The kind of analysis that deserves front page billing

Our new forums (and even our new Twitter activity) have become fantastic places to share a higher volume of information and items from the internet that we can’t necessarily find the opportunity to share on the front page of the blog. But, this morning we ran across a few items that deserve front page billing.

 

(1) Instead of texting has done a great analysis on “useful yardage” that I guess is a sister concept to “wasted yards” that was discussed in this entry.

The concept is relatively simple and the author states, “is a derivative of the one used at footballoutsiders.com: a carry is successful if it (a.) gains at least 40% of needed yards on first down, (b.) gains at least 60% of needed yards on second down, (c.) converts a first down on third or fourth down or (d.) yields a first down or touchdown, under any circumstances.”

Using those parameters, NC State’s Toney Baker shines as the ACC’s most effective back with a 62.5% success rate. You can view the detail of the analysis in the entry.

Toney Baker

Baker’s season started horribly. On his first carry, he lost three yards and the ball. South Carolina returned the fumble 14 yards for a touchdown. That score decided State’s only loss thus far.

Baker has been solid as stone since then, rolling up 10 first downs and 5 touchdowns on 40 carries. Coming into 2009, Baker had had a star-crossed career, losing two seasons to leg injuries. He’s finishing on an up note this year.

Best carry: A 2-yard touchdown run that won the Pitt game Saturday. The second-down run with 3:49 left in the game capped State’s comeback from a 14-point deficit.

Worst carry: The aforementioned fumble against South Carolina.

 

(2) In this entry, ‘Yet Another’ has peeled back the onion on NC State’s impressive defensive statistics through four games.

We’ve heard a good bit this week about State’s defense being ranked #1 in total defense. That’s an impressive statistic, for sure, but given State’s played two FCS opponents in its four games, that stat’s a bit misleading. So let’s look at how the numbers shake out with those two opponents taken out:

* 556 total yards in two games, for a per-game average of 278. That would slot State 22nd just behind Central Mich.
* Those 556 yards were surrendered over 110 plays for a per-play average of 5.05. That slots State 53rd, just behind Army.
* 202 total rushing yards over two games, good for a per-game average of 101. That’s 28th best. Those 202 yards came over 65 carries, a 3.11 per-carry average, 30th best.
* 354 total passing yards, 177 per game, 38th best. Those 354 yards came on 45 attempts for a per-attempt average of 7.87, 98th best.

So you can see, state’s defensive numbers are a tad inflated by their cupcake games. Against the FBS competition, the numbers tend to fall more in line with what your eyes would tell you, not the stat sheet.

 

(3) College GameBalls talks a little about the ACC’s out of conference performance in this entry.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'09 Football Stat of the Day

25 Responses to The kind of analysis that deserves front page billing

  1. choppack1 10/02/2009 at 10:55 AM #

    “We’ve heard a good bit this week about State’s defense being ranked #1 in total defense. That’s an impressive statistic, for sure, but given State’s played two FCS opponents in its four games, that stat’s a bit misleading. So let’s look at how the numbers shake out with those two opponents taken out”

    Are these rankings based on EVERYONE’S PERFORMANCE AGAINST D1A teams? Let’s face it, almost every D1 team in America has had at least 1 game vs. a AA opponent.

    I think the D still bears out pretty well, especially against the run. The pass #s are more than a little concerning, but I know against Pitt 79 of the 200 yards we gave up were on one play.

  2. howlie 10/02/2009 at 11:09 AM #

    Chop said, “The pass #s are more than a little concerning, but I know against Pitt 79 of the 200 yards we gave up were on one play.”

    And that’s what WFU’s game is all about. They want to get 3 yards on every play, and HOPE that circumstance and misdirection will get one more yard out of three attempts for the first down.

    They want to chop your knees, keep your head on a swivle with misdirection, and WATCH AND LEARN your tendencies so that can STRIKE on one 79 yard play to go ahead.

    Then they chop & swivle you the rest of the game with the body parts you have remaining.

