Returning Offense of 2012 Opponents-Part 2
As promised, albeit a little late, here are the pretty, pretty charts, along with some analysis.
For reference, here’s the first part of the diary: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/returning-offense-2012-opponents-part-1
I make extensive use of Z-scores in this diary, which are simply standardized scores, representative of the number of standard deviations above or below the mean the raw scores are. These scores are helpful in this scenario because they allow us to quantify the difference between teams in each category of returning offense.
Here’s a good resource for more on Z-scores: http://statistics-help-for-students.com/What_are_Z_scores.htm
Now for the fun stuff:
I. Returning Contributors
Returning Contributors | Z Score | |
Ohio St. | 17 | 1.777897506 |
Air Force | 15 | 0.711159002 |
Purdue | 15 | 0.711159002 |
Illinois | 15 | 0.711159002 |
Northwestern | 15 | 0.711159002 |
Minnesota | 14 | 0.177789751 |
Nebraska | 13 | -0.355579501 |
Iowa | 13 | -0.355579501 |
Michigan | 13 | -0.355579501 |
Alabama | 12 | -0.888948753 |
Notre Dame | 12 | -0.888948753 |
MSU | 10 | -1.955687256 |
Returning Contributors | |
Mean | 13.66667 |
Median | 13.5 |
Mode | 15 |
Standard Deviation | 1.874874 |
Range | 7 |
Minimum | 10 |
Maximum | 17 |
Top 3 Teams with Most Returning Contributors
1. Ohio St.
2a. Air Force
2b. Purdue
2c. Illinois
2d. Northwestern
3 Teams with the Least Amount of Returning Contributors
1. MSU
2a. Notre Dame
2b. Alabama
Teams on the schedule return an average of 14 contributors on offense, σ=1.87. The minimum number of returning contributors is 10, while the maximum number of returning contributors is 17.
Ohio St. returns the most contributors on offense, returning 17 contributors, z=1.78. Air Force, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern all return 15 contributors, z=0.71.
MSU returns the least number of contributors, returning only 10, z=-1.96. Notre Dame and Alabama both return 12 contributors on offense, z=-0.89.
Michigan returns 13 contributors on offense, z=-0.36.
II. Rushing Offense
The formula that I used to calculate the total returning percent for each team’s rushing offense was to give a 33.3% weight to each of returning carries, returning rushing yards, and returning rushing TDs.
Returning | Weighted Percent | Z Score |
Nebraska | 93.83372971 | 1.337053 |
Michigan | 92.79665306 | 1.291064 |
Purdue | 88.97601017 | 1.121639 |
Ohio St. | 75.16063082 | 0.508999 |
Minnesota | 70.10965805 | 0.285015 |
Notre Dame | 61.59637443 | -0.0925 |
MSU | 60.10200379 | -0.15877 |
Northwestern | 59.73306701 | -0.17513 |
Illinois | 56.30634269 | -0.32709 |
Air Force | 47.60320235 | -0.71303 |
Alabama | 40.62151205 | -1.02263 |
Iowa | 17.34953531 | -2.05462 |
Weighted Percent | |
Mean | 63.68239 |
Median | 60.84919 |
Standard Deviation | 22.55059 |
Range | 76.48419 |
Minimum | 17.34954 |
Maximum | 93.83373 |
Top 3 Returning Rushing Offenses
1. Nebraska
2. Michigan
3. Purdue
Worst 3 Returning Rushing Offenses
1. Iowa
2. Alabama
3. Air Force
Teams on the schedule return an average of 63.68% of their rushing offense from their last year, σ=22.55. The minimum returning rushing offense returns 17.34%, while the maximum returning rushing offense returns 93.83%.
Nebraska returns 93.83% of their rushing offense from last year, z=1.34, and Michigan closely follows by returning 92.80% of the rushing offense from last year, z=1.29. Purdue follows closely, returning 88.98% of their rushing offense, z=1.12.
The effect of the AIRBHG can’t be understated, as well, as Iowa returns just a meager 17.35%, z=-2.05, of their rushing offense from last year. Also of note is the loss of Trent Richardson for Alabama. Just 40.62%, z=-1.02, of their rushing offense returns from last year. Air Force follows behind Alabama, returning 47.60%, z=-0.71, of their rushing offense.
III. Returning Receiving Production
The formula that I used to calculate the total returning percent for each team’s receiving production was to give a 33.3% weight to each of returning receptions, returning receiving yards, and returning receiving TDs.
