Winning Plays- Rutgers

[SWC75]

Again, the concept is to keep track of how often each team got the minimum they would have wanted from a play. On first down, you want to get at least a third of the way to a first down. On second down, you want to get at least halfway to a first down. On third or fourth down, you want to get a first down. If the offense achieves those goals they have won the play. If not, the defense has won the play. Offensive scoring plays are wins for them. Turnovers are wins for the defense. Penalties get tacked onto the result of the play if that’s the way they were marked off. If they canceled the play or were dead ball fouls, I kept track of them separately. Sacks are counted as passing plays. Kickoffs are wins for the kicking team if the other team starts it’s possession from the 25 in, (per the new touchback rule). Punts are wins for the kicking team if they produce a net +40 yard change or the other team starts from their 20 in. Placekicks are offensive wins if they go through the uprights. Any other result is a win for the defense. If the resulting tally of plays won is close, the game wasn’t decided by one team dominating the other. It was decided on big plays, mistakes and breaks, (as most games are).

When SU had the ball:

Kickoffs: 20, 23, 25 (SU 3 RU 0)
Punts: 39(7), 47(6), 46(25), 39(34) (SU 2 RU 2)
Field Goals: NG, blocked (SU 0 RU 2)
Extra Points: Good, try-Good (SU 2 RU 0)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse won 7 plays, Rutgers 4

1st down runs: 4, 6, 5, 8, 3, 5, -6, 7, 2(5), 1, 3, 2, 3 (SU 7 RU 6)
1st down passes: 5, I , 21, 13(15), 17, 4, 15, 17, I, 33, 17, 27, I, I 8, 40, I 10 (SU 13 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2(2), 2(5), 2(3), 3(3), 8(2), 2(7) (SU 4 RU 2)
2nd down passes: 23(6), 8(4), -11, 2(5), -11, 6(10), 9(16), I, I 4(8), I, I, I, 5(2), 15 (SU 7 RU 8)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 0 RU 1)
Total for SU scrimmage plays: Syracuse 36 Rutgers 31

Penalties: SU had 6 (that weren’t tacked onto the play) Pitt had 3
Turnovers: SU 4 Pitt 0
Total for Penalties and Turnovers: Syracuse 5 winning plays Rutgers 10

When Rutgers had the ball
Kickoffs: 30, 34, 10, 25, 35 (SU 3 RU 2)
Punts: 44(29), 20(R30), 31(20), 36(20), 29(13), 36(R48), 46(12) (SU 2 RU 5)
Field Goals: Good (SU 0 RU 1)
Extra Points: Good, No Good (SU 1 RU 1)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse 6 Rutgers 9

1st down runs: 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, 5, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2(8), -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 12 RU 7)
1st down passes: 27, 43, I, 11, 4, 16, I, 12 (SU 2 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2, 1(1), -1, -1, 6(7), 1(11), 5, -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 8 RU 3)
2nd down passes: 3(3), I, I, 5(5), -4, I, I, I (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 1 RU 0)
Total for Rutgers scrimmage plays: Syracuse 39 Pittsburgh 19

Total for the Game: Syracuse ‘won’ 93 plays. Rutgers ‘won’ 73 plays. Scott Shafer’s defense totally dominated the Rutgers offense, winning 39 of 58 plays, including 20 of 28 first and second down runs. In the first four games, we were 33-47 on the other team’s first down runs. In the last two, we are 25-14. The young defense is growing up fast. Our own first down runs gained 43 yards on 13 plays. Our first down passes gained 227 yards on 18 plays. That’s 54% of our total offense on first down passes. The game should certainly have been a decisive win for Syracuse but 4 turnovers to none represents about another 160 yard for Rutgers, at least in field position and when you add the blocked kick for a score, that’s the equivalent of a “pick 6”. Mistakes aches.

 

[kingtidge]

After reading this, I am distraught...

I think I will run a hot shower, sit down in the tub, hug my knees and have a good cry...

