College football stat nerds

[ckDOG]

What's your favorite resource?

Glanced at the general stats and appears our yards per play went up this year but total plays down. Since our D was hoss, My guess would be bc we generally sucked on third and fourth down and played slower (check with me's ate too much clock). I'm really curious to see how we did on 1st and 2nd vs 3rd and 4th down. Was our YPG higher bc we got garbage 3rd and long yards? Did we just suck at 3rd and short?

My assumption is we were just less effective on short yardage this year not allowing us to extend drives to get our plays per game (and yards and points) up. I have my theories on why we sucked at 3rd and short but want to make sure the stats say that's why our offense sucked in the first place.

Anyhow, give me data.

[Todd4State]

http://www.cfbstats.com/

[ckDOG]

http://www.cfbstats.com/

Thanks. Wish I could find more context to 3rd down conversion rates. Very clear that we sucked and regressed in the metric - especially in conference matchups. We ran about 15 more plays per conference game. Partly bc of higher 3rd down conversion rates and TOP. But really want to know if our avg 3rd down distance was short or closer to medium. Would help explain why we went down, but I assume there's not a big difference and most teams just loaded the box knowing Fitz wouldn't make plays with his arm.

Our passing game sucked this year and last year. No way to church that turd up.

Running? About the same per play, but got more plays off in 2017.

My takeaway. We have a coach that knows how to make an offense work when there is legit passing/receiver skill players. Just look at the PSU stats. We don't, and we sucked bc of it. He has no clue making a one deminension skill set tick as his experience is in RPO ball. Take the P out of RPO and we are up a creek. Is what it is.

He needs his QB and receivers. I don't know what else to say. If you don't want to give him 3 years for that then take that up with Cohen and ask him why he didn't find another Mullen who could make a no passing offense tick. There's not a lot of those guys out there that can get solid overall numbers on offense without a guy that can't complete passes. Who are they and could we have hired them?

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff

Here's Bill Connelly's stats (S&P+). Basically more advanced metrics, or at least an attempt at them.

[msstate7]

I haven't been able to find stats for 1st and 2nd down efficiency.

[Cooterpoot]

The fact we had the top defense in America and had fewer plays, tells you our offense sucked ass. We scored fewer points & had fewer first downs. All of his with fewer turnovers.
Basically, we weren't good on offense. But we know that.

[Prediction? Pain.]

Two others:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/stats/

Bill C.'s S&P+ Stat Profiles for all FBS teams (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ2e9xV7-ClihFVJ3kla0ZDxzFCQ7-WXvQRur-nK6gOzo333PqSetw52kEGgbXKb6viGZSbYuJugvRR/pubhtml)

The Stat Profiles are, despite what the cover page says, updated through all the bowl games.

I'm not sure where 1st and 2nd down efficiency stats are publicly available, either. But Bill C.'s stat profiles contain data for percentage of 1st downs earned on either 1st or 2nd down, so I guess that's close. Just FYI, 70% of our 1st downs came on 1st or 2nd down. That's 48th nationally. Interestingly, of the few first downs allowed by our defense -- we were 8th nationally in first downs allowed -- most came on 1st or 2nd down. 74% of the first downs we allowed came on those downs, which is near the bottom (113th) nationally.

[Prediction? Pain.]

I'm really curious to see how we did on 1st and 2nd vs 3rd and 4th down.

See my previous post for data on 1st downs earned on 1st and 2nd downs. But another way to look at this question is to compare how efficient we were "Standard Downs," which are 1st down, 2nd and medium, and 3rd and short, and how efficient we were on "Passing Downs," which includes 2nd and 8+ and 3rd or 4th and 5+. And the definition of "efficiency" here is "50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down."

Using those criteria only, our offense was 59th nationally on standard downs and 40th nationally on passing downs. If you add those two things together for our overall offensive "success rate," we were 30th nationally. And when that overall success-rate stat is adjusted based on the strength of our opponents -- an adjustment that I admittedly only partially understand -- we get bumped to 18th nationally in that category. These are actually pretty close to on par with last year -- in both overall adjusted and unadjusted success rate, we were 20th nationally in 2017.

[msstate7]

See my previous post for data on 1st downs earned on 1st and 2nd downs. But another way to look at this question is to compare how efficient we were "Standard Downs," which are 1st down, 2nd and medium, and 3rd and short, and how efficient we were on "Passing Downs," which includes 2nd and 8+ and 3rd or 4th and 5+. And the definition of "efficiency" here is "50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down."

Using those criteria only, our offense was 59th nationally on standard downs and 40th nationally on passing downs. If you add those two things together for our overall offensive "success rate," we were 30th nationally. And when that overall success-rate stat is adjusted based on the strength of our opponents -- an adjustment that I admittedly only partially understand -- we get bumped to 18th nationally in that category.

Pain, you're the man on stats, but that 40th nationally on passing downs seems suspect. Fitz was 98th in the country in passer rating and espn's qbr has fitz at #120 in pass epa.

[Prediction? Pain.]

Pain, you're the man on stats, but that 40th nationally on passing downs seems suspect. Fitz was 98th in the country in passer rating and espn's qbr has fitz at #120 in pass epa.

