|
Post by carookie on Apr 24, 2013 14:26:16 GMT -6
You realize that "Moneyball", especially the movie, is about 40% fiction right? Kind of like The Blind Side. I think trying to run your team based on any idea you got from this movie is like deciding to run the Oopty Oop because it worked in Varsity Blues. Yeah, but the book was real, although it extremely marginalized the impact of Oakland's starting pitching. Moreover, its more about the lexicon, a "moneyball" approach to most means that they are searching for statistically supported theories that would lead to success in a sport.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Apr 24, 2013 14:55:05 GMT -6
- Playing the percentages - This ties in with point #2, and it's been talked about before, but the math favors going for 2 point conversions and being aggressive on 4th down. If the other team has more talent aren't they still better on 4th down? Yes. They are also better on 1st down, on special teams, when they have the ball and any other situation. Their are several different questions here though: - What are the odds you convert. - What are the odds that your conversion increases your probability of winning (are you going to score? shorten the game?) - How likely are they to score if they were to take over the ball at the current spot? - How likely are they to return the punt? Block it? Where do you expect them to take possession on a punt. - How likely are they to score from their expected starting field position? What is the difference between that spot and the current spot? If a team is going to hang 50 on you, it probably doesn't matter where they take the ball. If a team will struggle to get two scores, field position matters a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 24, 2013 14:57:16 GMT -6
I think a large number if the turnovers you force are due to your own offensive performance. What I mean is that if you are constantly ahead in a game the other team takes more chances and tries more things they aren't completely comfortable doing. This leads to turn overs which leads to a bigger lead which leads to more turnovers. The classic snowball effect. Oklahoma state was 12-1 in 2011. They scored a ton of points and were constantly up on teams. Teams took more chances to try and catch up and OK ST took advantage and got some turnovers. In 2012 they were .500. Teams didn't have to take as many chances as they weren't trailing. Therefore OK ST didn't force as many turnovers. Just my thoughts. Doesn't mean a ton.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 15:06:58 GMT -6
I think a large number if the turnovers you force are due to your own offensive performance. What I mean is that if you are constantly ahead in a game the other team takes more chances and tries more things they aren't completely comfortable doing. This leads to turn overs which leads to a bigger lead which leads to more turnovers. The classic snowball effect. Oklahoma state was 12-1 in 2011. They scored a ton of points and were constantly up on teams. Teams took more chances to try and catch up and OK ST took advantage and got some turnovers. In 2012 they were .500. Teams didn't have to take as many chances as they weren't trailing. Therefore OK ST didn't force as many turnovers. Just my thoughts. Doesn't mean a ton. Makes sense and I'm sure it's true to some extent but it doesn't explain why their fumble recoveries dropped from 20 to 11.
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Apr 24, 2013 15:27:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Apr 24, 2013 15:38:09 GMT -6
If the other team has more talent aren't they still better on 4th down? Yes. They are also better on 1st down, on special teams, when they have the ball and any other situation. Their are several different questions here though: - What are the odds you convert. - What are the odds that your conversion increases your probability of winning (are you going to score? shorten the game?) - How likely are they to score if they were to take over the ball at the current spot? - How likely are they to return the punt? Block it? Where do you expect them to take possession on a punt. - How likely are they to score from their expected starting field position? What is the difference between that spot and the current spot? If a team is going to hang 50 on you, it probably doesn't matter where they take the ball. If a team will struggle to get two scores, field position matters a great deal. I agree with this. If they are better on 4th, than they are better on every other down and every other phase, you have two options: Quit or take some chances. Does this mean go for it on your own 20? I don't think so. But when you hit the -40 against a superior opponent I believe you have to start to take these questions under consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Bronkema on Apr 24, 2013 15:52:26 GMT -6
You realize that "Moneyball", especially the movie, is about 40% fiction right? Kind of like The Blind Side. I think trying to run your team based on any idea you got from this movie is like deciding to run the Oopty Oop because it worked in Varsity Blues. this is not true, the only thing dramatized is beanes relationship with daughter and ex wife in the movie. Lewis in the book makes some reference to it but not much. Most of the movie was pretty spot on. The book does give reference to the idea of taking market inefficient in baseball and putting it on the field of play because they valued different things than the other clubs. In football you can't really think about stats because I've tried and tried to come up with win probability and base it on stats...to no avail. With football I think you have to do something crazier team wise. Like the "zone read" or "vertical pass" these were all innovations at some part of the game or another. It may be that you take the Hidden Game of Football ideas about 4th and 2 % or going for 2. or kicking onsides because one team in Arkansas got the ball 60% of the time. Also one way to translate it would be thinking about personnel and different formations. In high school this is tough because you do see the lack of talent or you get what you get. This is where coaching comes into play. If you practice the oopty oop a bunch why not run it. It can be unsuccessful just like any other play. Its tough to think about moneyball in terms of metrics and apply it to football in the sense of advanced stats, but that doesn't mean you can't think of the next big think in football, just because no one else does it doesn't make it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 24, 2013 16:45:21 GMT -6
Well the book Moneyball isn't fiction, and in any event the only thing applicable to football is just the idea of evaluating assets (players) in a new way and the proverbial "thinking outside the box" (which everyone agrees is good but not everyone agrees on how you do it or what counts as thinking outside the box). In other words, easier said than done but still worthy goals.
