Stats that Influence Winning

Search the article by Tony Demeo - 4 stats that matter.

He has been on podcasts and talked about it too. I’ve never seen anything else backed by as much evidence and be as simple. (Many goals go way too in depth). In my opinion anything that is important or to be remembered should be in the 1-5 range or it isn’t simple enough and won’t be remembered.

Obviously each of these goals depend on a lot of other things (which he explains) but in general the GOALS to remember are these;

1. Score 25 points offensively. Develop an offense that can score 25 versus the best on your schedule. (Keep things simple, hitch and a pitch, have answers).

2. Hold the opponent to 16 or less. (Best 11 play defense, run to the ball, defensive backs with hands).

3. Be plus 2 in the turnover margin. (Obviously don’t give up any on offense and make it a priority on defense).

4. Score a non offensive touchdown.

True. But don’t all of the stats do that to an extent?

I guess there’s only maybe three then.

1. Win the turnover battle.
2. No penalties.
3. No negative yardage offensive plays.

Everything on offense is going to relate to scoring points. Everything in defense will relate to not giving up points. “Explosives” just mean you’re more likely to score/give up a score. Same thing with completions, etc. etc.

Agree. Defensively I don’t control the team but I put an emphasis on
1. Doing your assignment
2. Hustle/effort
3. Takeaways

coachdawhip

While true, I think info like that is cart before horse type of things. Teams that are winning games are playing better. Playing better means making explosive plays and not turn the ball over. I think coaches, especially HS would do better to monitor things that impact the play as opposed to focus on outcomes.

So you only call the good plays to start possessions, and call the crappy ones on other first downs?  If you know which plays will gain more yards (explosives), why bother ever calling the ones that wont?  

Sure, I am just playfully giving some grief here, but I think my point of view still holds true.  The things you mention are still results and not processes.   I am not sure I subscribe to the fact that having these type of things prevent HS athletes from having a mental lapse on a play, or prevent them from taking plays off, but I would say that I could see why that would be a valid opinion. 

Can you explain a bit how monitoring and reporting  success on P&10, or 3rd downs etc has changed how the athletes performed? I would think actually monitoring and reporting on what the athletes are doing, as opposed to the results of those actions, would lead to increased success.  

As I said earlier, if a coach says "well, it wasn't until I saw a stat that the team had to win 3rd down "x" percent of the time to have the best chance at winning that I started to evaluate what we did on 3rd down" or "It wasn't until I saw a stat that if we have more breakaway plays we have a better chance of winning"  I don't really know how to respond to that. 

Agreed and will add the following.....we did a "block destruction circuit" all season last season and guess what?  Didn't notice any significant difference in our defensive performance in that regard. Hence, we dropped the circuit.  

Don't get me wrong, we still work on it in individual, etc but not at the length we did last year.

IME, the faster we are the "better" we are at destroying blocks (aka faster kids are harder to block, just like faster kids are harder to cover, contain, tackle, and faster kids tend to be better tacklers).

So....I agree w/ above post.  Develop your kids physically to the best of your ability in the off season, then coach up technique, eliminate mental errors in scheme and let your athletes play.

That IMO tends to lead to the "better stats"

Again, JMO.

Come to think about, I bet these stats have the greatest correlation to winning in HS.

40 time
Max Squat/DL
Height
Weight

I bet winning those will correlate to explosive plays, sacks, 1st down efficiency, etc

Honestly, I can and do see the usefulness of presenting such things to a group of 15/16 year old kids to make the overall desire (winning) seem more attainable. Especially if that group has had little success in the past. And I can even see some validity in at least using some of the info to evaluate certain aspects of coaching habits. Maybe looking at something like the "explosives" will help someone feel a bit more comfortable not being 100% inside zone/power when it is 2nd and 3. So I don't think topics like this are counter productive or wrong.

I just don't see much value in monitoring and reporting on these things because they are still outcome based and we already have an outcome based measure to evaluate the team-the scoreboard.

