role-playing game, where 32 people each have their own "character" who is an NFL kicker. Each week you get to roll a die one to five times; any time the die comes up as anything other than a six (83% chance), you get three points.

In this game, with a completely random distribution, there will be one or more kickers whose performance looks like Vinatieri's. There will also be one or more kickers who seem to always miss their last kick. That's not due to anything more than the normal operation of random chance.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I'm not going to deny the feeling of being hot; I've felt it myself.  But the reality is, if the feeling of being hot has meaning--if the ball really is easier to hit, or the shot easier to make--the effect should be measurable.  If the effect isn't measurable, it's not there.

Statistics and probability are very well-understood sciences.  We have only vague ideas about why we feel what we feel.  So when statistics, which has a strongly defined idea of what a random distribution looks like, says that basketball shooting looks exactly like a random distribution, asking "why can't statistics measure the feeling of 'hotness'" is the wrong question.  The right question is, "why do we feel 'hot' when 'hotness' doesn't really exist?"

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be to say, "We know "hotness" exists, so why isn't the math sophisticated enough to measure it yet." Hot shooting, hot hitting -- they're there, and we know they're there. You just haven't found a way to measure them yet.

I remember a similar argument about defensive metrics in baseball. For years, baseball numbers experts would argue for their archaic defensive metrics, which showed lousy defenders with the highest defensive metrics and great defenders as some of the worst in the game. They stuck to their guns until years later when they completely reversed course. The measurables were insufficient.

Baseball defense really isn't an apt analogy; defense is a complex thing with many conflating factors. (Think similarly about the difficulty in doing a statistical analysis on football defense--it would be virtually impossible to determine the best defenders statistically).Field goal kicking is a set of discrete events which are easily measurable; they are almost as easy to judge statistically as free throw shooting or pole vaulting. (Slightly more difficult, because more than one player is involved. Maybe it's Vinatieri's long snapper who is the clutch performer).

Let's consider a role-playing game, where 32 people each have their own "character" who is an NFL kicker. Each week you get to roll a die one to five times; any time the die comes up as anything other than a six (83% chance), you get three points.

In this game, with a completely random distribution, there will be one or more kickers whose performance looks like Vinatieri's. There will also be one or more kickers who seem to always miss their last kick. That's not due to anything more than the normal operation of random chance.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you want to take the human aspect out of the equation altogether? It's all random? If Malcolm Gladwell was correct in the article I posted earlier, "choking" definitely exists. And the scientific explanation is that the choker begins to think more than usual rather than relying on instinct or muscle memory. He basically goes back to approaching the situation the same way he did when he first learned how to perform the act.

And the kicker is (no pun intended), if you've failed in a "clutch" situation before, there's a greater chance that you will begin to show signs of choking the next time a clutch situation occurs. You will overthink, overanalyze and rely less on instinct than you should.

Is that random? I mean, can dice and mathmatical equations really explain something that's more complex than randomness?

Again, couldn't it be that you're not starting with the correct theory? You're looking at it one way; whereas, there is another completely different, and legimate, way of looking at it that could produce different results.

So here's an interesting question about hot streaks for hitters (was thinking about this in the shower this morning...pitiful, I know). According to math, a hitter is no more likely to get a hit in his next at bat whether he's in a hot streak or a cold streak. However, is one player more likely than another player to get a hit in any situation? Here's where I'm going with this. Is Albert Pujols more likely to get a hit in a certain situation than Yadier Molina is? The answer is yes, correct?

 

[CyberChef]

holey moley. I've read these sort of out of context but I'm pretty sure that the issues of random streaks consistencies and anomolies shoulod be discussed in Haiku from now on.Vinateri. That's 4 syllables right there....

 

[CalBear]

Field goal kicking is a set of discrete events which are easily measurable; they are almost as easy to judge statistically as free throw shooting or pole vaulting. (Slightly more difficult, because more than one player is involved. Maybe it's Vinatieri's long snapper who is the clutch performer).

Let's consider a role-playing game, where 32 people each have their own "character" who is an NFL kicker. Each week you get to roll a die one to five times; any time the die comes up as anything other than a six (83% chance), you get three points.

In this game, with a completely random distribution, there will be one or more kickers whose performance looks like Vinatieri's. There will also be one or more kickers who seem to always miss their last kick. That's not due to anything more than the normal operation of random chance.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you want to take the human aspect out of the equation altogether? It's all random? If Malcolm Gladwell was correct in the article I posted earlier, "choking" definitely exists. And the scientific explanation is that the choker begins to think more than usual rather than relying on instinct or muscle memory. He basically goes back to approaching the situation the same way he did when he first learned how to perform the act.