Completely agree and that's why I said there's a stats argument and then there's a psychological and real world argument. People say there are no moral victories but losing 68-0 can have a real negative effect on your kids.
To be clear on one point (and maybe this is all academic mumbo jumbo), the "get lucky"/high variance thing is interesting is if you play with the numbers, there are tactics which can be actually *worse* on an average/expected value basis, but because of the higher variance and difference in outcome increase the odds of the underdog pulling off an upset. But again it makes the chance of a blowout loss that much worse. It's just flattening the bell curve in both directions.
Anyway, the other "Moneyball" aspect that I think is good but has to be translated is the whole book is about how a team with fewer "resources" beats teams with significantly more resources. In Major League Baseball the resource is basically money to spend on players, and that leads them to certain things. It's certainly the case that in high school you often have teams with very different resources, but the nature of those resources -- natural pool of talent, tradition, fan support, administrative support, and, yes, money -- so in that way it's no different than what coaches are already doing every day: trying to make chicken salad out of chicken s--t.
|
|
|
Post by breakerdog on Apr 24, 2013 17:17:51 GMT -6
In my humble opinion, "explosive plays" for lack of a better term, are the biggest factor in HS football.
This is being kicked around in another thread right now, but I think that the stat that most correlates to winning HS football games is the big play differential. If you can break more than your opponent, you are more likely to win.
I don't believe that turnovers are a coach-able skill to any high degree. I think drills, coaching etc can maybe get you another 5 - 10 % on top of the random chance factor. I am just pulling these numbers out of my butt, and I don't think there is anyway to study this effectively.
So, how can you coach to encourage more "explosive plays" on offence and limit them on defence?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 24, 2013 17:23:12 GMT -6
Turnovers, while always a factor, are more crucial in NFL because of timing differences - Clock does not stop after a made 1st Down for ex.
So there are less snaps.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 24, 2013 17:25:53 GMT -6
I think a large number if the turnovers you force are due to your own offensive performance. What I mean is that if you are constantly ahead in a game the other team takes more chances and tries more things they aren't completely comfortable doing. This leads to turn overs which leads to a bigger lead which leads to more turnovers. The classic snowball effect. Oklahoma state was 12-1 in 2011. They scored a ton of points and were constantly up on teams. Teams took more chances to try and catch up and OK ST took advantage and got some turnovers. In 2012 they were .500. Teams didn't have to take as many chances as they weren't trailing. Therefore OK ST didn't force as many turnovers. Just my thoughts. Doesn't mean a ton. Makes sense and I'm sure it's true to some extent but it doesn't explain why their fumble recoveries dropped from 20 to 11. Agreed that it doesn't explain all things. I just think it is a big contributor. I think my "theory" applies more to interceptions than fumbles but can apply to fumbles in terms a team trying a speed option when they normally wouldn't, or a reverse where the lateral gets fumbled that maybe they didn't practice a ton but felt like they were forced into trying it. I don't think any of this is an "absolute" but just a contributor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 17:47:07 GMT -6
Another thing that I haven't seen in this thread (admittedly, I've skimmed it pretty quickly) is the possibility that the football stats that might actually benefit a "Moneyball" type of approach aren't usually kept by anyone.