    Our young DB’s will have to play BOTH games this week–the ‘contain’ and play your area… AND to not be lulled into OVERcompensating to try to make the ‘highlight’ play in the flats; the tackle in the backfield; or the ‘big’ interception on a quick out–’cause THAT’S what the spider is waiting on to make the fatal kill.

  3. VaWolf82 10/02/2009 at 11:12 AM #

    We’ve talked in the past about turnover margin and whether a defense can be coached to produce turnovers. Here’s another data point for that discussion…..WF currently ranks 98th in the country in TO margin and 8th in the conference in TO’s lost. For those who have not followed this discussion, WF was one of the national leaders the last several years in TO margin.

    State currently leads the ACC in TO lost with only three lost fumbles (and no INTs) this year.

  4. LRM 10/02/2009 at 11:13 AM #

    “Baker’s season started horribly. On his first carry, he lost three yards and the ball. South Carolina returned the fumble 14 yards for a touchdown. That score decided State’s only loss thus far.”

    Incorrect. South Carolina recovered and scored a few plays later.

    The point is still valid, though.

  5. VaWolf82 10/02/2009 at 11:15 AM #

    Our young DB’s will have to play BOTH games this week–the ‘contain’ and play your area…

    I disagree with this analysis. IF the DB’s are making tackles on the RBs, then the game is nearly lost.

    The key to stopping WF is for the DL and LBs to make tackles at (or behnid) the line of scrimmage. State’s done it before, we’ll have to see if they can deliver tomorrow.

  6. Daily Update 10/02/2009 at 11:17 AM #

    Vawolf: Wake was the national leader in turnovers forced the last two years. Wonder if those NFL guys had anything to do with it afterall?

  7. Lunatic Fringe 10/02/2009 at 11:39 AM #

    The one thing the statistics don’t show is the field position the defense has had to overcome. In my opinion, our special teams have been just short of dreadful in kickoffs, punts, and coverage.

    I do not know the exact statistics without breaking out the play-by-play for Saturday, but Pitt seemed to start every series on the 40-yard line. The play-calling on the offensive side of the ball changes drastically when you are already halfway to the redzone.

    We had our problems on defense, including forgetting the basic rules of proper tackling vs. Pitt in the first half, but I do give them credit for withstanding some piss poor field position throughout the year.

    I am just glad the Sam Swank is off in Cincinnati now. WF’s secret weapon seemed to have a way of completely owning us year in and year out. It seemed like WF only had to get 1 or 2 first downs before Swank was within range and he always seemed to pin us back deep.

  8. cooldrip 10/02/2009 at 11:57 AM #

    Chop made my point for me in the first comment. Let’s see how we stack up when everyone’s numbers are “competition adjusted.” If the defense finishes the year with their current statistical averages intact, and I mean the adjusted ones, it’ll be one helluva year. How many of us will be displeased if we finish the season giving up 101 yds/game rushing, 278 yds/game overall, 19 points/game?

  9. YANCSSB 10/02/2009 at 12:40 PM #

    SFN, thanks for the link:

    To Chop and cooldrip’s points, it’s true that it’s still early in the season and that most teams — not just State — have some FCS foes sprinkled in, as well.

    Where State differs is in that we’ve played two FCS opponents, and one of them — Murray State — was a bad FCS foe. So while most schools have an FCS patsie win under their belt, State has two, and when we’re only 1/3 or the way into the season, that extra FCS opponent can make a difference in the stats. Enough to propel State up quite a few slots.

    As cooldrip says, these numbers will mean more once all the FBS schools have faced a good bit more FBS competition. Particularly State. This is why the ELO-CHESS formula on Jeff Sagarin’s ranking doesn’t kick in until about a month into the season…you need a good four weeks or so to let all the teams’ schedules “link up” to get a better feel for where everyone stands.

  10. choppack1 10/02/2009 at 12:52 PM #

    YANCSSB – that’s very true. I think stats are pretty much worthless at this point.

