Explaining Points per Drive vs Points Per Game

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,609
dressedcheeseside said:
I think we all agree our D is bad. Where some of us differ is the why.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it just doesn't seem to get as much attention. The two sides to the argument are lack of talent and poor scheme...and everyone seems to pick one side or the other. I think it's both. I think we don't have the talent for the scheme we're trying to run, which leaves two options: 1) recruit better athletes on defense (lots of them), or 2) change the scheme. Roof is making some headway, but I don't think he's ever going to be able to get the talent we need to run this type of D. I think the improved recruiting is good, but we just need to be more creative on D than just lining up in a base 4-3 most of the time and saying, "players just need to play better." It'd be nice if we put the pressure on the other team to make a play rather than on our own guys
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,609
Sorry to take this thread off topic. Back to the original point...yes, the stats per drive/play on both offense and defense are misunderstood by the vast majority of folks out there...the media more so than anyone. But everyone understands wins and losses, and in that category efficiency stats don't tell the whole story.

We lost three games, and I would pin two of the losses on the offense and one on the defense. The D played well enough in the Clemson game that we should have been in the game, and what do we get? The worst offensive performance in CPJ's tenure. But OK, we can chalk that one up to Clemson just being a super power. After that, I blame the Miami loss entirely on the two fumbles returned for TD's. It's pretty much impossible to overcome that. Pitt loss is on the D. We really turned the corner on offense in that game, but the D looked like a wet paper bag.

So yeah, we're efficient on offense...and we're 4-3 with two losses due mainly to issues on the offensive side of the ball, IMO.

Oh...and BTW, while I love that we won that game in Dublin, we probably should have lost that one too...and if we had, you can bet your sweet @## that loss would have been pinned on the offense as well.

So I realize this is a bit of a 180 from what I said above about our defense being the problem...and if you look at stats of any kind you could easily come tot hat conclusion. But honestly, we're really just an inconsistent team that makes too many mistakes. Maybe we're just young, but whatever it is we've got to play a lot better...otherwise we'll be talking about how efficient we were on offense and how bad we were on defense while we're watching everyone else play in December and January.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
33jacket said:
What was our bet top 35 ppd.

Where are we in ppd?

Iirc we said top 35 in total d or ppd then we settled on just ppd.

Btw to your point its amazing how irrelevant total d is on a team like ours with our offensive philosophy
Click to expand...

LOL
It was Total D. I legitimately thought our D would be improved, but I'm not crazy.

I actually thought our O would have longer more ball control drives, and our D would get moderately more stops. I expected we'd either have 10 drives/game with our O limiting how often opposition got the ball, so limiting Total D, or the D would get quicker stops with again lower Total D.

We were already #42 last year, so I figured we'd improve enough on both sides from that mess to get to #35.

From 2009 to 2014, we were top 6 in time of possession 4 times, top 26 twice. We fell off to #40 last year. I didn't expect #50 this year. D'oh!!!!
 
CuseJacket

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,627
bke1984 said:
Sorry to take this thread off topic. Back to the original point...yes, the stats per drive/play on both offense and defense are misunderstood by the vast majority of folks out there...the media more so than anyone. But everyone understands wins and losses, and in that category efficiency stats don't tell the whole story.

We lost three games, and I would pin two of the losses on the offense and one on the defense. The D played well enough in the Clemson game that we should have been in the game, and what do we get? The worst offensive performance in CPJ's tenure. But OK, we can chalk that one up to Clemson just being a super power. After that, I blame the Miami loss entirely on the two fumbles returned for TD's. It's pretty much impossible to overcome that. Pitt loss is on the D. We really turned the corner on offense in that game, but the D looked like a wet paper bag.

So yeah, we're efficient on offense...and we're 4-3 with two losses due mainly to issues on the offensive side of the ball, IMO.

Oh...and BTW, while I love that we won that game in Dublin, we probably should have lost that one too...and if we had, you can bet your sweet @## that loss would have been pinned on the offense as well.

So I realize this is a bit of a 180 from what I said above about our defense being the problem...and if you look at stats of any kind you could easily come tot hat conclusion. But honestly, we're really just an inconsistent team that makes too many mistakes. Maybe we're just young, but whatever it is we've got to play a lot better...otherwise we'll be talking about how efficient we were on offense and how bad we were on defense while we're watching everyone else play in December and January.
Click to expand...
I agree with this mostly with the exception of "we probably should have lost" in Dublin. I think BC probably controlled the game more, however that's not enough for me to play the if/but/should game. GT fans know as well as anyone how to play the "what if" game, so if we can hypothetically take a W away then we can easily put a hypothetical W back in somewhere else. No sense in doing it for just one game that could have gone either way.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,347
Location
Auburn, AL
CuseJacket said:
I agree with this mostly with the exception of "we probably should have lost" in Dublin. I think BC probably controlled the game more, however that's not enough for me to play the if/but/should game. GT fans know as well as anyone how to play the "what if" game, so if we can hypothetically take a W away then we can easily put a hypothetical W back in somewhere else. No sense in doing it for just one game that could have gone either way.
Click to expand...

