A Statistic to Ponder: Time Elapsed Per Snap

[PhataLerror 370]

Out of the 960 minutes of regulation football that are played by each of the NFL's teams during each regular season, a lot of time elapses from the clock in between the whistle and the snap. Over the course of a season, a team will find itself in situations where it wants to run clock, and it will find itself in situations where it wants to conserve clock. Here's what I discovered when I multiplied each team's Time of Possession per game by 16 (games played during the regular season) and then divided it by the number of snaps.

 

1. Kansas City Chiefs: 30:55 minutes per game, 31:05 seconds per play

2. Dallas Cowboys: 31:07 minutes per game, 30:50 seconds per play

14. Atlanta Falcons: 32:20 minutes per game, 28:56 seconds per play

31. San Francisco 49ers: 26:42 minutes per game, 26:27 seconds per play

32. Philadelphia Eagles: 26:06 minutes per game, 22:44 seconds per play

 

The Chiefs used more than 8 seconds per offensive snap more than the Eagles, and a full quarter-second more per snap than the second-place Cowboys. This suggests that the Chiefs preferred to run the clock, and that a low frequency of clocking-stopping incompletions and holding a lead late in most games led to a statistically high number. The Chip Kelly offense run in Philadelphia in 2015, notorious for its fast pace, allowed very little time to elapse between plays. By comparison, the 31st-ranking 49ers allowed almost four more seconds per play to elapse off of the clock.

 

I performed the same function for Time of Possession allowed by the defense.

 

1. Carolina Panthers: 28:33 minutes per game, 25:54 seconds per play

2. Kansas City Chiefs: 29:05 minutes per game, 26:55 seconds per play

3. Washington Redskins: 28:26 minutes per game, 27:02 seconds per play

5. Arizona Cardinals: 27:56 minutes per game, 27:18 seconds per play

32. San Francisco 49ers: 34:09 minutes per game, 30:20 seconds per play

 

Clearly, one of the things that benefited Carolina throughout 2015 was the defense's insistence that opposing offenses would not control the pace of the game. Carolina didn't really burn clock on offense, but many teams played from behind when playing against the Panthers, and coupled with an elite incompletion- and interception-forcing pass defense the Panthers' opponents couldn't run much clock. The 2nd-place Chiefs ranked some distance behind the Panthers.

 

What does this mean?

 

I'm still trying to determine if there is any significance to the application of this calculation, but a few things stand out:

 

Because of the Eagles' pace of play, it was not surprising that in their games each team combined for a total of 2,250 plays from scrimmage. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Chiefs were one of five NFL teams whose games featured a total of fewer than 2,000 plays from scrimmage (the Chiefs placed fifth behind the fourth-place Vikings, the Seahawks, the Titans, and the first-place Cowboys). With fewer plays comes the potential for lower scoring games. At the same time, teams whose defenses get stranded on the field by their associated offense's ineptness see their exhaustion further exposed when their offense likewise fails to run clock.

 

In principle, it is desirable to deny the opponent possession, and time of possession has been used as a benchmark that. Even so, time of possession in itself doesn't define an offense's scoring potential: As indicated by the seconds elapsed per play calculations, not all time of possession comparisons are analogous. Therefore, if the Chiefs' offense doesn't produce scoring in line with the league's most prolific offenses, the complementary relationship between depriving an opponent of possession and running a relatively low number of offensive snaps actually indicate that per play a team is effectively maximizing its potential to score more points than the opponent. In the future, I'd be interested in determining if a 'time elapsed per snap' stat has any correlation to wins.

[West 6,714]

-great information to ponder for sure...

 

thanks

 

w

[Guest Eraser]

It appears the difference between time per snap on offense for the Chiefs,and time per snap on defence is greater than any other team. That would seem to indicate KC slowed the pace, while their opponents tried to speed it up. This may often be a favorable indication, if done intentionally. However, during the New England game, the Chiefs wasted prcious time that may have cost the team a shot at winning. It is a knife that cuts both ways. Yes, they are very good at being deliberate on offense, but they don't seem to be able to change gears when necessary.

