The CardBoard
Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - 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: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively (/thread-7960.html)


Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Hulk01 - 10-06-2014

These are the offensive stats in which we rank in the bottom half of the nation, ordered from worst to least bad:

Red zone scoring%: 117 (of 128)
Fumbles per game:  115
Red zone TD %: 107
20+ plays per game: 106
20+ running plays per game: 105
Scoring:  91
Sacks allowed per attempt: 88
Rushing yards per carry: 81
3rd down conversion: 81
Penalties/game: 78 (assume an average mix of offensive and defensive penalties)
10+ runs per game:  68

Are there any areas where we rank above average? 
Yes:

Completion percentage:  18
Tackles for loss allowed: 30
Pass Efficiency: 42
Yards per pass attempt: 49
Passing touchdowns: 49
Interceptions thrown: 47
Drives into red zone per game: 51


Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - TrumpCard - 10-06-2014

I would expect the high completion percentage to translate into a better third down conversion rate.  What accounts for the discrepancy between 18th and 81st?  Is Hogan completing more passes with play action on 1st or 2nd down, but unable to complete passes when the defense knows what's coming?  Is Hogan completing passes short of the marker on 3rd down? 

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Hulk01 - 10-06-2014

A major reason for the low conversion rate is our third down situations.  Because of the penalties and sacks, as one influence, we have faced an unusual number of 3rd and longers.  And the lack of a shortyardage running back likely means that our 3rd and short conversions on runs aren't good either. 

3rd and long - Hulk01 - 10-06-2014

Hogan is 7 for 7 converting on 3rd and 1-3 yards, 5 for 12 converting on 3rd and 4-6--and 3 for 20 converting on 7 or more. 

So he’s 15% converting on 3rd and seven or more, plus 0 for 2 rushing, for a total of 3 for 22: 13+%

Last year, he converted 19 in 44 3rd and 7 or more passes, and on three of his ten rushes: 22 for 54, or 41%.

He/we were three times more effective last year on 3rd and 7 or more. 

Third down situational statistics - BostonCard - 10-06-2014

1st Down    57  39  68.4  151.25
2nd Down  51  38  74.5  140.47
3rd Down  42  21  50.0  138.97
3rd Down, 1-3 To Go  8  7  87.5  256.10
3rd Down, 4-6 To Go  13  7  53.8  181.51
3rd Down, 7-9 To Go  11  2  18.2  22.91
3rd Down, 10+ To Go  10  5  50.0  117.60

To answer your question, Hogan's high completion percentage is mostly due to his work on first and second down, where he has a 71% completion percentage.  His completion percentage dips to 50% on third down, but, worse, on third and clear passing situations (7+ yards), he is completing 33% of his throws (even on 3rd and 4+ yards to go, he is completing only 41% of his passes).  The result is that he has 16 first downs in 42 third down attempts (a first down percentage of only 38%; and this dips to 14% on third and 7+).

This creates a quandary for the offensive brain trust.  Hogan is most effective on first and second down, and third and short.  You maximize your chances of successful passing if you pass in the early downs.  However, that also means that if you are not successful (incomplete pass or sack), then you are putting yourself in exactly the situation where you are going to struggle on third down.  This is a quandary that all teams face, but when we had a very successful running game, we had a very good chance of putting ourselves in a favorable situation on third down; now, less so.

One last thought... here's our yards per play average on third down, success rate (first down percentage), and percentage rushes:
1-3 yards to go: 14 plays, 6.1 ypp, 64% first down, 43% rushes
4-6 yards to go: 17 plays, 7.6 ypp, 47% first down, 24% rushes
7-9 yards to go: 13 plays, 2.8 ypp, 8% first down, 15% rushes
10 or more yards: 17 plays, 6.3 ypp, 12% first down, 41% rushes

Things go more or less as you would expect, with decreasing first down percentages and decreasing rushing percentages... until you get to 3rd and 10+; we are actually better at 3rd and 10+ than at 3rd and 7-9; we get a much higher yards per play, a higher first down percentage, and we do so rushing a much larger percentage of the time (probably because passing is viewed as high risk since the defense is expecting it).  Don't know what to make of that, other than maybe we should take a 5 yard delay of game penalty on 3rd and 7-9 (jk).  More seriously, it looks like we are passing too much on third and 7+, the opponent is expecting it, and we are very ineffective doing so.  Perhaps if we rushed more, we might catch the defense flat footed, and set up the pass to be more effective as the defense would then have to respect the run?  if nothing else, getting 3.5 yards per carry, while bad on 3rd and 7 - 9, can't be that much worse than the 82% of time we get nothing at all due to an incompletion.