For example, "passing yards," "completion percentage," and "QB rating" tell me very little about a QB's overall skills. "Yards after catch" tells me nothing about a WR's ability to get open downfield. Before we could even begin to apply this approach, we'd first need to identify exactly which stats need tracking in the first place. An option QB might best be measured by team YPC, team median YPC, or "percentage of carries good for least 3 yards," all of which would be about seeing whether he makes the correct reads in the run game. Instead of sacks or tackles, a DT's best measure of performance might be an aggregate of how well he upholds his gap integrity in the run game regardless of what blocks are thrown at him.
Also, the evaluation of talent isn't necessarily all about stats and numbers. It's still subjective, but we can subjectively evaluate it with our eyes as coaches. Maybe the emphasis shouldn't be on finding the right stats to track, but rather the correct drills to observe and test players with. For RBs, DBs, and LBs, maybe instead of 40 time or some cone drill that can be learned through rote memorization, you'd want to evaluate how they do in an unpredictable change of direction drill, like Lou Tepper's "Jingle Jangle."
I do know that 40, bench, raw numbers, etc. are all way overvalued by fans and even coaches alike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 17:56:22 GMT -6
Ehh...so that book that was written was BS too? I'm talking about the principle behind Moneyball, not necessarily the f*#king movie. I was born at night, but not last night...
Duece
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Apr 24, 2013 17:58:37 GMT -6
Another thing that I haven't seen in this thread (admittedly, I've skimmed it pretty quickly) is the possibility that the football stats that might actually benefit a "Moneyball" type of approach aren't usually kept by anyone. For example, "passing yards," "completion percentage," and "QB rating" tell me very little about a QB's overall skills. "Yards after catch" tells me nothing about a WR's ability to get open downfield. Before we could even begin to apply this approach, we'd first need to identify exactly which stats need tracking in the first place. An option QB might best be measured by team YPC, team median YPC, or "percentage of carries good for least 3 yards," all of which would be about seeing whether he makes the correct reads in the run game. Instead of sacks or tackles, a DT's best measure of performance might be an aggregate of how well he upholds his gap integrity in the run game regardless of what blocks are thrown at him. Along this line of thinking is being able to eliminate the noise of team impact on individual player statistics. In baseball, most of what a player does (at least offensively) is an individual batter. I guess if the guy hitting behind you is a slugger, you may see more fastballs and walk less, but for the most part- your offensive numbers are your offensive numbers. Contrast that with football where often times what a player does is a direct result of his teammate's efforts (eg RB yards a result of blocking, QB completion a result of a great catch)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 17:59:25 GMT -6
Taking statistically based decisions derived from NFL or even NCAA stats and trying to use them as the basis for HS football decision makings is shaky. The talent levels (both players' and coaches'), rules differences, scheme differences, etc. all conspire to give you something that just does not translate.
I would love to see studies on, say, the impact of going for it on 4th down vs punting in various situations based on HS football numbers, but even then they would need to be taken with a grain of salt due to so many differences. Some teams are talented enough to win state in spite of boneheaded move after boneheaded move. Other teams are so physically overmatched that no series of smart coaching decisions can save them.
They may have been "undervalued assets," but Moneyball was still played with professional athletes who had proven to be skilled enough at their trade to be paid handsomely for those skills. HS, MS, and Youth football is played with whatever children and juveniles you've got who are willing to strap on pads. That's an important difference.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 24, 2013 18:28:39 GMT -6
I don't think there really are a lot of stats regularly used in football that would provide any meaningful "moneyball" data. However, I do think some underlying theories in moneyball that has been mentioned here (might have to do something "different"/ finding undervalued assets) can be used in HS ball and it has been used in higher levels. I would say some football equivalents are what Jimmy Johnson did regarding defensive personnel, the Patriots use of Wes Welker, and the current use of running QB's in the nfl. Basically all three are examples of letting players do what they do well...as opposed to what "stereotypical" players are asked to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 22:08:14 GMT -6
