Interesting Numbers on Turnovers

[ShotgunDawg]

There has been much discussion today about how good Ole Miss is & how they are winning. I think most reasonable people realize that Ole Miss is winning by creating turnovers, but I wanted take some time today to do some numbers crunching in an effort to gain a clearer picture of just much turnovers have impacted Ole Miss compared to other SEC West teams.

So, I took the stats from 2014 & thus far in 2015

Here is the data

http://i.imgur.com/KA0jS3I.jpg?1



Here is the meat of the numbers:

- Since the start of 2014, Ole Miss has created 42 turnovers.
- The next highest in the SEC West over that time period is Auburn at 30 & the lowest is Texas A&M at 17.
- The average in the SEC West since 2014, excluding Ole Miss, is 24.7
- MSU over the same time period has created 25 turnovers, which is about average.
- Ole Miss also has the greatest turnover margin in the SEC West over that time period at +13. The next highest is actually Arkansas of all teams at +9

So, that's the meat of the numbers.

Now the question is: Are turnovers luck or a skill?

I think the obvious answer is, they are some of both. Ole Miss absolutely plays aggressive on defense, puts pressure on the QB, runs to the ball, & hits hard. All of those attributes typically lead to more turnovers.

However, Alabama & LSU also do that & they have only gotten 25 & 22 turnovers, respectively, over that same time period.

My personal belief is that Ole Miss has a turnover creating defense, but unless the Ole Miss coaches & players are the greatest turnover producing coaches & players in the history of football, they will most certainly regress to the mean at some point.

My best analogy to this phenomenon is BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) in baseball. The MLB average for BABIP is .300. Really good hitters like Miguel Cabrera, Mike Trout, Bryce Harper, etc.... will often have high BABIPS because hitting the ball hard is a skill. However, no matter how good of a hitter you are, when your BABIP gets around .380-.400, it is out of whack & bound to regress soon. I see Ole Miss' turnover margin the same & just don't think it's sustainable unless they've created some new technology or tacking technique that no one in the history of football has ever used.

[Dawg496]

Looks like you're trying to post an image from an email.. so we can't see it.

[ShotgunDawg]

Looks like you're trying to post an image from an email.. so we can't see it.

How do you post an image that isn't on the internet? Can you upload?

[Dawg496]

How do you post an image that isn't on the internet? Can you upload?

Yeah, when you reply here you can click Go advanced and click manage attachments on the next page. Or you can upload at http://imgur.com

[ShotgunDawg]

Can you see it now?

[Dawg496]

Can you see it now?

Yep! Thanks

[Dawg496]

Are your INT/Fumble numbers backwards? I don't remember any INTs for us this year but at least two fumbles, not counting the two Ross PR ones.

[Really Clark?]

Are your INT/Fumble numbers backwards? I don't remember any INTs for us this year but at least two fumbles, not counting the two Ross PR ones.

The numbers are for the defense not our offense.

[ShotgunDawg]

The numbers are for the defense not our offense.

Correct. The turnover margin includes the difference between how many turnovers we got vs how many we gave up. However, I didn't include the offensive numbers in this.

Thus far this season, Redmond & Richie have an INT, Dak has not thrown one, but we have 3 or 4 fumbles.

The main numbers to pay attention to here is Ole Miss' 42 turnovers, the next closest team's 30 turnovers, Texas A&M's division low of 17 turnovers, & how the difference between Ole Miss' 42 & Auburn's 30 is virtually the same difference between Auburn's 30 & A&M's 17.

Point is that Ole Miss is getting drastically/abnormally more turnovers than any other team in the division.

Then ask yourself if this is likely to continue at this rate.

If so, we may see a Tom Emanski type video by the Ole Miss coaches on how to create turnovers.

[Really Clark?]

Correct. The turnover margin includes the difference between how many turnovers we got vs how many we gave up. However, I didn't include the offensive numbers in this.

Thus far this season, Redmond & Richie have an INT, Dak has not thrown one, but we have 3 or 4 fumbles.

