Today in Analytics...

TromboneJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
682
Location
Seattle, WA
From a data distribution, they are closely related since the data points are almost all perfectly normal distributed around that line and that line has a slope of about 1. They are almost no outliers (Wyoming?).

Intuitively, the higher the percentage of times you score in the red zone, the more points per red zone trip you will have and vice versa. They both are a measure of red zone effectiveness. (Note: It has nothing to do with the fact that there is a range of data points along the X axis from 2 to 7.)

I think you would see more of a scatter plot if the it had % of drives that make red zone and points per red zone. Then you would have plenty of teams in all four quadrants, as one axis would measure drive effectiveness and the other axis would measure red zone effectiveness.
The problem is that they affect each other so directly that there isn’t really a novel conclusion that can be drawn from the trend. It’s like if I say that those who currently own a house are less likely to be currently homeless than those who do not currently own a house.
 

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,109
From a data distribution, they are closely related since the data points are almost all perfectly normal distributed around that line and that line has a slope of about 1. They are almost no outliers (Wyoming?).

Intuitively, the higher the percentage of times you score in the red zone, the more points per red zone trip you will have and vice versa. They both are a measure of red zone effectiveness. (Note: It has nothing to do with the fact that there is a range of data points along the X axis from 2 to 7.)

I think you would see more of a scatter plot if the it had % of drives that make red zone and points per red zone. Then you would have plenty of teams in all four quadrants, as one axis would measure drive effectiveness and the other axis would measure red zone effectiveness.
1666300350791.png

Ok, even taking teams at the 95% scoring rate there is a spread of 2 full points.

1666300437659.png

Wyoming scoring 95% of their drives, Michigan state is around 77% and yet Michigan State is absolutely crushing them. Everyone tot he right of Wyoming is scoring more yet are scoring at a much less clip.

It is more interesting to see the horizontal spread between teams at a given percentage, than it is to see how close teams are to that red line. We obviously expect the average PPD to increase as scoring % increases, and we would expect that to be the case regardless of where the drive is. This graph just shows that scoring TD's is pretty vital (I guess that's why he titled it TD's matter :)).

If you're interested in drive stats in general bcftoys has a lot https://www.bcftoys.com/2022-ofei . Teamrankings has total redzone drives https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/red-zone-scoring-attempts-per-game
 

Attachments

  • 1666300307945.png
    1666300307945.png
    94.9 KB · Views: 21

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,109
Also looking at the 100% club
1666301304348.png

There is a 1ppd total difference between them. That's a *huge* difference honestly. If we added 1PPD to GT's short drive PPD, we'd jump from 80th rank to 36th.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268
From a data distribution, they are closely related since the data points are almost all perfectly normal distributed around that line and that line has a slope of about 1. They are almost no outliers (Wyoming?).

Intuitively, the higher the percentage of times you score in the red zone, the more points per red zone trip you will have and vice versa. They both are a measure of red zone effectiveness. (Note: It has nothing to do with the fact that there is a range of data points along the X axis from 2 to 7.)

I think you would see more of a scatter plot if the it had % of drives that make red zone and points per red zone. Then you would have plenty of teams in all four quadrants, as one axis would measure drive effectiveness and the other axis would measure red zone effectiveness.
If we scored on 100% of our red zone trips, but it was always a FG and never a TD, we'd be way off the line in the upper left of the chart.

We're split nearly evenly between field goals, touchdowns, and absolutely nothing.

I think the reason that the correlation is so high is because there’s a real correlation between a team’s ability to score in the red zone and their ability to score touchdowns—the better you are in the red zone, the farther right and up you move.

SplitGAttemptsScoresScore %TDTD %FGFG %
All Games6221463.64731.82731.82


 

leatherneckjacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
537
Location
Atlanta, GA
View attachment 13361
Ok, even taking teams at the 95% scoring rate there is a spread of 2 full points.

View attachment 13362
Wyoming scoring 95% of their drives, Michigan state is around 77% and yet Michigan State is absolutely crushing them. Everyone tot he right of Wyoming is scoring more yet are scoring at a much less clip.

It is more interesting to see the horizontal spread between teams at a given percentage, than it is to see how close teams are to that red line. We obviously expect the average PPD to increase as scoring % increases, and we would expect that to be the case regardless of where the drive is. This graph just shows that scoring TD's is pretty vital (I guess that's why he titled it TD's matter :)).

