Penn State - Wisconsin Stats Comparison
by BSD on Oct 8, 2008 10:38 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintWe're half way through the season so I finally feel like comparing stats between two teams is a worth while venture. It's pretty pointless when teams have only played two or three games against Div I-AA and non-BCS opponents.
One thing that always bugged me about these things is when you see these comparison charts where they compare Team X quarterback against Team Y quarterback and determine Team X has the advantage because they have a better quarterback. Football is a game of matchups, and unless Team Y lines up their quarterback at safety the two players will never be on the field at the same time. So I'm taking a little different approach and trying to compare relative stats like Run Offense to Run Defense. I'm thinking this will give a better indication of how our strengths match up with Wisconsin's weaknesses and visa-versa. The advantage column is determined by the NCAA rankings which appear in parenthesis. When the two teams are within ten spots of each other I say it's within the margin of error and call it a push.
| Penn State | Wisconsin | Advantage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rush Offense (yd/game) | 256.7 (8) | 123.6 (27) | Rush Defense (yd/game) |  |
| Pass Offense (yd/game) | 243 (40) | 186.2 (40) | Pass Defense (yd/game) | Push |
| QB Rating | 155.7 (14) | 102.1 (18) | Opp. QB Rating | Push |
| Total Offense (yd/game) | 499.7 (9) | 309.8 (31) | Total Defense (yd/game) | |
| Sacks Allowed | 6 (16) | 9 (58) | Sacks By | |
| 3rd Down Conv. Offense | 52.7% (8) | 42.3% (86) | 3rd Down Conv. Defense | |
| Scoring Offense (PPG) | 44.8 (7) | 17.6 (29) | Scoring Defense (PPG) | |
| Rush Defense (yd/game) | 80.2 (11) | 210.6 (20) | Rush Offense (yd/game) | Push |
| Pass Defense (yd/game) | 170.2 (23) | 185.4 (90) | Pass Offense (yd/game) | |
| Opp. QB Rating | 96.3 (8) | 125.9 (59) | QB Rating | |
| Total Defense (yd/game) | 250.3 (8) | 396.0 (43) | Total Offense (yd/game) | |
| Scoring Defense | 11.7 (9) | 28.8 (49) | Scoring Offense | |
| Sacks By | 17 (25) | 6 (30) | Sacks Allowed | Push |
| 3rd Down Conv. Defense | 27.0% (7) | 42.4% (58) | 3rd Down Conv. Offense | |
| Kickoff Defense | 23.3 (92) | 22.3 (54) | Kickoff Returns |  |
| Kickoff Returns | 29.4 (3) | 20.1 (48) | Kickoff Defense | |
| Net Punting | 39.6 (75) | 4.83 (103) | Punt Returns | |
| Punt Returns | 9.6 (58) | 40.7 (23) | Net Punting | |
| Takeaways | 11 (41) | 10 (46) | Giveaways | Push |
| Giveaways | 6 (98) | 13 (20) | Takeaways | |
| Penalty YPG | 35.2 (17) | 36.2 (18) | Penalty YPG | Push |
More analysis after the jump.
Um. Wow. When you look at it this way Wisconsin's chances don't look very good. But there are just a few matchups that really stand out to me.
Wisconsin has had trouble getting sacks and pressure on the quarterback. Penn State has been highly effective in protecting Daryll Clark. So it's reasonable to assume Clark will have adequate time to stand in the pocket and survey the field. Perhaps related to this fact is that Wisconsin has had difficulty getting stops on third down while Penn State has been highly efficient on third down. This does not bode well for the Badgers.
You can bet when Wisconsin has the ball they will try to run it down our throat. While Penn State's 80 ypg allowed on the ground looks good, we really haven't played a team that boasts a running game similar to what we are about to face. Temple, Oregon State, Syracuse, and Purdue were just not good at running the ball. Illinois is a good running team and they gained 189 yards on us. Wisconsin is better than them. So what we have here is the proverbial irresistible force and immovable object. We'll find out who wins.
I'm also struck by how efficient the Penn State defense has been at stopping teams on third down. I didn't realize we were that good. The Badgers are pretty average when it comes to converting, so I think if we can stop Hill and Clay on first and second down and force them into long yardage situations on third down we'll be in pretty good shape.
Special teams look pretty even except for the fact Penn State is third in the nation in kick returns. Again, I didn't realize this. But then a small sample size (very little scoring by our opponents) and having Williams return one all the way will do that to your average. If they keep playing like they did against Purdue that average will drop pretty quickly.
So what this all boils down to is that on paper Penn State should win. But then we all know these games aren't played on paper. They're played by little men in your television set.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Williams has returned 2 for scores and ranks 3rd by himself in kickoff returns with a 33.8 average or something close to that.
Also, you are right on about our run defense. We are really going to have to man up on 1st and 2nd down but this will lead to a lot of play-action by Wisc, hitting the TE’s against Hull. I think they are going to hit him in all directions.
JoePa in '09
Illinois/Wisconsin Running games
You said “Wisconsin is better than them”. I don’t think that is necessarily true. Wisconsin is certainly different than them, but not necessarily better.