Returning | Weighted Percent | Z Score |
Ohio St. | 86.10358522 | 1.723013 |
Nebraska | 77.64401481 | 1.321687 |
Purdue | 75.40875274 | 1.215645 |
Notre Dame | 61.71283973 | 0.565904 |
Michigan | 49.66700893 | -0.00556 |
Iowa | 45.0441055 | -0.22487 |
Illinois | 43.30445644 | -0.3074 |
Northwestern | 40.21911191 | -0.45377 |
Minnesota | 35.92596899 | -0.65744 |
Alabama | 35.02397172 | -0.70023 |
Air Force | 29.3543474 | -0.9692 |
MSU | 18.00131419 | -1.50779 |
Weighted Percent | |
Mean | 49.78412 |
Median | 44.17428 |
Standard Deviation | 21.07904 |
Range | 68.10227 |
Minimum | 18.00131 |
Maximum | 86.10359 |
Top 3 Teams With Returning Receiving Production
1. Ohio St.
2. Nebraska
3. Purdue
The 3 Teams with the Worst Returning Receiving Production
1. MSU
2. Air Force
3. Alabama
Teams on the schedule return an average of 49.78% of their receiving production from last year, σ=21.08. The minimum returning receiving production returns 18.00%, while the maximum returning receiving production returns 86.10%.
Ohio St. is the clear cut leader in returning receiving production on the schedule, returning 86.10% of their receiving production from last year, z=1.72. Nebraska follows by returning 77.64%, of their receiving production, z=1.32. And in 3rd place, Purdue closely follows Nebraska, returning 75.41% of their receiving production, z=1.22.
MSU returns the least amount of receiving production, returning just 18.00%, z=-1.51. Air Force returns 29.35% of their receiving production, good for second-to-last place, z=-0.97. Alabama returns 35.02% of their receiving production, z=-0.70.
IV. Returning Passing Production
The formula that I used to calculate the total returning percent for each team’s passing production was to give a 25% weight to each of returning passing attempts, returning completions, returning passing yards and returning passing TDs.
Returning | Weighted Percent | Z Score |
Illinois | 100.00% | 0.650396 |
Nebraska | 100.00% | 0.650396 |
Minnesota | 100.00% | 0.650396 |
Michigan | 100.00% | 0.650396 |
Purdue | 99.83% | 0.646041 |
Iowa | 99.02% | 0.625394 |
Notre Dame | 95.84% | 0.544583 |
Alabama | 94.61% | 0.513397 |
Ohio St. | 68.83% | -0.14238 |
Northwestern | 28.34% | -1.1722 |
MSU | 5.44% | -1.7546 |
Air Force | 1.23% | -1.86182 |
Weighted Percent | |
Mean | 74.43% |
Median | 97.43% |
Mode | 100.00% |
Standard Deviation | 39.32% |
Range | 98.77% |
Minimum | 1.23% |
Maximum | 100.00% |
Top 3 Returning Passing Offenses
1a. Illinois
1b. Nebraska
1c. Minnesota
1d. Michigan
Worst 3 Returning Passing Offenses
1. Air Force
2. MSU
3. Northwestern
Teams on the schedule return an average of 74.43% of their passing production from last year, σ=39.32, although the median returning passing production is 97.43%. The minimum returning passing production is 1.23%, while the maximum returning passing production is 100%.
Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan return 100% of their passing production from last year, z=0.65.
Air Force returns a meager 1.23% of their passing production from last year, z=-1.86, while MSU is close behind, returning only 5.44% of their passing production from last year, z=-1.75. Northwestern follows behind both Air Force and MSU, returning 28.34% of their passing production from last year, z=-1.17.
V. Conclusion: Total Returning Offense
The formula that I used to calculate the total percent of returning offense was to give a 33.3% weight to each of returning rushing offense, returning receiving production, and returning passing production.
Returning | Weighted Percent | Z Score |
Nebraska | 90.48351741 | 1.285521374 |
Purdue | 88.06234289 | 1.173796166 |
Michigan | 80.81313455 | 0.839281119 |
Ohio St. | 76.69039019 | 0.649036894 |
Notre Dame | 73.04231837 | 0.480696455 |
Minnesota | 68.67166881 | 0.279012633 |
Illinois | 66.53014632 | 0.180191981 |
Alabama | 56.74612482 | -0.271292134 |
Iowa | 53.79815298 | -0.407326428 |
Northwestern | 42.75978026 | -0.916692637 |
MSU | 27.84560183 | -1.604908076 |
Air Force | 26.0597271 | -1.687317346 |
Weighted Percent | |
Mean | 62.62524 |
Median | 67.60091 |
Standard Deviation | 21.6708 |
Range | 64.42379 |
Minimum | 26.05973 |
Maximum | 90.48352 |
Top 3 Returning Offenses
1. Nebraska
2. Purdue
3. Michigan
Worst 3 Returning Offenses
1. Air Force
2. MSU
3. Northwestern
Teams on the schedule return an average of 62.63% of their offense from last year, σ=21.67. The minimum returning offense is 26.06%, while the maximum returning offense is 90.48%.
Nebraska returns the most offense from last year, returning 90.48% of their offense, z=1.29. Purdue closely follows Nebraska, returning 88.06% of their offense from last year, z=1.17. Michigan comes in 3rd place, returning 80.81% of the offense from last year, z=0.84.
Air Force returns the least amount of offense from last year, returning just 26.06% of their offense, z=-1.69. MSU is right behind, returning only 27.85% of their offense from last year, z=-1.60. Northwestern returns 42.76% of their offense from last year, z=-0.92.
