One stat that really, really concerns me

One stat that really, really concerns me - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: One stat that really, really concerns me (/thread-7744.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - BostonCard - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 04:03 PM)CornFed link Wrote:But with due consideration of short field etc. is it reasonable to assume that that decrease in efficiency is more the norm?Â I mean, it's not a problem that is unique to Stanford, I presume, but rather a matter of magnitude.

I think this is an inquiry, not a statement.Â Don't know what to think of those (excellent) numbers you provided BC in the absence of something to compare it to.

OK, same inquiry, looking at the high-water mark of the Stanford red zone offense (2011, when we had a 97% scoring offense in the red zone and a 77% touchdown percentage (compared to a 45% scoring percentage, and a 27% touchdown percentage this year).

In 2011:
Rushing:
Overall: 518 rushes for 2738 yards (5.29 ypc), 32 TD
Opp 40 and in: 220 rushes 992 yards (4.5 ypc),Â 31 TD (yes, only 1 TD from outside the pop 40)

Passing:
Overall: 297/417 (71.2% comp), 3623 yards (8.7 ypa), 38 TD, 10 INT
Opp 40 and in: 132/182 (72.5% comp), 1369 yards (7.5 ypa), 34 TD, 3 INT (all INT outside of the red zone)

So, to answer the question, some slight decrease in offense is to be expected; approximately 0.8 ypc and 1.2 yards per attempt.

BC

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CornFed - 09-09-2014

Thanks BC.Â You DA man!Â That gives me at least a little perspective.Â Appreciate the research you do.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CTcard - 09-11-2014

(09-09-2014, 04:45 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:OK, same inquiry, looking at the high-water mark of the Stanford red zone offenseÂ
...

In 2011:
Rushing:
Overall: 5.29 ypc
Opp 40 and in: 4.5 ypc

Passing:
Overall: 8.7 ypa
Opp 40 and in: 7.5 ypa

So, to answer the question, some slight decrease in offense is to be expected; approximately 0.8 ypc and 1.2 yards per attempt.

Did you consider from the opponent's 40 yard line and in just for better statistics, or was it in response to Stanford troubles vs SC starting around the 32 yard line?

Also from 2011 you can see that in the traditional red zone, inside the 20, Stanford averaged 2.83 yds/carry and 5.46 yds/pass attempt. So even in 2011 there was a considerable further drop in the productivity inside the 20 (some by definition since you cannot have a 40 yd pass play from your opponent's 20).

Another nice statistical resource is that in the last year or so, Stanford starting putting up down and distance breakdowns at the end of the official box scores.
http://www.gostanford.com//ViewContent.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30600&CONTENT_ID=971675
(go to the very bottom section, after the play by play)

Vs SC Stanford passed on first down 14 times, ran 15 times.
The avg per play was 4.4 rushing, 7.8 rushing.
But there was only 1 rushing play with 0 or fewer yards, 4 passing plays.

In the red zone the numbers are small.
Stanford passed on first down 1 time (8 yds), ran 3 times (9 yds).
On the TD drive there was one first down play - a rush by Hogan (a scramble?)
None of the other red zone first down plays led to a first down.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CTcard - 09-11-2014

(09-09-2014, 04:43 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:The football writer for the Daily George Chen looks at the Red Zone play calling drive-by-drive, then draws conclusions.Â It's a good read that is worth a few minutes of your time.

The drive by drive analysis is good in reminding people what happened and in thinking about what worked and what didn't.

However I do object to the concept advanced here, and in much of the world of fandom, that it is possible to apportion credit/blame between players and coaches; i.e. I don't think the entire concept of saying a loss (or a win) is 90% on the coaches has any meaning.

In one sense, the coaches are 100% responsible for everything that happens on a college football team. If players don't execute, well it's the coaches' job to teach them how to execute. If players are not inherently athletic enough, well it's the coaches' job to assemble the players on a team. If the players are not strong/skilled enough, well it is the coaches' job to develop them while in the program.

In another sense, players are 100% responsible for what happens on the field. After all, no coaches are throwing, running, or blocking. Even the worst called plays work if executed perfectly.Â Steve Sarkisian didn't beat Stanford in 2012 and 2014, the UW Huskies and then the S-C. Asia-Minor-Warriors did.

I guess I would say everything is 100% coaches AND 100% players. The separation is meaningless.

Hmmmm. Not sure what set me off on this - certainly the approach is not unique to this Daily writer. But there it is.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - BostonCard - 09-11-2014

(09-11-2014, 06:50 AM)CTcard link Wrote:Did you consider from the opponent's 40 yard line and in just for better statistics, or was it in response to Stanford troubles vs SC starting around the 32 yard line?

I considered the 40 yard in because that's what the original request asked:

Quote:It would be interesting to compare the first-down calls on plays beginning outside the opponents' 40 and those inside - run v. pass balance, inside vs outside runs, etc.Â Anecdotally, it feels like we end up in a lot more "3rd and 6+" inside the 40.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - 81alum - 09-12-2014

What a great stat resource, Boston, thanks for pointing this out!

The stat that hits me in the face is that we average only 2.0 yards per carry with running plays this year in the red zone, vs. 3.4 yards per carry last year.Â I don't think that is play calling, that is execution, just as Shaw indicated.Â Something about our blocking or our running just is not working nearly as well as a year ago.Â

In the middle of the field our running is fine--in some cases better than a year ago.

What would create that disparity?Â How could our running be just as good or better in the middle of the field as a year ago, but be a little over half as effective in the red zone?Â Would that be attributable to having smaller backs?

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Extra Point - 09-12-2014

(09-12-2014, 06:29 AM)81alum link Wrote:The stat that hits me in the face is that we average only 2.0 yards per carry with running plays this year in the red zone, vs. 3.4 yards per carry last year.Â I don't think that is play calling, that is execution, just as Shaw indicated.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - BostonCard - 09-12-2014

(09-12-2014, 09:59 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=10596.msg98009#msg98009 date=1410528572]
The stat that hits me in the face is that we average only 2.0 yards per carry with running plays this year in the red zone, vs. 3.4 yards per carry last year.Â I don't think that is play calling, that is execution, just as Shaw indicated.

The closer an offense is to the goal line, the less area the defense has to worry about. In the red zone, the defense is no longer concerned about long passes. Offenses have fewer plays they can run and defenses can line up closer the line of scrimmage. As a result, all teams have a harder time running in the red zone.
[/quote]

Note the basis for comparison... the same part of the field, last year.Â If 81alum were comparing it to how we do in the rest of the field, that would be a reasonable explanation.Â The question is whether it is a momentary statistical fluke (2 games is not a brobdingnagian sample size) that we will recover from, or part of a larger trend that will show the Stanford offense struggling to move the ball, especially in the red zone.Â Time will tell.

BC