 

[Cuseregular]

Again, the concept is to keep track of how often each team got the minimum they would have wanted from a play. On first down, you want to get at least a third of the way to a first down. On second down, you want to get at least halfway to a first down. On third or fourth down, you want to get a first down. If the offense achieves those goals they have won the play. If not, the defense has won the play. Offensive scoring plays are wins for them. Turnovers are wins for the defense. Penalties get tacked onto the result of the play if that’s the way they were marked off. If they canceled the play or were dead ball fouls, I kept track of them separately. Sacks are counted as passing plays. Kickoffs are wins for the kicking team if the other team starts it’s possession from the 25 in, (per the new touchback rule). Punts are wins for the kicking team if they produce a net +40 yard change or the other team starts from their 20 in. Placekicks are offensive wins if they go through the uprights. Any other result is a win for the defense. If the resulting tally of plays won is close, the game wasn’t decided by one team dominating the other. It was decided on big plays, mistakes and breaks, (as most games are).

When SU had the ball:

Kickoffs: 20, 23, 25 (SU 3 RU 0)
Punts: 39(7), 47(6), 46(25), 39(34) (SU 2 RU 2)
Field Goals: NG, blocked (SU 0 RU 2)
Extra Points: Good, try-Good (SU 2 RU 0)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse won 7 plays, Rutgers 4

1st down runs: 4, 6, 5, 8, 3, 5, -6, 7, 2(5), 1, 3, 2, 3 (SU 7 RU 6)
1st down passes: 5, I , 21, 13(15), 17, 4, 15, 17, I, 33, 17, 27, I, I 8, 40, I 10 (SU 13 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2(2), 2(5), 2(3), 3(3), 8(2), 2(7) (SU 4 RU 2)
2nd down passes: 23(6), 8(4), -11, 2(5), -11, 6(10), 9(16), I, I 4(8), I, I, I, 5(2), 15 (SU 7 RU 8)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 0 RU 1)
Total for SU scrimmage plays: Syracuse 36 Rutgers 31

Penalties: SU had 6 (that weren’t tacked onto the play) Pitt had 3
Turnovers: SU 4 Pitt 0
Total for Penalties and Turnovers: Syracuse 5 winning plays Rutgers 10

When Rutgers had the ball
Kickoffs: 30, 34, 10, 25, 35 (SU 3 RU 2)
Punts: 44(29), 20(R30), 31(20), 36(20), 29(13), 36(R48), 46(12) (SU 2 RU 5)
Field Goals: Good (SU 0 RU 1)
Extra Points: Good, No Good (SU 1 RU 1)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse 6 Rutgers 9

1st down runs: 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, 5, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2(8), -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 12 RU 7)
1st down passes: 27, 43, I, 11, 4, 16, I, 12 (SU 2 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2, 1(1), -1, -1, 6(7), 1(11), 5, -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 8 RU 3)
2nd down passes: 3(3), I, I, 5(5), -4, I, I, I (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 1 RU 0)
Total for Rutgers scrimmage plays: Syracuse 39 Pittsburgh 19

Total for the Game: Syracuse ‘won’ 93 plays. Rutgers ‘won’ 73 plays. Scott Shafer’s defense totally dominated the Rutgers offense, winning 39 of 58 plays, including 20 of 28 first and second down runs. In the first four games, we were 33-47 on the other team’s first down runs. In the last two, we are 25-14. The young defense is growing up fast. Our own first down runs gained 43 yards on 13 plays. Our first down passes gained 227 yards on 18 plays. That’s 54% of our total offense on first down passes. The game should certainly have been a decisive win for Syracuse but 4 turnovers to none represents about another 160 yard for Rutgers, at least in field position and when you add the blocked kick for a score, that’s the equivalent of a “pick 6”. Mistakes aches.

Great stuff Steve and great comments and perspective on Buds show today. You literally had them speechless.