Dublin was a coin flip. Either team could have won.
 
18in32

18in32

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
68
I like per possession stats as much as the next guy... but they can mislead just as any stat can, and people often talk about this particular stat in a very misleading way.

Just because we scored 4 TD on 8 possessions, and the same day in another game Louisville scored 8 TD in 16 possessions, does not mean that our offense played as well as Louisville's. The goal of the offense is not "efficiency," but actual points. In this scenario, for example, there's no guarantee that we would've scored 4 more TD on another 8 possessions – something Louisville already did.

It is true that we probably limited the number of possessions that our defense had to defend, which can be a huge advantage for a team with a struggling D like us. But the fact that we slowed the game down by snapping the ball less frequently is not evidence of a great offense. It is a deliberate and valuable strategic choice, but not proof that our offense is as good as Louisville's. They actually did score twice as many points as our offense did (in my hypothetical). Perhaps we would have scored 4 more TD in another 8 possessions (or perhaps 8 more TD's!)... but that is speculation, not statistics.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,699
Location
Georgia
AE 87 said:
LOL
It was Total D. I legitimately thought our D would be improved, but I'm not crazy.

I actually thought our O would have longer more ball control drives, and our D would get moderately more stops. I expected we'd either have 10 drives/game with our O limiting how often opposition got the ball, so limiting Total D, or the D would get quicker stops with again lower Total D.

We were already #42 last year, so I figured we'd improve enough on both sides from that mess to get to #35.

From 2009 to 2014, we were top 6 in time of possession 4 times, top 26 twice. We fell off to #40 last year. I didn't expect #50 this year. D'oh!!!!
Click to expand...

Do u have a link to that thread. Coulda sworn we settled on ppd.....
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,699
Location
Georgia
AE 87 said:
LOL
It was Total D. I legitimately thought our D would be improved, but I'm not crazy.

I actually thought our O would have longer more ball control drives, and our D would get moderately more stops. I expected we'd either have 10 drives/game with our O limiting how often opposition got the ball, so limiting Total D, or the D would get quicker stops with again lower Total D.

We were already #42 last year, so I figured we'd improve enough on both sides from that mess to get to #35.

From 2009 to 2014, we were top 6 in time of possession 4 times, top 26 twice. We fell off to #40 last year. I didn't expect #50 this year. D'oh!!!!
Click to expand...

Found it. Yes its total d. Confirmed...ok lol. U may win. We arent exactly playing juggernauts from here on out
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
18in32 said:
I like per possession stats as much as the next guy... but they can mislead just as any stat can, and people often talk about this particular stat in a very misleading way.

Just because we scored 4 TD on 8 possessions, and the same day in another game Louisville scored 8 TD in 16 possessions, does not mean that our offense played as well as Louisville's. The goal of the offense is not "efficiency," but actual points. In this scenario, for example, there's no guarantee that we would've scored 4 more TD on another 8 possessions – something Louisville already did.

It is true that we probably limited the number of possessions that our defense had to defend, which can be a huge advantage for a team with a struggling D like us. But the fact that we slowed the game down by snapping the ball less frequently is not evidence of a great offense. It is a deliberate and valuable strategic choice, but not proof that our offense is as good as Louisville's. They actually did score twice as many points as our offense did (in my hypothetical). Perhaps we would have scored 4 more TD in another 8 possessions (or perhaps 8 more TD's!)... but that is speculation, not statistics.
Click to expand...

No, the point is to score more points than that day's opponent. That day's opponent will not have 16 drives to you 8 unless you score at least 6 defensive or special team touchdowns (or you give up 6+ onsides kicks).

You see, the rules dictate that teams typically alternate possessions. As a result, teams typically have the same number of drives in any given game. So, the team which scores more efficiently typically wins.

So, when comparing offenses between teams averaging 16 drives and 8 drives respectively, ppd is better than total points.
 

GTHOSCHTON

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
177
if we go 11-3 and give up 25 a game am good with that!! points per game...points per drive or won loss stat which one is really important at the end of the day....in 2014 we really were not that great on defense....got some turnovers for sure but still gave up yards.... and points.....we are also truly young on defense only a few upper classman....
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,347
Location
Auburn, AL
18in32 said:
The goal of the offense is not "efficiency," but actual points.
Click to expand...

Efficiency measures give you insight into how repeatable the offense is. An offense that scores 4 TD's with 4 touchdown passes provides points, but may not be repeatable against multiple, more athletic teams.

Most coaches agree that points are an outcome of doing the right things. And the right things are a) get into scoring position and b) finish the drive and score.
 
Top