Turnovers in the Marrone Era

[Crusty]

We have all heard the numbers - teams that lose the turnover battle lose 80% of their games. If I have compiled these numbers correctly, in the Doug Marrone era that figure is 94%! In fact, we have won only one game when we have lost the turnover battle (Rutgers 2010 1 vs 3).

In games where the turnover battle was even we are 5-4. In games where we have won the turnover battle we are 13-4.

Lost Turnover Battle 1-16
Even Turnover Battle 5-4
Won Turnover Battle 13-4
Total Record 19-24

Eliminate the stupid turnovers and this is pretty good team.We have had eight games where we lost the turnover battle by 1 and we lost each and every game. The obvious point is just get marginally better and we can be a winning football team. DM might be 27-16 instead of 19-24 if we had just eliminated 8 turnovers (19%) from 43 games.

We keep going back and forth about talent vs coaching and which shares the greater blame. It seems to me that fumbles and interceptions have little to do with athletic ability and everything to do with developed skill. Coaching can eliminate many (not all) fumbles and many (not all) interceptions have more to do with decision making and seeing the field - again a large coaching element.

It seems to me that the raw talent (read athletic ability) is there, To get to the next level that raw talent just needs to be developed and that is the challenge for the staff.

We can do this!

 

[orangeinjersey]

someone just retweeted something like this in my twitter feed...

"Since he's been at SU, SU has 24 losses and a turnover margin of -30"

 

[rrlbees]

Good data. My only comment would be that if we hadn't been so poor in other areas we could have overcome some of those games.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[JoeSU]

Nice analysis. Quite revealing.
I would point out that the turnover differential doesn't only reflect our offense or ST coughing the ball up. I'd like to see some numbers, but it seems that our defense doesn't create many turnovers either.

 

[Millhouse]

We have all heard the numbers - teams that lose the turnover battle lose 80% of their games. If I have compiled these numbers correctly, in the Doug Marrone era that figure is 94%! In fact, we have won only one game when we have lost the turnover battle (Rutgers 2010 1 vs 3).

In games where the turnover battle was even we are 5-4. In games where we have won the turnover battle we are 13-4.

Lost Turnover Battle 1-16
Even Turnover Battle 5-4
Won Turnover Battle 13-4
Total Record 19-24

Eliminate the stupid turnovers and this is pretty good team.We have had eight games where we lost the turnover battle by 1 and we lost each and every game. The obvious point is just get marginally better and we can be a winning football team. DM might be 27-16 instead of 19-24 if we had just eliminated 8 turnovers (19%) from 43 games.

We keep going back and forth about talent vs coaching and which shares the greater blame. It seems to me that fumbles and interceptions have little to do with athletic ability and everything to do with developed skill. Coaching can eliminate many (not all) fumbles and many (not all) interceptions have more to do with decision making and seeing the field - again a large coaching element.

It seems to me that the raw talent (read athletic ability) is there, To get to the next level that raw talent just needs to be developed and that is the challenge for the staff.

We can do this!

Just because we have lost a high percentage of games where we lose the turnover battle doesn't mean that's what we should focus on

If you're talented, it shouldn't kill you 94% of the time to have one or more turnovers

Whiteknuckling leaves little margin for error.

Now Saturday was a different story because there were so many

 

[dollarbill44]

I can't believe a couple of numbers:

1. That we are only -30 in TO margin - it seems much worse
2. That we have actually won the TO battle in games

One thing I would say to the thought "if we could only eliminate the stupid turnovers, we might be 27-16 (or whatever record you want to put in) is that unfortunately, that can't be eliminated - it is who we are. It has become as much a part of the SU identity as an aggressive defense or an offense that gains a lot of yards. We are a team that regularly turns the ball over.

 

[Orangello]

So we've lost the turnover battle 40% of the time in all DM games to date. I'd say that's pretty instructive.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

We are -10 in 6 games this year.

 

[br801]

Good stuff, Crusty.

I'd also be interesting in seeing some statistics on blocked kicks and punts (for and against) since these plays often change a game dramatically. Saturday's blocked field goal and return was a 10 point swing and really changed everything.

 

[Crusty]

someone just retweeted something like this in my twitter feed...

"Since he's been at SU, SU has 24 losses and a turnover margin of -30"

That number refers to the total net turnovers in the games we lost - not the total net for his tenure.
During Marrone's tenure we have had 40 interceptions lost vs 32 interceptions won. Fumbles lost 42 vs fumbles won 33. Total turnovers lost totaled 82 vs 65 won.

This year however, we are minus 10 as opposed to plus 3 in 2011, minus 4 in 2010 and minus 6 in 2009. At the current rate we would be in the hole -20 for the year!!

I am actually a bit encouraged by the stat as I believe that we can improve on it somewhat and if we do we will win more games.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Who made TOs? QB, ST, Wrs, etc. Fumbles, Blocked Fgs., Blocked punts, interceptions etc.

 

[Crusty]

Just because we have lost a high percentage of games where we lose the turnover battle doesn't mean that's what we should focus on

If you're talented, it shouldn't kill you 94% of the time to have one or more turnovers

Whiteknuckling leaves little margin for error.