Wisconsin is going to line up and run the ball, where Illinois spreads you out and threatens to run or pass. The whole philosophy is different, and I don’t know that you can fairly compare the two.
Sorry to get all John Madden on you, but the key to this game is points, if we can score on their defense (21 or more) we’re going to win, maybe even easily. Just like last year. If we have turnovers (like they did last year) and get conservative, it’s going to be a tough, tough night.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
I Agree
I wouldn’t say that Wisky is better running team than Illinois, just a different kind of beast. And to be honest, they’re almost exactly the same in terms of production (Wisky: 210.6 ypg; Illini: 210.8 ypg) and Illinois has a slightly better ypc.
Frankly, I’d rather face Wisky b/c you know what you’re getting with them, whereas Illinois poses many different options that always give us trouble.
by Screen Name 20 on Oct 9, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I suppose
I’d rather face a known commodity such as Wisconsin too. It just seems easier to stop a team that doesn’t hide anything from you, as opposed to the misdirection of an Illinois. The danger of course is that when Wisconsin is clicking, you know what they’re going to do and still can’t stop it. That’s the most frustrating, demoralizing thing of all…and if that happens to our defense I think we lose. That said, I think we can load up the box enough to prevent them from marching on us.
Wiscy's only chance in this game is Joe
This game will be decided by him. If Joe plays it wrong, they win. If Joe plays it right, we win. All of the analysis is meaningless. The coaches have to be willing to run with what got them to 6-0 and that’s not what always happens with Joe.
On the record as a longtime supporter of Daryll Clark
No TE = Big problems
I’m pretty sure Quarless and Schuler are out, unless that true freshman is a monster we’re going to have a lot of problems in short yardage situations, especially in the redzone. A good TE in the redzone is a great tool… I’m worried.
TE Situation
I think Quarless will play. If not we have Sczcerba and Mike Lucian has moved over to tight end this week. Maybe Lucian can’t catch a ball or run, but he should be the best blocking tight end on the roster this weekend.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Oct 9, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
sczerba looked pretty good in BW game against first team defense
I don't know, Mello Yello is pretty awful. What's the worst that could happen?
Lucian
someone get that man an Ironman award for most positions played in the first half of a season.
PSU Softball
Problem
You list both PSU and Wisky as having allowed only 6 sacks this season. However, PSU’s rank in that stat is listed as 4th, while Wisky is 25th. Which one is correct?
I think that category swings to a small Wisky advantage if 6 sacks allowed really equates to 4th ranked in D1A.
The difference
PSU has played six games. Wisconsin has only played five. The NCAA ranks them by sacks allowed per game.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Oct 9, 2008 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair Enough
Maybe it should be presented in the table that way. It’s a bit misleading the current way.
I agree
I just pulled the rankings without really looking at the numbers. I’ll adjust next week.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Oct 9, 2008 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Some of your numbers are wrong
in terms of rankings…need to review and correct if we’re going to use that as a serious statistical analysis…sorry to be a debbie downer…
;)
Which ones?
Point them out and I’ll fix them.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Oct 9, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
We have a comparative advantage
when running the ball, but it’s a push when we pass, according to the chart. That’s surprising, as the discussion of Joe’s presser had us thinking that they’ll be able to stop our run, perhaps, but not the pass.
Regardless, we need some compentency in both to open up the other.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Running the ball
Wisconsin is still a very good run defensive team. A #27 rank is nothing to sneaze at.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
agreed...
and if they put 8 in the box, throw this chart out the window and the ball down the field.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Run Defense
To me, the biggest matchup in this game is in the middle of our defense. The DT’s MUST keep lineman off Josh Hull as much as possible (and living in their backfield would be nice, if not a little optimistic). Hull biggest liability, to my eye, is his complete inability to shed blocks. If he’s having to scrape past guards and tackles all day, they’ll run right down our throat. I don’t think Bradley has an adjustment for this.
Score early, make Wisconsin throw more
Penn State needs to score early and often in 1st half. That should make Wisconsin scrap their plans and throw more than they like to. That may force Evridge to commit mistakes (INT or take dumb sack).
I really hope JoePa doesn’t make Penn State return into their shell like they did against Michigan last year. Let them open up this time!
The problem with stats like these
is that they show our performance against the teams we have played so far. I would wager that it is easier to run/pass/score/defend/etc against the teams we have played than against the teams Wisky has played.
I think a better stat comparison (which would take more time, granted) would be to grade our performance as compared to the stats of the teams we’ve played so far, averaged over their games (and even more ideal would for THOSE stats to be normalized as well). It should be possible for someone with statistical background and sufficient time on their hands.
What I mean is this:
Say we ran 180 yards against Team A, and they’ve been giving up on average 120 yards, with a standard deviation of 30 yards. Then that means we performed 2 standard deviations above the mean for rushing that day (which is pretty significant). We then figure out the average “standard deviation” for all our games, and perform that for other teams as well to see how we rank.
