Friday, November 07, 2008

Offensive Efficiency Ratings

Its been a few weeks since I have summoned up the energy to look at the offensive efficiency rating for one of our games. Rest assured that I have been keeping the database up to date, and, as always, you can view it here absolutely free of charge. (Its Falcon Nation spreading the wealth).

And, if you want to know what it all means, you can click here.

Basically, you get points for each play, based on the situation. On 2-10, a three yard gain is worth no points. On 3-2, a three yard gain is worth a point. Big plays are worth multiple points, and turnovers and lost yard plays are negative points.

For comparison, the almost 1,200 plays have a winning percentage of 49% and .8 points per play.

So, how did these numbers turn out against Kent?

It won't surprise anyone that both offenses put up pretty good numbers.

For the first half, BG was 1.32 points per play. For whole games, it is difficult to sustain too much more than 1 point per play, so 1.32, even for a half, is impressive.

  • We had "wins" on 52.17% of our plays, which is our season high.
  • Our 1.03 points per play was also the season's highest.
  • (Both previous highs were against Wyoming).
  • Our running was 1.04 points per play, best since the Pitt game, and really better because we ran so much more against Kent.
  • Our passing game was 1.11, the best since Wyoming.
  • And, we performed on 3rd down, a.07 points per play.

That's the good story...among our better offensive performances of the season, a strong running game, and quality 3rd down execution.

Sadly, in the game of football, the other team gets the ball, too.

And that wasn't so good.

Kent in the second half...1.24 points per play, an equally dominant performance as BG had in the first half.

In fact, it was one of the worst defensive performances of the year.

  • Kent had winnings plays 56.7% of the time....the best for any offense facing us this year.
  • Their .92 points per play was the worst since the EMU game.
  • 1.07 running points per play was tied with what Boise hung on us.
  • .73 passing points per play was the worst since EMU.
  • They had 1.19 points per play on second down (wow) and .92 on third.
That's from a team with 3 first downs and two turnovers in the first half.

The conclusion:

That's more or less the offense we were hoping to see. They weren't as dominant in the second half, but they did score.

And, it was a pretty poor defensive performance. Two obvious caveats...we did keep them from scoring too much, and they were helped in generating pure numbers by the fact they were behind and we were playing an attrition game.


No comments :