Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Here's some unscientific maffs to "prove" we beat ND
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 6
| visibility 1,890

Here's some unscientific maffs to "prove" we beat ND


Nov 1, 2020, 4:05 PM

I thought it was an appropriate time to compare our statistics to date with ND. I used the current stats and averaged the same stats of each of our opponents to try to get a better relationship. I did not go to the next level and compare our opponents opponents, but for a 30,000 foot view I think its reasonable. Some of the rankings and stats are slightly skewed because of rounding and/or there is a disproportionate differential in units with a linear rating scale. (Note: I did not include the Citadel as they are not in our division and they haven't played enough games. This is based off of 6 games each)

ND has the #11 (231 YPG) rushing offense against the #64 (174 YPG) rushing defense
Clemson has the #55 (167 YPG) rushing offense against the #62 (174 YPG) rushing defense

ND has the #71 (206 YPG) passing offense against the #51 (233 YPG) passing defense
Clemson has the #8 (341 YPG) passing offense against the #64 (255 YPG) passing defense

ND has the #29 (437 YPG) total offense against the #57 (407 YPG) total defense
Clemson has the #10 (508 YPG) total offense against the #67 (430 YPG) total defense

ND has the #8 (94 YPG) rushing defense against the #54 (159 YPG) rushing offense
Clemson has the #15 (100 YPG) rushing defense against the #64 (145 YPG) rushing offense

ND has the #9 (174 YPG) passing defense against the #58 (223 YPG) passing offense
Clemson has the #11 (175 YPG) passing defense against the #52 (230 YPG) passing offense

ND has the #6 (267 YPG) total defense against the #63 (383 YPG) total offense
Clemson has the #7 (275 YPG) total defense against the #63 (375 YPG) total offense

ND has the #4 (10 PPG) scoring defense against the #75 (24 PPG) scoring offense
Clemson has the #11 (15 PPG) scoring defense against the #59 (28 PPG) scoring offense

ND has the #26 (35 PPG) scoring offense against the #64 (32 PPG) scoring defense
Clemson has the #2 (46 PPG) scoring offense against the #56 (30 PPG) scoring defense

I believe this shows that we have an advantage in the passing offense, total offense and scoring offence differentials that is much greater than the advantage ND may have on us in rushing offense. The defensive statistics seem to be pretty much a wash.

A few defensive stats that point our way (I didn't purposely ignore stats that may benefit ND, these are just the ones I typically compare) are:

1) Negative plays - ND has 17 sacks plus 33 TFL. We have 28 sacks plus 29 TFL.
2) Interceptions - ND has 4 INTs. We have 9 INTs.
3) Average yards per rush allowed - ND allows 3.1 YPR. We allow 2.7 YPR

Finally, something I've been following shows that we are likely relatively better than our stats may indicate when compared to other teams. I make the assumption that a good indicator of when a team calls off the dogs is when the first team QB goes out. I looked at the percentage of passing attempts by the starter as a likely marker of how much a team substituted.

Ian Book has thrown 97% of all the passes thrown by ND (150/155)
Trevor has thrown 67% of all the passes thrown by Clemson (191/285)

I realize that he was hurt the last game but that adjusts the stats to reflect an injury.

Even if we give all of DJs attempts to Trevor for the last game, its still 81% (232/285) by the starter.

This does not hold true for just ND. I started looking at this comparing Trevor's stats to the stats of the QBs above him and it appears likely all are "padded" by garbage time or 4th quarter action.

Anyway, probably too long, but Go Tigers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Here's some unscientific maffs to "prove" we beat ND


Nov 1, 2020, 4:11 PM

How do you factor in kicking and special teams?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Anybody that says Coach Brownell is the best coach to come through Clemson is going to start an argument." -JP Hall


Re: Here's some unscientific maffs to "prove" we beat ND


Nov 1, 2020, 5:23 PM

The same way, but I didn’t have time today

I doubt I’ll even consider it this year because we’re fairly consistent

Almost all our kickoffs reach the end zone so returns are negligible

Punting has been good with few returns

We don’t return many punts. Almost all are fair caught

FG kicking is either real good or blocked

Not many KO returns, but when we have, it’s been pretty good

Bottom line, if we’re up to par, special teams shouldn’t hurt us

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can't argue with maff.


Nov 1, 2020, 5:12 PM

We got this.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Pretty Interesting, but the Elephant in the Room is


Nov 1, 2020, 5:18 PM

Turnovers and penalties, which is almost always the determining factor in close fought games. Go stats on them? I fear we don't measure up very well, but hope I'm wrong.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Pretty Interesting, but the Elephant in the Room is


Nov 1, 2020, 6:42 PM

Turnovers, we’re good but penalties is in NDs favor

We’ve had 4 fumbles, nd 3. We’ve had 3 int and nd 1

But we have a plus 7 ratio to ND plus 3 (or +1 per game Vs + .5 per game)

Penalties we average a bit over 50 yds per game and ND is right under 30, I think

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

SOLID post.. TU and THANKS!!!!***


Nov 1, 2020, 6:03 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Replies: 6
| visibility 1,890
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic