Nice little stat for a HS O

GoldenTornado said:
Hurm. I had us at #2 behind Bama at 41.9% after the UGA game. Did we do badly enough in the last two to push us down that far?
Click to expand...

Well we don't end up in 3rd and long that often. I feel like a remember a few 3rd downs against FSU when I thought (might have converted that with Smelter), although I can't remember the distances. I know we punted 3 times against MSU too.
 
GoldenTornado said:
Hurm. I had us at #2 behind Bama at 41.9% after the UGA game. Did we do badly enough in the last two to push us down that far?
Click to expand...

Maybe? This is the first time I've calculated it. Here's what I have for us:

7-9 to go Pass Attempts: 22
7-9 to go Pass 1st Downs: 11
10+ to go Pass Attempts: 29
10+ to go Pass 1st Downs: 8
7-9 to go Rush Attempts: 5
7-9 to go Rush 1st Downs: 3
10+ to go Rush Attempts: 12
10+ to go Rush 1st Downs: 4

Total Attempts: 68
Total 1st Downs: 26
3rd & Long Conversion Rate: 38.24%

Here's the data I used: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Co30fkkSW0Iss74X4FeyO0M7eVF0d0Mi-8B53QcyvyA/edit?usp=sharing
 
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff


Would like to see the final stats, but looking at these stats is pretty unbelievable. GT's OFEI (opponent-adjusted offensive efficiency) is .968, with the next best at .722 (Auburn) and .718 (Oregon). You can also see where we compare to Oregon in explosive drives (drives averaging >10 yards/play) and methodical drives (percentage of drives with more than 10 plays). I do not pretend to understand the details behind these stats, especially FEI, thoroughly, but basically they suggest that GT has the most efficient offense, Oregon has a very efficient and more explosive offense, and GT has the most methodical offense. Typical fans and media love explosive offense, probably because it appears to suggest the ability to score more points more often.


In this day and age, it still amazes me that I can go on the most prolific sports website in the country and offenses and defenses are ranked by points scored and points allowed, which are basically just vacuum statistics that have no meaning other than the stat itself. Assuming no field goals, would you rather have an offense that scores 6 touchdowns on 9 possessions or an offense that scores 9 touchdowns on 15 possessions? The answer is pretty clear statistically, but it is even more clear when you factor in other considerations, such as the theory that a tired offense scores against a tired defense more often than a rested offense scores against a rested defense. Meaning, if you have 9 possessions a game and the opponent has 8-10, the defense will be on the field for less snaps than the defense of the team that has 14-16 possessions to defend against.


I imagine I am preaching to the choir here, but at some point one would hope the media could actually give value to meaningful rather than arbitrary statistics. I'm sure that will happen about as soon as Joe Simpson accepts that OPS is more meaningful than batting average.
 
gtrower said:
Agreed, Oregon's offense is flashy, but let's look at the two games. I didn't count defensive TDs or possessions ending via clock.

Oregon: 13 drives
8 scores (61.5%)
7 TD (53.8%)
1 punt
2 turnovers
1 failed 4th down

Tech: 11 drives
7 TDs (63.6%)
3 punts
1 turnover (and a flukish one at that)

We scored TDs on 64% of the drives for crying out loud. We've probably scored TDs drives on >50% of our drives this season. It's absurd how dominant this offense was this season.
Click to expand...

Really annoyed me how the FSU-Oregon announcers were saying Oregon's offense was like an order of magnitude better than ours. The difference in that game was solely defense, as your stats show. Stupid people look at the score, and since 59 > 35 they conclude Oregon's offense is better.

I think we had the best offense in the country.
 
gtzulu said:
Really annoyed me how the FSU-Oregon announcers were saying Oregon's offense was like an order of magnitude better than ours. The difference in that game was solely defense, as your stats show. Stupid people look at the score, and since 59 > 35 they conclude Oregon's offense is better.

I think we had the best offense in the country.
Click to expand...

Is there a trophy for that?
 
Cool stats there.

Interesting to see Navy in the top 10, too. This offense is pure awesome.

And of course Georgia Southern won their conference in undefeated fashion. I notice their QB had a bunch of carries. What system are they running?
 
carober18 said:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff


Would like to see the final stats, but looking at these stats is pretty unbelievable. GT's OFEI (opponent-adjusted offensive efficiency) is .968, with the next best at .722 (Auburn) and .718 (Oregon). You can also see where we compare to Oregon in explosive drives (drives averaging >10 yards/play) and methodical drives (percentage of drives with more than 10 plays). I do not pretend to understand the details behind these stats, especially FEI, thoroughly, but basically they suggest that GT has the most efficient offense, Oregon has a very efficient and more explosive offense, and GT has the most methodical offense. Typical fans and media love explosive offense, probably because it appears to suggest the ability to score more points more often.


