Pace's Effect on Scoring

I am confused. I thought the gripe about the offense in the only game Tech lost last year was they scored too fast and left too much time on the clock. So you are saying that despite going 12-1 Texas and outscoring opponents by 26 points a game the coaches made a poor decision by not having more possessions?

I didn’t say it cost us anything. I said it was a poor strategic decision. That being said, it’s entirely possible that it wasn’t a strategic decision at all, simply a result of how they played the games for other reasons.

Admittedly, over only 8 games the numbers can be unduly affected by a single outing. And the Oklahoma State/Texas game was a doozy. 15 total counted possessions in the game. 8 for Oklahoma State and 7 for Texas, IIRC.

I would like to see this broken down by quarter. How much of OU’s additional pace is from running up the score in the 4th quarter while our pace is lowered when we shut it down after getting up by 21? I am surprised Tech’s pace was so low considering they too seem to put pride in running up the score.

I would add to the list of advantages that increasing pace also helps contrast differences in quality of depth and conditioning (especially defensive depth). Could be that’s a factor in the “anomaly” of better scoring averages after starting inside your own 10… longer drives, worn out defense, more second teamers, etc.

It would be interesting to contrast starting position and drive duration with respect to scoring averages.

Also it occurs to me that more pace means gaining a comfortable lead in blowouts more quickly and getting more reps and game opportunities for younger players… offers the dual benefit of building depth over the course of the season and selling the program to recruits.

Very interesting post, Huck. Thanks.

The beauty of numbers is that they work in a vacuum and aren’t impacted by other factors such as fatigue, injury, depth, etc…..it could be argued that because Texas had the ability to go toe to toe with OU that OU’s offensive pace might have been a negative for them in the second half. They looked worn out in the second half and basically couldn’t stop Texas on the two drives in the 4th quarter.

Most likely I am wrong, but this sounds much to me like my friends who coach basketball in high school about teams that press, run, and jack 3’s throughout the game. It works most of the time, but when you play someone who can dictate the tempo they seem to struggle.

Texas did it to OU in the 4th quarter and Florida did the same.

Capt,

both Texas and Florida had the defensive depth to do it. In Florida’s case they also had a month to prepare for OUs offense which negated a lot of the strategic advantage (defensive recognition) of no-huddle.

Yeah and apparently there’s no value in dominating time of possession and wearing out opposing defenses by keeping them on the field. I guess the only factor in deciding pace is how “good” your team is.

Other than that, good post.

Isn’t that what I just said above and my point is again that while numbers are great fun to play with I find it ironic that in the one game Texas lost last year the gripe was what about the Horns last offensive possession? They scored too fast.
 
Texas and Florida were the only quality defenses OU faced all season. You can quote stats for that all you want, but TCU nor Cincinnati come close to either Texas nor Florida and I find it interesting those are the only two losses UT suffered last season.
 
I would also contend that it wasn’t as much the defensive depth of Texas and Florida, but that combined with the offensive ability of those two schools to keep the OU defense on the field and the OU offense off the field. I realize TOP is a dead stat to many, but in their two losses we find the most lopsided combination of rushing yards for the Sooners’ oppponent and TOP.

Look, I will get slaughtered if math is involved and most likely aren’t defending my position here with any real authority. Just find it ironic how the concept of pace seemed to play out in OU’s two losses and UT’s one loss.

Yeah and apparently there’s no value in dominating time of possession and wearing out opposing defenses by keeping them on the field. I guess the only factor in deciding pace is how "good" your team is.
 
Other than that, good post.
 
Pace and TOP aren’t always mutually exclusive.
 
KU and OU led the league in pace, but were still middle of the pack in TOP.
 
TIME OF POSSESSION G Total Time Avg/G
-—————————————————————-
1. Nebraska………… 13 442:10 34:00
2. Texas…………… 13 423:15 32:33
3. Oklahoma State…… 13 404:54 31:08
4. Iowa State………. 12 369:11 30:45
5. Kansas………….. 13 395:25 30:25
6. Texas Tech………. 13 393:36 30:16
7. Oklahoma………… 14 412:00 29:25
8. Colorado………… 12 347:25 28:57
9. Texas A&M……….. 12 335:17 27:56
10.Baylor………….. 12 335:05 27:55
11.Kansas State…….. 12 332:02 27:40
12.Missouri………… 14 369:23 26:23

Doesn’t more pace put more pressure on your defense? If you have questionmarks on defense then maybe increasing the pace is not good.

