Record when scoring 30+ 25+, and 20+ points

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by bke1984, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    So with everyone bashing our offense over the past two seasons (and not particularly on this board, but elsewhere), I decided to dig into our all-time record when we score 30+, 25+, and 20+ points in a game.

    30+ points
    290-15-1 all-time
    37-6 under PJ
    253-9-1 under all other coaches

    25+ points
    375-33-1 all-time
    40-11 under PJ
    335-22-1 under all other coaches

    20+ points
    46-15 under PJ
    450-60-3 under all other coaches

    The biggest one that jumps out to me here is the record when scoring 30+ points. We've only lost 15 games EVER where we've scored 30+. Three of them came in 2013 (UGAy, Clemson, and Miami), two came in 2012 (Clemson and Miami), and one came in 2010 (UGAy). So 40% of the time we’ve lost when scoring more than 30 have come under PJ. That is completely ridiculous. Before PJ, if we scored 30+ we’d win 96.5% of the time (pretty good chances). Now it’s 86%...we’ll lose almost 1 out of 7 in this scenario.

    We need to improve on defense. If you score 30+, you are supposed to win…period, end of story. There’s going to be the occasional loss in this scenario, but not five times in two years.

    I like what Roof has done in such a short time, but I think the only reason so many feel good about our defense this year is that we were a dumpster fire in 2012.

    Now I’m sure some of the haters of the offense will come back and say things like:
    • Offenses have improved in the last few years, so 30+ doesn't mean what it used to
    • Tech scores late in a lot of cases to get to 30+
    • The numbers are skewed by games where we score 40+, 50+, 60+, etc.
    I'm not going to argue the first two points. It's very hard to find data to argue one way or the other on those bullets, and if you feel that way, there's no swaying you. But let’s look at the last point.

    Now, let’s look at only the games where Tech has scored 30-39 points only.

    30-39 points
    151-14-1 all-time
    17-6 under PJ
    134-8-1 all other coaches

    All other coaches at Tech lost 8 times in history when scoring 30-39 points. PJ’s teams have lost 6, and 5 in the last two years. In two years we came up just three games short of the total times all other coaches in history lost when scoring 30-39 points. Prior to PJ, we’d win 94.4% of the games when scoring 30-39…now it’s 74%. We’ll lose 1 in 4 when scoring 30-40...

    The last two seasons have really skewed the numbers, but that supports my point. We should not have to score 40 points to have such a good shot at victory! While they haven’t necessarily been coming up with big plays in critical situations, the offense is generally doing enough to win us football games. Defense has to improve.

    I, for one, am pretty confident that it will. Roof was never going to show up and flip the table in one season. I think year two will show some improvements, even with the loss of some critical players. Late in the year some of the younger guys stepped up and started making plays. Let's hope that this continues into 2014...
  2. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    BTW, I noticed something after I made the first post...we've lost 15 all-time when scoring 30+, 14 all-time when scoring 30-39. So we've only lost one game ever when scoring 40+ points...

    2001 Clemson when Dantzler scrambled for the score in OT...
  3. collegeballfan

    collegeballfan Helluva Engineer

    The defense was better last year thanks to coaching. Looking ahead, the defense will get better as the talent of the 40 or so players on defense gets better.
    If we get a couple of the players targeted this recruiting season the talent level will rise.
  4. biggtfan

    biggtfan Jolly Good Fellow

    Thanks for posting this. It shows the reason why CPJ has been cycling through defensive coordinators. I am optimistic that we will be better (more consistent with similar or better defensive scoring stats) this year. If we can avoid giving up a lot of points in 4 very important games this year, we will get the 2 or 3 additional wins we are all hoping for.
  5. techman78

    techman78 Helluva Engineer

    The D is a big thing but look back to 98,99,00 season's. Our D was a dumpster fire then as well. The difference was we had more game changers on the offensive side of the ball. Offenses have changed drastically and scoring 30-40 points a game isn't the same as it once was but I also believe that if a "good" team scores 30-40 points in a game they should win. D must improve and with Roof I think we have made a step in the right direction.
    nodawgs likes this.
  6. WrexRacer

    WrexRacer Jolly Good Fellow

    You should adjust the numbers based on regulation time scores. The UGa game last year was really in the 20-30 pt range.