The main numbers to pay attention to here is Ole Miss' 42 turnovers, the next closest team's 30 turnovers, Texas A&M's division low of 17 turnovers, & how the difference between Ole Miss' 42 & Auburn's 30 is virtually the same difference between Auburn's 30 & A&M's 17.

Point is that Ole Miss is getting drastically/abnormally more turnovers than any other team in the division.

Then ask yourself if this is likely to continue at this rate.

If so, we may see a Tom Emanski type video by the Ole Miss coaches on how to create turnovers.

I can see what you are saying. Golson may have been your anamoly. He had 10 Int last year which was a huge spike for him and the defense from the year prior. I would be interested to see how many Elston ends up with.

[ShotgunDawg]

I can see what you are saying. Golson may have been your anamoly. He had 10 Int last year which was a huge spike for him and the defense from the year prior. I would be interested to see how many Elston ends up with.

It will interesting. It's easy to see that Ole Miss is thriving off turnovers, but the question is: is that sustainable?

LSU is thriving off of Fournette running ball, & think that's fairly sustainable. In fact, running the ball & not giving up yards are probably the two most sustainable things you can do in football that contribute to winning.

For example: I can take a rifle, blindly shoot it in the woods, & kill a deer. If I do that, does that make me a good deer hunter or is that just luck? Is that a sustainable way to continue to kill deer?

I think Ole Miss' defense contributes heavily to these turnovers, but the numbers are out of whack & I expect them to regress. Not sure if that means they'll lose a game or not

[bulldawg28]

They may not have a 10 int man this year but they put people in position to make plays. They will continue to cause turnovers with the right personnel on the field, proper positioning, attacking, and players that fit their scheme.

[Dawg496]

The numbers are for the defense not our offense.

I'm stupid. I apologize.

[ShotgunDawg]

They may not have a 10 int man this year but they put people in position to make plays. They will continue to cause turnovers with the right personnel on the field, proper positioning, attacking, and players that fit their scheme.

I don't disagree, because they are built to create turnovers. But Bama & LSU are as well & they haven't had this kind of success.

I'll just be curious to see how things go for them if teams begin to take care of the football when playing them

[Really Clark?]

They may not have a 10 int man this year but they put people in position to make plays. They will continue to cause turnovers with the right personnel on the field, proper positioning, attacking, and players that fit their scheme.

Maybe but they were not doing it prior to last year with the same system and coaching. They were middle of the pack in the SEC. Will be interesting to see if it holds. Usually it a different set of teams finishing in the top 3 every year. Heck I think we lead the league in 2012

[bulldawg28]

I don't disagree, because they are built to create turnovers. But Bama & LSU are as well & they haven't had this kind of success.

I'll just be curious to see how things go for them if teams begin to take care of the football when playing them

Ole Miss purposefully plans to take away the largest part of the field which is the middle. They crowd it both on the run and pass which is the easiest play for an offense. The outside passing is where you ideally where to attack them. However, lately they've done a good job of getting corners that can hold their own and makes it appear they have no weakness. They are a true puzzle defense . LSU relies on individual matchups to create turnovers . Bama with the 3-4 slow backers only match up well with teams like LSU and has cut back their turnovers. Plus teams have figured them out.

[ShotgunDawg]

Ole Miss purposefully plans to take away the largest part of the field which is the middle. They crowd it both on the run and pass which is the easiest play for an offense. The outside passing is where you ideally where to attack them. However, lately they've done a good job of getting corners that can hold their own and makes it appear they have no weakness. They are a true puzzle defense . LSU relies on individual matchups to create turnovers . Bama with the 3-4 slow backers only match up well with teams like LSU and has cut back their turnovers. Plus teams have figured them out.

I seriously doubt Ole Miss is schematically superior to both Bama & LSU on defense, & we know that Bama & LSU overall have better players on that side of the ball.

What's happening IMO, is that Ole Miss is taking some risks on defense that Bama & LSU don't feel like they need to take due to their talent level.

