Since When Does 3 = 6?
by BSD on Sep 24, 2008 12:01 PM EDT
in Football
43 comments
Ed. - Well, after Kevin's fantastic HD post this morning I kind of feel like Bania. But I guess somebody has to follow Jerry. I just hate to push work like that down the page, but the blog must go on.
Quick. Tell me which team you would rather be?
| Team A - | 80% Red Zone Efficiency |
| Team B - | 60% Red Zone Efficiency |
Hey, Team A looks like a winner, eh? They score every four out of five times they get inside the 20 while Team B only scores three out of five times. But are you really sure about that? Does redzone efficiency really tell you how good a team is at finishing off a drive? MGoBlog touched on this question earlier in the week.
Sigh. The second most annoying statistic on the planet is "red zone efficiency." (#1: time of possession.) It has an arbitrary cutoff point and mostly serves to confirm the idea that not scoring is bad. This does not count as enlightening.
But that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that they don't even calculate it right. The NCAA is now tracking the statistic officially. This is how they do it:
The NCAA grades on a percentage basis, and eight teams have a perfect 1.000. They range from undefeated Oklahoma, which is 18-for-18 with 17 touchdowns and one field goal in three games to winless North Texas, which has reached the opponents' 20 only five times in three games and has three touchdowns and two field goals.
Argh. No, no, no. If you are really attempting to measure who the best teams are when the field shrinks—not a completely crazy thing to do—you probably shouldn't come up with this equation:
TD = FG
AKA "3 = 7." Three does not equal seven. Three equals three.
The current system suggests that Northwestern and Oklahoma are equally proficient at scoring when they get inside the twenty. Sanity notes that Northwestern is acquiring 75% of the maximum points and Oklahoma is acquiring 96% and these are nowhere near equal.
Actually a touchdown is only six points, so three does not equal six. (Not that it equals seven either) But nonetheless BSD wholeheartedly agrees with this. It's always been a pet peeve of mine that the NCAA considers a field goal equivalent with a touchdown when calculating red zone efficiency. This is like saying a single is just as good as a triple in baseball because they are both base hits. But they are clearly not equal since it takes two field goals to equal a touchdown. That's two possessions, two drives, and two stalled trips to the redzone to equal one drive ending in a successful touchdown. This is why baseball came up with the slugging percentage statistic, because batting average alone doesn't tell you why Albert Pujols wins MVP awards and Ichiro Suzuki doesn't.
Now let's go back and take a look at our two teams in our hypothetical situation at the top. Tell me now which team you would rather be.
| Red Zone Attempts | TD | FG | Red Zone Efficiency | Total Points | |
| Team A | 20 | 2 | 14 | 80% | 54 |
| Team B | 20 | 11 | 1 | 60% | 69 |
Hmmm. Team A isn't looking so hot anymore. And team B would also get a benefit from nine more PAT attempts not included in those 69 points. So they would probably outscore Team A by 24 points or more. But according to the current NCAA standard they are "inefficient" when compared to Team A.
I propose they change the formula to more heavily weigh touchdowns over field goals. A touchdown is six points and a field goal is three points, so a field goal should count as half a touchdown. Here is a real world example to illustrate my point.
| Red Zone Attempts | TD | FG | Equation | Result | |
| Current Case | 20 | 13 | 4 | (13+4)/20 = | 85% |
| BSD's Proposal | 20 | 13 | 4 | (13+4/2)/20 = | 75% |
Somebody get Myles Brand on the phone and let's make this happen.
0 recs |
43 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Great point
The way they calculate this is a joke. I wonder if Vegas factors this in to their linesmaking? If so, I might have to do some research of my own and then take Vegas to the cleaners.
Another part of this is when a team scores a td lets say 85% of the time, but on 4th downs they send out Shanky McShankerson who couldn’t put the ball through the uprights if you picked him up and set him on the crossbar. All of the sudden this teams red zone efficiency takes a hit, even though they score 5 tds a game but their idiot kicker misses a few, yet Mississippi State is given the nod over your team because their kicker goes 2-2 and they score 6 points the entire game.
Also worth mentioning is the use of these silly statistics during live game broadcasts. It drives me nuts when PSU is at the 15 yard line and Pam Ward tells me that we only have a 72% chance of scoring. Go home and bake me something, and do my laundry while you’re at it.
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I just had to rec this comment
Funny, but oh so true. Well done my friend.
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Sep 24, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For some reason I think that Pam Ward would be
more effective at bending you over and taking you to the cleaners than taking your shirts. She could also probably rip a phone book in half.
pinkertonpark.com - you owe yerself a laugh.
by rahpsu92 on Sep 24, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pam Ward
Should replace Roger Federer in those Gillette commercials
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm not sure
I’d be wanting to eat whatever she bakes me. Until of course she tells me ‘you will eat this’ in that ohsofeminine voice.