 

[orangehomer]

i like this analysis that you do, i thought it helped with perspective on the earlier losses where it "felt" like syracuse played better than they really did.

in this case, i think the analysis helps quantify what was interesting and infuriating about the rutgers loss. basically, they played major conservative and just waited for us to make mistakes which we eventually did. rutgers took advantage, didn't make mistakes, didn't take sacks, and let us beat ourselves.

 

[kingottoiii]

I like the concept. I think you should add a Push. For instance the average yards per play nationally is 5.77 so getting 5 yards on 1st down should be a push not a win for the O. Getting a below average play should never be a win for the O.

Why not go with:

1st down
<5 D wins
5 Push
>5 O wins

2nd down
O wins if they get a first down or >5 yards.
Push if it is a 5 yard play and not a 1st down.
D wins if <5 yards and not a first down.

3rd down
O wins if they get a first down.
D wins if it is not a first down.

What would be the score in that case?

 

[dollarbill44]

i like this analysis that you do, i thought it helped with perspective on the earlier losses where it "felt" like syracuse played better than they really did.

in this case, i think the analysis helps quantify what was interesting and infuriating about the rutgers loss. basically, they played major conservative and just waited for us to make mistakes which we eventually did. rutgers took advantage, didn't make mistakes, didn't take sacks, and let us beat ourselves.

That is pretty much what Rutgers does. It reminds me a lot of our 2002 team, actually.

 

[dollarbill44]

I like the concept. I think you should add a Push. For instance the average yards per play nationally is 5.77 so getting 5 yards on 1st down should be a push not a win for the O. Getting a below average play should never be a win for the O.

Why not go with:

1st down
<5 D wins
5 Push
>5 O wins

2nd down
O wins if they get a first down or >5 yards.
Push if it is a 5 yard play and not a 1st down.
D wins if <5 yards and not a first down.

3rd down
O wins if they get a first down.
D wins if it is not a first down.

What would be the score in that case?

I like the concept of a push, but I think 4 yards on 1st should be the push, not 5. My reasoning is that when SU is on defense, I am ambivalent about the opponent getting 4 yards on 1st. 3 yards or less and I'm happy. 5 yards is a bad result because it sets up two moderately successful running plays to get a 1st down. The objective is to force the offense into a definite passing down on 3rd down (6 yards or more). So, I would suggest 3 yards or less on 1st are wins for the defense, 4 yards = push, 5+yards are wins for the offense.

 

[kingottoiii]

I like the concept of a push, but I think 4 yards on 1st should be the push, not 5. My reasoning is that when SU is on defense, I am ambivalent about the opponent getting 4 yards on 1st. 3 yards or less and I'm happy. 5 yards is a bad result because it sets up two moderately successful running plays to get a 1st down. The objective is to force the offense into a definite passing down on 3rd down (6 yards or more). So, I would suggest 3 yards or less on 1st are wins for the defense, 4 yards = push, 5+yards are wins for the offense.

Yeah I guess it depends run or pass. A 5 yard run feels disappointing to me, while a 5 yard pass is not so bad. Maybe runs and passes should be separated? Here are the averages per down. I think a push should be average.

1st down runs average 4.76 ypc
2nd down runs average 4.46 ypc

1st down passes average 7.83 ypa
2nd down passes average 7.08 ypa

So maybe for runs a push should be 4 yards and for passes a push is 7 yards on first down?

 

[GoSU96]

Yeah I guess it depends run or pass. A 5 yard run feels disappointing to me, while a 5 yard pass is not so bad. Maybe runs and passes should be separated? Here are the averages per down. I think a push should be average.

1st down runs average 4.76 ypc
2nd down runs average 4.46 ypc

1st down passes average 7.83 ypa
2nd down passes average 7.08 ypa

So maybe for runs a push should be 4 yards and for passes a push is 7 yards on first down?

A 5 yd run is disappointing? 2nd and 3 is a push?

Yeesh.

 

[BlackKnight76]

A 5 yd run is disappointing? 2nd and 3 is a push?

Yeesh.

I think he got run/pass mixed up.

 

[kingottoiii]

I think he got run/pass mixed up.

