Note: This analysis has been updated. New post can be found here.
Judging who the best field goal kickers are in the NFL is difficult. The kickers with the best range are often sent out to attempt impossibly long field goal tries. Some kickers benefit from circumstance in some years because their team's drives stall closer to the endzone than others.
Using data from the 2003-2006 regular seasons, obtained at profootballweekly.com, I may have a stumbled on a novel approach to solve the problem. My intent was to follow up on an earlier article that suggested that field goal kickers were severely underpaid relative to their impact on winning. A couple of readers (correctly) pointed out that some kickers' performances appear inflated due to luck, so the "best" kicker one year may really only be an average kicker who got lucky. In attempting to isolate the true talent level from other circumstances, including luck, involved in kicking performance, I developed the following approach.
For each kicker from '03-'06, I computed an expected percentage of FGs made based on three kicker stats:
1. Average FG attempt distance
2. Average FG made distance
3. Average FG missed distance
To compute the expected FG%, I ran a regression of actual FG percentages based on those three variables. The fitted values of the regression model became expected FG%. In simple terms, it's the average FG% that an NFL kicker would be expected to have given his average attempt, made, and miss distances. Essentially, this establishes a level-of-difficulty score, much like in diving, for each kicker's season.
The difference between each kicker's actual FG% and his expected FG% can therefore be considered a true measure of a kicker's performance in a season, accounting for attempt distances. This method does not yet isolate how much of a kicker's performance was due to luck, but it is the first necessary step to do so.
Here are the best kicking performances of the 2003-2006 period, accounting for attempt distances:
Year | Player | Team | Avg Att | Avg Made | Avg Miss | Actual % | Expected % | Act-Exp % |
2003 | Vanderjagt* | Ind. | 33.8 | 33.8 | NA | 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.287 |
2004 | Hanson | Det. | 38.1 | 37.9 | 43.0 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.077 |
2003 | Hanson | Det. | 38.1 | 37.9 | 43.0 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.077 |
2006 | Kasay | Car. | 38.9 | 36.8 | 56.0 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.063 |
2005 | Kasay | Car. | 38.9 | 35.2 | 50.8 | 0.77 | 0.70 | 0.062 |
2005 | Rackers | Ariz. | 38.1 | 37.6 | 48.5 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.061 |
2005 | Nedney | S.F. | 38.5 | 38.0 | 45.5 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.058 |
2003 | Janikowski | Oak. | 39.0 | 37.3 | 51.3 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.056 |
2006 | Longwell | Minn. | 33.6 | 30.4 | 50.0 | 0.84 | 0.78 | 0.055 |
2003 | Graham | Cin. | 37.2 | 35.2 | 51.3 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.055 |
2003 | K. Brown | Hou. | 38.2 | 35.6 | 49.8 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.047 |
2003 | Brien | N.Y.J. | 37.3 | 35.0 | 49.6 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.047 |