I don't think there really are a lot of stats regularly used in football that would provide any meaningful "moneyball" data. However, I do think some underlying theories in moneyball that has been mentioned here (might have to do something "different"/ finding undervalued assets) can be used in HS ball and it has been used in higher levels. I would say some football equivalents are what Jimmy Johnson did regarding defensive personnel, the Patriots use of Wes Welker, and the current use of running QB's in the nfl. Basically all three are examples of letting players do what they do well...as opposed to what "stereotypical" players are asked to do. This reminds me of a quote from Bill Walsh to one of the 49ers scouts after getting reports trashing every single player in the draft. I know I'm garbling the quote, but it was "Don't tell me what a guy can't do. Tell me what he can do well, because that gives me something to work with." If you look at those 80s 49er teams and the early WCO, they were "Moneyball" in a lot of ways: Joe Montana had a "weak arm," their RBs and WRs were "too slow," their OL and TEs were "too small," etc. Pretty much everyone on those teams except for Jerry Rice slipped past the 1st round in the draft for these reasons. However, Montana was also clutch and accurate, their RBs and WRs were very highly skilled technicians, and that "undersized" OL was as good at pulling and trapping as anyone in the league at that time, all of which worked very well in the offense that Walsh crafted in SF. Remember: everyone else in the NFL wanted to establish the Off-Tackle Run. What you said about Jimmy Johnson and his defense was dead-on, as well. Then, once the entire league switched to copying it by running the Miami brand of 4-3 in the mid-90s, the Steelers cleaned up as the only team in the league running a 3-4 at the time because it let them stockpile undervalued 2-gapping DL and bigger LBs. Then the league adjusted and Dick LaBeau/Dom Capers-inspired zone blitzing 3-4s started popping up and the Steelers' players weren't so undervalued anymore. I'd even argue that a part of the reason that prototypical spread offenses torched so many big-time teams in the early-mid 2000s came from a similar line of thinking. When the shift to spread offenses began, the big football powerhouses were all focused on finding NFL-style pocket passers--even Nebraska decided they needed to switch to the WCO. If they did recruit an athletic QB who didn't fit that mold, they'd either try to make him into a pocket passer or have him switch positions. If they'd played at their respective schools 10 years earlier, Vince Young would've moved to WR or S, Tim Tebow would've been a FB or LB, etc. A big part of the shift to spread offenses came from putting guys like this in systems that took advantage of their raw athletic ability and paired them up with a lot more speed than base defenses were designed to stop at the time.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Apr 26, 2013 22:46:39 GMT -6
Another thing that I haven't seen in this thread (admittedly, I've skimmed it pretty quickly) is the possibility that the football stats that might actually benefit a "Moneyball" type of approach aren't usually kept by anyone. For example, "passing yards," "completion percentage," and "QB rating" tell me very little about a QB's overall skills. "Yards after catch" tells me nothing about a WR's ability to get open downfield. Before we could even begin to apply this approach, we'd first need to identify exactly which stats need tracking in the first place. An option QB might best be measured by team YPC, team median YPC, or "percentage of carries good for least 3 yards," all of which would be about seeing whether he makes the correct reads in the run game. Instead of sacks or tackles, a DT's best measure of performance might be an aggregate of how well he upholds his gap integrity in the run game regardless of what blocks are thrown at him. Along this line of thinking is being able to eliminate the noise of team impact on individual player statistics. In baseball, most of what a player does (at least offensively) is an individual batter. I guess if the guy hitting behind you is a slugger, you may see more fastballs and walk less, but for the most part- your offensive numbers are your offensive numbers. Contrast that with football where often times what a player does is a direct result of his teammate's efforts (eg RB yards a result of blocking, QB completion a result of a great catch) Tacking on, you can isolate things to an incredible degree in the game of baseball because of the stoppage between every play possibility (pitch). I loved Moneyball because I believe that you can take a group of 'misfits' and make a team stronger than their individual talents if you can identify the situations that allow them to be successful. My alma mater in 2011 had a D-1 caliber athlete at QB, had nearly 8 difference making DL who were almost unblockable, and an OL that rolled up almost 5k yards rushing in 11 games. They lost in the first round of playoffs. This year they were a significantly less talented team and competed against a powerhouse private school in the section championship. A group of role players out performed a group of individually talented players when it mattered the most and the HOW of it is what fascinates me. I think that HONEST player evaluation and schematic versatility (in whatever you do) allow you to create these sorts of situations where your sum can be greater than your parts. You can use statistical analysis to determine personnel strategies, but you gotta know where to look and you've got to be able to do something about it when you identify your weakness or strength. The last part is the important thing and brophy touched on it: we have significantly less control over our roster than a professional organization. You can statistically determine that your left DE is underperforming compared to the rest of the unit, but if you have no one to replace him it doesn't matter all that much. Put into the context of the SF Giants: Sometimes you've just got to live with Barry Zito being the guy on the mound. (Yes, I understand that there's contractual/financial complications, but we're not looking into that side of things)
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Apr 27, 2013 11:11:25 GMT -6
i think the one issue high-school and above coaches will run into is DCs making adjustments.