Nah I was discussing defense. Giving up a 5 yard run feels disappointing but giving up a 5 yard pass does not. Just ignore Mr Turned the Corner. He has proved to be a useless poster.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Nah I was discussing defense. Giving up a 5 yard run feels disappointing but giving up a 5 yard pass does not. .

Oh, ok. That makes more sense.

 

[NineOneSeven]

The week before the Rutgers game everyone here was saying that Rutgers wins games in ugly ways. They rely heavily on forcing turnovers and capitalizing on them.

Well, our game is THE definition of their gameplan to a T.

 

[kingottoiii]

This is more complex but we should be looking at our opponent's averages.

For instance UConn:

1st down rushes they average 2.55 ypc. So if they get 3 yards they are above their average. Shouldn't that be a W for them? 2nd down rushes they average 3.48 ypc. So if they get 4 yards they are above average. Shouldn't that be a W for them? In this case they would have a 3rd and 3.

1st down passing they average 7.07 ypc. So shouldn't holding them to 6 yards be a W? Yes it makes it more difficult to W on 2nd down by having it be 2nd and 4. However in this day and age forcing a 2nd down is half the battle. Plus if they run the ball there then on average they will have a 3rd down.

Which I think is the point of my original post. SWC is using the old benchmarks where teams had a goal on first down to get into a decent 2nd down. And on 2nd down to have a makable 3rd down. That just isn't the way the game is played anymore. The goal now on 1st down is to get a bunch of yards. The goal on 2nd down is to avoid 3rd downs all together. So shouldn't we change our benchmarks? Is 4 yards on 1st down really a victory for an O when the national average on 1st down is a 4.75 yard rush? When the national average on 1st down is 7.75 yards per pass should we be happy with 7 yards? Especially when SU's average pass on first down goes for 9.01? How can a below average play be a victory?

Obviously you need to change the benchmarks for the given talent of each team. That is only fair. UConn stinks on O so a W for them should be a 3 yard rush on first down. But for Oregon that would be a loss, as they average 6 ypc on first downs.

 

[mountaincuse]

i like this analysis that you do, i thought it helped with perspective on the earlier losses where it "felt" like syracuse played better than they really did.

in this case, i think the analysis helps quantify what was interesting and infuriating about the rutgers loss. basically, they played major conservative and just waited for us to make mistakes which we eventually did. rutgers took advantage, didn't make mistakes, didn't take sacks, and let us beat ourselves.

It's like other teams treat playing us like playing tennis - don't do anything crazy, just keep hitting the ball back and wait for them to make a mistake

 

[SWC75]

This is more complex but we should be looking at our opponent's averages.

For instance UConn:

1st down rushes they average 2.55 ypc. So if they get 3 yards they are above their average. Shouldn't that be a W for them? 2nd down rushes they average 3.48 ypc. So if they get 4 yards they are above average. Shouldn't that be a W for them? In this case they would have a 3rd and 3.

1st down passing they average 7.07 ypc. So shouldn't holding them to 6 yards be a W? Yes it makes it more difficult to W on 2nd down by having it be 2nd and 4. However in this day and age forcing a 2nd down is half the battle. Plus if they run the ball there then on average they will have a 3rd down.

Which I think is the point of my original post. SWC is using the old benchmarks where teams had a goal on first down to get into a decent 2nd down. And on 2nd down to have a makable 3rd down. That just isn't the way the game is played anymore. The goal now on 1st down is to get a bunch of yards. The goal on 2nd down is to avoid 3rd downs all together. So shouldn't we change our benchmarks? Is 4 yards on 1st down really a victory for an O when the national average on 1st down is a 4.75 yard rush? When the national average on 1st down is 7.75 yards per pass should we be happy with 7 yards? Especially when SU's average pass on first down goes for 9.01? How can a below average play be a victory?

Obviously you need to change the benchmarks for the given talent of each team. That is only fair. UConn stinks on O so a W for them should be a 3 yard rush on first down. But for Oregon that would be a loss, as they average 6 ypc on first downs.