    There is also some adjustment due to the hurry-up offenses. UGa, UNC, BYU, and Ole Miss all gave us fits when they went hurry-up late in games. This, I believe, is due to our paper thin depth on the DL in 2013. Roof did improve our d vs the hurry up compared to Groh (who would even have the call in by the snap), but we still didn't handle it well. That is one spot Roof needs to fix. (It also may have hurt that we were down to our 3-4th string safeties before the middle of the season).
  7. Buzzwax

    Buzzwax Jolly Good Fellow

    Thank you very much for taking the time to put this together! ! Posts like this that help educate our fan base are the reason why I come to this site more and more!!
  8. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    I know it's probably my King Charles' head, but whenever we discuss total points, I think it's important to recognize that we typically average close to 2 fewer possessions a game than most and more than than that for some of the high tempo teams. Consequently our offense would be better than its total offense ranking and our defense would be worse than its total defense ranking.

    I also think that the points inflation over the last couple of years accounts for some of the reason why these games have happend. cfbstats only gives data back to 2007, but (acknowledging the small sample size caveat) it does seem to suggest that these 30+ pt games against us recently aren't a direct reflection against our D.

    vs FBS opponents

    Teams averaging 30+ and 25
    2007: ACC 1, 4; Nat 44, 71
    2008: ACC 0, 3; Nat 34, 59
    2009: ACC 3, 7; Nat 29, 70
    2010: ACC 2, 5; Nat 36, 70
    2011: ACC 2, 6; Nat 35, 63
    2012: ACC 5, 7; Nat 52, 81
    2013: ACC 4, 8; Nat 49, 85
  9. PatrickinGa

    PatrickinGa Georgia Tech Fan

    Please tell me what I am reading wrong?

    Taken directly from Post #1 in this thread...

    30+ points 290-15-1 all-time
    37-6 under PJ
    253-9-1 under all other coaches

    Tells me that when we score 30+ we have won 290 games?

    25+ points
    375-33-1 all-time
    40-11 under PJ
    335-22-1 under all other coaches

    But when we score 25+ we have won 375 (85 more than above) games?

    20+ points
    46-15 under PJ
    450-60-3 under all other coaches

    And when we score fewest points, we win the most games.

    I know I am missing something above, and it is probably something little and stupid, but this tells me that the fewer total points we score, the more games we win?
  10. runnerbuzz

    runnerbuzz Georgia Tech Fan

    not really. you're looking at total number of wins. it just means we've played more games where we've scored 20+pts than we've played games where we scored 25+pts. the winning % is what the op is referencing.
  11. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Any way of getting the overall records for when opposing teams score 20+, 25+, etc? Maybe in the past we mailed it in after the other team scored 3 TDs regardless of what our offense was doing.
  12. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    So there were three OT games during the past two years, two of which are in the original numbers, and only one of which would have fallen out (2013 UGAy...27-27 at the end of regulation). So that's 17-5 under PJ in 30-39 PPG games...winning 78% instead of 7
    The numbers aren't mutually exclusive. The 20+ points numbers also include the 25+ numbers and the 30+ numbers. That's why at the end I only included the 30-39 numbers. I really should redo the numbers for games where we scored 0-9 points, 10-19 points, 20-29 points, 30-39 points, and 40+ points for a better overall view
  13. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    Yeah, I can get that. I have the opposing team scores as well. I want to redo the Tech numbers for the specific intervals, as well. I'll post an update sometime today (hopefully)
  14. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    I had some data in here, but it didn't display correctly, so I'm editing to repost...
  15. Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau

    Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau Banned

    I am not sure what conclusion you want to be drawn here. But this is the one I will suggest. The game of college football is fundamentally different these days than in years past. The offenses are generally ahead of the defenses now, and because of rule changes such as targeting, helmet to helmet, and changes in the way defensive backs can contact receivers, the scores of games will necessarily continue to rise. When was the last time Alabama scored more than 28 points and lost two in a row? This past year.
  16. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    Alright, so here are some numbers that may be a better representation. Below I'm presenting records and winning percentage for Tech scoring ranges and Opponent scoring ranges for two separate data sets: 1892 - 2007 and 2008-2013.