Thanks, dude. I had the exact same reaction as you at first, but look closely -- passing downs, not passing efficiency. That includes runs on passing downs, too. We ran a fair amount on passing downs -- 68th nationally in that category -- and were really damn good at it when we did -- 4th nationally in "line yards per carry" on passing downs. (Line yards have to do with how much push our offensive line generates on rushes.) Our passing game, while fairly explosive for what it was, sucked -- 117th nationally in efficiency and 91st nationally in overall S&P+.

[Prediction? Pain.]

Did we just suck at 3rd and short?

Sorry for responding in pieces. My reading comprehension isn't up to snuff so far today.

We didn't objectively suck at running on 3rd and short, but we got quite a bit worse at it this year than we were last year. One stat that's relevant to this is "Power Success Rate," which tracks the rate at which a team gets a 1st down or TD by rushing the ball on 3rd or 4th down with 2 or less yards to go. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, our offense was between good and great in this category -- 17th, 35th, 39th nationally in each of those years, respectively. But then last year, we became elite on short yardage runs -- 2nd nationally behind only Army.

That was one of the many things that our O-line did exceptionally well last year. We were top 10 nationally in Power Success Rate, Stuff Rate (rate of TFLs allowed on rushing attempts), Adjusted Sack Rate (opponent-adjusted sacks allowed by per passing attempt), and Line Yards on non-passing downs.

This year saw a strange shift in the O-Line. Our pass-blocking went in the crapper -- sack rate plunged to 99th. But our run-blocking went from exceptional to off-the-charts good. The top 10 rankings either held serve or improved into the top 5 . . . with one exception. Our Power Success Rate dipped to 67th nationally. That's not horrific, but it's a huge drop from last year and even a fair bit lower than Mullen's two low marks over his last four seasons here.

Now, whether that's an execution issue or a systematic issue, I don't know. I seem to recall Mullen successfully running a fair amount of short-yardage runs out of the shotgun in his tenure here (especially in 2014), but maybe my memory's failing me there. I also remember Dak going under center some in 2015, but I assumed that was an NFL-prep device (and, to a lesser extent, a nod to our play action game with the solid receivers we had) rather than a conceptual shift. But then last year, I do remember seeing Fitz under center in short-yardage situations more than he had in 2016. So maybe Mullen was starting to change his philosophy with good results? Again, don't know.

But yes, despite improving many facets of our run-blocking this year, Moorehead (and/or Marcus Johnson?) got way less out of our 3rd-and-short run game than Mullen did last year (and, to some extent, each of the three years before that).

[Scared_Hitless]

Analytics have always been favorable to Shoop and Moorhead. Bartoo had them sky high coming into the season. As always though it comes down to the Jimmys and Joes moreso than the X's and O's.

We need playmakers on offense and need them now. Sadly we have 0 difference makers committed at WR and TE is suspect.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

The fact we had the top defense in America and had fewer plays, tells you our offense sucked ass. We scored fewer points & had fewer first downs. All of his with fewer turnovers.
Basically, we weren't good on offense. But we know that.

It's not just that our offensive struggles to get first downs, our pace of play was 113th in the nation in S&P+. Not that we Needed statistics to know that we took forever to call plays and snap the ball..

[Prediction? Pain.]

It's not just that our offensive struggles to get first downs, our pace of play was 113th in the nation in S&P+. Not that we Needed statistics to know that we took forever to call plays and snap the ball..

Not sure yet how bad we were at getting first downs. We were top 50 nationally at 1st down rate on first and second down, mid-60s at getting 1st downs (or TDs) via runs on 3rd or 4th and short, and 69th nationally (7th in the SEC, I think) at the percentage of drives on which we got at least one 1st down. That's certainly not stellar, but maybe more mediocre than straight-up bad.

Good point on the adjusted pace rankings. And actually, if you look at Moorhead's two years at Penn. St., we're going to have to get used to it. This may just be who Moorhead is. While fielding Top 20 offenses in 2016 and 2017 at Penn. St. (Top 10 or Top 5 in 2017 depending on the metric), Moorhead's offenses were ridiculously explosive and became ridiculously efficient. But they were also slow. Very slow. Adjusted pace ranks of 105th in 2016 and 89th in 2017.

It's just a different way to roll. It's annoying to watch at times, but elite offenses have gotten it done both ways recently. Two national semi-finalists in 2017, Georgia and Oklahoma, both had elite offenses but similar adjusted-pace rankings -- 120th and 92nd. And three more very good offenses this year, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia, were 66th, 85th, and 107th in those same pace rankings.

[HoopsDawg]

Analytics have always been favorable to Shoop and Moorhead. Bartoo had them sky high coming into the season. As always though it comes down to the Jimmys and Joes moreso than the X's and O's.

We need playmakers on offense and need them now. Sadly we have 0 difference makers committed at WR and TE is suspect.

Mingo is such a critical recruit for the future of this team.

[msstate7]

Not sure yet how bad we were at getting first downs. We were top 50 nationally at 1st down rate on first and second down, mid-60s at getting 1st downs (or TDs) via runs on 3rd or 4th and short, and 69th nationally (7th in the SEC, I think) at the percentage of drives on which we got at least one 1st down. That's certainly not stellar, but maybe more mediocre than straight-up bad.

