Michigan puts up a boatload of points, so combined with this info, it must just mean that most of our scoring comes from long plays.
Red zone offense
|School||Drives||Red zone %||Rank||PPT||PPT rank|
|Ohio State||18||83 %||57||4.67||72|
Well, hell. What do you make of that? I can't see much of a pattern there at all. I guess maybe the teams that play more of a smashmouth style are higher up on the list? I'm willing to chalk this up to limited sample size and uneven competition, and just come back to this in a few weeks. It does make me question how much sample size and opponent quality affected the defensive numbers as well. What do you think?
I agree. Maybe it would make more sense if you looked at the number of touchdowns that were scored on plays of >20 yards and the number of field goals of >20 yards.
The whole idea of red zone stats is to measure how well your offense does when you've got the opposing defense backed into a corner. Yes, it's a somewhat arbitrary system, but it is what it is.
Our offense's ability to make long plays is great - yet we're only a middle of the pack Big 10 team when it comes to putting up points once we get close to the goal line.
This stat isn't intended to show the overall effectiveness of the offense as a whole, but rather to measure how efficient they are once they get within 20.
I understand that. My comment was meant as a suggestion that may explain why the statistic calculated doesn't seem to show a correlation with good teams or bad teams. As stated in the OP, one answer could be small sample size. Another could be that the good teams are scoring from outside the redzone.
Redzone% seems like it would have a strong correlation with how big a risk taker the coach is and quality of the kicker. PPT I would think would favor those more conventional offenses since they aren't as focused on spreading the field. But PPT could also be lowered by extremely risk averse coaches who kick a field goal at 4th and 1 in the redzone.
PPT I would think would favor those more conventional offenses since they aren't as focused on spreading the field.
I don't follow your reasoning. Personally, I think spreading the field makes it tougher to defend plays up the middle (see: Forcier's TD run against ND, where the middle was wide open after he juked the one defender in the backfield).
Is the fact Illinois has only 7 trips in the RZ. I know that's a little out of scope, but wow, that's a bad number
Once the teams start playing each other more, I think this will be more useful.
But good work putting this together, thanks.
I have a request, not sure where to post it. Since some of you have the time and ability (I have neither) to pul all these cool stats, is there a per team stat out there that shows runs longer than 20, 30, 40, 50 plus yards? I would be interesting to see. I don't recall a Michigan team that produced so many long gainers in a season. Thanks.
PPT is definitely a better metric than "scoring percentage." I'm surprised at OSU and PSU's low PPT so far.
Are older numbers available? Maybe it would make more sense if you had numbers from an entire season, and it would be interesting to see what a Carr or Bo team would look like.