[kccrow]

Looking into Net Average, in the same way I looked at %IN 20, I came away with results that indicate Net Average is not a factor.

Number of Punters above and below one standard deviation from the mean by year:

2017: >1STDEV = 5, <1STDEV = 4
2016: >1STDEV = 5, <1STDEV = 4
2015: >1STDEV = 5, <1STDEV = 5
2014: >1STDEV = 5, <1STDEV = 6
2013: >1STDEV = 5, <1STDEV = 3

Here are the approximate ranges within 1STDEV of the mean, so the data I worked with were for punters above and below these:

2017 1STDEV = 42.30 to 39.14
2016 1STDEV = 42.21 to 38.44
2015 1STDEV = 41.68 to 38.16
2014 1STDEV = 41.30 to 37.73
2013 1STDEV = 41.55 to 37.48

I combined these into 1 list to get some data, and so I ended up with 25 punters above and 22 punters below 1STDEV.

>1STDEV
Average Net = 42.9
Average W% = 50.75%
Average PTS/G = 22.4
Average YDS/G = 348.2

<1STDEV
Average Net = 37.2
Average W% = 47.44%
Average PTS/G = 22.8
Average YDS/G = 337.7

If I take the data set as a whole I get the following correlations:
NetAve to YDS/G = 0.164
NetAve to PTS/G = -0.080
NetAve to W% = 0.065


After seeing all of this data, I can pretty well conclude that the only real factor you need to look at with a punter is % inside the 20. That seems to be the only factor that has any significant impact on games and it seems to do so in terms of PTS/G and W%. Now the question is, at what point is there a cutoff where it no longer matters? This would tell me a reasonable break in what should define a punter "worth paying" versus one that isn't. My next question would be, at what point is the cutoff for bad punters? I'm working on formulating how I want to tackle these questions. Basically, I have to continue to include punters by %IN 20 in tiers until I reach a 50% mark for win percentage, IMO. If anyone has a suggestion, feel free to chip in.