In this day and age, it still amazes me that I can go on the most prolific sports website in the country and offenses and defenses are ranked by points scored and points allowed, which are basically just vacuum statistics that have no meaning other than the stat itself. Assuming no field goals, would you rather have an offense that scores 6 touchdowns on 9 possessions or an offense that scores 9 touchdowns on 15 possessions? The answer is pretty clear statistically, but it is even more clear when you factor in other considerations, such as the theory that a tired offense scores against a tired defense more often than a rested offense scores against a rested defense. Meaning, if you have 9 possessions a game and the opponent has 8-10, the defense will be on the field for less snaps than the defense of the team that has 14-16 possessions to defend against.


I imagine I am preaching to the choir here, but at some point one would hope the media could actually give value to meaningful rather than arbitrary statistics. I'm sure that will happen about as soon as Joe Simpson accepts that OPS is more meaningful than batting average.
Click to expand...

This is prior to the bowls, too. The difference is only going to increase, unless Oregon just goes nuts again.
 
gtzulu said:
Really annoyed me how the FSU-Oregon announcers were saying Oregon's offense was like an order of magnitude better than ours. The difference in that game was solely defense, as your stats show. Stupid people look at the score, and since 59 > 35 they conclude Oregon's offense is better.

I think we had the best offense in the country.
Click to expand...

Those were the stats for UO/FSU and GT/MSU. If we look at the two FSU games (UO/FSU and GT/FSU it becomes:

Oregon: 13 drives
8 scores (61.5%)
7 TD (53.8%)
1 punt
2 turnovers
1 failed 4th down

Tech: 8 drives
5 TDs (62.5%)
2 punts
1 turnover

Obviously the point still stands. We also played that game with our best WR (Smelter), best big play AB threat (Snoddy) and lost a starting AB (Zenon) during the game. Pretty remarkable. I'd love to play Oregon. Probably just come down to turnovers as I doubt either defense would stand much of a chance.
 
Interesting that in the defensive equivalent, GTech was 47th, despite the turnovers and a ton of underclassmen playing. If they can climb into the 20ths, even if the offense takes a step back with the new faces, the team could be overall much better.
 
Final Defensive FEI rankings of FBS opponents:
Clemson (1)
VT (2)
Virginia (9)
Georgia (15)
Miss State (17)
FSU (28)
Duke (32)
Miami (36)
Tulane (46)
NCSU (70)
Georgia Southern (88)
Pitt (99)
UNC (113)
 
gtrower said:
I'd love to play Oregon. Probably just come down to turnovers as I doubt either defense would stand much of a chance.
Click to expand...

Time of possession would be 45 / 15. Their defense would likely start dropping like flies.
 
gtphd said:
Time of possession would be 45 / 15. Their defense would likely start dropping like flies.
Click to expand...

The problem would be that our offense would get gassed. Also our defense would probably have a similar kind of issue, only instead of over the time of the game it would be over the time of a drive because of the no huddle hurry up they do.
 
beej67 said:
We're gaming the system a little bit here. Compare us with Oregon. The only thing we beat them on is the number of drives with 10 or more plays, and strength of schedule. They beat us in every other category. Often not by much, but still beat us.
Click to expand...

I mean strength of schedule is the most important different probably. If they recorded stats that were a touch better than ours but against what was judged to be much weaker defenses, then that changes the final. How correct that judgement of the strength of schedule is, I don't know.
 
GTLiebs said:
The problem would be that our offense would get gassed.
Click to expand...

Much less worried about the offense. They can swap people in and out and offensive players run less because they're running a set play, whereas defense needs to react / move into position as play develops.

GTLiebs said:
Also our defense would probably have a similar kind of issue, only instead of over the time of the game it would be over the time of a drive because of the no huddle hurry up they do.
Click to expand...

Our defense playing 15 minutes would be a lot less gassed than another defense playing 25 minutes.
 
beej67 said:
We're gaming the system a little bit here. Compare us with Oregon. The only thing we beat them on is the number of drives with 10 or more plays, and strength of schedule. They beat us in every other category. Often not by much, but still beat us.
Click to expand...
We're not gaming anything. All the categories you're looking at are not adjusted for the quality of the defenses each team faced. Oregon's raw offensive efficiency is higher than ours: .945 vs .692 (#1 and #2 overall), but we faced defenses that were more efficient than they did. The final number is the result of an iterative adjustment using the iteratively modified efficiencies of each of our opponents.

The strength-of-schedule adjustments are necessary to achieve one of the main goals of efficiency statistics, which is to generate a metric to compare teams with completely different schedules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top