2006 | Hanson | Det. | 36.3 | 34.4 | 50.0 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.045 |
2005 | Hanson | Det. | 35.7 | 32.4 | 48.2 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.045 |
2006 | Rackers | Ariz. | 37.6 | 34.0 | 48.9 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.044 |
2004 | Wilkins | St.L. | 35.9 | 35.5 | 41.7 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.044 |
2003 | Wilkins | St.L. | 35.9 | 35.5 | 41.7 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.044 |
2006 | Lindell | Buff. | 35.9 | 35.3 | 42.5 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.043 |
2006 | Stover | Balt. | 33.2 | 33.0 | 35.5 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.040 |
2006 | Vinatieri | Ind. | 36.6 | 35.5 | 45.3 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.039 |
2004 | Vinatieri | N.E. | 34.9 | 34.0 | 48.5 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.038 |
2006 | Graham | Cin. | 36.9 | 34.6 | 48.4 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.038 |
2003 | Longwell | G.B. | 36.2 | 35.0 | 44.7 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.036 |
2004 | Longwell | G.B. | 36.2 | 35.0 | 44.7 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.036 |
2005 | Bironas | Ten. | 37.4 | 34.6 | 48.3 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.033 |
2004 | Janikowski | Oak. | 36.3 | 35.5 | 43.0 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.030 |
2003 | Stover | Balt. | 34.7 | 32.8 | 47.6 | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.029 |
2003 | Lindell | Buff. | 33.9 | 29.5 | 44.4 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.027 |
2004 | Stover | Balt. | 34.8 | 34.1 | 41.7 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.027 |
2006 | Elam | Den. | 33.3 | 32.6 | 43.5 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.027 |
2006 | Kaeding | S.D. | 35.8 | 35.2 | 41.0 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.027 |
2003 | Andersen | K.C. | 39.1 | 36.9 | 47.5 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.027 |
2005 | Wilkins | St.L. | 39.1 | 38.4 | 44.0 | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.026 |
2005 | Vanderjagt | Ind. | 32.8 | 32.2 | 39.5 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.026 |
2003 | Akers | Phil. | 36.4 | 34.3 | 46.4 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.026 |
2004 | Akers | Phil. | 36.4 | 34.3 | 46.4 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.026 |
2006 | Wilkins | St.L. | 36.8 | 35.5 | 45.2 | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.025 |
2005 | Reed | Pitt. | 35.4 | 33.1 | 46.8 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.025 |
2005 | Stover | Balt. | 35.9 | 34.9 | 43.3 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.025 |
2003 | Anderson | Ten. | 36.5 | 35.3 | 44.8 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.024 |
2006 | Gould | Chi. | 36.8 | 36.2 | 42.0 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.024 |
2004 | Graham | Cin. | 37.2 | 36.3 | 43.0 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.023 |
2005 | Dawson | Clev. | 31.6 | 31.3 | 36.5 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.022 |
2005 | Vinatieri | N.E. | 36.4 | 33.9 | 46.4 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.022 |