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While wearing a purple mens sport coat
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eat it
Eat it, I said!
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You WILL
Eat that month old Moo Shu Gai Pan from the back of the fridge dammit!
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, whatever fantasy there might have been
about a dominatrix is now pretty sullied picturing her as Pam Ward.
Stacey Dales and Erin Andrews on the other hand? Much more like it.
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd eat
A turd sammitch if EA told me to
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In this voice
‘oh, blogue, won’t you have some of this for me? Don’t you want to make me happy? You said you’d do anything for me….’
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
TrueNuff
It won’t be long. Well, it won’t be long til the announcers pick up on it. The NCAA is another story. But as long as we won’t be hearing the nonsense cited in-game, I’m fine with it. Point is, this could be a very nice case study for the influence of blogistan. When MGoBlog and BSD are writing about it…..well, we’ll see I suppose how long it does take. We need some Impact Meter, that makes this whimsical supposition more measurable.
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stuck in Babble Land
My gawd, don’t really know what I’m on about there. What I do know is that I have totally checked out of the work world this week. Went drinking on a Tuesday night with some South Africans, finished my last glass of Speyburn at 1:45am and crawled into work. And now all I can think about is squeaking out two more days and piling into the RV on Friday morning to head up to my first trip to the Beav this year.
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that reminds me
is there going to be a BSD tailgate?
by WPIALkid22 on Sep 24, 2008 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubtful
I live in Houston, TX, so I won’t be there. Kevin and RUTS are going to the game, but I don’t think they have anything formal planned.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Sep 25, 2008 7:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Points Per Red Zone Trip
I think Blogue20 ‘taking Vegas to the cleaners’ because of the erroneous method of calculating red zone efficiency is a bit of a stretch, but best of luck with it.
Wouldn’t a much more relevant stat be ‘Points per Red Zone Trip’?
This statistic would factor in the extra point which seems to be a troublesome factor in the Touchdowns = 2, Field Goals = 1 method.
by NittanyBadger on Sep 24, 2008 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Leave out the PAT
Is the ability of your snapper, holder, and kicker to put the ball through the uprights a good measure of how well your offense works with a short field? I would leave them out. But a points per red zone attempt is essentially the same thing. My formula just breaks it down into a percentage.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Sep 24, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't represent it as a percentage
I think it’s better represented as expected points per possession. It’s more tangible. Your method certainly provides the same comparative ability, but saying a team is 80% BSD-likely in the red zone doesn’t mean 20% of the time it doesn’t score, which is how an average fan might interpret it (in other words, it doesn’t represent a clear statistical event). It means it scores 80% of the maximum points possible on average. And if that’s what it means, why not just say the offense scores X points per red zone possession; that way, a number like 5.1 suggests TDs are much more likely than FGs with this team, whereas 3.4 suggests the opposite, and 1.7 suggests you are Notre Dame.
by gumbercules on Sep 24, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nyuk nyuk nyuk
Gumby: “and 1.7 suggests you are Notre Dame”.
Beautiful. You are my thread winner, Sir.
'People are about as happy as they decide they want to be'
by Pete the Streak on Sep 24, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm......
Mike (BSD): “Is the ability of your snapper, holder, and kicker to put the ball through the uprights a good measure of how well your offense works with a short field?”
No, but it can sure as hell lose a game for you.
It needs to be figured in somehow, IMHO.
'People are about as happy as they decide they want to be'
by Pete the Streak on Sep 24, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops
I see it’s already been addressed about a dozen times below. Sheesh.
What the hell – I never read the directions before attempting to assemble something, so why should this place be any different?
'People are about as happy as they decide they want to be'
by Pete the Streak on Sep 24, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I know
I’ll just let myself dream that taking Vegas for all its worth is even remotely possible. But you can bet you’re hat I’m gonna give ’er hell!
by blogue20 on Sep 24, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Potential Points?
Interesting post. I have thought of this often myself.
I think a calculation that ties the percentage to the “real world” based on the number of points that could be scored might provide more insight. In the sample cited above:
Potential Points = 120 (20*6)
Actual Points = 90 (13*6 + 4*3)
Red Zone Potential Achieved % = 75% (Meaning you got 75% of the potential points you could have walked away with in the red zone).
Same result as the equation above, but puts it in terms of the potential points available.
Just a thought.
by dontcallmescooter on Sep 24, 2008 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Aw, it's gold, Mikey! Gold!