I guess I'm just old fashioned. I agree that there are multiple ways of looking at what a "winning" play is and they all have a logic to them. If anyone wants to take another stab at this using different criteria than I have used, be my guest. The raw numbers are in my original post.

 

[jellyman]

Again, the concept is to keep track of how often each team got the minimum they would have wanted from a play. On first down, you want to get at least a third of the way to a first down. On second down, you want to get at least halfway to a first down. On third or fourth down, you want to get a first down. If the offense achieves those goals they have won the play. If not, the defense has won the play. Offensive scoring plays are wins for them. Turnovers are wins for the defense. Penalties get tacked onto the result of the play if that’s the way they were marked off. If they canceled the play or were dead ball fouls, I kept track of them separately. Sacks are counted as passing plays. Kickoffs are wins for the kicking team if the other team starts it’s possession from the 25 in, (per the new touchback rule). Punts are wins for the kicking team if they produce a net +40 yard change or the other team starts from their 20 in. Placekicks are offensive wins if they go through the uprights. Any other result is a win for the defense. If the resulting tally of plays won is close, the game wasn’t decided by one team dominating the other. It was decided on big plays, mistakes and breaks, (as most games are).

When SU had the ball:

Kickoffs: 20, 23, 25 (SU 3 RU 0)
Punts: 39(7), 47(6), 46(25), 39(34) (SU 2 RU 2)
Field Goals: NG, blocked (SU 0 RU 2)
Extra Points: Good, try-Good (SU 2 RU 0)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse won 7 plays, Rutgers 4

1st down runs: 4, 6, 5, 8, 3, 5, -6, 7, 2(5), 1, 3, 2, 3 (SU 7 RU 6)
1st down passes: 5, I , 21, 13(15), 17, 4, 15, 17, I, 33, 17, 27, I, I 8, 40, I 10 (SU 13 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2(2), 2(5), 2(3), 3(3), 8(2), 2(7) (SU 4 RU 2)
2nd down passes: 23(6), 8(4), -11, 2(5), -11, 6(10), 9(16), I, I 4(8), I, I, I, 5(2), 15 (SU 7 RU 8)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 0 RU 1)
Total for SU scrimmage plays: Syracuse 36 Rutgers 31

Penalties: SU had 6 (that weren’t tacked onto the play) Pitt had 3
Turnovers: SU 4 Pitt 0
Total for Penalties and Turnovers: Syracuse 5 winning plays Rutgers 10

When Rutgers had the ball
Kickoffs: 30, 34, 10, 25, 35 (SU 3 RU 2)
Punts: 44(29), 20(R30), 31(20), 36(20), 29(13), 36(R48), 46(12) (SU 2 RU 5)
Field Goals: Good (SU 0 RU 1)
Extra Points: Good, No Good (SU 1 RU 1)
Total for Kicking Game: Syracuse 6 Rutgers 9

1st down runs: 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, 5, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2(8), -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 12 RU 7)
1st down passes: 27, 43, I, 11, 4, 16, I, 12 (SU 2 RU 5)
2nd down runs: 2, 1(1), -1, -1, 6(7), 1(11), 5, -1, 1(8), 5(7), -2 (SU 8 RU 3)
2nd down passes: 3(3), I, I, 5(5), -4, I, I, I (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down runs: 7(5), 4(1), -2, 2(11), 6(7), -3, 6(13) (SU 5 RU 2)
3rd down passes: 5, 5(11), I, 9(10), 12(6), 4, 12(8) (SU 5 RU 2)
4th down runs: none
4th down passes: I (SU 1 RU 0)
Total for Rutgers scrimmage plays: Syracuse 39 Pittsburgh 19

Total for the Game: Syracuse ‘won’ 93 plays. Rutgers ‘won’ 73 plays. Scott Shafer’s defense totally dominated the Rutgers offense, winning 39 of 58 plays, including 20 of 28 first and second down runs. In the first four games, we were 33-47 on the other team’s first down runs. In the last two, we are 25-14. The young defense is growing up fast. Our own first down runs gained 43 yards on 13 plays. Our first down passes gained 227 yards on 18 plays. That’s 54% of our total offense on first down passes. The game should certainly have been a decisive win for Syracuse but 4 turnovers to none represents about another 160 yard for Rutgers, at least in field position and when you add the blocked kick for a score, that’s the equivalent of a “pick 6”. Mistakes aches.