    From a historical POV, our D – especially when it comes to yards given up vs. USC and Pitt – has been decent. It hasn’t been great, but I think it’s good enough…especially when you couple that w/ our offense can do (like it showed vs. Pitt – and vs. UNC, UMd and 1st half of Rutgers game last year when a certain QB was healthy.)

  11. tobaccordshow 10/02/2009 at 2:15 PM #

    I’m with choppack… So they’re taking out our cupcakes but leaving everyone else’s in… that seems hardly fair.

  12. StateFans 10/02/2009 at 2:51 PM #

    Giglio adds some information into the conversation

    http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/adjusted-acc-stats-oct-2

  13. choppack1 10/02/2009 at 3:10 PM #

    Giglio’s takeaways is wrong. We have 1, the INT vs. USC.

  14. VaWolf82 10/02/2009 at 3:18 PM #

    yahoo shows State with a lost fumble against Pitt. So with Baker’s fumble against SC, that gives State two on the year against Div1-A opponents.

  15. Daily Update 10/02/2009 at 3:53 PM #

    The other thing to mention about our stats is that we called off the dogs against both Murray St. and Gardner Webb. We could have had more yards, more points, and given up less of both if we had played the starters the whole game.

  16. Texpack 10/02/2009 at 5:19 PM #

    ^”I do not know the exact statistics without breaking out the play-by-play for Saturday, but Pitt seemed to start every series on the 40-yard line.”

    At halftime the stat they showed on TV said Pitt’s average start was their own 43 and ours was our own 15.

    Turnover margin is the statistic (other than point differential) that has the greatest correlation to winning. That is why RW’s streak of pass attempts without an interception is actually meaningful when it comes to winning and losing. I have said before, that some portion of the improvement in the performance of our defense during the latter part of last season was directly attributable to the offense making more first downs and keeping them fresher at the end of games.

  17. McPete 10/02/2009 at 5:27 PM #

    The snap over Russell Wilson’s head in the 4th quarter was the fumble.

    It is disconcerting that the defense hasn’t been able to force many turnovers, Murray State aside. Considering the success the defense has had stopping the run, it’s put opponents in many obvious passing situations. I think they lack playmakers in the secondary, but that is understandable. Rashard Smith at least sounds like he might be that guy eventually. Not to mention the linebackers have struggled mightily in coverage. Nate Irving would have been a huge help. oh, well.

  18. aPACKadeez 10/02/2009 at 11:21 PM #

    Who’s Tyler Brosius? TheWolfpacker is reporting that he switched his commitment from UVA to us. But UVA sucks…so was a qb they were going after any good? I don’t see too much about him on PackPride of TheWolfpacker, I thought I had seen something about this in one of the posts in another thread on SFN though.

  19. packgrad2000 10/03/2009 at 12:46 AM #

    I still say even with the adjusted stats against 2 solid D1 opponents in SC & Pitt, our defense has surprised me. Weren’t we all expecting the D to be in the bottom third of the conference, and the offense was going to carry us to the wins? Any stat that ranks our D in the top 50 nationally is better than I expected at the beginning of the season.

  20. cooldrip 10/03/2009 at 1:53 AM #

    Brosius is the QB at Tuscola High in Waynesville, NC. And yeah, he’s a player. Probably the best QB prospect in NC.

  21. Wufpacker 10/03/2009 at 6:41 AM #

    YANCSSB said:
    “Where State differs is in that we’ve played two FCS opponents, and one of them — Murray State — was a bad FCS foe. So while most schools have an FCS patsie win under their belt, State has two, and when we’re only 1/3 or the way into the season, that extra FCS opponent can make a difference in the stats. Enough to propel State up quite a few slots.”

    I think everyone realizes the defensive stats are skewed because of the two FCS opponents. But, like several other people here have said, I’m still very impressed with where the defensive unit’s national ranking falls even after the stats of both FCS games are eliminated. Before the season began I really expected that our defense would be in or near the bottom third of the league, easily in the bottom third among BCS schools, and likely flirting with the bottom half of all FBS. Even with both FCS games removed, the defensive ranking is still fairly respectable and this gives me optimism for the rest of the season. Also, I hate to play the “what if” game, but I do wonder how good the defense could be if a healthy Nate Irving was available.

