10-13-2015, 04:25 PM
The discrepancy between Utah's yards per play and their wins/losses made me wonder if there is something about that metric that was flawed, or if the Utes were just lucky to win games they really shouldn't. For that reason, I decided to look at the per/drive statistics. I like per-drive statistics in that in any game, each team will have roughly the same number of drives (usually within +/- 1, barring successful on-sides kicks). Moreover, per drive statistics reward consistency in offense (or defense), in that an offense that consistently gains 4 yards each play will sustain longer drives than an offense that gains 16 yards on one play, and then gets three consecutive plays that gain 0 yards. Per drive stats also incorporate drive killing penalties or the ability to draw drive sustaining ones (or, on defense, the converse). Thanks to the FBS Drive Stats site (http://fbsdrivestats.com/categorized-rankings-2015/), this is easy to obtain.
So, here are the per drive statistics:
Average drive starting position, expressed in yards to go until the goal line (first offense, then defense, then the difference):
Interesting that we lead here by a very large margin, despite not having great special teams or many turnovers (both of which would result in good field position vis a vis our opponents). I think it is largely due to the fact that we rarely go three and out (only 13.3% of the time while our defense forces our opponents to go three and out 31% of the time. Sadly, this may also reflect our coach's penchant for punting from the opponent's side of the field. Regardless, we are winning the "field position" game, by a large shot. By the way, contrary to my expectations, Utah is merely average here.
Next is yards per drive (offense, defense, and difference):
Stanford and USC are tied atop the conference in net yards per drive, but, of course, we have the advantage in starting position. Utah, despite its poor yards per play differential, does well here, and is able to sustain drives much better than its opponent, probably because their strong running game means they are able to gain the first down more consistently than their opponent.
Finally, points per drive (offense, defense, and net):
Unsurprisingly, given our best in conference field position advantage and tied for best in conference yards per drive advantage, we are tops in the conference in points per drive. We easily lead the conference in points per drive scored (the only team above 3), which means we would have the top scoring offense in the conference if we had as many drives as the other teams in the conference. However, because we don't use a tempo offense, we have fewer drives than most. USC and Utah are tied for second in net points per drive, and interestingly, for Utah, it is because they are the best team in the conference at preventing their opponents from getting points from each drive (they are third in the conference in defensive yards per drive), so it is fair to say that they epitomize the idea of "bend but don't break".
I draw a few conclusions from the analysis. First, we really are quite good, and arguably the best team in the conference. Second, USC is dangerous, and you might not have expected them to lose twice given their statistics. The underlying drama in the USC locker room has likely produced more inconsistency than you would otherwise expect, with an ability to absolutely trounce a team one week, and then lose inexplicably the next. Third, Utah is probably better than it's per play statistics indicate. I suspect that its consistency on offense means it is able to sustain drives better than you might expect based on its per play stats, and its bend-but-don't-break defense gives up yards (especially per play) but few points, helped in part by turnovers. Contrary to my expectations, though, Utah is pretty average in field position. Fourth, as I suspected, Cal is a pretty average team; it is reasonable to expect them to struggle with Stanford, USC, and UCLA (and possibly ASU). Fifth, Oregon really is as mediocre as its record has indicated. It's in the bottom third of the conference in points per drive (0 net), and only has a 2.2 yards per drive advantage over its opponents.
BC
So, here are the per drive statistics:
Average drive starting position, expressed in yards to go until the goal line (first offense, then defense, then the difference):
Code:
LOS LOS LOS advantage
Stanford 68.2 75.4 7.2
UCLA 68.3 73.0 4.7
ASU 69.2 72.4 3.2
Oregon 66.6 69.6 3.0
Washington 68.0 70.8 2.8
WSU 68.2 69.7 1.5
Utah 70.4 71.0 0.6
Cal 68.8 68.4 -0.4
Arizona 70.9 69.3 -1.6
USC 74.6 71.2 -3.4
Colorado 70.6 65.6 -5.0
OSU 73.4 65.2 -8.2Interesting that we lead here by a very large margin, despite not having great special teams or many turnovers (both of which would result in good field position vis a vis our opponents). I think it is largely due to the fact that we rarely go three and out (only 13.3% of the time while our defense forces our opponents to go three and out 31% of the time. Sadly, this may also reflect our coach's penchant for punting from the opponent's side of the field. Regardless, we are winning the "field position" game, by a large shot. By the way, contrary to my expectations, Utah is merely average here.
Next is yards per drive (offense, defense, and difference):
Code:
YPD YPD YPD net
USC 41.0 30.5 10.5
Stanford 40.8 30.3 10.5
UCLA 35.7 27.8 7.9
Utah 36.6 28.9 7.7
Cal 37.5 31.7 5.8
ASU 30.0 27.0 3.0
Oregon 34.4 32.2 2.2
Arizona 37.7 36.0 1.7
WSU 36.7 35.1 1.6
Colorado 28.4 31.3 -2.9
Washington 25.2 29.6 -4.4
OSU 28.5 34.4 -5.9Stanford and USC are tied atop the conference in net yards per drive, but, of course, we have the advantage in starting position. Utah, despite its poor yards per play differential, does well here, and is able to sustain drives much better than its opponent, probably because their strong running game means they are able to gain the first down more consistently than their opponent.
Finally, points per drive (offense, defense, and net):
Code:
PPD PPD PPD net
Stanford 3.11 1.76 1.4
USC 2.95 1.61 1.3
Utah 2.67 1.38 1.3
UCLA 2.84 1.60 1.2
WSU 2.61 2.00 0.6
ASU 2.16 1.68 0.5
Cal 2.42 2.02 0.4
Washington 1.58 1.46 0.1
Oregon 2.52 2.51 0.0
Arizona 2.8 3.0 -0.3
Colorado 1.95 2.33 -0.4
OSU 1.78 3.02 -1.2I draw a few conclusions from the analysis. First, we really are quite good, and arguably the best team in the conference. Second, USC is dangerous, and you might not have expected them to lose twice given their statistics. The underlying drama in the USC locker room has likely produced more inconsistency than you would otherwise expect, with an ability to absolutely trounce a team one week, and then lose inexplicably the next. Third, Utah is probably better than it's per play statistics indicate. I suspect that its consistency on offense means it is able to sustain drives better than you might expect based on its per play stats, and its bend-but-don't-break defense gives up yards (especially per play) but few points, helped in part by turnovers. Contrary to my expectations, though, Utah is pretty average in field position. Fourth, as I suspected, Cal is a pretty average team; it is reasonable to expect them to struggle with Stanford, USC, and UCLA (and possibly ASU). Fifth, Oregon really is as mediocre as its record has indicated. It's in the bottom third of the conference in points per drive (0 net), and only has a 2.2 yards per drive advantage over its opponents.
BC
