What did we learn? Purdue

[Mavric]

I am sure the stat geeks can generate all sorts of graphs and charts showing correlations between points scored and first downs, total yards, rush yards, pass yards, time of possession etc.  

Anomalies abound but I’d be surprised to see that the correlation on TOP, total yards, TO margin, relative field position, completion %, yards per carry, and most of the commonly compared stats are not strong indicators.  

Unusual plays can help the weaker team, as indicated by the various measures, overcome to win but reliance on the breaks, oddities, etc is not the way to build a sustainable winning program.  Imo, better to focus on fundamentals.  Blocking. Tackling.  Penalty free execution, etc.  

Big plays are great. You never want to turn down TDs I guess but just matching TD for TD doesn’t assure a win. PATs are missed. 2 pt conversions.  On side kicks.  There are times when time off the clock is more valuable than another score.  Keeping the ball away from the opponent and TDs prevented can be better at times.  

According to this site, the strongest correlations of the items that you listed (2016 data, in order, no data on field position or completion percentage) are:

Points Scored (0.78842)

Total yards (0.69315)

First Downs (0.64394)

Rushing yards (0.60477)

Turnover margin (0.59449)

Yards per rush (0.48756)

Time of Possession (0.45014)

Passing yards (0.24310)

 

[84HuskerLaw]

Thanks, Maverick!    The numbers show about as I expected.   Those correlations would probably be similarly indicative of winning probability as well.  
 

The pass yards is actually a bit lower than even I would have guessed.  It may somewhat confirm my belief that rush yards are more valuable than passing yards in predicting wins too.

They all fit together imo.  Teams tend to lose without a run game, despite passing well.  Teams with a nice combination of both and teams that are run heavy tend to win more often.  
 

Teams that control time of possession, get lots of first downs with runs and passes tend to win more.  
 

Big play passing teams tend to be inconsistent and games with stats like the Purdue game are rare and very hard to duplicate thru the seasons.  
 

The best running team wins more often than the best passing team.  Pass plays are simply more difficult to execute consistently.  Risk vs reward.  Deep pass plays tend to be the most difficult to execute.  
 

Ideally, imo, the play caller wants to keep the defense guessing as much as possible.  Predictability is a defender’s edge.  Of course, if the play caller can reliably predict his offense can successfully execute a variety of his play selection, it’s easy to call plays. But, as in Whipple’s current predicament, he can’t count on any of his plays (run or pass) being successful, it’s extremely hard to call plays successfully. 
 

Defenses can predict Neb wont run the ball very well so the pass can be the primary focus.  When they defend the pass well, the result is more sacks, incompletions, ints, etc.  

3 & outs lead to short possessions and tired defenses.  And incomplete passes involve much less tackling by the defenses = less fatigue.  

 

[Saunders]

I just learned there was an 80yr old woman who fell down the stairs at the game and was rushed to the hospital.  She died from her injuries.

Are you sure she didn't just walk on the field?

 

[Undone]

Yards per play and explosive plays. If you outgain your opponents by over 3 yards per play (9.2 to 6.0) you will win more often than not - the fact that we "lost" most other metrics explains why it was only a 60% chance. And I get it, the only stat that ends up mattering is points scored versus points allowed. But you can give up sacks, lose the TO battle, and give up a lot of yardage and still win averaging 9 yards per play. We did just enough to lose in spite of that.

Great stuff.

I disagree with that Tweet by the Purdon't guy saying "Nebraska was never really in the game" or however it was phrased.

We were playing from behind until the 4th quarter because of the bad start but we were absolutely in it in the second half. If Thompson hits Alante in the back of the end zone and the defense just holds them to a field goal on their last score that was a TD, we probably win.

Here's a question: If this year's 'skers play last year's team, who wins? My answer is that this team probably wins 4 out of 5 times.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Great stuff.

I disagree with that Tweet by the Purdon't guy saying "Nebraska was never really in the game" or however it was phrased.

We were playing from behind until the 4th quarter because of the bad start but we were absolutely in it in the second half. If Thompson hits Alante in the back of the end zone and the defense just holds them to a field goal on their last score that was a TD, we probably win.

Here's a question: If this year's 'skers play last year's team, who wins? My answer is that this team probably wins 4 out of 5 times.

I honestly think last year's team was better, mainly due to the older players that were on the defense, plus with Jurgens the o-line was not as big of a disaster as this year.  What is your opinion that this year's team would win based on, the new skill players alone?