    And I understand the effort here to try to make a useful adjustment/estimate of how the defense really stacks up to try to determine the level at which we might expect them to perform. I agree with you that including the stats from two games against FCS teams improves our defensive stats and thus artificially improves our defensive ranking. But removing BOTH artificially lowers it, perhaps to a similar degree. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in between.

    It would be interesting, and probably even more encouraging, to see where the defensive unit’s ranking would fall if the stats from the Gardner-Webb game were added back into the per game averages. In any case, I think we have to be pleased with how the defense has performed as a whole so far. Against my better judgment I’m hopeful that, barring injuries, they can improve even more as the season unfolds. Of the “adjusted” defensive stats, the only one that concerns me a great deal is 7.87 YPA. Need to get that down.

    Regarding the concept of “Useful Yardage”, I’m very intrigued by this. Also, I find it very interesting indeed that Toney Baker’s 62.5% success rate is (significantly) better than Ryan Williams (52.4%, VT), CJ Spiller (46.3%, Clem), Jonathan Dwyer (42%, GT) and Da’Rel Scott (36.6%, MD), despite all of them having higher yardage totals and more total carries. It will be very interesting to follow this as the season progresses and see how it trends. I’d also be very interested in knowing what Russell Wilson’s percentage of successful carries is as well (maybe if I’m bored this weekend I’ll pick thru his stats and see if I can calculate it).

    A minor point, but I’m not sure the name “Useful Yardage” is accurately descriptive. The criteria for “success” is based either on successfully gaining at least a certain PERCENTAGE of the yardage needed to reach a first down (1st and 2nd downs only), successfully converting the first down (anytime regardless of down and distance), or successfully reaching the endzone (anytime regardless of down and distance). Only on 1st or 2nd down does the amount of yardage gained even figure into whether or not a carry is successful, and not even ALL 1st and 2nd down carries. If the ballcarrier either reaches the endzone or the first down marker, even on 1st or 2nd, then the yardage gained is moot. For this reason it seems it would be better called something like “Useful Carries” or “Useful Attempts”.

    But, even with a name that might not be completely fitting, at first glance it seems to be more telling than just looking at Total Yards and/or Yards Per Carry. At the very least it is a very novel and interesting way to look at how effective a back is, much the way that “Wasted Yards” vs “Yards for Points” presents a different way of looking at the overall efficiency of the offense as a whole and is much more telling than Total Offense.

  22. aPACKadeez 10/03/2009 at 8:37 AM #

    Cooldrip,
    That’s cool. I thought I was clicking around and it said the 20th best QB in the state or something like that. That’s why I was kind of like ummm…ok. Who’s this 3 star guy. Not that the stars really make a hell of a difference.

  23. McPete 10/03/2009 at 9:21 AM #

    scout.com has Brosius as the 17th best player overall in NC, but he’s the #1 senior qb prospect in the state. but it’s not a great year for qbs. next year will be deeper.

    Here is espn’s free player profile:

    http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/player?recruitId=69459&season=2010&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2ftracker%2fplayer%3frecruitId%3d69459%26season%3d2010

    “Overall, Brosius is fun to watch and we feel very productive and in control of the scheme. He has some upside and good physical tools that still need to be refined and sharpened. Good prospect that has somewhat of an “it” factor.”

  24. aPACKadeez 10/03/2009 at 10:09 AM #

    McPete, so how good is Everette Proctor? Because we have Glennon obviously, and Proctor and now Brosius?

  25. McPete 10/03/2009 at 11:26 AM #

    I really have no clue about Proctor, besides what TOB has mentioned about him to the media (which wasn’t much). but i’ve read at least two people, one being Noah on these boards, say he’s better suited for Safety.

    They HAD to get a QB in this class, and they got the guy they wanted apparently. IIRC, this was the only senior QB the staff offered (since Pete Thomas committed to ASU before State had its summer camp).

Leave a Reply