Week 5 Weighted Red Zone Efficiency (Michigan #1)

Submitted by Rashman on October 4th, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Previously: Week 4 includes discussion of weighted efficiency metric.

Michigan still leads the nation in weighted red zone efficiency.  This week I've updated the metric to be slightly more accurate; we now use:

(Total Red Zone Points) / (7 * Red Zone Opportunities)

This takes into account missed extra points and two-point conversions.

Chart

Rank Name Red Zone Points TD FG Weighted Eff
1 Michigan 21 135 19 1 0.918
2 Southern California 17 106 14 2 0.891
3 East Carolina 15 93 12 3 0.886
4 Colorado 11 68 9 1 0.883
5 South Carolina 16 96 13 2 0.857
6 Oregon St. 11 66 9 1 0.857
7 TCU 27 159 22 2 0.841
8 Oklahoma St. 19 110 14 4 0.827
9 Utah 17 97 13 2 0.815
10 Arkansas 14 79 10 3 0.806
11 UCF 14 79 10 3 0.806
12 Clemson 19 107 15 1 0.805
13 Iowa 21 118 16 2 0.803
14 Army 23 129 18 1 0.801
15 Oklahoma 23 128 17 3 0.795
16 SMU 20 111 15 2 0.793
17 Eastern Mich. 13 72 10 1 0.791
18 Wisconsin 27 149 20 3 0.788
19 Ohio St. 31 171 21 8 0.788
20 Nevada 26 143 18 6 0.786
21 Cincinnati 12 66 9 2 0.786
22 Mississippi St. 14 77 11 0 0.786
23 Kentucky 23 126 17 2 0.783
24 Utah St. 17 93 12 3 0.782
25 Stanford 30 164 20 8 0.781
26 Fresno St. 21 114 15 3 0.776
27 Middle Tenn. 14 76 10 2 0.776
28 Illinois 12 65 7 5 0.774
29 Washington 13 70 8 5 0.769
30 Marshall 11 59 8 1 0.766
31 Michigan St. 20 107 14 3 0.764
32 Houston 23 123 16 4 0.764
33 Georgia Tech 18 96 12 4 0.762
34 Mississippi 24 127 16 5 0.756
35 Western Ky. 7 37 5 1 0.755
36 Air Force 18 95 13 2 0.754
37 North Carolina 15 79 10 3 0.752
38 Connecticut 24 126 15 7 0.750
39 Alabama 23 120 15 5 0.745
40 California 19 99 12 5 0.744
41 Florida St. 25 130 16 6 0.743
42 Texas Tech 20 104 14 2 0.743
43 Indiana 24 124 16 4 0.738
44 Western Mich. 18 93 12 3 0.738
45 Maryland 12 62 8 2 0.738
46 Arkansas St. 19 98 12 5 0.737
47 Virginia 16 82 11 2 0.732
48 Boise St. 20 102 12 6 0.729
49 Auburn 23 117 15 4 0.727
50 Florida 23 117 16 2 0.727
51 Duke 18 91 10 7 0.722
52 Texas A&M 21 106 13 5 0.721
53 Memphis 8 40 4 4 0.714
54 Minnesota 15 75 9 4 0.714
55 Ohio 14 70 9 3 0.714
56 Kansas St. 13 64 8 3 0.703
57 Wake Forest 13 64 8 3 0.703
58 Georgia 18 88 10 6 0.698
59 UTEP 22 107 14 3 0.695
60 Virginia Tech 21 102 12 6 0.694
61 UCLA 20 97 12 4 0.693
62 Oregon 26 126 15 7 0.692
63 BYU 14 67 7 6 0.684
64 UNLV 14 67 8 4 0.684
65 Tulsa 32 153 19 7 0.683
66 Missouri 22 105 12 7 0.682
67 FIU 13 62 8 2 0.681
68 Syracuse 17 81 10 4 0.681
69 West Virginia 21 100 12 5 0.680
70 Arizona 19 90 12 2 0.677
71 Miami (FL) 18 85 11 3 0.675
72 Temple 17 80 10 4 0.672
73 Akron 10 47 6 2 0.671
74 North Carolina St. 26 122 15 6 0.670
75 Notre Dame 19 89 10 6 0.669
76 San Jose St. 9 42 4 5 0.667
77 San Diego St. 19 88 10 6 0.662
78 Iowa St. 16 74 8 6 0.661
79 Idaho 21 97 11 7 0.660
80 Nebraska 18 83 11 2 0.659
81 Central Mich. 23 106 14 3 0.658
82 Kent St. 9 41 5 2 0.651
83 Bowling Green 17 77 10 3 0.647
84 Tulane 14 63 7 5 0.643
85 North Texas 12 54 7 2 0.643
86 Kansas 17 76 10 2 0.639
87 South Fla. 17 76 10 2 0.639
88 Pittsburgh 15 67 7 6 0.638
89 Northwestern 23 102 13 5 0.634
90 Northern Ill. 21 92 11 6 0.626
91 Washington St. 17 74 10 2 0.622
92 Vanderbilt 6 26 3 2 0.619
93 Buffalo 15 65 8 3 0.619
94 Texas 21 90 10 7 0.612
95 Tennessee 12 51 6 3 0.607
96 New Mexico St. 8 34 4 2 0.607
97 Hawaii 24 101 11 8 0.601
98 Toledo 16 67 9 2 0.598
99 Louisville 14 58 7 3 0.592
100 Southern Miss. 23 95 11 6 0.590
101 Ball St. 16 66 7 6 0.589
102 Rice 16 66 7 6 0.589
103 Baylor 17 70 7 7 0.588
104 Miami (OH) 18 73 7 8 0.579
105 Wyoming 12 48 6 2 0.571
106 Louisiana Tech 18 71 8 5 0.563
107 Purdue 12 47 5 4 0.560
108 Troy 21 82 8 8 0.558
109 Arizona St. 26 101 12 6 0.555
110 La.-Lafayette 8 31 4 1 0.554
111 Fla. Atlantic 8 30 3 3 0.536
112 UAB 16 58 7 3 0.518
113 Rutgers 13 47 4 6 0.516
114 Colorado St. 10 35 3 5 0.500
115 LSU 18 62 6 7 0.492
116 La.-Monroe 7 24 3 1 0.490
117 New Mexico 7 24 3 1 0.490
118 Penn St. 18 60 6 6 0.476
119 Navy 19 61 7 4 0.459
120 Boston College 13 39 3 6 0.429