Good point on the adjusted pace rankings. And actually, if you look at Moorhead's two years at Penn. St., we're going to have to get used to it. This may just be who Moorhead is. While fielding Top 20 offenses in 2016 and 2017 at Penn. St. (Top 10 or Top 5 in 2017 depending on the metric), Moorhead's offenses were ridiculously explosive and became ridiculously efficient. But they were also slow. Very slow. Adjusted pace ranks of 105th in 2016 and 89th in 2017.

It's just a different way to roll. It's annoying to watch at times, but elite offenses have gotten it done both ways recently. Two national semi-finalists in 2017, Georgia and Oklahoma, both had elite offenses but similar adjusted-pace rankings -- 120th and 92nd. And three more very good offenses this year, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia, were 66th, 85th, and 107th in those same pace rankings.

What's the common denominator between those ridiculously slow, but ridiculously successful offenses you mentioned? Ridiculous talent

[Scared_Hitless]

What's the common denominator between those ridiculously slow, but ridiculously successful offenses you mentioned? Ridiculous talent

Yep which matches up with his success at Penn state. You gotta have elite skill position players to run this offense. We dont have these at all yet.

[msstate7]

Yep which matches up with his success at Penn state. You gotta have elite skill position players to run this offense. We dont have these at all yet.

How many times did any of those slow offenses ever fade a talent deficit? Maybe 1 game a year. We will face a talent deficit at least 3-5 times a year

[Scared_Hitless]

How many times did any of those slow offenses ever fade a talent deficit? Maybe 1 game a year. We will face a talent deficit at least 3-5 times a year

I think it is more than that though, scheme fit and explosive players are in desperate need and a good QB can elevate your team. We will see if we have any of that going forward. We need ppl that can run and catch you dont have to win every rep to win a game but when you win you gotta catch the ball.

[Prediction? Pain.]

What's the common denominator between those ridiculously slow, but ridiculously successful offenses you mentioned? Ridiculous talent

No doubt those guys were crazy talented and no doubt talent matters a ton. But the causal connection between pace and success is a different topic. I was just pointing out that success doesn't require an extremely fast pace of play.

Checking out the other Top 25 offenses in S&P+ this year, it looks like a grab bag. Other "slow" offenses that were extremely successful: Ohio (9th overall, 120th adjusted pace), Wazzu (11th overall, 130th adjusted pace), Wisconsin (13th overall, 87th adjusted pace), Texas A&M (16th overall, 104th adjusted pace), Boise St. (19th overall, 90th adjusted pace), and Stanford (25th overall, 129 adjusted pace), among others.

If you look at the Top 50 S&P+ offenses, 20 were ranked 70th or lower in adjusted pace. And, again, Moorhead's Penn St. offenses in 2016 and 2017 were in the same boat. Elite, but slow paced. (Another interesting thing about Penn. St. was that the 2015 offense was similarly slow -- 128th in adjusted pace. So he drastically improved that offense's overall quality without improving the pace much at all.)

That said, I'm not sure how good or bad Moorhead's preferred pace will fare at State. It obviously worked at Penn. St., where he had the third or fourth most talented roster in his league, and -- I presume, though I have no data on this school's pace -- at Fordham. We're a bit farther down the talent ladder in the SEC than he was at Penn. St., so he's definitely going to have to start out doing more with less. I sure hope he does.

Another related blurb while we're all digesting the numbers: The offense's final S&P+ ranking (50th) is certainly far from where it needs to be if we want a 2014 level of success (or greater), but it's actually higher than it was most of the time under Mullen. In six of his nine seasons, the offense finished ranked lower than 50th. And if you look at the FEI system's rankings (https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff), the numbers are even more kind to Moorhead. Though the bowl game stats may drop it down some when they're added, the offense is at 24th nationally in the FEI offense rankings. That's higher than all but one of Mullen's offenses at State.

Unrelated aside: What would compel a person's loved ones give him a 2 lb bag of Peanut M&Ms stashed inside one of his Christmas presents while knowing that the man has a heroin-level addiction to the things? I love the thought, but, damnation, y'all, I'm dying over here. It's like the meat sweats without the meat. I think I'm going to start hallucinating soon . . . .

[coachnorm]

Stats are subjective and can be slanted in many ways. If you establish a data base generated on all games played you will get a conclusion. If you establish a data base only with credible teams not including merit less teams you will get a different conclusion. An evaluator needs to be specific and on point when generating stats. I used to get in conflict when grading my players at the high school and junior college level. My organization would want all plays graded but I wanted to grade on a point of attack basis. I believed that if an offense is right handed it established conflict on the defensive left side, those defenders were put to a test. The off side defensive right side defenders were not put to a significant test. Off side defenders would get welfare points while play side defenders would be scrutinized while under fire? At times, the play makers who really performed well would grade lower than the off side defenders who got junk points? When I would regrade on a point of attack basis in stead of all plays, profound differences would come to conclusions? Thought I would post this to promote thought diversity.