Replies: 6
| visibility 1,890
|
Orange Blooded [2698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 854
Joined: 8/28/13
|
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.
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39691
Joined: 11/12/04
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 854
Joined: 8/28/13
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Can't argue with maff.
Nov 1, 2020, 5:12 PM
|
|
We got this.
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [682]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 734
Joined: 8/24/99
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 854
Joined: 8/28/13
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
SOLID post.. TU and THANKS!!!!***
Nov 1, 2020, 6:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 6
| visibility 1,890
|
|
|