Now Saturday was a different story because there were so many

That is actually not statistically correct. All teams good and bad lose 80% of the games in which they lose the turnover battle. Arguably improvement in this category will do more to improve results than just about anything else.

 

[Crusty]

Who made TOs? QB, ST, Wrs, etc. Fumbles, Blocked Fgs., Blocked punts, interceptions etc.

All interceptions are credited to the QB even though we know some tipped balls that are intercepted should have been caught or are just bad luck. As fof fumbles that would be a good analysis to find out if there is more on the receivers, backs or qb.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

All interceptions are credited to the QB even though we know some tipped balls that are intercepted should have been caught or are just bad luck. As fof fumbles that would be a good analysis to find out if there is more on the receivers, backs or qb.

And when they occur? 3 made in last quarter agin Rutgers. And SU fumbles recovered by SU? one agin Rutgers.There would have been 5.
Stats didn't count blocked FG or Punts??? Is that because they are made on 4th down (usually).?

 

[Crusty]

And when they occur? 3 made in last quarter agin Rutgers. And SU fumbles recovered by SU? one agin Rutgers.There would have been 5.
Stats didn't count blocked FG or Punts??? Is that because they are made on 4th down (usually).?

Those are not included in the turnover stats - they are listed separately and certainly are important. I don't think when they occur would impact the relationship between turnover deficits and losses.

 

[Millhouse]

That is actually not statistically correct. All teams good and bad lose 80% of the games in which they lose the turnover battle. Arguably improvement in this category will do more to improve results than just about anything else.

We have lost 94 percent though, right? We can't afford turnovers because we are not as talented or our system requires fewer mistakes or both. Also, teams that lose the turnover battle are more often than not the less talented team in that game. Might be confusing cause and effect. The way to get better on turnovers I'd just to get better

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[JoeSU]

Our poor tunover differential is not just due to turnovers lost. We are currently 114th in turnovers gained (5) on the season. For comparison, Rutgers is 10th with 17 take-aways.

 

[Millhouse]

Our poor tunover differential is not just due to turnovers lost. We are currently 114th in turnovers gained (5) on the season. For comparison, Rutgers is 10th with 17 take-aways.

i like looking at forced fumbles. if you can kill qbs and make them fumble, that's repeatable. lots of interceptions is less repeatable. some of that might come from pressure and some of that might come from being lucky enough to face bad qb play.

i think of the bills at the start of last year. lots of gift INTs. not sustainable.

on offense, i look at total turnovers as being more indicative of performance. i suppose offenses can get gifts in terms of dropped INTS but overall, turnovers on offense tell you more about how good your offense is than on the defensive side of the ball

we're pretty bad in fumbles and fumbles gained/lost

 

[wfschrec]

Our poor tunover differential is not just due to turnovers lost. We are currently 114th in turnovers gained (5) on the season. For comparison, Rutgers is 10th with 17 take-aways.

Thats it ... fire Shafer!

 

[Crusty]

We have lost 94 percent though, right? We can't afford turnovers because we are not as talented or our system requires fewer mistakes or both. Also, teams that lose the turnover battle are more often than not the less talented team in that game. Might be confusing cause and effect. The way to get better on turnovers I'd just to get better

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I agreed with that - we are not talented enough to overcome a negative turnover ratio. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that the team that makes the most turnovers is less talented. We are talking about fumbles and interceptions so some of that is due to experience level and talent that has not yet been developed into skilled players. The best example is perhaps, Tiki Barber who had fumblitis until Tom Coughlin fixed him and then he was awesome. Some of it also has to do with scheme that players can't execute but I do not think that is the case here.

These problems can be fixed at least to the extent that we improve enough to be a winning team. After that recruiting will spell the difference.

 

[wfschrec]

We have lost 94 percent though, right? We can't afford turnovers because we are not as talented or our system requires fewer mistakes or both. Also, teams that lose the turnover battle are more often than not the less talented team in that game. Might be confusing cause and effect. The way to get better on turnovers I'd just to get better

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That extra 14% amounts to essentially 2.38 games ... lets not make it sound like 15 or 20 ...

 

[JoeSU]

Thats it ... fire Shafer!

Nobody was suggesting that Shafer be canned. But while we're focused on criticizing the offense for coughing-up the ball so often, we should also recognize that our defense and ST generate fewer TOs than almost every other D-1 team. And I do believe that ball-hawking is a technique and attitude that can be coached (Bud Foster at VaTech being a prime example).

 

[wfschrec]

Nobody was suggesting that Shafer be canned. But while we're focused on criticizing the offense for coughing-up the ball so often, we should also recognize that our defense and ST generate fewer TOs than almost every other D-1 team. And I do believe that ball-hawking is a technique and attitude that can be coached (Bud Foster at VaTech being a prime example).

I am joking ... just going along with every other knee jerk reaction on this board, Shafer was a huge get for this staff ... as the athletes continue to improve his D will only get better and more aggressive.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Shafer is the one coach to have ..when you're having more than one. (this one's for you...old timers)

 

[JeremyCuse]

Those turnover numbers are pretty disturbing, jesus.