OK so you have isolated your High Percentage runs and passes. but the defense gears to stop those...your high percentage plays just changed. so you will constantly be changing what your doing making the idea almost irreverent.
now, in Youth or MS ball. i see something like an application of statistics being incredibly useful, there are only so many youth/ms coaches that can and will make adjustments or even identify what you are doing to them (at least in my area...)
for me the key stats to check would be:
Team Passing: Completion Percentage per route
Team Running: Percentage of Yards Per Carry Per Attack Area
Individual: Catch Percentage Fumble Percentage
if the route has a High Completion Percentage and the Receiver has a high Catch Percentage, Throw it
if the Run has a High Percentage of Yards Per Carry and the Back has a low Fumble Percentage, Run it
that's a rough idea of what i look at, but there so many other factors:
defensive variables: ---"Width" of the Perimeter Triangle ---"Height" of the Perimeter Triangle ---Percentage of the Defense in the box ---Percentage of the Defense on the Left ---Percentage of the Defense on the Right
those are just ones i can think of off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 27, 2013 11:24:52 GMT -6
The defence can make adjustments, but your offense ought to have been designed with complements in mind for those adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Apr 27, 2013 17:06:02 GMT -6
sabermetrics is a joke I think. They cannot assign a value to an rbi.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 27, 2013 17:52:58 GMT -6
?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 27, 2013 18:33:37 GMT -6
sabermetrics is a joke I think. They cannot assign a value to an rbi. It isn't so much that they cannot assign value, but rather they don't feel the statistic provides insight on the value of a player's performance as it is dependent on many factors outside of the player's control. Keep in mind that the concept of Moneyball as presented in the book and movie is related to, but not synonymous with sabermetrics. Moneyball is generally understood as using tools such as sabermetrics to find UNDERVALUED (read: affordable) players since most clubs valued statistics that sabermetricians do not believe accurately relate to wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by cenglish56 on Apr 27, 2013 18:45:40 GMT -6
The response about using your best players is a great thought an idea. Several years ago I was a DC at school and we were a over/under team. One year we had four good lbs and only three dl that were varsity caliber. In addition we only had one solid safety but three CBS. We made the choice to start all three CBS by simply putting the one who played the run the best at fs. He was not a safety but was adequate. We moved one of the lbs to de. Since then I have always started my best 11 kids on defense. I simply plug them into the best spot based on their skills. It has done wonders for me when we a deep at one position and shallow at another.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Apr 27, 2013 18:47:42 GMT -6
sabermetrics is a joke I think. They cannot assign a value to an rbi. 1?
|
|
pjdrews
Probationary Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by pjdrews on Apr 27, 2013 21:13:38 GMT -6
I did this a couple of years ago with the high school team I do stats for after reading the book. I was trying to work big to small, so I wanted to find out each skilled players worth in correlation to points scored. I used statistics that most high schools keep track of like average starting field position, number of plays, average yards per play and so on...
What I ultimately stumbled on was a way to track how we look at field position vs. scoring or getting scored upon. As an example, if our team has a great defense starting field position of the other team won't matter as much as a team with a weak defense. The 2011 team had a defense that if the other team had more than 55 yards to go to score we could handle that ok and probably make a stop. The 2012 team needed 78.9 yards as a cushion,......but they were awful.
By the end of the season based on the worksheet created I could come within a TD of actual vs. statistical scoring either by game or by entire season.
Here is a side note, I did not include any special team scoring or defensive scoring. Reason is that those would be statistical anomaly's. While as coaches we want to score with Special teams and defense most of our game planning only looks at standard series scoring. This by no means is perfect and I am sure someone like a Bill James could find other mathematical correlations that would work better than mine.