What do you think it will take to improve the meaningless current stat? How long has “Red Zone Efficiency” been a stat?
pinkertonpark.com - you owe yerself a laugh.
by rahpsu92 on Sep 24, 2008 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I think it was Jimmy Johnson who coined the phrase “Red Zone” when he was coaching the Dallas Cowboys in the early 90’s. They were the ones who really started putting the emphasis on making the most of those possessions that got inside the 20. The term “Redzone efficiency” came around a few years later.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Sep 24, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enlightening
The Cowboys had Awful Lin Elliott (He Who Shall Not Be Named for KC Chiefs Fans) at this time. If they didn’t get the TD they weren’t going to connect on a short field goal either.
by Cairo on Sep 24, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's include the point after TD in the calculation
OK, it’s not automatic, but probably is 90%+/-. One TD on average results in a team getting 6.9 Points which is better than 2X a field goal. Teams scoring more TD’s shoudl get credit for this. So, a better computation which takes into account the added effect of the extra points:
Red Zone Efficiency = Actual Points/Potential Points
Potential Points = 140 (20*7)
Actual Points = Actual Sum of Points scored once inside the 20.
by PSURob on Sep 24, 2008 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ok fine
The point is a field goal shouldn’t count as much as a touchdown.
But don’t the potential points actually equal 8?
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Sep 24, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well played sir
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Sep 24, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does the stat really mean?
points scored – or points scored at all. What should be developed is an offense scoring efficiency rating (like the qbs).
The efficiency rating – while it maybe doesn’t measure who really wins games – it does measure who isn’t scoring any points. While a mid-range percentage may be “better” than a higher percentage – a low percentage is always bad. Which I believe is the more telling “stat” -
What it does show is a team’s ability to put points on the scoreboard once they have crossed the 20 yard line – within the high(er) percentage field goal range (37 yards and under) – but still (albeit at the most) 20 yards from the endzone – and there’s a big difference between 1st and 10 on the 20 and 3rd and 10 on the 19.
If you want to calculate an efficiency rating for offense – why limit it to when the line of scrimmage is within the 20 yard line?
by PSUgirl on Sep 24, 2008 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two things
If TOP is the #1 most annoying statistic, the #0.1 most annoying statistic is “total yards gained by both teams 10 minutes into the game”. They always flash that statistic in every game when team A has compiled 100 yards to Team B’s 5 yards, like we should extrapolate that the teams will gain 600 yards and 30 yards by games end. Somehow we’re supposed to be impressed that one team has had 2 semi-successful drives while the other has had 1 drive. If Team A is the reincarnation of the ’95 Huskers, why is the score stil 0-0? Arghhh…
Anyway, back the original point about red zone efficiency.
For me, the more meaningful statistic is the percentage of TD’s scored when an offense has 1st & goal to go. The nature of defensive schemes changes significantly when there are less than ten yards to go as the area to defend is compressed. Virtually every defense – good or bad in open space – is effective in these situations. The ability of an offense to punch through and score a TD is far more indicative of things like the quality of the offensive line, the play of the tight ends, the ability of the quarterback to make quick passes in coverage, and the ability of the team to avoid bad penalties. Those sorts of things tend to separate out well, which would help in indicating the quality of teams if ranked from best to worst.
It also gets the kicker out of the equation, which is a position that is waaay more inconsistent in the NCAA than the NFL.
I would also like to see “Goal to Go TD’s/All Offensive TD’s” just to see if there are any correlations between that stat and pass-happy teams. But I’m a bit stat-obsessive and tend to overthink things, so there you go.
by Cairo on Sep 24, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't JayPa bragging about red zone efficiency?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the stat he kept pointing to before the season as evidence of our super awesome 2007 offense?
I think we led the conference in 32 yard field goals last year, but that’s about it.
by Run Up The Score on Sep 24, 2008 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't have to boost his QB's confidence by pointing out minutia.
Clark knows the truth. He kicks ass.
I don't know, Mello Yello is pretty awful. What's the worst that could happen?
by psu on Sep 24, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BSD as Crack
Does anyone else feel like a crackhead on this site sometimes? My need for a fix sometimes gets really debilitating. I really should not include today’s presence on this month’s invoice….
Convivite Nudem!
by jtothep on Sep 24, 2008 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
And it’s gotten even more addicting now that the new comments are in yellow. I gotta check this site a zillion times a day. At this rate I’m gonna lose the job, the wife, the house, the cat……
Maybe there’s room under the Manasquan River bridge for my cardboard box and a laptop.
by NJ lion on Sep 24, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At first I thought you meant Balki from perfect strangers, Bania is worse
I don't know, Mello Yello is pretty awful. What's the worst that could happen?
by psu on Sep 24, 2008 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pujols vs. Ichiro
Both have one MVP award. So….yeah. Half of the voters for the baseball MVPs probably couldn’t tell you what SLG is anyway.
Good post by the way. Didn’t JayPa say something on his blog about being #1 in red zone efficiency last year? If that offense was #1, that shows you how useless that stat is.
by speedomike on Sep 24, 2008 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Someone actually reads Jaypa's blog?
pinkertonpark.com - you owe yerself a laugh.
by rahpsu92 on Sep 24, 2008 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