2004 | Kasay | Car. | 36.9 | 35.3 | 45.3 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.021 |
2003 | Kasay | Car. | 36.9 | 35.3 | 45.3 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.021 |
2005 | Kaeding | S.D. | 36.4 | 35.5 | 42.7 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.020 |
2006 | Carney | N.O. | 32.4 | 32.0 | 37.5 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.020 |
2005 | Peterson | Atl. | 31.6 | 31.0 | 38.5 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.018 |
2004 | Elam | Den. | 36.1 | 34.7 | 44.0 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.018 |
2003 | Feely | Atl. | 38.1 | 34.3 | 47.1 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.018 |
2004 | Feely | Atl. | 38.1 | 34.3 | 47.1 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.018 |
2004 | Gramatica | T.B. | 37.2 | 31.9 | 45.6 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.017 |
2003 | Gramatica | T.B. | 37.2 | 31.9 | 45.6 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.017 |
2003 | Elam | Den. | 36.2 | 35.4 | 41.5 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.014 |
2003 | Christie | S.D. | 35.9 | 32.7 | 45.4 | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.014 |
2005 | Graham | Cin. | 34.0 | 32.8 | 43.0 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.011 |
2006 | Feely | N.Y.G. | 34.4 | 32.9 | 43.0 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.010 |
2005 | Akers | Phil. | 39.6 | 36.5 | 48.0 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.010 |
2006 | Nugent | N.Y.J. | 33.8 | 33.2 | 38.7 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.010 |
2003 | Carney | N.O. | 38.4 | 35.3 | 47.0 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.009 |
2004 | Carney | N.O. | 38.4 | 35.3 | 47.0 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.009 |
2006 | Andersen | Atl. | 34.3 | 33.4 | 40.0 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.007 |
2003 | P. Dawson | Clev. | 33.6 | 32.1 | 43.0 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.007 |
2003 | Cundiff | Dall. | 36.0 | 33.7 | 45.0 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.006 |
2004 | Cundiff | Dall. | 36.0 | 33.7 | 45.0 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.006 |
2005 | Gould | Chi. | 35.0 | 32.3 | 44.7 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.006 |
2006 | Bryant | T.B. | 36.7 | 34.2 | 45.2 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.004 |
2005 | Elam | Den. | 38.0 | 35.3 | 46.0 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.003 |
2004 | Vanderjagt | Ind. | 35.5 | 33.4 | 44.2 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.000 |
2005 | Tynes | K.C. | 35.4 | 33.7 | 43.0 | 0.82 | 0.82 | -0.001 |
2005 | Nugent | N.Y.J. | 35.7 | 33.5 | 43.8 | 0.79 | 0.79 | -0.004 |
2006 | Scobee | Jax. | 39.0 | 37.8 | 44.2 | 0.81 | 0.82 | -0.004 |
2005 | Janikowski | Oak. | 37.6 | 33.6 | 45.6 | 0.67 | 0.67 | -0.005 |
2005 | Scobee | Jax. | 36.4 | 34.0 | 44.0 | 0.77 | 0.77 | -0.005 |
2003 | J. Brown | Sea. | 39.7 | 37.1 | 46.8 | 0.73 | 0.74 | -0.006 |
2004 | J. Brown | Sea. | 39.7 | 37.1 | 46.8 | 0.73 | 0.74 | -0.006 |
2004 | Tynes | K.C. | 37.9 | 35.2 | 45.5 | 0.74 | 0.75 | -0.007 |
2004 | Hall | Wash. | 38.8 | 36.6 | 45.5 | 0.76 | 0.77 | -0.008 |