Ultimately I had fun putting it together in the excel spread sheet...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Apr 28, 2013 2:23:48 GMT -6
I did this a couple of years ago with the high school team I do stats for after reading the book. I was trying to work big to small, so I wanted to find out each skilled players worth in correlation to points scored. I used statistics that most high schools keep track of like average starting field position, number of plays, average yards per play and so on... What I ultimately stumbled on was a way to track how we look at field position vs. scoring or getting scored upon. As an example, if our team has a great defense starting field position of the other team won't matter as much as a team with a weak defense. The 2011 team had a defense that if the other team had more than 55 yards to go to score we could handle that ok and probably make a stop. The 2012 team needed 78.9 yards as a cushion,......but they were awful. By the end of the season based on the worksheet created I could come within a TD of actual vs. statistical scoring either by game or by entire season. Here is a side note, I did not include any special team scoring or defensive scoring. Reason is that those would be statistical anomaly's. While as coaches we want to score with Special teams and defense most of our game planning only looks at standard series scoring. This by no means is perfect and I am sure someone like a Bill James could find other mathematical correlations that would work better than mine. Ultimately I had fun putting it together in the excel spread sheet... Can you share some of your formulas? Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
pjdrews
Probationary Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by pjdrews on Apr 28, 2013 6:09:27 GMT -6
Question I asked was "what is my teams ability to score is?"
A few things that I wanted to know was what was the average yards to score (YTS) was for both teams. So if you take the actual starting field position of each drive that will give you total yards to score. So if the starting field position was the 50 yard line, you have to go 50 yards to score. Do that for every possession, add them up divide them by the total number of possessions you get the average for the game....do that for every game and you can get total for the season.
Now I wanted to know how our yards per play (YPP) had a correlation to any of this. So, I took the teams Yards to Score (YTS), multiplied it by the teams Yards Per Play then divided it by Average yards to score for the game. This gives you a value like 41.3 or 56.7.....So if a drive that started inside that value I awarded it 6 points (TD), if you started outside the value then you get nothing!....lol
So here is the formula ((yards to score)x(yards per play))/(average yards to score) = Team Scoring Ability
It will tell you whether or not you'll outscore the other team based on numbers....there are exceptions to the rule in the form or missed EP's, Defensive TD's, Special team TD's...Also a turnover can have huge rippling effect on the game. A turnover adds an extra possession...and flip side, a loss of a possession. That has an impact on total possessions which will change the numbers. Now add in a field possession of the turn over and that will change the numbers...so on and so forth.
You can put this in by using numbers of an overall team, or for an individual player thus measuring his scoring worth. I use it to see whether or not we should punt and what the upside of it is based on my defense's ability to make a stop....or if we are getting the average yards per play that we need to...or...or ..or...You get the point.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 28, 2013 7:48:14 GMT -6
I am not a Math or Science guy so I haven't a clue how to quantify this in terms of value to victories, but blocked kicks can be biggest plays in Football because they cause gain (or loss) of significant field position on punts, and keep points off the board on PAT-FGs.
Am working on our Kick off Block Defense this Summer...
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Apr 28, 2013 8:57:54 GMT -6
Question I asked was "what is my teams ability to score is?" A few things that I wanted to know was what was the average yards to score (YTS) was for both teams. So if you take the actual starting field position of each drive that will give you total yards to score. So if the starting field position was the 50 yard line, you have to go 50 yards to score. Do that for every possession, add them up divide them by the total number of possessions you get the average for the game....do that for every game and you can get total for the season. Now I wanted to know how our yards per play (YPP) had a correlation to any of this. So, I took the teams Yards to Score (YTS), multiplied it by the teams Yards Per Play then divided it by Average yards to score for the game. This gives you a value like 41.3 or 56.7.....So if a drive that started inside that value I awarded it 6 points (TD), if you started outside the value then you get nothing!....lol So here is the formula ((yards to score)x(yards per play))/(average yards to score) = Team Scoring Ability It will tell you whether or not you'll outscore the other team based on numbers....there are exceptions to the rule in the form or missed EP's, Defensive TD's, Special team TD's...Also a turnover can have huge rippling effect on the game. A turnover adds an extra possession...and flip side, a loss of a possession. That has an impact on total possessions which will change the numbers. Now add in a field possession of the turn over and that will change the numbers...so on and so forth. You can put this in by using numbers of an overall team, or for an individual player thus measuring his scoring worth. I use it to see whether or not we should punt and what the upside of it is based on my defense's ability to make a stop....or if we are getting the average yards per play that we need to...or...or ..or...You get the point. Did you take FGs into account here, and if so were they given equal value to TDs or were they only given 3/7 of a point (or I guess 1/2 since you awarded 6 points)?
|
|