Being "10 points away"

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,380
So, this piqued my interest. Stansbury said we need to find 10 points. I'll just do scoring defense in this post.

UMass is the worst scoring defense in the country, giving up 43 points per game. We are tied for 106 with Bowling Green and Texas Tech, giving up 32.5 points per game. These are strict NCAA stats with no exclusions. UGA is the best at 7.5 points per game (they are legitimately an outlier, as is UMass on the other side).

The average team gives up 26.4 points per game, and the standard deviation is 6.6 points per game. So, we're nearly a full deviation outside the norm. You can safely say that we have a bad defense.

We're 6 points away from being a middle of the road defense, and we're 12 points away from being good.

Boston College is "good"--#25. (20.5 points per game, almost a standard deviation below the average). Houston at 20.1 points per game is almost exactly a standard deviation below the norm.
South Alabama is "average", giving up 26.4 points per game
We are almost exactly a standard deviation worse than the norm on scoring defense.

1637854306357.png
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,657
Thanks for this. I think.

Here is the problem for me with the “ten point measurement.” Ten points sounds doable as an abstract number. But that’s not real life on a football field. How much extra effort and execution does it take to add even a couple of extra points to a margin in a game?

Let’s throw out another hypothetical for measuring a 10 point swing. For Tech to get a 10 point swing in each game would require each staff person putting in an extra 12 hours a week in game preparation and/or each player doing an extra hour a day of conditioning and/or picking up an average four additional 4 star players with each recruiting class and/or hiring an additional staff member just to do game management.

I know this is an arbitrary list of requirements to get that extra 10 points but it is far more arbitrary to throw out 10 points like it is something that can magically happen without a LOT more effort.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,380
The average scoring OFFENSE scores 28.7 points per game. But you say "Slugboy, the average defense gives up 26.4 points per game -- shouldn't they be the same?". Well, I think some teams boosted their numbers against lower division opponents, plus the variation is 6.9 points per game, so defense is a bit tighter than offense--scoring isn't evenly distributed among teams.

  • Ohio State tops the list at 47.2 points per game
  • Nebraska and Arizona State bracket the average at 28.5 and 28.9 points per game
  • Bowling Green is a standard deviation below average at 21.5 points per game
  • UVA is a standard deviation above average at 35.5 points per game
  • New Mexico is the worst, at 12.4 points per game
  • We are #80 at 26.2 points per game. We're below average, but we're in the muddy middle. We're mediocre on offense.
We're about 9 points away from being "good" (equal to UVA) and we're about two points away from being "average" or "mediocre"

1637855668413.png
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,659
Thanks for this. I think.

Here is the problem for me with the “ten point measurement.” Ten points sounds doable as an abstract number. But that’s not real life on a football field. How much extra effort and execution does it take to add even a couple of extra points to a margin in a game?

Let’s throw out another hypothetical for measuring a 10 point swing. For Tech to get a 10 point swing in each game would require each staff person putting in an extra 12 hours a week in game preparation and/or each player doing an extra hour a day of conditioning and/or picking up an average four additional 4 star players with each recruiting class and/or hiring an additional staff member just to do game management.

I know this is an arbitrary list of requirements to get that extra 10 points but it is far more arbitrary to throw out 10 points like it is something that can magically happen without a LOT more effort.
It may not necessarily require more effort from our players, just better coaches.
 

TruckStick

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
511
So your saying we really are 20 points away.. 10 pts on defense and 10 pts on offense.

We really haven’t improved. I don’t see it on either side of the ball.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,380
Thanks for this. I think.

Here is the problem for me with the “ten point measurement.” Ten points sounds doable as an abstract number. But that’s not real life on a football field. How much extra effort and execution does it take to add even a couple of extra points to a margin in a game?

Let’s throw out another hypothetical for measuring a 10 point swing. For Tech to get a 10 point swing in each game would require each staff person putting in an extra 12 hours a week in game preparation and/or each player doing an extra hour a day of conditioning and/or picking up an average four additional 4 star players with each recruiting class and/or hiring an additional staff member just to do game management.

I know this is an arbitrary list of requirements to get that extra 10 points but it is far more arbitrary to throw out 10 points like it is something that can magically happen without a LOT more effort.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Good questions.

  1. Improving our 3 down conversions on defense by just improving our tackling might be worth a few points
  2. Our passing defense is porous. Clear coverage assignment alone should help. Getting your hips turned right, and other basic physical skills, too.
  3. Getting our linebackers downhill and in the right gaps quickly
  4. Shedding blocks
  5. ^^ Those are defensive items off the top of my head
We can look through some of the stats, but there are clues for the eye test

@TruckStick I do think "10 points" is a low number, but a team that's top 25 on offense and top 25 on defense isn't #25 team in the country--they're probably #15.
 

laoh

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
492
10 points baloney. If the games were lost by a difference in field goal, sure. A 2 possession differential that you're not going to make up in the final 2 min anyway, nope. And let's remember UVA wasn't as close as the final score suggests.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,170
Location
Albany Georgia
So, this piqued my interest. Stansbury said we need to find 10 points. I'll just do scoring defense in this post.

UMass is the worst scoring defense in the country, giving up 43 points per game. We are tied for 106 with Bowling Green and Texas Tech, giving up 32.5 points per game. These are strict NCAA stats with no exclusions. UGA is the best at 7.5 points per game (they are legitimately an outlier, as is UMass on the other side).

The average team gives up 26.4 points per game, and the standard deviation is 6.6 points per game. So, we're nearly a full deviation outside the norm. You can safely say that we have a bad defense.