Official source data here.  One thing bothers me when I look at these stats and I wonder if it's an error or if there's something that I'm missing.  After week 4, Michigan was 18/19 in the red zone.  After week 5, we're apparently 20/21.  But what about the fumble at the 2-yard line against Indiana?  How does that not show up as a failed red zone opportunity (thereby putting us at 20/22)?  This has got to be a mistake in the NCAA stats, right?  What am I missing?

Erroneous data point(s?) or not, Michigan is proving to be very efficient when sniffing the endzone, collecting nearly 92% of expected points once the team gets inside the 20.

Comments

France719

October 4th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^

I would be careful with the wording you use and also potentially edit your formula slightly.  You say that Michigan is collecting nearly 92% of 'expected' points.  From a fans perspective, we probably expect a TD every time we reach the redzone, but in actuality the expected payout of reaching the endzone is less than 7.  I would make sure you refer to it as 'potential points' instead.  Following that line of thought, I think it would make sense to have have the potential points per trip be 8 points, not 7.  I think this will better quantify 2 pt conversions.  Under the current formula a successful 2 pt conversion would mean that drive was worth more than the potential points available from that trip to the redzone.  This should just shift everyones percentage down a little, but I believe it will be more accurate since in the truest sense a team could score 8 pts on every trip.

Optimus Hart

October 4th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^

Mostly I don't like the idea of a team getting over 100% efficiency.  I prefer metrics to make sense in all possible scenarios, not just realistic ones.  On the other hand, we could look at points per redzone appearance and avoid the issue completely.

jwschultz

October 4th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

Yeah, I can't imagine a reason that 20/21 isn't totally bogus.  It was only one play (and one IU penalty) and it ended with a fumble, but nothing about it makes it anything other than a Red Zone opportunity.

So, if that's the only bad data, I get M down in 4th with 0.877.  I'll take it, especially considering the number of times Denard just flies right past the red zone.

The play-by-play must've confused the stat monkey adding RZ opps 1-by-1: MICH 24, IND 2, IND 1, FUMB.  By the by, can RR (not that RR) please proceed directly to the end zone instead of stopping inside the 5?

Number 7

October 4th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^

Aside from Michigan, a quick scan reveals some interesting rankings on this list:

Penn State at #117 out of 120, with 6 TDs, 6 FGs, and 6 RZF's (Red Zone Fails) in 18 chances.

LSU at #115 (and it would have been #119 if they hadn't been bailed out by Tennessee's too-many-men penalty when time expired on Saturday)

Also, teams in the state:

  • Michigan #1 (or maybe # 4, per jwschultz)
  • EMU (!) #17
  • Sparty #31 (14 TD/ 3 FG/ 3 RZF)
  • Western and Central:  Actually, I don't really care about Western and Central.

 

 

davidhm

October 4th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^

EMU has 13 RZ appearances in 5 games... that's 2-3 visits per game.  Considering most of the teams they play blow them out, my guess is these RZ visits are occurring in the second half when the game is out of reach and the 2nd and 3rd stringers are in for their opponents.    This is what is deceptive about RZ efficiency ratings ranked on percentages.  You could make 1 appearance and convert and have a 1.000 rating. 

 

Edit: EMU has 2 blowouts losses, 2 games lost within one score, 1 game lost within 2 scores.  So, not all were blowouts.

B Ready

October 4th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^

How predictive is the type of data going forward?  Do you know of any research on red zone offenses? 

It would seem that red zone efficiency would be victim to small sample size issues.  Its great in looking back and seeing how great we have been doing in this particular stat.  But, how repeatable is this?

bigmc6000

October 4th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

I'd actually suggest you take the 2-pt conversions out and make them worth a single point and keep your methodology.  If you get the 2 point conversion vs the extra point that doesn't really mean anything in relation to your ability to punch it into the end zone and it artifically inflates the efficiency of teams that fall behind and are forced to go for 2 to tie rather than a team that's ahead or has no reason to go for two.  I don't know how time intensive that task is but I think it'd be more indicitive.  Well, either that or take our 2 pt conversions and extra points entirely and base it off 6 points (although I don't like that method as much).