2003 | Hall | Wash. | 38.8 | 36.6 | 45.5 | 0.76 | 0.77 | -0.008 |
2004 | Reed | Pitt. | 34.0 | 33.1 | 38.8 | 0.85 | 0.86 | -0.011 |
2004 | Scobee | Jax. | 35.2 | 32.9 | 43.1 | 0.77 | 0.79 | -0.012 |
2006 | Mare | Mia. | 37.1 | 34.1 | 45.1 | 0.72 | 0.73 | -0.012 |
2003 | Elling | Minn. | 36.8 | 33.8 | 44.4 | 0.72 | 0.73 | -0.014 |
2004 | Elling | Minn. | 36.8 | 33.8 | 44.4 | 0.72 | 0.73 | -0.014 |
2004 | Lindell | Buff. | 29.5 | 28.1 | 37.8 | 0.86 | 0.87 | -0.015 |
2004 | Dawson | Clev. | 34.7 | 33.5 | 40.6 | 0.83 | 0.84 | -0.016 |
2006 | Nedney | S.F. | 34.3 | 33.2 | 39.5 | 0.83 | 0.85 | -0.019 |
2005 | Feely | N.Y.G. | 36.4 | 35.7 | 40.0 | 0.83 | 0.85 | -0.020 |
2006 | Brown | Sea. | 36.2 | 34.9 | 41.8 | 0.81 | 0.83 | -0.021 |
2006 | Tynes | K.C. | 36.9 | 35.1 | 43.1 | 0.77 | 0.80 | -0.024 |
2006 | Bironas | Ten. | 34.4 | 32.5 | 41.7 | 0.79 | 0.81 | -0.025 |
2005 | M. Bryant | T.B. | 38.4 | 38.4 | 38.5 | 0.84 | 0.87 | -0.026 |
2005 | J. Brown | Sea. | 41.3 | 39.1 | 46.9 | 0.72 | 0.75 | -0.027 |
2003 | Mare | Mia. | 37.4 | 35.5 | 43.1 | 0.76 | 0.79 | -0.027 |
2004 | Kaeding | S.D. | 35.3 | 34.0 | 40.6 | 0.80 | 0.83 | -0.032 |
2005 | Lindell | Buff. | 35.3 | 34.7 | 38.3 | 0.83 | 0.86 | -0.032 |
2006 | K. Brown | Hou. | 39.4 | 37.9 | 44.0 | 0.76 | 0.79 | -0.034 |
2004 | K. Brown | Hou. | 37.5 | 34.9 | 43.7 | 0.71 | 0.75 | -0.039 |
2004 | Brien | N.Y.J. | 35.9 | 35.5 | 38.2 | 0.83 | 0.87 | -0.039 |
2003 | Vinatieri | N.E. | 33.0 | 30.4 | 40.2 | 0.74 | 0.78 | -0.041 |
2005 | Mare | Mia. | 34.8 | 34.6 | 35.8 | 0.83 | 0.88 | -0.045 |
2006 | Janikowski | Oak. | 38.9 | 36.8 | 44.4 | 0.72 | 0.77 | -0.045 |
2003 | Conway | Clev. | 36.8 | 34.9 | 42.0 | 0.74 | 0.79 | -0.050 |
2006 | Gostkowski | N.E. | 32.7 | 30.9 | 38.7 | 0.77 | 0.82 | -0.050 |
2006 | Akers | Phil. | 34.3 | 33.0 | 39.0 | 0.78 | 0.83 | -0.051 |
2005 | Carney | N.O. | 33.6 | 32.2 | 38.4 | 0.78 | 0.83 | -0.051 |
2005 | K. Brown | Hou. | 35.6 | 34.1 | 40.6 | 0.77 | 0.82 | -0.051 |
2006 | Rayner | G.B. | 35.7 | 33.9 | 40.9 | 0.74 | 0.80 | -0.056 |
2004 | Anderson | Ten. | 37.6 | 36.7 | 40.6 | 0.77 | 0.83 | -0.058 |
2006 | Vanderjagt | Dall. | 34.0 | 31.8 | 39.6 | 0.72 | 0.79 | -0.064 |
2006 | Dawson | Clev. | 36.7 | 34.9 | 41.5 | 0.72 | 0.79 | -0.067 |
2005 | Cortez | Ind. | 35.3 | 33.3 | 40.2 | 0.71 | 0.79 | -0.082 |
2005 | Longwell | G.B. | 37.7 | 36.8 | 40.4 | 0.74 | 0.83 | -0.088 |
2005 | Edinger | Minn. | 36.5 | 35.5 | 39.4 | 0.74 | 0.83 | -0.096 |
2004 | Edinger | Chi. | 38.4 | 37.7 | 40.3 | 0.72 | 0.83 | -0.111 |
2003 | Edinger | Chi. | 38.4 | 37.7 | 40.3 | 0.72 | 0.83 | -0.111 |
2006 | Reed | Pitt. | 35.6 | 35.0 | 37.4 | 0.74 | 0.85 | -0.113 |
2004 | Mare | Mia. | 39.0 | 39.1 | 38.8 | 0.75 | 0.87 | -0.117 |
2004 | Gramatica | Ind. | 34.6 | 31.1 | 39.5 | 0.58 | 0.70 | -0.122 |
2003 | Reed | Pitt. | 34.4 | 33.8 | 36.1 | 0.72 | 0.86 | -0.141 |
2003 | Marler | Jax. | 35.9 | 33.5 | 39.5 | 0.61 | 0.75 | -0.148 |
Here is a list ranking the kickers from best to worst based on their multi-year performance during the same period. The number of seasons in which each kicker qualified is also listed. (* Vanderjagt's perfect year skews his results strongly. His average miss distance in 2003 was theoretically infinite! Giving him a realistic yet excellent score (+0.10) for '03 would place him between Stover and Nedney.)
