Interesting offensive correlation?

stinger78

stinger78

Jacket by the grace of God.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
12,542
Not that I've I worked it all out statistically, but here's my observation. I was browsing through the 2009 ncaa football stats (I know, go figure), and I noticed this:

Top 25 teams statistically:
Passing Offense - 54 combined losses (GT #113)
Rushing Offense - 46 combined losses (GT #4)
Total Offense - 37 combined losses (GT #24)
Scoring Offense - 28 combined losses (GT # 24)
Passing Efficiency - 24 combined losses (GT #4)

Think maybe PJ is on to something?
 
cajunjacket said:
You should look at the same thing on the defensive side of the ball.
Click to expand...

OK, easy enough. Here it is.

Top 25 teams statistically:
Pass Defense - 42 combined losses (GT #98)
Total Defense - 38 combined losses (GT #82)
Rushing Defense - 31 combined losses (GT #64)
Pass Efficiency Defense - 31 combined losses (GT #108)
Scoring Defense - 28 combined losses (GT #77)
 
unforgiven108 said:
For the top 25 teams.

So for the top 25 teams in the passing efficiency category they combined have 24 losses, or slightly less than 1 loss per team.
Click to expand...

Yes.

So, can we assume a stronger correlation between Pass Efficiency Offense and wins than Passing Offense in general? I dunno. There may be an inherent bias in the stat, since (I believe) the Pass Efficiency Offense and Defense stats factor in scores.
 
Curious how stopping the run helps you win more than being able to run.
 
stinger78 said:
Yes.

So, can we assume a stronger correlation between Pass Efficiency Offense and wins than Passing Offense in general? I dunno. There may be an inherent bias in the stat, since (I believe) the Pass Efficiency Offense and Defense stats factor in scores.
Click to expand...

I would say yes, that passing efficiency could equal more wins than passing offense for the following reasons:

1.) Usually the higher passing efficiency teams don't have a need to pass as often. Which means they have a good run game.
2.) If you aren't passing often (which I'm equating to lowering the pass efficiency if you did), that means you aren't playing from behind a lot of the time.

So the higher the pass efficiency means that you are not trailing in games and have a run offense that is not being stopped, these two things definitely add up to wins more than just being able to gain yards throwing the ball around.
 
stinger78 said:
Not that I've I worked it all out statistically, but here's my observation. I was browsing through the 2009 ncaa football stats (I know, go figure), and I noticed this:

Top 25 teams statistically:
Passing Offense - 54 combined losses (GT #113)
Rushing Offense - 46 combined losses (GT #4)
Total Offense - 37 combined losses (GT #24)
Scoring Offense - 28 combined losses (GT # 24)
Passing Efficiency - 24 combined losses (GT #4)

Think maybe PJ is on to something?
Click to expand...

Could be a chicken and the egg thing. Teams with more losses will be behind more therefore they'll have to throw more - and the opposing defense will know it. If you're going to throw and the defense knows it, your passing effeciency will suffer.
 
I would say that higher pass efficiency correlates more with third-down conversion percentage which is all about keeping drives alive long enough to get in the red zone.
 
stinger78 said:
Not that I've I worked it all out statistically, but here's my observation. I was browsing through the 2009 ncaa football stats (I know, go figure), and I noticed this:

Top 25 teams statistically:
Passing Offense - 54 combined losses (GT #113)
Rushing Offense - 46 combined losses (GT #4)
Total Offense - 37 combined losses (GT #24)
Scoring Offense - 28 combined losses (GT # 24)
Passing Efficiency - 24 combined losses (GT #4)

Think maybe PJ is on to something?
Click to expand...

Stinger78, how did this look for 2008?
 
2008

Top 25 Teams Statistically: (bear in mind these are full season records)
Rushing Offense - 121 combined losses (GT #4)
Passing Offense - 116 combined losses (GT #116)
Total Offense - 88 combined losses (GT #50)
Passing Efficiency - 85 combined losses (GT #92)
Scoring Offense - 81 combined losses (GT #59)
 
TechPhi97 said:
As it turns out, scoring alot turns out to be highly correlated with winning.....along with not letting the other team score alot.
Click to expand...

I understand that is rather obvious - I started including for comparison to the things people are usually more interested in, like yardage stats.

Also, one reason the pass efficiency ratings are highly correlated is that they contain a component of scoring (passing TD's), so I wanted to make note of that.

Several interesting discussions led to adding scoring and other stats. as well as the scatter plots so that people could get a better intuitive feel for what the different correlation values correspond to.

The most interesting result to me is how poorly passing yards per game (offense or defense) correlate to winning. I attribute this primarily to the fact that teams that are behind throw like crazy, and teams that are ahead tend not to. Also, the best way to have a really low passing yards allowed per game is to have a horrendous rushing defense.
 
So what you're saying is...teams that are good win games.
 
I think he is trying to show that a good rushing attack is winning more games than a good passing game overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top