And the kicker is (no pun intended), if you've failed in a "clutch" situation before, there's a greater chance that you will begin to show signs of choking the next time a clutch situation occurs. You will overthink, overanalyze and rely less on instinct than you should.

Is that random? I mean, can dice and mathmatical equations really explain something that's more complex than randomness?

Again, couldn't it be that you're not starting with the correct theory? You're looking at it one way; whereas, there is another completely different, and legimate, way of looking at it that could produce different results.

So here's an interesting question about hot streaks for hitters (was thinking about this in the shower this morning...pitiful, I know). According to math, a hitter is no more likely to get a hit in his next at bat whether he's in a hot streak or a cold streak. However, is one player more likely than another player to get a hit in any situation? Here's where I'm going with this. Is Albert Pujols more likely to get a hit in a certain situation than Yadier Molina is? The answer is yes, correct?

Let me address a few points separately here.First, yes, absolutely some people are better at sports than others; the statistical models compare a given player's performance, on average, to his performance in a specific situation. So part of why Vinatieri is successful is that he's just a good kicker; a 75% kicker would be a lot less likely to have made the same kicks. (But I would contend that Vanderjagt or Wilkins or Elam would be just as likely as Vinatieri, if they'd been put in the same situations). Scott Norwood was a career 72% field goal kicker, kicking a 47-yarder; that's a lot different than a career 82% field goal kicker kicking a 35-yarder.

The Graf vs. Novotna example from the Gladwell article is instructiive. The part he leaves out is that Graf is a better tennis player than Novotna. Part of what it means to be a better tennis player is to be more consistent in your form. If Novotna's poor form had come in the first set, Graf would have kicked her butt and no one would ever have noticed, because it would have been the expected result. (Graf was 29-4 against Novotna over their respective careers, and one of those Novotna wins was due to injury). But because Novotna had managed to get ahead, her loss was seen as "choking." This is another example of observational bias. To take an analogy, if you were playing a system where you bet $1,000 on the outcome of a coin flip, and planned to go double-or-nothing every time you lost, you would definitely notice if you lost five times in a row, even though there is no bias to the coin. So, Novotna lost in a very visible and perhaps humiliating way, but being outplayed by Graf in the third set was the expected result; it was also expected that she would be outplayed in the first and second sets. (On a per-set basis, it was 62-15 in favor of Graf over their careers).

I think your assertion that failing in a clutch situation makes one more likely to fail in the next clutch situation is unfounded. Again there is an observational bias here, in that if you fail in a clutch situation twice in a row (as Doug Brien did) it will be very noticable, whereas if you miss two field goals in the Super Bowl, and make the third to win the game (as Vinatieri did), people will remember the make, not the misses.

Regarding "reducing" things to randomness, some argue that randomness is at the core of our brain function. What is it other than randomness that keeps us from being able to do the same thing, the same way twice in a row? If I can kick a 40-yard field goal, why can't I kick a 40-yard field goal every time? But at our current level of understanding, those are questions for the philosophers more than the scientists.

There are a few things we know about our cognition. We know that we seek out "logical" explanations for successes and failures, particularly in Western cultures which tend to be concerned with cause and effect. (Eastern cultures tend to be more willing to believe that things "just happen.") We know that we try to impose meaning where none exists. (Voltaire said, "If god had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him").

If I'm looking at a distribution of data that looks random and tests as random, I think it's safest to assume that it really is random, and that we're trying to impose meaning on it based on our typical human tendencies.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm convinced CalBear is Maurile's long-lost brother. CalBear, why the hell aren't you over at the FFA, using your logic to belittle people on insignificant matters, rather than wasting it having intellegent discussions. Come on over the the Dark Side that is the FFA. Debating here has got to feel like sticking hot sporks in your eyes.

 

[nerangers]

If you define clutch kicking as overtime kicks, he hasn't missed since 2000.If you define clutch kicking as 4th quarter kicks, he has missed one(22 of 23) since 2001.If you define clutch kicking as game winning, he's kicked 20 game winners.

To me "Clutch" would be when the game is totally up to you to win it. That would include the last winning field goal in the fourth quarter of a tied game (last two minutes), or an over time field goal to win the game. I would like to see that stat compared to other kickers in the league.Whether you think Adam is a Clutch kicker or not, He will probably one a very few kickers to be inducted into the HOF.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Shame CalBear is in here fighting this on his own.