Any comments, questions, or constructive criticisms are appreciated. I hope to have the defensive version out in the next couple of weeks.
All stats are courtesy of http://www.cfbstats.com/.
Font confusion is confusing.
What's the correlation between returning offensive contributors and wins? I realize this a dumb question but it seems like the driver for your analysis, cause we care about wins.
Thank you for your efforts as there's quite a bit of data here. It would also be interesting to see that data retrospectively. Then you could see if it was a worthwhile predictor and maybe look at correlations for championship seasons, bad seasons, et al.
With all of the relationship and correlation math I've read on this blog, you would think that some software guy would combine them in a program and have it spit out results every week. It could be a thing, like a feature thing.
Hey Brian, if you're reading this,
Y U NO HAVE ALREADY ON BLOG??
is in the "three worst" grouping in every category except returning rushing O.
I think Boise State will probably put 8 in the box and force a rookie qb with inexperienced recievers to beat them.
He's better recruit than cousins and is a RS Soph. Between that and the WR transfer from Tennessee plus a solid Running Game....MSU offense will be fine. I bet we're hard pressed to see an objective difference between Maxwell and Cousins. State's offense may even be better than they were last year (not saying much).
Lots of work on that original post.
Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Maxwell is a RS JR, and his staff and players have a ton of confidence in his ability and decision making. The WR's are young, but he's been practicing with guys like Lippett, Mumphrey, and Fowler for a couple of years, and Arnett should be good to go in no time.
Baker was a really good RB, but he left to the NFL, in part because he lost the starting job to Bell. More carries for Bell is not a bad thing. And not sure if Caper was considered in the count of returning contributors, but he should be. And both are really good for short passes.
That's a strong 1,2. Probably the best in the big ten east of Wisconsin. Maybe better.
The o-line has 4 returning starters, and able back ups. 3 returners started for the first time last year. Gotta imagine they've improved. Actually, they were pretty good by the end of last year.
Sims is the biggest x-factor, IMO. 280 and still an athlete. Could cause all sorts of mis-match situations.
MSU's O could be better that last year, and MSU's O only needs to be average. That D is Saban era good.
And what about Conroy? He's one of the top kickers in the league.
A poster mentioned BSU with an 8-man box. They play a 3-3-5. Remember that D? Bell is 244, and a bear for even a LB. A DB will get pummelled.
Lots of work on that original post.
Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Maxwell is a RS JR, and his staff and players have a ton of confidence in his ability and decision making. The WR's are young, but he's been practicing with guys like Lippett, Mumphrey, and Fowler for a couple of years, and Arnett should be good to go in no time.
Baker was a really good RB, but he left to the NFL, in part because he lost the starting job to Bell. More carries for Bell is not a bad thing. And not sure if Caper was considered in the count of returning contributors, but he should be. And both are really good for short passes.
That's a strong 1,2. Probably the best in the big ten east of Wisconsin. Maybe better.
The o-line has 4 returning starters, and able back ups. 3 returners started for the first time last year. Gotta imagine they've improved. Actually, they were pretty good by the end of last year.
Sims is the biggest x-factor, IMO. 280 and still an athlete. Could cause all sorts of mis-match situations.
MSU's O could be better that last year, and MSU's O only needs to be average. That D is Saban era good.
And what about Conroy? He's one of the top kickers in the league.
A poster mentioned BSU with an 8-man box. They play a 3-3-5. Remember that D? Bell is 244, and a bear for even a LB. A DB will get pummelled.
Good stuff, thanks!
You went all out on the sig figs, eh?
ohio lost most of Devier Posey's production last year, except against Michigan. So, for our interests, they will lose more than it looks like. On the other hand, we could be losing more of our rushing production, depending on how things fall out.
without Fitz?
Here's to hoping he's out for only 1-2 games, but a blood-alcohol of 0.12? Yesh...
Ohio losing the Walrus has to count for something doesn't it?
Nicely done, but I think you'd need to include something about the O-line to get a more accurate representation.
Good call-out re: OL. Maybe something along the lines of number of starts per position at OL.
Also, a pet peeve of mine is the whole "least amount" thing. Since you're counting things here (like a discrete number of teams), you should compare Most Returning Contributors with Fewest Returning Contributors, not Least Amount of Returning Contributors. I actually had an argument with a high school girlfriend over this (yeah, that was like 20 years ago, and I admit to being a bit of a nerd).
you double count passing game production, since you give 33% weight to both passing and receiving. In essence, a one yard completion from Denard to Roundtree gets credited as two yards. I realize that the data's all there and I could do it myself, but it seems like a better formula would be Total Returning Offense = 0.5*Rushing Offense + 0.25*Passing Offense + 0.25*Receiving Offense. Does that change the results significantly, or even at all?
Good diary--thanks.
Old Cork was the best QB in the history of the MSU program, its kind of a reach to assume that Maxwell will seemlessly take over. I certainly expect some growing pains, Cousins pulled out 2-3 games the last two years where MSU was all but dead. How many days left until Dallas....too many!
Comments