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

[bke1984]

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.

Yeah, the numbers point to a trend, but they don't speak as to why this is happening. I think you're right, but it goes back further than the last 20 years. Aside from 1990, we've had this problem dating back to the late-60's.

For the most part, I think it really has to do with recruiting. We're able to get some pretty good athletes, but we just don't get a ton of them. During the O'Leary years I think we put most of these guys on the offensive side of the ball, while during the Gailey years I think we put most of these guys on the defensive side of the ball. However, after this I think my argument fails. If I were to continue this logic, it would point to us having our best players on the offensive side of the ball right now...but I'm not sure that our athletes on offense are noticeably better than our athletes on defense...in fact, it may be the other way around.

At any rate, while the offense hasn't been amazing, it has been performing well enough that we should be winning more games. I like the direction we're headed on defense, so let's see what Roof can do in year two.

 

[techman78]

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 30-39...now 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!

Awesome post! Very informative.

 

[jacketup]

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.

In 2013, GT was number 59 in points scored against FBS teams at 29.1

In 2013, GT was number 57 in points allowed against FBS teams at 26.4.

Now, what needs improvement?

 

[bke1984]

In 2013, GT was number 59 in points scored against FBS teams at 29.1

In 2013, GT was number 57 in points allowed against FBS teams at 26.4.

Now, what needs improvement?

That doesn't change what the numbers point out...we lost three games where we scored 30+ points. That should not happen...

 

[cyptomcat]

In 2013, GT was number 59 in points scored against FBS teams at 29.1

In 2013, GT was number 57 in points allowed against FBS teams at 26.4.

Now, what needs improvement?

I would prefer opponent and drive/play adjusted stats.

 

[bke1984]

I would prefer opponent and drive/play adjusted stats.

Look, so in football the only stats that really matter are points scored and points allowed. All of the other stuff is just a means to an end.

In 120 years of football we lost 8 games where we scored 30 or more points. In the past two years we've lost 5 games where we scored 30 or more points. Not sure how adjusting for opponents is going to make that feel any better.

Earlier in the post it was mentioned that we have fewer drives per game because of our offense. If that's the case, then scoring 30+ should be more difficult for us, as well as more difficult for our opponents.

 

[cyptomcat]

Earlier in the post it was mentioned that we have fewer drives per game because of our offense. If that's the case, then scoring 30+ should be more difficult for us, as well as more difficult for our opponents.

that's the point

 

[bke1984]

that's the point

So if it's harder, shouldn't we be winning more often when we score 30+ rather than less often?

 

[Novajacket]

This means nothing unless we have something valid to compare to not just GT past record. We are not playing against our old teams, how are other FBS teams records for these scenarios?

 

[awbuzz]

bke1984 nice write up.

If the D can bump it up a notch or two we are 9-10 wins on a regular basis.

 

[GTRX7]

In 2013, GT was number 59 in points scored against FBS teams at 29.1

In 2013, GT was number 57 in points allowed against FBS teams at 26.4.

Now, what needs improvement?

Those seem like misleading stats in GT's case IMHO. On offense, you are ignoring our two games against FCS teams, while at the same time counting other team's games against terrible FBS teams (e.g. UGA v. North Texas, Miami vs. Florida Atlantic, etc). How did GT's scoring compare against other teams in BCS games only? I know we were still over 30 ppg in ACC games.

 

[cyptomcat]

So if it's harder, shouldn't we be winning more often when we score 30+ rather than less often?

There is also the defensive side to winning games. I thought your stats were more of a reflection of our defensive failure than anything on our offense's capabilities.

 

[bke1984]

There is also the defensive side to winning games. I thought your stats were more of a reflection of our defensive failure than anything on our offense's capabilities.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say that our offense was great this year...far from it, actually. However, I do think that our offense is good enough to where we should have won a couple more games.

Right now we are not going to win if we score less than 20, and if we score 20-29 we've probably got a 50-50 shot at a win...20-29 should give us a much higher chance at winning...and that's where the defense comes into play. They need to get better for us to push to 9-10 wins.

 

[IronJacket7]

So if we score more points that the opposing team then we should win.

 

[bat_082994]

So if we score more points that the opposing team then we should win.

If that isn't how it's done, I'm concerned

 

[DTGT]

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 30-39...now 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!

You are comparing our 1892 offense to our 2013 offense? You should normalize somehow; maybe use the average points scored each year to normalize the data. The early college football offenses would be pathetic if put on the field today.

 

[jacketup]

How did GT's scoring compare against other teams in BCS games only? I know we were still over 30 ppg in ACC games.

Do you really believe BCS only would change the ranking that much?

Including stats from two FCS teams--in fact, two very awful FCS teams--clearly does skew the stats.

No matter what, the offensive rankings against FBS teams has been sliding downhill over the last three years. The trend is not a good one.

 

[awbuzz]

So if we score more points that the opposing team then we should win.

... Something like that

 

[bke1984]

So let's take a look at some stats on the average, median, and standard deviation of the PPG for all FBS teams (against FBS only) back to 2007 (compiled from Excel functions on data from fbsstats.com):

2013
Average PPG: 28.14
Median PPG: 28.5
St. Dev: 7.88

2012
Average PPG: 28.14
Median PPG: 27.75
St. Dev: 7.49

2011
Average PPG: 27.03
Median PPG: 25.25
St. Dev: 7.66

2010
Average PPG: 26.96
Median PPG: 26.25
St. Dev: 7.05

2009
Average PPG: 25.89
Median PPG: 26.35
St. Dev: 6.31

2008
Average PPG: 26
Median PPG: 24.75
St. Dev: 7.67

2007
Average PPG: 27.58
Median PPG: 27.1
St. Dev: 6.81

They really don't vary enough to suggest that offenses now are extremely more productive than offenses were back in 2007. I don't have stats from before that, but I do recall our offense being terrible during those years, while our defense consistently held people in the teens.

It'd be interesting to pull these numbers specifically for the teams on our schedule over those years, but I'm not going to take that much time to put that information together.

At any rate, the original data suggests that we cannot win low scoring games, and we are losing more high scoring games than we should.

 

[DTGT]

So let's take a look at some stats on the average, median, and standard deviation of the PPG for all FBS teams (against FBS only) back to 2007 (compiled from Excel functions on data from fbsstats.com):

2013
Average PPG: 28.14
Median PPG: 28.5
St. Dev: 7.88

2012
Average PPG: 28.14
Median PPG: 27.75
St. Dev: 7.49

2011
Average PPG: 27.03
Median PPG: 25.25
St. Dev: 7.66

2010
Average PPG: 26.96
Median PPG: 26.25
St. Dev: 7.05

2009
Average PPG: 25.89
Median PPG: 26.35
St. Dev: 6.31

2008
Average PPG: 26
Median PPG: 24.75
St. Dev: 7.67

2007
Average PPG: 27.58
Median PPG: 27.1
St. Dev: 6.81

They really don't vary enough to suggest that offenses now are extremely more productive than offenses were back in 2007. I don't have stats from before that, but I do recall our offense being terrible during those years, while our defense consistently held people in the teens.

It'd be interesting to pull these numbers specifically for the teams on our schedule over those years, but I'm not going to take that much time to put that information together.

At any rate, the original data suggests that we cannot win low scoring games, and we are losing more high scoring games than we should.

I wonder what this data looks like for the top quintile of offenses each year. There could be a 'rich get richer' effect and only the best offenses get better. Do we really care about the offenses that are in the bottom 80%?