If you're interested in drive stats in general bcftoys has a lot https://www.bcftoys.com/2022-ofei . Teamrankings has total redzone drives https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/red-zone-scoring-attempts-per-game
I do not think you are getting my point. It is not about the spread along an axis. It is about the spread along the trend line. Teams that score a higher % of red zone trips will have a higher points per red zone visit. You are basically measuring the same thing. There is nothing to glean from this other than a few outliers who are focus on converting their red zone visits into touchdowns (MSU) and those who settle more for FGs (Wyoming). A more meaningful chart would compare to less similar metrics to give more spread of the data points. That way there would be programs in each of the four quadrants where you see who is good (or bad) at converting drives into red zone visits and those who are good (or bad) of converting red zone visits into points.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268

Obligatory Steve Martin Joke:
Whoops! wrong video
Well, maybe this one. Let me know if he punts on first down:

Clemson v Syracuse

He hasn’t done our game, but I wouldn’t want to touch that math, so I understand.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268
This is depressing...the offense was worse than I thought - average drive distance was 16 yards. 3 and out rate was 43%. Ouch.

The good? We had a 50% pressure rate - I honestly thought this would be higher.

so…

and on coaching decisions…

From the Rumble Seat did their stats breakdown, but a film breakdown would be worse.

This defensive performance should have been enough to win almost any game. Even with Iowa and Colorado playing, we may have had the worst offensive performance of the week. It’s hard to say, though, as Iowa is really terrible on offense.

Another couple of games like that and Iowa might pass us and we’ll be dropping down to Rutgers and Colorado levels (https://www.bcftoys.com/2022-ofei):

Rk
Team
Rec
FBS
OFEI
ODE
Rk
OPD
Rk
OAY
Rk
OPP
Rk
OTD
Rk
OVD
Rk
OFD
Rk
OBD
Rk
OTO
Rk
106​
Middle Tennessee​
3-4​
2-4​
-.56​
-.63​
104​
1.58​
105​
.381​
105​
5.20​
98​
.189​
100​
.270​
105​
.635​
100​
.176​
115​
.081​
31​
107​
Georgia Tech​
3-4​
2-4​
-.60​
-1.05​
124​
1.01​
126​
.339​
117​
4.60​
117​
.085​
129​
.254​
109​
.606​
116​
.169​
112​
.056​
12​
108​
Iowa​
3-4​
2-4​
-.63​
-1.45​
131​
.98​
128​
.278​
129​
4.00​
127​
.094​
127​
.156​
128​
.563​
125​
.188​
117​
.141​
90​
109​
Hawaii​
2-6​
1-6​
-.65​
-.67​
107​
1.50​
110​
.373​
110​
4.80​
110​
.176​
108​
.250​
110​
.632​
103​
.132​
81​
.147​
98​
110​
Utah State​
3-5​
3-4​
-.65​
-.57​
103​
1.70​
100​
.399​
98​
5.16​
99​
.210​
93​
.247​
112​
.716​
60​
.148​
94​
.185​
124​
111​
Central Michigan​
2-6​
1-6​
-.70​
-.66​
106​
1.60​
104​
.376​
108​
4.80​
111​
.209​
95​
.256​
108​
.616​
111​
.128​
75​
.140​
88​
112​
Western Michigan​
3-5​
2-5​
-.71​
-.70​
109​
1.57​
106​
.383​
104​
4.72​
112​
.176​
109​
.284​
100​
.635​
100​
.230​
129​
.162​
113​
113​
Georgia State​
2-5​
2-5​
-.71​
-.01​
71​
2.15​
71​
.443​
86​
6.00​
49​
.273​
69​
.330​
82​
.625​
108​
.136​
86​
.114​
58​
114​
Virginia Tech​
2-5​
1-5​
-.72​
-.80​
115​
1.36​
116​
.330​
121​
4.57​
119​
.162​
115​
.216​
121​
.649​
96​
.162​
108​
.135​
81​
117​
Rutgers​
4-3​
3-3​
-.84​
-1.04​
123​
1.21​
122​
.337​
118​
4.34​
124​
.119​
123​
.149​
129​
.642​
97​
.149​
95​
.134​
80​
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268
Composite is back out. We dropped. We’re about even with Rutgers, and a bit ahead of Vandy.

BC and VT are both below us, but we gotta play VT in Blacksburg.
1666742652954.png



Big 12 has no slouches.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268
Updated from the weekend. Despite giving up 600 yards, we're in the "we play defense but have no offense" category. We're a carbon copy of Iowa.
1667227850473.png


 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,268
From Stats o War:

And our offense is improving, but not as fast as our defense is sliding lately:

And the composite is below. We played VT, and I think we're both lower after playing each other than before--guess it's not a zero-sum game. To me, it looks like we're a little behind Rutgers. Clemson needs a lottery ticket to get back in the CFB playoffs after that train wreck against ND.

1667924401303.png

 
Top