[PhataLerror 370]

It appears the difference between time per snap on offense for the Chiefs,and time per snap on defence is greater than any other team. That would seem to indicate KC slowed the pace, while their opponents tried to speed it up. This may often be a favorable indication, if done intentionally. However, during the New England game, the Chiefs wasted prcious time that may have cost the team a shot at winning. It is a knife that cuts both ways. Yes, they are very good at being deliberate on offense, but they don't seem to be able to change gears when necessary.

While I don't have easy access to the Time of Possession data for all 32 teams on a game-by-game basis, I think that you make a valid point, and it would be interesting to see the data with win/loss splits. With that being said, here are the numbers from the Chiefs' Divisional Playoff game against the Patriots:

 

Chiefs' time of possession: 37:51 (27:22 per play), comparable to the 25th-ranked Tampa Bay Buccaneers' average time elapsed per snap for the 2015 season

Patriots' time of possession: 22:09 (23:44 per play), similar to the 32nd-ranked Philadelphia Eagles' average time elapsed per snap for the 2015 season

 

It's not unusual for a game involving the Patriots to have a high number of snaps (they were tied for 8th in the league in snaps per game), but it was unusual for the Patriots to have only 56 offensive snaps (almost 15% fewer snaps than their average, making the 27 points allowed by the Chiefs' defense in that game that much more egregious). The Patriots' defense spent an enormous amount of time on the field, and yet the Chiefs were never able to break the defense (primarily because their only quality wide receiver wasn't healthy and their fourth-string runningback had to take the field).

 

(Why did you have to make me relive that game? That game had nothing to do with Andy Reid's clock management.)

 

I'll get you more information on this as it becomes available to me.

[West 6,714]

I have been "pondering this"...

 

I think there could be some merit to reviewing the age and experience of the QB's in each case.

 

We all know Alex Smith, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning...Other experienced QB's take long looks at the defense, start barking signals to get the defense to "show" and then call the play.

 

This could also explain "why so much time per play".

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

w

[DieHard 2,061]

I agree. Also a lot of movement in the formation. It makes a lot of sense for a team with a strong defense to take as much time off the clock as possible. I do like a hurry up offense but you give the other team more possessions. Not good for a defensive team. I think we are a defensive team. Unless we are down 2 scores, we are better off taking time off the clock.

[jetlord 10,209]

Wouldn't teams that are winning such as the Panthers and Chiefs in the last ten games as well as leading late in two others, tend to use clock on most plays?  Teams that are mostly behind would hurry up.  That probably has more to do with time between plays than the style of the QB or offense.  I don't see the point.

[PhataLerror 370]

Wouldn't teams that are winning such as the Panthers and Chiefs in the last ten games as well as leading late in two others, tend to use clock on most plays?  Teams that are mostly behind would hurry up.  That probably has more to do with time between plays than the style of the QB or offense.  I don't see the point.

Burning clock in itself doesn't correlate directly to wins. Therefore, it's hard to conclude that average time elapsed per snap is more than an indicator to be considered. Eventually, I hope to cross-reference more details like percentage of clock-stopping plays (generally incompletions) and splits for average time elapsed per snap when leading, tied, and when trailing.

 

Thanks for the continued input. Something in the back of my head says this means something, but I have yet to put my finger on it.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

I will give you a few more stats.

 

Teams that win a SB on the backs of their D e.g. a non top 10 offense never returns to the SB. So no Denver back to back SB.

 

Also only 2 QBs in history have ever won SBs with their same teams after a 6 year hiatus, Staubach and Brady. So no SB for GB, Pittsburgh, NO or NYG until their current QBs leave.

[Guest Rg]

Ah the offseason

[West 6,714]

Team OTA's coming soon.

 

w