Special teams are much better in 2022, offenses are very similar, except for o-line, but the 2021 defense was much better.

 

[Husker03]

Here's a question: If this year's 'skers play last year's team, who wins? My answer is that this team probably wins 4 out of 5 times.

Maybe it was my rose glasses, but I never got the feeling that last years team was "bad".

This years team sickens me. It is really, really... Really really really.. Bad. 

Last years team wins 4 out of 5. Last years team with CT at QB wins 5/5. This years team w/ AM at QB is actually a better team, imo, than what we currently have.  It is the most Nebraska conundrum ever. 

 

[Undone]

I honestly think last year's team was better, mainly due to the older players that were on the defense, plus with Jurgens the o-line was not as big of a disaster as this year.  What is your opinion that this year's team would win based on, the new skill players alone?

Special teams are much better in 2022, offenses are very similar, except for o-line, but the 2021 defense was much better.

Good stuff, good stuff. Jurgens and then the senior D-linemen were big for sure.

I think it's having a good punter and not constantly screwing up special teams, and then on offense the big play ability is just undeniable.

The offensive line is considerably worse than last year (IMO) in yet the passing upgrade in Thompson combined mainly then with Palmer's ability to streak downfield wide open will probably make this year's team have a considerably higher points per game number by the end of the year.

It is admittedly currently not "considerably higher," but there's a lot of football to be played.

 

[Mavric]

I honestly think last year's team was better, mainly due to the older players that were on the defense, plus with Jurgens the o-line was not as big of a disaster as this year.  What is your opinion that this year's team would win based on, the new skill players alone?

Special teams are much better in 2022, offenses are very similar, except for o-line, but the 2021 defense was much better.

The more I watch the more I think Martinez helped cover up for the OL the last few years.

If we had Martinez back there, their DEs would be able to just try to outrun our OTs around the outside to get to the QB because they are opening a huge gap that someone like Martinez could just take off and run through.

Also, I saw it pointed out over the last couple of days that we seem to be setting up really deep in the pocket.  Martinez would the the shotgun snap and basically stay on that spot to look for a place to throw.  Thompson is getting the snap and then dropping a few more steps.  That makes it really hard for the OTs because it's much harder to defend against a speed rush if the QB is that deep.  I assume that is a Whipple thing.

 

[Undone]

Maybe it was my rose glasses, but I never got the feeling that last years team was "bad".

This years team sickens me. It is really, really... Really really really.. Bad. 

Last years team wins 4 out of 5. Last years team with CT at QB wins 5/5. This years team w/ AM at QB is actually a better team, imo, than what we currently have.  It is the most Nebraska conundrum ever. 

When you play atrocious special teams in the B1G, it's my opinion that you can basically never possibly have a good outcome.

I love Martinez and what he brings and was & am a huge defender of his, but I think we're in a better spot with a running back that's elite (Grant) and a QB that is a throw-first guy. There's just more big play ability there and more potential to convert 3rd downs.

If I put on my rose-colored glasses, I think if Bill Busch had been coaching the defense for Northwestern & Georgia Southern and we played more of the Indiana game plan in those two we absolutely win and we're 5-2 instead of 3-4. Not at all a "good" 5-2, but we're setup to win more games than Frost ever could.

 

[Red Five]

Yards per play and explosive plays. If you outgain your opponents by over 3 yards per play (9.2 to 6.0) you will win more often than not - the fact that we "lost" most other metrics explains why it was only a 60% chance. And I get it, the only stat that ends up mattering is points scored versus points allowed. But you can give up sacks, lose the TO battle, and give up a lot of yardage and still win averaging 9 yards per play. We did just enough to lose in spite of that.

Here is the advanced box score where a lot of the win probability is built off of.

One interesting thing I noticed looking at this is that we ran the ball 100% of the time in the pistol and under center (I would like to see snap counts behind those numbers).

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Great stuff.

I disagree with that Tweet by the Purdon't guy saying "Nebraska was never really in the game" or however it was phrased.

We were playing from behind until the 4th quarter because of the bad start but we were absolutely in it in the second half. If Thompson hits Alante in the back of the end zone and the defense just holds them to a field goal on their last score that was a TD, we probably win.

If you look at Purdue's play calling on that game-killing drive, they absolutely did not trust their defense to stop Nebraska. 

Nebraska fans would have blown a nut if Whipple called a 4th and 1 pass play. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can't disagree.