In the blowout matchups where UT’s advantages are clear we also call off the dogs (pace). So the 30% does not surprise me in the least.

you are just confusing an overall strategic advantage with a situational one. Increasing our overall offensive pace has nothing to do with not running off clock before scoring at the end.

Captain Obvious:
 
Huck’s analysis is macro. It’s not a recommendation to score as quickly as possible if you have the ball with 55 seconds on the clock and trail by 6. That’s a fairly obvious tactical point.

Ricky
July 28, 2009 at 10:35 am

 I would like to see this broken down by quarter. How much of OU’s additional pace is from running up the score in the 4th quarter

OU’s fourth quarter points (final score in parenthesis):

vs. Baylor – 7 (49-17)
vs. Texas – 7 (35-45)
vs. Kansas – 7 (45-31)
vs. Kansas State – 3 (58-35)
vs. Nebraska – 0 (62-28)
vs. a&m – 0 (66-28)
vs. Tech – 7 (65-21)
vs. OSU – 24 (61-41, it was a 3-point game early in the fourth quarter, then OU exploded)
vs. Mizzou – 21 (62-21)

So, the short answer to your question is, jack squat.

I would also argue that defensive fatigue correlates to the number of plays much more than the time of possession, especially plays in rapid succession.

“I would like to see this broken down by quarter. How much of OU’s additional pace is from running up the score in the 4th quarter while our pace is lowered when we shut it down after getting up by 21?”

A detailed look at OU’s late game offense was done here (ignore the awful forecast of the BCS CG). Executive summary: OU didn’t start running up the score late until November)…

Thoughts On Florida

The only two games I saw where OU ran it up were OSU (the final TD was weak) and Mizzou. Obviously, they were fighting for pollster votes and the consecutive 60+ record.
 
Agree that they called the dogs off vs. the rest.

Scott, You are missing the point. Huck made the point that Texas made a poor strategic decision by not playing faster and yet the only game they lost was due to that one situation.

Additionally, what has not been accounted for nor can be accounted for in these numbers is the youth and inexperience of the Texas secondary and lack of depth in the defensive line. Wouldn’t it actually be a smart decision to reduce the exposure of such a young secondary rather than increase the number of chances an opponent has against them?

One other other point on TOP. Does anyone here know how many times OU had more TOP than their opponent last year? Four times (BU, KU, OSU, and UM.) Nine different opponents had more TOP than OU, but only two had more than double digits and outrushed them by more than 100 yards. Want to guess which two teams?

Texas controlled the pace in the second half and UF did it from the start and both won because the Sooner defense could stop them and Sooner offense couldn’t score standing on the sideline.

scipio. The final TD against OSU you reference, it was a give off-tackle at the 30-yard-line to run out the clock. If the defense is going to lay down at home and let you score on that play at the end of the game, that’s their fault.

I don’t think pace alone can provide a lot of information. A team that goes 3-and-out routinely and has a defense like a sieve will have a ridiculously high pace yet a terrible W-L record. It seems to me that a better measure is the expected points value per game, which is essentially pace multiplied by OPP.

My point was, Huckleberry says slow pace is a poor strategic decision for good teams. I see no data or analysis that supports this claim. I just threw something out there to demonstrate an advantage of slow pace. Also, 2-4 on your list played slower paces. You may not need to play at a slower pace to dominate ToP, but it helps, especially when you don’t create turnovers and have a bend but don’t break D.

Scipio, I don’t disagree with that point. My biggest contention is the statement that Texas made a mistake all season by not playing faster.

It would seem the biggest advantage to the hurry-up is that it puts all the pressure on the defensive players on the field to make adjustments and combats defensive coaches using multiple substitutions and packages.

With limited time to teach, most college teams not having two quality corners let alone 4-5, and teams throwing the ball better and better it is effective for most instances.

The question is, where those two losses anomalies or the result of teams with enough talent and coaching to dictate the tempo?

ponderos,
and the reason why OU didn’t go to the victory formation against OsU.
Sam’s broken thumb.

Scott, You are missing the point. Huck made the point that Texas made a poor strategic decision by not playing faster and yet the only game they lost was due to that one situation.

Actually, you’re missing the point. Overall strategy is not the same thing as situational tactics. Nobody is arguing, as Scipio pointed out, that you should score as fast as possible with under a minute left and leave the opponent more time. That is not increasing your possessions in a game, it is only increasing your opponent’s possessions. That makes no sense and hasn’t been argued by anyone.

Additionally, what has not been accounted for nor can be accounted for in these numbers is the youth and inexperience of the Texas secondary and lack of depth in the defensive line. Wouldn’t it actually be a smart decision to reduce the exposure of such a young secondary rather than increase the number of chances an opponent has against them?

Well, in the overall strategy discussion, increasing the number of times your defense is on the field also increases the number of times your offense is on the field. And if you are the superior team when both offense/defense matchups are taken into account then you want more possessions. Consider the Tech game again. We got in a hell of a hole early in that game. In the fourth quarter we were kicking ass and our overall superiority had taken over. Do you have any doubt that if that game were five quarters we would have had the advantage?

One other other point on TOP. Does anyone here know how many times OU had more TOP than their opponent last year? Four times (BU, KU, OSU, and UM.) Nine different opponents had more TOP than OU, but only two had more than double digits and outrushed them by more than 100 yards. Want to guess which two teams?

Texas controlled the pace in the second half and UF did it from the start and both won because the Sooner defense could stop them and Sooner offense couldn’t score standing on the sideline.

There were the same number of possessions in both the first and second half of the TX/OU game. And it had nothing to do with not being able to score while standing on the sideline. It had to do with our offense scoring more than their offense when they were on the field. This whole theory of “keeping their offense off the field” is silly. Their offense will get to take the field exactly as your offense, roughly speaking and return touchdowns excepted.

The reason we beat OU is that in a sequence of four possessions for each team starting with 11:40 left in the 3rd quarter, we scored three touchdowns and a field goal on drives of 89, 42, 74, and 80 yards while they scored one touchdown only on drives of 26, 76 (TD), 8, and 21 yards.

Their offense took the field exactly as many times as ours during that time. We scored 25 points, they scored 7.

“Scott, You are missing the point. Huck made the point that Texas made a poor strategic decision by not playing faster and yet the only game they lost was due to that one situation.”

Captain Obvious, you are confused on the whole intent of the thread and Huck’s assertions. Macro, micro… forest, trees.

Just because we won a game doesn’t mean we used the best aggregate strategy to do it. Also no one is arguing that it isn’t advantageous to be able to slow pace in certain situations.

Your point about the secondary is worth mention but you are not making a full strategic comparison. You would only want to ‘protect’ your secondary in a situation where they are at a greater deficit against and offense than your own offense’s advantage over the opposition’s defense. I guess you could argue that might have been the case against OU, but it would need to be fleshed out a lot more.

I would argue that in the aggregate of the whole season you want more reps for a young talented secondary, not less. If the problem were a talent deficit your line of reasoning would have more merit.

Back to Texas and Florida you finish with: Texas controlled the pace in the second half and UF did it from the start and both won because the Sooner defense could stop them and Sooner offense couldn’t score standing on the sideline.

For your argument to hold water you need to assert that by increasing pace, the Texas and Florida offense’s would be less effective at scoring. I don’t see that connective tissue in your posts or general reasoning. Huck’s whole argument is that [b]in the aggregate[/b] increased pace increases the probability that the superior team will win the game. Mathematically, the only way that point doesn’t hold true is if the superiority of a team rests upon them working at a slower pace. I don’t think that’s the case with Texas and Florida v. OU. I think both teams were better teams than OU (particularly in their defensive depth) and that would have been born out even more dramatically in a contests with more possessions.