All stats courtesy of http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/674/index.html

BC

[Caveat... some of the stats are definitely in the "small number of observations" category]


Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Hulk01 - 10-06-2014

We were 37 for 61 converting running plays on third and short and on fourth downs last year, or 61%

We’re 3 for 9 this year, or 33%

That’s 2.7 running conversions per game last year, and 0.6 this year.

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - BostonCard - 10-06-2014

(10-06-2014, 06:26 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:A major reason for the low conversion rate is our third down situations.  Because of the penalties and sacks, as one influence, we have faced an unusual number of 3rd and longers.  And the lack of a shortyardage running back likely means that our 3rd and short conversions on runs aren't good either.

As I posted after you, our overall third and short conversion percentage is 64%.  A quick look at last year shows that it was, surprisingly, worse (only 57%).  A large part of that was because Hogan's completion percentage on third and short down was only 11/24, probably due to our lack of a tight end and the much maligned short/intermediate passing game.  Rushing, we got a first down 32 times in 52 attempts (61%); this year we have done so 3 times in 6 attempts (only 50%, but on a smaller sample size).  The big difference between last year and this year is last year we ran it 68% of the time on third and short, since Gaffney was so effective; this year we are only rushing 42% of the time.  However, given Hogan's effectiveness in this situation, in part because of our less bad short/intermediate passing game, this seems like a good move by the coaches.

As you surmised, a major reason for the declining third down percentage is the the deterioration of our third down situations.  Last year we had third and 1-3 39% of the time; this year it is only 23% of the time.  We had third and long (10+) 18% of the time; it is up to 28% of the time this year.  Third and 4-6 is essentially unchanged (27% last year versus 28% this year), while third and 7-9 went up from 16% to 21% of the time.

BC 

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - BostonCard - 10-06-2014

(10-06-2014, 06:53 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We were 37 for 61 converting on third and short and on fourth downs last year, or 61%

We’re 3 for 9 this year, or 33%

That’s 2.7 running conversions per game last year, and 0.6 this years.

To be clear, this is "when rushing the football".  But as I noted, we are much better this year at converting third and short by passing, and we are passing from third and short much more often.  (we still ran on fourth down all three times, and, disappointingly, did not get a single first down).

BC

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - slide - 10-07-2014

(10-06-2014, 02:15 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:These are the offensive stats in which we rank in the bottom half of the nation, ordered from worst to least bad:

Red zone scoring%: 117 (of 128)
Fumbles per game:  115
Red zone TD %: 107
20+ plays per game: 106
20+ running plays per game: 105
Scoring:  91
Sacks allowed per attempt: 88
Rushing yards per carry: 81
3rd down conversion: 81
Penalties/game: 78 (assume an average mix of offensive and defensive penalties)
10+ runs per game:  68

Are there any areas where we rank above average? 
Yes:

Completion percentage:  18
Tackles for loss allowed: 30
Pass Efficiency: 42
Yards per pass attempt: 49
Passing touchdowns: 49
Interceptions thrown: 47
Drives into red zone per game: 51

Hulk -- and those stats are really worse than they are.  Notre Dame is the only D we've faced inside the top 60.

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Renaissance Man - 10-07-2014

Quote:Hulk -- and those stats are really worse than they are.  the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends is the only D we've faced inside the top 60.

That is frightening when accounting for the fact that playing our offense should have boosted the defensive stats of our opponents.

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Hulk01 - 10-07-2014

Regarding the precipitous dropoff in our 3rd and long performance--from converting 39 percent last year to 14% this year--the explanation might be this:

Our f------g opponents are scoruting us.

Last year, we basically had one weapon for  converting: Hogan throwing to Mongomery (11 conversions).  Hogan also scrambled for three conversions, Gaffney ran (2) or received (1), and Cajuste converted on three catches.

This year, teams have adjusted.  Defenses are doubling Montgomery and keeping a trailer on Hogan, and forcing him to find option three..  We haven't found it.  What other Stanford can move the chains?

One big reason I want to land Trent Irwin. 

Re: Offensive stats, literally and figuratively - Hulk01 - 10-07-2014

Nice gets, Boston Card.  Our first and second down running, along with offensive penalties, are making third downs much harder.