This would correct a lot of the “We have 250 yards rushing per game, so we’re the best in the country” when each of those games were against teams who have, on average, given up over 200 yards per game no matter who they played against.
As I said, it would be good for those stats to go at least one level deeper, and see how the opponents of opponents rank, etc (like how SOS and I think RPI are calculated, but this would be for each individual stat), but that would probably complicate things too much.
This, of course, wouldn’t take into account games where you only effectively “play” for one half, and put your third stringers in for the second half, etc., but neither does the current system.
If I can find a good stats reference where I could pull easy to format numbers for all teams, then perhaps I’ll set something up like this myself (though by all means, if someone out there has better experience/ideas/access than me, go ahead. Just like the Penn State Bar map, I don’t mind coming up with the ideas for other people to implement).
This might be tough to really “rank” all the teams in the country, but it would probably be easy enough to do for a matchup basis.
It would be interesting to see how this would change certain rankings.
The crew for today's mission:
A mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician…
There is a tractor in the parking lot, West Virginia license EIEIO. Your lights are on.
by leeharvey418 on Oct 9, 2008 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
So let me ask this
Am I wasting my time in doing these? Do people find them interesting or do you put little stock in them?
I agree that these stats aren’t to be taken as gospel because the range of competition level in NCAA football is wide. But the intent of this comparison is to do a 30,000 foot flyover just to get a hint at what PSU might be good at and what Wisconsin might be good at and see if we can find any glaring differences that could mean the difference in the game.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
No, No, No
I don’t think you’re wasting your time at all. I really enjoyed reading it because it provides some concrete values to general, abstract ideas of “what do we need to do to beat Team X.” While some stats may be inherently skewed and the obvious fact that games are not played on paper, comparisons such as this provide the groundwork for what we can focus on. I like the stats and I thank you Mike for putting the effort into giving us some more insight into the game. GO STATE.
Oh OhOhOh Oh Oh!
I like them.
I usually do them on the FOS premium forum and I think they give a nice encapsulation of how the teams match up. Obviously in football, as in the stock market, past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results; but there is something to be said when comparing a statistically significant amount of football (six games) between two teams.
I really like your format, too! Keep it up.
I think they're fine
It gives us a sense of what we/they do well and um, not so well. Like immikefazz said below, stats are no guarantee for future results. Matchups are different, etc. They can be used as a guideline for what we can expect, but are obviously not gospel.
by Screen Name 20 on Oct 9, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I like them...
I think they are great thing to read. I like the break down of the other teams also. I really liked the breakdown of the plays and formations. I wish we could have some more of them.
Mike I think you should start a thread of things people would like to see or something like that. I mean if you want to and everything.
I agree
I really like what Kevin did with breaking down that formation. I’m afraid I’m not technically savy enough to do that kind of stuff. But I would like to learn.
If anyone knows how to capture vidoe and images from your television set please drop me an email.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
There will be more of that
I’ve had some problems getting the game recorded. I don’t usually watch the game at home and here in DC we’ve been hosed a couple of times with coverage. There was also some issues with the BTN…the website would tell me Penn State is on overflow channel XXX and so I would set the recorder accordingly and leave…problem is they were actually on another station.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
Awesome stuff on those breakdowns
Those were great and I caught another one on a link to an SEC (sorry, I cannot remember which) site somewhere. I have nothing but faith in ya, Mike. If anyone can do it it’s you guys at BSD!
If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame.
by TheMightyErik on Oct 9, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I also would like
to see more breakdown like that. Probably one of the best things I’ve seen lately that gave me an “ooh, they have such and such formation, good things are coming!” instead of all the years of “oh god they have such and such formation. QB sweep to the right is coming, and EVERYONE knows it”
by The JuggerNitt on Oct 9, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I like them as well
because even if someone did what I proposed, there would still be a huge amount of error in it, only it would be slightly less than the error in your analysis.
Besides, I like anything that lets me think “ooh, we’re better than them in 13 matchups, equal in at least 6 more, and only inferior in 2” :-D
by The JuggerNitt on Oct 9, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
These comparisons are fantastic
It’s exactly as you said- the average ‘statistical comparison’ puts, say, our secondary against the other team’s secondary, which is completely meaningless in the game. This way of doing it makes far more sense.
As for JuggerNitt’s suggestion, that’s all well and good, but unless you know an incredibly bored actuary, it doesn’t seem to be all that feasible.
There is a tractor in the parking lot, West Virginia license EIEIO. Your lights are on.
by leeharvey418 on Oct 9, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I like this comparison that you did
I think that you should keep soing them.
I did a quick calculation based on the stats I could easily find in yesterday’s online Sporting News & this is a start of what The JuggerNitt asked for:
————————Rush——Pass——Total
Coastal Carolina
Oregon State——132.6—-280.4—-413.0
Syracuse————157.2—-130.4—-287.6
Temple
Illinois—————-210.8—-245.0—-455.8
Purdue—————117.2—-254.2—-371.4
Ave (4 teams)——154.5—-227.5—-382.0
Penn State D——-80.2——170.1—-250.3
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