This all reminds me of the Gladwell “David v Goliath” piece on underdog strategies (noting that Gladwell made a grievous error in trying to argue that optimal underdog strategies can are also optimal favorite strategies). Essentially, underdogs should employ high variance strategies where possible to maximize the opportunity to win. In football, slow pace is actually one such higher variance strategy, correct? And, conversely, fast pace is lower variance?

I think that playing at a faster pace can hurt your scoring and make it easier for the opponent to score. It’s not just about keeping the offense off the field, but giving your defense a break. OU’s defense was tired in the second half of our game with them. It’s easier to score on a tired defense. Look at Chris O’s running. In your chart above, Huck, the best offense played fast, but the next 3 played slow. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you haven’t really supported your argument other than trying to argue from a common sense perspective.

My point was, Huckleberry says slow pace is a poor strategic decision for good teams. I see no data or analysis that supports this claim. I just threw something out there to demonstrate an advantage of slow pace. Also, 2-4 on your list played slower paces. You may not need to play at a slower pace to dominate ToP, but it helps, especially when you don’t create turnovers and have a bend but don’t break D.

The data is in the post above. The argument does not need to be put in the post, but I’ll oblige here in the comments.

If you are better than your opponent, then you expect that on each set of alternating possessions you will outscore the opponent, on average. For example, using the point differential column above, Texas would theoretically expect to outscore Missouri by 1-1/2 points, on average, each time the teams exchange the ball.

We know that outcomes have variance. Let’s say that the standard deviation of that 1.5 points per possession is around 3 points (makes sense from last year’s data). Running the numbers, in a single possession Texas has a 64% chance of outscoring Missouri. Over 10 possessions, the chance increases to 86%. Increasing that to 12 possessions increases it further to 89%.

Just as in the baseball strategy discussion, these are small edges. But every advantage coutns. Just thinking about it a different way, do you think Baylor has a better chance of beating Texas in a game that is declared to be only one possession or a normal game? How about a one quarter game or a full game?

BrickHorn and bduran -

Correct, there is definitely a balancing act. If you are favored in a game, you should want to play as many possessions as possible. However, you shouldn’t rush your pace to the point of hampering your efficiency. Rather, you shouldn’t rush your pace to the point where the benefit gained by more possessions is outweighed by the damage to your efficiency.

The argument about wanting as many possessions as possible is only intended to be ironclad if efficiencies are held constant.

Next do pace compared to 2nd and 4th quarter defensive stats.

Huck, In the case of the Tech game no I don’t for this reason. Texas struggled to stop Tech in the 4th quarter. It took a block field goal and a pass interference call against Crabtree that effectively thwarted the drive to help put Texas in position.

As far as the number of series UT and OU had in the second half two things get missed. First. Texas got back into the ball game with a 12 play – 89 yard drive that took over 6 minutes. According to your math that was one series, but in the course of real event Texas took control of that game and the OU offense seemed to lose its rhythm. In the course of numbers one series is one series, but in the flow of that game that one series swung the second half and if not for the roughing the kicker call OU had little life on offense after that one drive.

Maybe I am just being stupid, but it sure seemed to me that keeping their offense off the field, keeping the Texas defense rested, and forcing the Sooner defense to make a stop had an outcome in the result of that game.

Second you stated the number of series were the same which was true, but consider the last time the Sooners got the ball. Their 19 with less than 1:50 to go. Mathematically it might have the same value as any other series, but strategically it doesn’t. Having 81 yards, down by 10, with less than 2 minutes seems to be a bit different than their other series in the second half and any Texas might have had as well.

I am picking individual events because over the course of a season it is those events more time than not that truly mean the difference between winning and losing a championship. Large number samples are great for discussion, but the beauty of sport is that things get determined not by numbers, not actually playing the game.

Huck, your last statement is what confuses people…you are holding efficiencies constant, while others argue that pace itself affects the efficiencies. That would be difficult to test, but anecdotally it makes some sense. I’ve watched our defense get worn out several times.

And, from what I saw in Austin last year, Texas is approximately 97.5 points better than Missouri on a per possession basis…..

