Skip to main content

Numbers show that icing the kicker doesn't work

I've always been curious on the actual impact and success of the strategy known as "icing the kicker" in football, if it has one at all.

Well, thanks to research, I have some answers. One Tobias Moskowitz put together some numbers on this very thing and released them in his book Scorecasting, where he compared field goal kickers' success rates in the final couple minutes of a game when they were iced and when they weren't. To me at least, the results aren't very surprising.

When the kick transpired between the 1:01 and 1:59 point in the 4th quarter of a game, iced kickers made 74.2% of their kicks, compared to 77.6% who weren't iced - a difference of 3.4%.

When the kick took place between the 1:00 and 0:31 mark, iced kickers converted on 74.3% of their attempts, while the kickers who weren't iced converted on 74.6% of them - a difference of 0.3%.

When the kick happened between the 0:30 and 0:16 point, iced kickers made 76.0% of their field goals, while kickers who weren't iced made 76.9% - a difference of 0.9%.

Lastly, when the kick happened between the 0:15 and 0:00 point, iced kickers actually performed better than kickers who weren't iced. Iced kickers made 77.5% of their field goal attempts, while 75.4% of kickers who weren't iced made their kicks - a difference of 2.1%.

In other words, on average, coaches give their team a 1.5% better chance of winning when icing a kicker between the 1:59 and 0:16 mark of the 4th quarter. However, they give the opposing team a 2.1% better chance of winning when icing the kicker between the 0:15 and 0:00 point. In other words, on average, icing the kicker doesn't give a team any better or worse chance of winning a football game. Perhaps coaches don't see the strategy as giving the kicker more time to think about the kick. It's more about them giving themselves more time to think about all the mistakes they made leading to that moment, where they could potentially lose the game on that field goal - that or perhaps they just don't have any other ideas.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7318214/icing-kicker-work

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"