Kicker | % Act-Exp | Years |
Vanderjagt* | 0.062 | 4 |
Hanson | 0.061 | 4 |
Rackers | 0.053 | 2 |
Kasay | 0.042 | 4 |
Wilkins | 0.035 | 4 |
Graham | 0.032 | 4 |
Stover | 0.030 | 4 |
Nedney | 0.019 | 2 |
Peterson | 0.018 | 1 |
Andersen | 0.017 | 2 |
Elam | 0.016 | 4 |
Gould | 0.015 | 2 |
Vinatieri | 0.014 | 4 |
Christie | 0.014 | 1 |
Longwell | 0.010 | 4 |
Janikowski | 0.009 | 4 |
P. Dawson | 0.007 | 1 |
Feely | 0.007 | 4 |
Cundiff | 0.006 | 2 |
Lindell | 0.006 | 4 |
Kaeding | 0.005 | 3 |
Bironas | 0.004 | 2 |
Bryant | 0.004 | 1 |
Brien | 0.004 | 2 |
Akers | 0.003 | 4 |
Nugent | 0.003 | 2 |
Carney | -0.003 | 4 |
Scobee | -0.007 | 3 |
Hall | -0.008 | 2 |
Tynes | -0.010 | 3 |
J. Brown | -0.013 | 3 |
Elling | -0.014 | 2 |
Anderson | -0.017 | 2 |
K. Brown | -0.019 | 4 |
Dawson | -0.021 | 3 |
Brown | -0.021 | 1 |
M. Bryant | -0.026 | 1 |
Gramatica | -0.029 | 3 |
Conway | -0.050 | 1 |
Gostkowski | -0.050 | 1 |
Mare | -0.050 | 4 |
Rayner | -0.056 | 1 |
Reed | -0.060 | 4 |
Cortez | -0.082 | 1 |
Edinger | -0.106 | 3 |
Marler | -0.148 | 1 |
Acounting for Vanderjagt's perfect year, Jason Hanson comes out on top. But to put things in perspective, a +6% accuracy rate above average equates to about 1.75 extra FGs made per season.
You could also perform a logistic regression, using an individual made/missed FG as the response regressed on distance + player, where the player coefficient would be the number of interest. I also think having a distance^2 variable makes sense.
Ed-
I agree on both points. But I don't have individual kick-by-kick data for the logistic regression. That would be interesting though.
I tried distance^2 variables, along with other operations to make the relationship between distance and accuracy as linear as possible. Actually using ln(FG%) as the dependent variable worked best, but it did not change the results much at all. Within the narrow range of average distances, the curve is already approximately linear.
Two comments:
- The top 5 kickers all play for warm weather or dome teams. I would suggest including a dome and temperature variable in the regression, or at least testing to see if these have significant effects on accuracy.
- Are blocks included in the data? My suspicion is that blocked kicks are not strongly dependent on the kicker. Of course there's not enough blocked kick data to really test this, but my guess is that blocks should be thrown out.
Good point about the indoor/warm weather kickers. I'll see if I can redo the regression with dummy variables for domes/warm climate soon.
Not sure about blocks, but I agree there are too few to effect the data in a meaningful way. I'm not sure kickers can really control that much of most types of blocks anyway. My bet would be that if a kicker puts his foot to the ball and it doesn't go through the posts for any reason, it's considered a miss.
Doesn't this analysis then address your earlier question of whether Kickers are paid enough? If the difference between the best and worst kickers is about 15 points a year vs. average (my math may be wrong there), then pay is supressed because the differential between players is low.
Isn't high pay associated with high differential impact above average. Thus why QBs, RBs, WRs, and Pass Rushers are the highest paid players as the best have a higher differential over the average player?
Yeah, I get the same thing.
best ~ +8% adj. accuracy
worst ~ -12% adj. accuracy
difference = 20% adj. accuracy
average FG attempts = 24 per yr
24 att * 20% diff * 3 pts = 15 pts
A couple observations: FG kicker accuracy is fairly steady from year to year. The variance mostly comes from situational variables--attempt distances. Even including variance from luck (small # of reps), the difference among kickers is very small. This is probably why they are underpaid relative to their contribution to game outcomes. They're replaceable.
I just redid the regression. I probably don't have time to post everything tonight. But here are a few observations.
1. The perfect Vanderjagt year really threw off the data. His zero miss distance skewed the entire model.
2. By using a natural log of the accuracy as the dependent variable, the relationship between kick accuracy and attempt distance is more linear.
3. But by excluding Vanderjagt's perfect season and by using the ln(accuracy) model, the results are very different. The difference between the best and worst kickers may be several times larger than I previously estimated.
4. Surprisingly, neither warm weather or indoor kickers were significant factors.