That is where I differ.  Stats such as these are simply outcomes just like the scoreboard.  They are outcomes of individual plays, or a small sample of plays, as opposed to the outcome of the entire collection of plays (scoreboard).  But they are still outcomes. 
Tracking things such as the % of 2nd tackler in strip attempts, % of plays with good pad level, % of plays with high levels of pursuit, % of plays with no procedure penalties etc.  seems to be more beneficial as it is monitoring and reporting on the process and things that can be controlled strictly by your team.  

Imo its easier to sell "Get 6" to your team rather than saying "our percentage of 2nd tackler strip attempts is too low". Not saying as a coach you shouldn't research that, just that how exactly do you sell that to your team in an energetic way? Think the turnover chain frenzy that's sweeping college football. It's easy to focus on, easy to encourage, etc in game. Percentages are for practice

Isn’t the game of football all about situations?
Isn’t it about being successful in those situations?
How do you track the successes in your program?

In order to run don’t you first have to crawl?
In order to score don’t you have to get first down?
i.e. complete passes or run ball?

On defense don’t you have to keep them from getting first downs?

Obviously better players accomplishes those, but what happens when the talent is equal, that’s what this conversation is about.

Do you have a red zone or short yardage area on your call sheet?
Why? Because those are the calls that lead to success in that situation.

The OP is asking what situations do you believe have the most value on a football game.


If nothing mattered except the final score why do people grade players out?

By wins and losses. (Truly by other things that aren't necessarily field related, but for the purposes here, wins and losses). I don't believe in games within a game. I believe in tracking the things that are part of the process of the performance, not a secondary outcome.

Is a big time stop on 3rd/4th and 1 achieved because the DL have been drilled to get off the ball and maintain pad level and that those things are emphasized as evidenced by weekly reports on THAT or is it achieved because a coach tells kids "hey, if we get 4th down stops it helps us win?" We both know the answer to that one. So the secondary question comes up "Are the kids more likely to get off the ball and maintain pad level because THAT is what you track and harp on daily in practice in both regular drills and short yardage situations and in games OR are they more likely to get off the ball and maintain pad level because you tell kids "we need to get 6 to win" or do schedule short yardage periods in practice?




Those are all outcomes. You have to do SOMETHING to get first downs, or keep the opponent from getting first downs. Doesn't it make more sense to monitor, report, and emphasize THAT?
LSU was 4/12 on 3rd down this year against Vanderbilt. Beat them by 34 points. They were 5/15 against Bama. Lost 55-17. They were 8/18 against Florida and had their best win of the season. Did something change and the coaches suddenly realized they needed to be better on 3rd down? Did the players suddenly try more on 3rd down? Or did the players performance change, and they started to do the little things they needed to correctly?



So is it your position that when two teams are equally talented, that one team will have more success because their team talks about "getting 6" or "getting 5" or "creating 4 explosives" or "holding them to less than 30% on 3rd down" or "getting 4+ on P and 10" than a team whose team talks about and tracks player actions such as procedure penalties, pad level, get off, hustle grade, second man strip, opponents fooled by fakes etc?


I would suggest that the OP is asking about stats, and as I said I don't believe much can be gained by chasing the ghosts of secondary outcomes.
People grade players SPECIFICALLY for the reason I have said all along. Because the PROCESS matters and improving the process is what generates the desired outcome (win game) and will most likely also generate those secondary outcome results as well (5 yards on P&10, converting 55% 3rd downs, 4+ explosive plays".

Process creates outcome. Secondary outcomes are a result of the process, just as the primary outcome is.
Put another way, you don't lose because the stat sheet says your 3rd/4th down conversion rate was 25% and the opponents was 60%. You don't lose because the stat sheet says you were -2 in the turnover battle.

You lose because :
your OT was lazy in his approach to the line, was not on the LOS, resulting in a procedure penalty and a 3rd and long that you failed to convert.
Your DT got driven back on one of the 7 plays he popped up on, allowing the opponent to walk in the endzone on a 4th down
Your RB fumbled because on one of the 3 plays he didn't keep it high and tight, it got poked out.
Your Defense did not put pressure on the opponents ball security because the second person in was not attempting to strip?
Your Defense gave up a 3rd and 2 because they were not aligned properly and the opponent executed a silent sneak?

Right?