Though I am a Rutgers fan, I though this was a very interesting analysis, with a lot to chew on fro any football fan.

HOWEVER, the analysis DOES have a couple of analytical flaws, all of which could fixed, with a little more thought.

For example ... there is no weighting of "plays. A missed extra point is given the same weight as a missed FG. So in the Syracuse kicking game, just looking at extra points and FG's, Syracuse gets a score of 2 winning plays, while RU gets 2 winning plays, due to 2 good extra points for Syracuse (their winning plays) versus a missed FG by Syracuse, PLUS a blocked FG for TD (RU's 2 winning plays).

And a NON-touchdown play is given the same weight as a touchdown play.

BUT ... this analysis makes several VERY interesting points, without giving enough credence to those points.

Such as ... you gives RU credit for an additional 160 yards in "field position" for its 4 turnovers. And specifically says that is NOT including the blocked FG returned 75 yards for a TD. Let us say you is accurate with that 160 yard figure. NOW you are talking about adding 235 yards (160 plus 75 for the blocked kick return), in essense, to RU's NET yards, while Syracuse had ZERO yards from creating turnovers. When you do THAT, then RU has the equivalent of 470 yards, to Syracuse's 425 yards ... looks a little different, eh?

And that is how Bill Parcells always looked at things: Not ONLY at offensive yards, but adding in certain types of return yards, and field position.

PLUS ... perhaps the single most important statistic in both correlation, and causation, for football wins or losses IS turnover margin. Turnovers HAVE to be weighted MUCH more than other plays.

If I HAD to make just 1 simple adjustment, the first adjustment is: I would give a MADE FG THREE (3) times the weight of a normal play, and a TD play SIX (6) times the weight of a normal play, while a missed FG would also get THREE (3) times the weight of a normal lost play. I say this without making the adjustments in advance.

So ... let us do that ...

We start with Syracuse having won 93 plays to RU having won 73 plays.

Now ...ADD FOUR "plays" to RU's total, for the 2 missed/blocked FG by Syracuse (those plays should be 6 poimts combined for RU, but RU was only fiven 2 points, so to speakl). Now it is 93 to 77.

Now ADD TWO "plays" to RU's total for making ONE FG ... Score is now 93-78.

Now ADD TEN "plays" to Syracuse's total, for its TWO TD's (they got credit for 2 "plays, but should get credit for 12 "plays"). Score is now 103 to 78.

Now ADD FIFTEEN "plays" to RU's total, for their 3 TD's. Score is now 103-93.

So, that weighting halves the spread.

BUT ... turnovers are NOT weighted at all either - in fact each turnover is treated as just another play ... 1 turnover equals 1 play "won" in this analysis. That is certainly not right. I am not sure of the weighting, but surely 4 turnovers for Syrause versus ZERO for RU, easily closes the gap of 103 to 93 "winning" plays - and then some.

Also, I would weight BIG plays (plays over 30 yards) as more significant than less big plays ... with turnovers like big plays. Syracuse had 2 big plays (by yards) and zero big plays by creating turnovers. RU had 2 big plays by yards (pass to Coleman plus the blocked FG return), plus 4 big plays by creating turnovers.

And I close by returning to your analysis of the "yards" equivalent he says RU gained via the turnover, plus the blocked kick rerturn ... RU had 470+ equivalent yards to Syracuse's 425 equivalent yards. Which at least IN PART explains RU's victory, no?

 

[dollarbill44]

Though I am a Rutgers fan, I though this was a very interesting analysis, with a lot to chew on fro any football fan.