    1892 - 2007 - Results by Tech Scoring Range
    0-9 points – 49-238-30 – 15.46%
    10-19 points – 154-144-10 – 50.00%
    20-29 points – 197-51-2 – 78.80%
    30-39 points – 134-8-1 – 93.71%
    40+ points – 119-1-0 – 99.17%

    2008 - 2013 - Results by Tech Scoring Range
    0-9 points – 0-4 – 0.00%
    10-19 points – 2-13 – 13.33%
    20-29 points – 9-9 – 50.00%
    30-39 points – 17-6 – 73.91%
    40+ points – 20-0 – 100.00%

    So let's take a quick look at these two data sets. The first thing that pops out to me is how horrible we are right now when we score less than 20 points. We've only won two games in six years when scoring less than 20...that's awful. Prior to 2008 we weren't exactly beating the world, only winning 203 of 625 for 32.48%, but we were winning 50% when we scored 10-19 points. 10-19 points right now and we just aren't going to win...pretty sad.

    However, the 20-29 and 30-39 ranges are pretty bad too. Historically we won almost 79% when scoring 20-29, now it's 50%. Likewise, we were winning almost 94% of the time when scoring it's almost 74%.

    Good news is we've won every game where we score 40+ points. But that's not exactly that incredible, since we've only ever lost once when scoring 40+ (2001 Clemson).

    1892 - 2007 - Results by Opponent Scoring Range
    0-9 points – 435-40-30 – 86.14%
    10-19 points – 139-128-10 – 50.18%
    20-29 points – 65-139-2 – 31.55%
    30-39 points – 12-85-1 – 12.24%
    40+ points – 2-50-0 – 3.85%

    2008 - 2013 - Results by Opponent Scoring Range
    0-9 points – 10-0 – 100.00%
    10-19 points – 13-2 – 86.67%
    20-29 points – 17-12 – 58.62%
    30-39 points – 5-8 – 38.46%
    40+ points – 3-10 – 23.08%

    Now let’s look at the results based on the opponents scoring ranges. This is actually pretty impressive.

    When an opponent scores less than 20 right now, we're virtually guaranteed a victory (2013 VT and 2010 Air Force are the lone exceptions).

    Beyond that, it actually looks even better. We have incredibly higher winning percentages now against teams scoring 20-29, 30-39, and 40+ points on us than we did historically before PJ. Prior to 2008, we'd only ever won 14 games when an opponent scored 30+...PJ has won 8 since then!

    HOWEVER, it's a bit concerning that we've given up 40+ points in 13 games since 2008, while we only did it 52 times EVER before 2008.

    What interesting is that both sets of data are pretty telling that our offense is pretty good and our defense is pretty bad. So again...the defense has to get better!
  17. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    Yeah, so I already pointed out that people might make this argument...

    You can play this card if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the numbers point to the fact that our offense is putting up points and our defense is not stopping people from scoring. If you run similar numbers for someone like Virginia Tech I bet you'll see lower scores and opposite results (defense that prevents people from scoring and an offense that can't score)
  18. 4shotB

    4shotB Helluva Engineer

    nice write up and analysis. when you reflect over GT football over the past 20 years or so, the storyline is that we have only been good on one side of the ball at a time. Give CPJ or GOL the D we had under CCG (& Tenuta). Or vice versa. The results would have been improved significantly imo. I think of this whenever we get to the old debate about our recruiting limitations. We have put national top 10 - 15 units on the field under the last 3 coaches (GOL had a MNC caliber offense). I don't think we have done this by funneling our top players to each coach's preferred unit (I could be wrong). I don't know why we cannot get all 3 phases in sync. until we do we will be at the 7-8 win level we have seen during this time frame.
  19. cyptomcat

    cyptomcat Helluva Engineer

    great work! I think it clearly shows how defense needs improvement and offense is a good offense.

    but please dial down statements like 'haters', 'play a card', etc. I think we will all argue in a more civil manner, if we can directly address any argument without such wording.
  20. bke1984

    bke1984 Helluva Engineer

    Fair enough

Share This Page