[Mick]

Here are Pac-12 turnover-per-game averages for the last two full seasons and 2014 to date:

2014
1 Washington (2.20)
2 U.SC  (1.75)
2 Oregon (1.75)
4 Utah   (1.25)
5 UCLA   (0.75)
6 Oregon State (0.50)
7 Arizona State (0.25)
7 Arizona (0.25)
9 California (0.00)
10 Colorado (-0.20)
11 Stanford (-1.00)
12 Washington State (-1.40)

2013
1 Arizona State (1.07)
2 Oregon (0.85)
3 UCLA (0.77)
4 Washington (0.54)
5 U.SC (0.43)
6 Arizona (0.31)
7 Oregon State (0.23)
8 Stanford (0.00)
9 Colorado (-0.25)
10 Washington State (-0.38)
11 Utah (-0.75)
12 California (-1.25)

2012 Name G Fum. Gain Int. Gain Total Gain Fum. Lost Int. Lost Total Lost Margin Margin/G
1 Oregon (1.62)
2 Stanford (0.64)
3 Oregon State (0.62)
4 UCLA (0.50)
5 Arizona State (0.46)
6 Washington (0.38)
7 Utah (0.33)
8 Arizona (-0.08)
9 U.SC (-0.15)
10 California (-0.58)
11 Washington State (-0.75)
12 Colorado (-1.58)

Stanford, on a steady decline.
C.al, three years in a row bottom three in conference.
WA always in top half and improving steadily.
U.SC improving a lot every year.
WSU only team really worse than C.al
Oregon looks to be best overall.
Colorado, malodorous.

[Mick]

Here are Pac-12 turnover-per-game averages for the last two full seasons and 2014 to date:

2014
1 Washington (2.20)
2 U.SC  (1.75)
2 Oregon (1.75)
4 Utah   (1.25)
5 UCLA   (0.75)
6 Oregon State (0.50)
7 Arizona State (0.25)
7 Arizona (0.25)
9 California (0.00)
10 Colorado (-0.20)
11 Stanford (-1.00)
12 Washington State (-1.40)

2013
1 Arizona State (1.07)
2 Oregon (0.85)
3 UCLA (0.77)
4 Washington (0.54)
5 U.SC (0.43)
6 Arizona (0.31)
7 Oregon State (0.23)
8 Stanford (0.00)
9 Colorado (-0.25)
10 Washington State (-0.38)
11 Utah (-0.75)
12 California (-1.25)

2012 Name G Fum. Gain Int. Gain Total Gain Fum. Lost Int. Lost Total Lost Margin Margin/G
1 Oregon (1.62)
2 Stanford (0.64)
3 Oregon State (0.62)
4 UCLA (0.50)
5 Arizona State (0.46)
6 Washington (0.38)
7 Utah (0.33)
8 Arizona (-0.08)
9 U.SC (-0.15)
10 California (-0.58)
11 Washington State (-0.75)
12 Colorado (-1.58)

Stanford, on a steady decline.
C.al, three years in a row bottom three in conference.
WA always in top half and improving steadily.
U.SC improving a lot every year.
WSU only team really worse than C.al
Oregon looks to be best overall.
Colorado, malodorous.

[stupac2]

At least in the NFL turnovers are random, there's no correlation year-to-year. That makes sense if margin is largely a result of luck.

I expect that to be the case here too. Hopefully our luck reverses, because you sure don't win many games when you're -3.

[stupac2]

At least in the NFL turnovers are random, there's no correlation year-to-year. That makes sense if margin is largely a result of luck.

I expect that to be the case here too. Hopefully our luck reverses, because you sure don't win many games when you're -3.

[washingtonismoney]

At least in the NFL turnovers are random, there's no correlation year-to-year. That makes sense if margin is largely a result of luck.

Can't recall where I read this, but I seem to remember someone showing that forcing fumbles is a talent, while recovering them is luck.

[washingtonismoney]

At least in the NFL turnovers are random, there's no correlation year-to-year. That makes sense if margin is largely a result of luck.

Can't recall where I read this, but I seem to remember someone showing that forcing fumbles is a talent, while recovering them is luck.

[stupac2]

Can't recall where I read this, but I seem to remember someone showing that forcing fumbles is a talent, while recovering them is luck.

Could be. And there seems to be a relationship between passes defended and interceptions, and the former seems like it should be skillful. Same thing on the other side, preventing INTs is clearly things that good QBs can do (to some extent, anyway), preventing fumbles seems like it should be skillful too.

So then why does it appear that TO margin is random? Could just be small the small numbers allowing noise to dominate. Or maybe palyers have less control over that stuff than we think.

[stupac2]

Can't recall where I read this, but I seem to remember someone showing that forcing fumbles is a talent, while recovering them is luck.

Could be. And there seems to be a relationship between passes defended and interceptions, and the former seems like it should be skillful. Same thing on the other side, preventing INTs is clearly things that good QBs can do (to some extent, anyway), preventing fumbles seems like it should be skillful too.

So then why does it appear that TO margin is random? Could just be small the small numbers allowing noise to dominate. Or maybe palyers have less control over that stuff than we think.

[Papa John]

I know that I'm speaking entirely with my heart, but Stanford's ability to stop most fourth-down conversion attempts and blow up fake punts mitigates those turnover averages. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that UW's failed fake punt in the fourth quarter was a turnover.

[Papa John]

I know that I'm speaking entirely with my heart, but Stanford's ability to stop most fourth-down conversion attempts and blow up fake punts mitigates those turnover averages. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that UW's failed fake punt in the fourth quarter was a turnover.

[Hulk01]

Every defense is taught to be fumble-ready, and the technique and tricks for getting to the ball are widely-known and taught.  Having corralled a few in my remarkable career, I can say that luck wins but fatigue sometimes figures into it.  Tired guys are less alert and less quick tp react, and the first step reaction is key.

[Hulk01]

Every defense is taught to be fumble-ready, and the technique and tricks for getting to the ball are widely-known and taught.  Having corralled a few in my remarkable career, I can say that luck wins but fatigue sometimes figures into it.  Tired guys are less alert and less quick tp react, and the first step reaction is key.