Coaching and Turnovers

Submitted by cbuswolverine on

I've seen a lot of discussion about turnovers lately, for obvious reasons. Some blame it on coaching, some on inexperience, some on variance, etc. People have asked what kind of record Rod's teams have had over the years in regard to turnovers. Well, when you are looking for college football stats from the last 8-9 years, you can find just about any of them here:

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/footballMenu.html

WVU's turnover track record was pretty damned good under Rod:

Year Turnovers Lost Rank

2007 21 T34th

2006 17 T11th

2005 17 T14th

2004 22 T56th

2003 20 T31st

2002 15 T2nd

and now, drumroll please..........Rod's first year at WVU

2001 32 T108th

 

Fumbles not so good (but keep in mind that they ran the ball a LOT at WVU, obviously):

Year Fumbles Lost Rank

2007 15 T105th

2006 9 T30th

2005 10 T53rd

2004 11 T72nd

2003 12 T59th

2002 6 T2nd

2001 13 T88th

 

They look pretty solid to me after that first year.

 

MGoBoard

Chrisgocomment

September 28th, 2008 at 2:27 PM ^

This should probably be a diary...FYI...just sayin'.

Brian's theory on turnovers is that they are nearly random, so I don't think you can go back and look at Rich Rod coached teams and conclude that Michigan shouldn't be turning the ball over as much as they are....here's what Brian says:

The theory of turnover margin: it is nearly random. Teams that find themselves at one end or the other at the end of the year are highly likely to rebound towards the average. So teams towards the top will tend to be overrated and vice versa. Nonrandom factors to evaluate: quarterback experience, quarterback pressure applied and received, and odd running backs like Mike Hart who just don't fumble.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1287

Blue Durham

September 28th, 2008 at 6:43 PM ^

turnover margin: it is nearly random

This post may be on to something.  If a player (whether carrying or throwing the ball, or making a key block) is uncertain as to his assignment (which would be more common when implementing a new system), he may be hesitant or even blow his assignment. 

Uncertainty causes mistakes.   Implementation of a new system is undoubtedly going to cause much more uncertaintly and hesistation.  I would guess a statistical analysis would reveal a positive residual.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 6082

Lordfoul

September 29th, 2008 at 9:33 AM ^

"I would guess a statistical analysis would reveal a positive residual."

It is wonderful to understand where this inherent geekiness is coming from.  I am totally with you here.  Even without the scientist's (or economist's) perspective, a great many of our turnovers have been due to uncertainty and shaky nerves.  Turnovers for this young offense are to be expected I would say, and they certainly not random.  When Mike Hart fumbled twice inside the 5 in the bowl game, THAT was random.

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 1747

hat

September 28th, 2008 at 2:40 PM ^

I think fumbles are a lot more random than interceptions.  INTs have a lot to do with QBs making bad decisions with their throws, or simply throwing inaccurately.  A lot of fumbles, OTOH, are just a function of a guy taking a hard hit or a defender taking a swipe at the ball and getting lucky - although things like holding the ball in the inside hand are correctable and need to be fixed.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 15

mstier

September 29th, 2008 at 2:00 AM ^

I think this clearly has to do with switching from our efficient Nike gloves to michigan hating Adidas gloves.  Our AD was swindled in the deal with Adidas before learning what their name truly stood for:  All Day I Dream About Sparty.  Blasted!

Joined: 09/18/2008

MGoPoints: 258