Therefore, when will teams begin to make Ole Miss pay for these risks? There is no perfect defense

[bulldawg28]

I seriously doubt Ole Miss is schematically superior to both Bama & LSU on defense, & we know that Bama & LSU overall have better players on that side of the ball.

What's happening IMO, is that Ole Miss is taking some risks on defense that Bama & LSU don't feel like they need to take due to their talent level.

Therefore, when will teams begin to make Ole Miss pay for these risks? There is no perfect defense



Lol..numbers don't lie. Teams with better skill players can take advantage of it. A&M and State match up well on the outside which is where the schematic weakness is.

[Really Clark?]

Lol..numbers don't lie. Teams with better skill players can take advantage of it. A&M and State match up well on the outside which is where the schematic weakness is.

Numbers don't lie but you can't go back and look at the top 3 teams in creating turnovers and draw conclusions that it's talent or scheme or luck. Over the last 5 years you have like 10 different teams in the top 3. Including Vandy and our 2012 team. How many of those turnovers last night had more to do with Bama. 3. Maybe 4. They may lead the league again but that would be a first in a while. I think there is a good bit luck of the bounce with some of this. Now there is something to be said about teams who do a good job in stripping the ball and creating fumbles. Nothing special there, middle of the conference. They have a great start though so if the are not in the top half at the end then they will have some games that are really tight.

[bulldawg28]

Numbers don't lie but you can't go back and look at the top 3 teams in creating turnovers and draw conclusions that it's talent or scheme or luck. Over the last 5 years you have like 10 different teams in the top 3. Including Vandy and our 2012 team. How many of those turnovers last night had more to do with Bama. 3. Maybe 4. They may lead the league again but that would be a first in a while. I think there is a good bit luck of the bounce with some of this. Now there is something to be said about teams who do a good job in stripping the ball and creating fumbles. Nothing special there, middle of the conference. They have a great start though so if the are not in the top half at the end then they will have some games that are really tight.


Playing in the SEC brings tight games. I'm saying it isn't luck or chance they were the #1 ranked defense and leading the conference in turnovers. If that's the case Joe Lee doing it with us with Ashley Cooper and the crew was lucky charms at it's finest.

[Really Clark?]

Playing in the SEC brings tight games. I'm saying it isn't luck or chance they were the #1 ranked defense and leading the conference in turnovers. If that's the case Joe Lee doing it with us with Ashley Cooper and the crew was lucky charms at it's finest.

Well my point was that other than last year, they have pretty much been middle of the conference. They haven't schematically found a magic turnover formula. Golson had a great year and that contributed to a lot of extra INT. Some of it has to do with the fact that they didn't play that many close games last year. Other than LSU, Bama and Auburn most of their games were decided by 14 points or more either from a win or loss. Their fumble totals were about the same as previous years so the spike was in INT's. It a little bit chicken or the egg argument. Did the turnovers make their defense better or was it their defense making teams turn it over. And they didn't maintain it the whole regular season either. The had 2 INT in their last 4 regular season games. 17 the first 8 games and 15 of their 22 in blowout wins. They may lead the league again but they had a spike in INT and from a player who had never had more than 3 in a season and only had 6 for his prior 3 years. I think that is the best explanation for their uptick in INT last year. They are off to a good start again.

[PMDawg]

Seems like you've been really reaching for two days in order to support your conclusion (hope) that Ole Miss isn't really that good. Just accept that they have a really good team this year and move on.

[Dawg61]

Ole Miss created two fumbles by forcing the return man to return. That's why you don't intentionally kick the ball out the endzone.

[Really Clark?]

Seems like you've been really reaching for two days in order to support your conclusion (hope) that Ole Miss isn't really that good. Just accept that they have a really good team this year and move on.

