Returning Offense of 2012 Opponents-Part 2

Submitted by hart20 on July 26th, 2012 at 2:05 AM

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

 

image

 

  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.

 

image

 

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.

 

image

 

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.

 

image

 

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.

 image

 

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/

 

Comments

triangle_M

July 26th, 2012 at 8:09 AM ^

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.

hart20

July 26th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

Time to retroactively analyze past years' data, but I probably won't find the time until the season starts. I do plan on examining the relationship though. Honestly, I just included the data on returning contributors because it was available as a byproduct of putting together the rest of the data and I found it interesting. I believe the correlation between returning starters and increase in wins starts at 17 returning starters though. My primary motivation behind this all was more of a focus on returning offense than the number of returning contributors, although I suspect that they're closely correlated. Putting this together actually raised a lot of questions that I'd like to examine in the future.

triangle_M

July 27th, 2012 at 2:16 AM ^

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??  

MCalibur

July 27th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

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).

Hi there

July 28th, 2012 at 4:05 AM ^

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.

 

 

Hi there

July 28th, 2012 at 4:05 AM ^

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.

 

 

Smash Lampjaw

July 26th, 2012 at 9:07 AM ^

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.

hart20

July 26th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

Isn't a dismissable offense at many universities. Hell, Michael Floyd had 2 at ND and he didn't miss a game. Frank Clark, on the other hand, seems to have been dismissed so I'll discount him. Once, we find out how long Fitz is suspended for, I can put out a small update comparing our returning production to our opponents'.

oriental andrew

July 27th, 2012 at 9:46 AM ^

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). 

hart20

July 28th, 2012 at 2:15 AM ^

I knew that it didn't sound right, but I couldn't think of what did. I'll change it when I get to a computer, which unfortunately won't be for a few days. As to the point about taking into account returning O linemen that you and the poster above raised, it's a good point and I'll try to go back before the season starts and account for that in a new formula.

Ichiro

July 27th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

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.

hart20

July 28th, 2012 at 2:23 AM ^

That gives equal weight to rushing offense and the passing offense, splitting passing offense into equal parts returning passing production and receiving production, and that also takes into account returning O linemen. Unfortunately, I won't be able to access my computer for a few days and I'm working on a few other diaries that I'd like to post before the season starts. I'll definitely try to put out an update before the season starts though.

Bigscotto68

July 28th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

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!