Some questions for the crowd that wholeheartedly believes in clutch players and chokers....

1) Can a clutch player become a choker? How likely is this? Can a choker become clutch? How likely is that? Can a clutch player become a choker and then go back to being clutch? And then go back to being a choker?

2) How many events do they need to be considered "clutch" or a "choker"? Was Timmy Smith clutch? Was Ron Jaworski not clutch?

3) What's the predictive value in this? If we put 10 clutch players in situation X, and you expect them to succeed 100% of the time, and now we put 10 chokers in situation X (the identical situation), how often do you expect them to succeed?

If the clutch players are only expected to succeed 70% of the time, then how often will the chokers succeed? Will the chokers ever outperform the clutch players?

 

[Bri]

I think Scott Norwood proved that there's a steely mentality to game winning kicks and when that's shatterred, you're useless in that situation. So I guess a clutch kicker can become a choker. I was surprised how high Jeff Wilkins is on the career percentage list. I would not have guessed that. He struggled early on.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think Scott Norwood proved that there's a steely mentality to game winning kicks and when that's shatterred, you're useless in that situation. So I guess a clutch kicker can become a choker.

I was surprised how high Jeff Wilkins is on the career percentage list. I would not have guessed that. He struggled early on.

Dan Fouts' first NFL playoff game: 5 INTs, 0 TDsHe seemed to do OK after that.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

In my league he is worth $11 on a $100 cap.

 

[CalBear]

I think Scott Norwood proved that there's a steely mentality to game winning kicks and when that's shatterred, you're useless in that situation. So I guess a clutch kicker can become a choker.

I was surprised how high Jeff Wilkins is on the career percentage list. I would not have guessed that. He struggled early on.

Scott Norwood is a career 72.3% kicker. The seaon he was wide right, he made just 69% of his field goals (20/29) in the regular season. He also missed two extra points.There are only two kickers on NFL rosters this year who have hit under 70% of their field goals. When Norwood was released, he was replaced by Steve Christie, a 78.3% kicker for 10 years, and since they they've had Shayne Graham, Jake Arians, Mike Hollis, and Rian Lindell, and with the exception of Arians, all of those have hit at least 75% of their field goals.

So, Norwood really should be viewed as the bottom of the barrel in terms of kickers. He didn't crumble because he couldn't take the pressure; he was simply never a good kicker to begin with. I can't find stats on the distances of his kicks that year, but I'd expect the probability of a 69% FG kicker making a 47-yard kick is pretty low, under 50%.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think Scott Norwood proved that there's a steely mentality to game winning kicks and when that's shatterred, you're useless in that situation. So I guess a clutch kicker can become a choker.

I was surprised how high Jeff Wilkins is on the career percentage list. I would not have guessed that. He struggled early on.

Scott Norwood is a career 72.3% kicker. The seaon he was wide right, he made just 69% of his field goals (20/29) in the regular season. He also missed two extra points.There are only two kickers on NFL rosters this year who have hit under 70% of their field goals. When Norwood was released, he was replaced by Steve Christie, a 78.3% kicker for 10 years, and since they they've had Shayne Graham, Jake Arians, Mike Hollis, and Rian Lindell, and with the exception of Arians, all of those have hit at least 75% of their field goals.

So, Norwood really should be viewed as the bottom of the barrel in terms of kickers. He didn't crumble because he couldn't take the pressure; he was simply never a good kicker to begin with. I can't find stats on the distances of his kicks that year, but I'd expect the probability of a 69% FG kicker making a 47-yard kick is pretty low, under 50%.

IIRC, he had never kicked a FG that long outdoors before.

 

[CalBear]

Bump for a Vinatieri miss in the fourth quarter of a playoff game, with his team down by 11. What does it mean? Nothing, by itself; it's just one data point. But it's at least one data point where the predictive power of prior "clutch kicking" proved weak.

 

[Rovers]

Actually, I think the only thing that has been proven weak is trying to make football into a game of calculus. The game wasn't on the line, was it? If it was, I say he makes that kick. Put that one yer slide rule!

 

[Bri]

Bump for a Vinatieri miss in the fourth quarter of a playoff game, with his team down by 11. What does it mean? Nothing, by itself; it's just one data point. But it's at least one data point where the predictive power of prior "clutch kicking" proved weak.

I'm shocked "stat cruncher" you said this. How does 1 "skew" the numbers for you? The last time he missed a 4th Q kick was so long ago

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Could've used him in Indy