Where did I say they were not good? Shotgun brought an interesting topic up and was looking at a coorelation of their turnovers last year. The other posters argument it's all scheme personnel etc. Looking at their past performance in prior years and the fact the only change in turnover stats was INT going up. Well what was the difference? Golson had an incredible year. Maybe they have someone duplicate it but it wasn't a team or scheme increase. You had a player play fantastic. That seems to be the difference. But please show me where I said they were not good last year or would not be good this year? I don't think I have said that. I have previously said I didn't think their turnover numbers would hold because of a lot of lost production in the secondary. That has nothing to do with thinking that their defense will be good this year and have said so previously. Don't make assumptions on my overall thoughts just because I'm debating a certain part of their defense and why they had those extra INTs last year.

[BrunswickDawg]

Ole Miss created two fumbles by forcing the return man to return. That's why you don't intentionally kick the ball out the endzone.

Blasphemy! Everyone knows it is stupid to kick short. I've read it too many time on the internets.***

[PMDawg]

Where did I say they were not good? Shotgun brought an interesting topic up and was looking at a coorelation of their turnovers last year. The other posters argument it's all scheme personnel etc. Looking at their past performance in prior years and the fact the only change in turnover stats was INT going up. Well what was the difference? Golson had an incredible year. Maybe they have someone duplicate it but it wasn't a team or scheme increase. You had a player play fantastic. That seems to be the difference. But please show me where I said they were not good last year or would not be good this year? I don't think I have said that. I have previously said I didn't think their turnover numbers would hold because of a lot of lost production in the secondary. That has nothing to do with thinking that their defense will be good this year and have said so previously. Don't make assumptions on my overall thoughts just because I'm debating a certain part of their defense and why they had those extra INTs last year.

That was a reply to the OP, not you. Hence no quoting of any post.

[Really Clark?]

That was a reply to the OP, not you. Hence no quoting of any post.

Sorry, gotcha. It gets to another page and I forget people may be responding further up a thread. Ha

[ShotgunDawg]

That was a reply to the OP, not you. Hence no quoting of any post.

Ok, in that case, you think we should just bury our heads in the sand & not try to figure out why teams are winning?

Not once have I said that I don't think they are good. I just have some legitimate questions about how they are getting it done & if it's sustainable. Did I fabricate these numbers? Do you now find them interesting/odd?

Should we not ask these questions?

FWIW, I don't accept shit. I don't accept that our running back situation sucks, I don't accept our tackling on defense, I have major questions about whether or not LSU can win the West with a one dimensional offense, I question how Bama has no player makers at QB or WR when they finish #1 in recruiting every year, & I question whether or not Ole Miss can sustain the rate at which they get turnovers.

Go bury you head in the sand, never question anything, & just accept whatever someone else tells you

[CottonDog]

Should we not ask these questions?

FWIW, I don't accept shit.

Go bury you head in the sand, never question anything, & just accept whatever someone else tells you

Wait. So do I just accept what you are saying? Or should I question it too?

[Really Clark?]

Wait. So do I just accept what you are saying? Or should I question it too?

Question everything. Because it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

[Percho]

Question everything. Because it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

I think they are.

[ShotgunDawg]

Wait. So do I just accept what you are saying? Or should I question it . ?

Absolutely... Question everything I say. Just don't question me about why I'm questioning it.

[PMDawg]

Absolutely... Question everything I say. Just don't question me about why I'm questioning it.

Or else????

Let me guess, another tough guy internet post?

[LC Dawg]

We have not done a good job of creating turnovers this year. We have two so far, both interceptions in the opener. On the flip side we have lost four fumbles and thrown no interceptions and three of the fumbles were caused by carelessness. We did do a good job of taking care of the ball against LSU.
We are about to play back to back SEC road games. Turnovers could make the difference in either game and we need to start creating more.

[ScoobaDawg]

Shot. do the numbers change much if you input only SEC Games... that would be a more fair comparison I think.

[Really Clark?]

Shot. do the numbers change much if you input only SEC Games... that would be a more fair comparison I think.

They were tied for 3rd in INT with 10 with three other teams last year including us in conference only play. They were tied for 4th for turnovers with 16. We were next in line with 14.