HOWEVER, the analysis DOES have a couple of analytical flaws, all of which could fixed, with a little more thought.

For example ... there is no weighting of "plays. A missed extra point is given the same weight as a missed FG. So in the Syracuse kicking game, just looking at extra points and FG's, Syracuse gets a score of 2 winning plays, while RU gets 2 winning plays, due to 2 good extra points for Syracuse (their winning plays) versus a missed FG by Syracuse, PLUS a blocked FG for TD (RU's 2 winning plays).

And a NON-touchdown play is given the same weight as a touchdown play.

BUT ... this analysis makes several VERY interesting points, without giving enough credence to those points.

Such as ... you gives RU credit for an additional 160 yards in "field position" for its 4 turnovers. And specifically says that is NOT including the blocked FG returned 75 yards for a TD. Let us say you is accurate with that 160 yard figure. NOW you are talking about adding 235 yards (160 plus 75 for the blocked kick return), in essense, to RU's NET yards, while Syracuse had ZERO yards from creating turnovers. When you do THAT, then RU has the equivalent of 470 yards, to Syracuse's 425 yards ... looks a little different, eh?

And that is how Bill Parcells always looked at things: Not ONLY at offensive yards, but adding in certain types of return yards, and field position.

PLUS ... perhaps the single most important statistic in both correlation, and causation, for football wins or losses IS turnover margin. Turnovers HAVE to be weighted MUCH more than other plays.

If I HAD to make just 1 simple adjustment, the first adjustment is: I would give a MADE FG THREE (3) times the weight of a normal play, and a TD play SIX (6) times the weight of a normal play, while a missed FG would also get THREE (3) times the weight of a normal lost play. I say this without making the adjustments in advance.

So ... let us do that ...

We start with Syracuse having won 93 plays to RU having won 73 plays.

Now ...ADD FOUR "plays" to RU's total, for the 2 missed/blocked FG by Syracuse (those plays should be 6 poimts combined for RU, but RU was only fiven 2 points, so to speakl). Now it is 93 to 77.

Now ADD TWO "plays" to RU's total for making ONE FG ... Score is now 93-78.

Now ADD TEN "plays" to Syracuse's total, for its TWO TD's (they got credit for 2 "plays, but should get credit for 12 "plays"). Score is now 103 to 78.

Now ADD FIFTEEN "plays" to RU's total, for their 3 TD's. Score is now 103-93.

So, that weighting halves the spread.

BUT ... turnovers are NOT weighted at all either - in fact each turnover is treated as just another play ... 1 turnover equals 1 play "won" in this analysis. That is certainly not right. I am not sure of the weighting, but surely 4 turnovers for Syrause versus ZERO for RU, easily closes the gap of 103 to 93 "winning" plays - and then some.

Also, I would weight BIG plays (plays over 30 yards) as more significant than less big plays ... with turnovers like big plays. Syracuse had 2 big plays (by yards) and zero big plays by creating turnovers. RU had 2 big plays by yards (pass to Coleman plus the blocked FG return), plus 4 big plays by creating turnovers.

And I close by returning to your analysis of the "yards" equivalent he says RU gained via the turnover, plus the blocked kick rerturn ... RU had 470+ equivalent yards to Syracuse's 425 equivalent yards. Which at least IN PART explains RU's victory, no?

You ARE missing the POINT of this analysis that SWC DOES on a weekly BASIS.

 

[SWC75]

You ARE missing the POINT of this analysis that SWC DOES on a weekly BASIS.

I'm primarily looking for evidence of how the game went physically- if a team was blowing the other team off the ball for play after play, they would win a large percentage of the plays. That doesn't tend to happen in our games so it directs you to look elsewhere for the answers. That's tends to come in big plays- long gains, turnovers, special teams screw-ups and in how well, (like hits in baseball) you run successful plays together, rather than having them in isolation. Syracuse 93 Rutgers 73 doesn't mean that Syracuse "deserved" to win. it means that they lost for reasons other than being physically dominated, as a truly bad team would. .