We're 6 points away from being a middle of the road defense, and we're 12 points away from being good.

Boston College is "good"--#25. (20.5 points per game, almost a standard deviation below the average). Houston at 20.1 points per game is almost exactly a standard deviation below the norm.
South Alabama is "average", giving up 26.4 points per game
We are almost exactly a standard deviation worse than the norm on scoring defense.

View attachment 11688
After watching that Notre Dame game, that "10 points" may as well be 100 for all the good it will do.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,380
These are FCS numbers only (different data source). The 10 points is really "point differential". Maybe it was Yogi Berra, but this is the stats version of "did you score more than the other guy", but it's not necessarily wins--I think Nebraska is positive on this graph and it didn't convert to wins.

  • The average scoring differential is -0.1. So being average is losing. Winning wealth is unevenly distributed.
  • The scoring differential standard deviation is 12 points (11.967, so close enough).
  • UGA is #1 with a +31.1 differential.
  • Ohio State, Alabama, Cincinnati, and Michigan round out the top 5 in that order
  • The bottom 5 are Florida International, Kansas, Temple, UConn, and UMass, in that order. UMass is the worst, but they're all in "avert your eyes" territory.
  • Western Michigan is your poster child for average with a -0.1 scoring differential, at #70.
  • Your median teams are Washington and Central Michigan, at +1.9 and +1.6 points per game, respectively.
  • NCST and Boise State are 1 deviation above average and "good" at 11.9 and 12.1 points per game, respectively.
  • Tulane sets the edge of "bad" at -12.1 point differential, and is ranked #109
  • Georgia Tech is #103 at -9.7 point differential. This might be Stansbury's number. If so, 10 points doesn't get us to "good"; it gets us to mediocre, or still relatively weak for a P5 team.
  • Liberty, Penn State, and Kentucky are as good as we are bad, at +9.5, +9.6, and +9.9. They're #26-#24.
So, to be a "good" or an "excellent" team, we don't need a 10 point swing, we need about a 20 point swing.

1637857984785.png
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,130
Hasn't our defense been in the 100's every year under Thacker/Collins. The numbers say this defense needs a change. It's just plain bad. Will be worse after Saturday.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,380
Hasn't our defense been in the 100's every year under Thacker/Collins. The numbers say this defense needs a change. It's just plain bad. Will be worse after Saturday.

Our best under Collins is #98, at 32.9 points per game. We're regressing.

Edit: I changed it to show scoring defense all the way back to 2003, which is the earliest year my source had:

YearFBS Scoring Defense RankFBS Scoring Defense Points
2021​
107​
34​
2020​
106​
36.8​
2019​
98​
32.9​
2018​
85​
31.8​
2017​
69​
28.2​
2016​
41​
25.7​
2015​
60​
27.5​
2014​
50​
26.2​
2013​
56​
26.4​
2012​
72​
30.2​
2011​
58​
26.5​
2010​
57​
26.5​
2009​
53​
25.4​
2008​
34​
22.1​
2007​
22​
21.4​
2006​
29​
19.3​
2005​
22​
20.1​
2004​
25​
20​
2003​
26​
20.5​

Ranking:
1637862262855.png


Points:

1637862289805.png


Despite the fact that the option "ate up time of possession and the number of available possessions for our opponents", our defense was better before Johnson in absolute terms--much less in points per possession.

However, we could very much use the time of possession now, as we've gotten worse in absolute points.
 
Last edited:

year_of_the_swarm

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
343
Yea this logic doesn't add up... A few examples:

The difference between a guy who runs the 40 in 4.5 seconds vs 8.5 seconds is incredible. Those 4 seconds are significant.

The talent and capability it takes to shoot 70, as opposed to 80, is like being in a different universe. I can shoot 80 all day, but can't get anywhere near 70.

Same thing here.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,659
Yea this logic doesn't add up... A few examples:

The difference between a guy who runs the 40 in 4.5 seconds vs 8.5 seconds is incredible. Those 4 seconds are significant.

The talent and capability it takes to shoot 70, as opposed to 80, is like being in a different universe. I can shoot 80 all day, but can't get anywhere near 70.

Same thing here.
I don't think it's the same thing, and one big reason is you're comparing a lone individual performing at peak capacity to a team and its coaches. A simple coaching change could well get us a ten-point improvement.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,659
Hasn't our defense been in the 100's every year under Thacker/Collins. The numbers say this defense needs a change. It's just plain bad. Will be worse after Saturday.
It's horrible and getting horribler. Coaches have to go.
 

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
3,220
Yea this logic doesn't add up... A few examples:

The difference between a guy who runs the 40 in 4.5 seconds vs 8.5 seconds is incredible. Those 4 seconds are significant.

The talent and capability it takes to shoot 70, as opposed to 80, is like being in a different universe. I can shoot 80 all day, but can't get anywhere near 70.

Same thing here.

Yes and no....if you shoot 80 playing only once a week or less w/out practicing, you can close the gap if you want to and shoot 70. Maybe not consistently but every now and again. However, if you play and practice on a daily basis and have gotten lessons, then yes....that 10 shot difference is exponential. I think the larger point is that our staff has done the latter....they cannot do wmore work to get the 10 point differential. The question remains, where does it come from and is it possible.

Although (since you brought up golf) I remain what Lee Trevino once said about pressure when someone asked him about the stress of having a putt that could potentially be worth thousands of dollars. Trevino said there is no pressure when playing with other people's money. He said real pressure is being poor and playing a $10 Nassau without a dime in your pocket.
 
Top