Given that Tech’s defense has sucked for years, this theory is really not that pursuasive to me. Tech’s been able to win a ton of games against stronger opposition but done so by consistently going at a high pace – meaning more plays for both their defense and offense. Theoretically these extra plays should result in losses, right? Wrong. Tech’s offense wears you down physically and mentally. The more they are on the field, the more frustrated your defense gets and your offense also feels pressure to score on every play. Not a good way to beat Tech.

It also depends on your defense. Say a team’s offense scores efficiently regardless of the number of possessions (i.e. their OPP is constant with varying number of possessions), but the defense’s efficiency diminishes with an increasing number of possessions. In that case, it would be advantageous to slow the pace to a crawl.

Huck, great post. Those of us who understand numbers and logic get it.

Connective tissue? WTF. Texas went into that game against OU and undergo based upon the biggest number crunchers out there, Vegas. Talent wise Texas didn’t match up across the board and yet they went and beat OU by taking control of the second half of the ball game. What happened can’t be measured in numbers. How do you mathematically explain how Chris O having a career day running the ball or the longest run for the Horns all season? You can’t, but that one played had as big an impact as any play all season.

Sport is not about slide rules, HP12c’s, formulas, or theorums. As much as we try to quantify and qualify we still are presented with events that shouldn’t play out the way they do which is the reason we love it.

Contributing factors on the high points per possession inside your own 10:

1) The Spread is a non-traditional offense. Therefore, the playcalling is more nonitraditional in extreme situations (like passing in running situations) and defensive playcallers are slow to adjust.

2) HC’s are more willing to take the three points and not gamble when they have already moved the ball 70 yards.

3) The more space available, the more efficient the Spread is.

4) The defenses suck.

how about an average points per possession analysis vs turnovers? in other words, how much better does your offense and defense have to be to match the impact of a turnover?

Gene Claude,

“The beauty of numbers is that they work in a vacuum and aren’t impacted by other factors such as fatigue, injury, depth, etc…..”

My position from the beginning has been that nothing in a game, nothing in sport is constant, and that those variances (which can’t be measured) are the very reasons that making mathematical assumptions don’t consistently hold up in sport.

I would love to see the formula that can measure fatigue, field position, talent, coaching, injury, experience levels, difference in talent, personnel match-ups, weather, game situations, and any other of the multiple of variables that makes sport. To deny the existence and the effect of any of these factors on a player, team, game, or season because you can’t measure them is crazy.

Huck,

If you are going to negate kicking error in regards to touchdowns, shouldn’t all field goal attempts result in three points?

From an offensive standpoint, a field goal attempt is neutral in regards to efficiency.

Also, this shit is really good.

Thanks for the correction, ponderos. I paid much more attention to those last games than the earlier ones. I still can’t believe so many voters bought that OU was the better team. That supposedly vaunted defense gave up a ton of points. Funny that your defense played their best game of the season, but your supposedly invincible offense (also funny how it became invincible after we beat you!) laid a major egg.

I would love to see the formula that can measure fatigue, field position, talent, coaching, injury, experience levels, difference in talent, personnel match-ups, weather, game situations, and any other of the multiple of variables that makes sport.

Pretty much all of these can be measured and accounted for, some more accurately than others.

It appears that your point is of the “I don’t understand math or science, so I deny the capability of others to apply it usefully” ilk that drives luddite nonsense like Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to tell exactly what your criticism of Huck’s analysis actually is. Are you averse to statistics because you believe it is impossible to employ them to predict outcomes with perfect accuracy?

Ricky. That offense was really good and efficient the entire season. It didn’t start overnight. Udub fans in Seattle were thanking us after the game for helping to get Willingham fired.

It also depends on your defense. Say a team’s offense scores efficiently regardless of the number of possessions (i.e. their OPP is constant with varying number of possessions), but the defense’s efficiency diminishes with an increasing number of possessions. In that case, it would be advantageous to slow the pace to a crawl.

Actually, it would be best to find the tipping point regarding the worsening of your defense and your opponent. If you are still expected too win each possession even though your defense has gotten worse then you should add possessions. If your defense has gotten worse to the point that now you’re expected to lose possessions (and for whatever reason the opposing defense isn’t getting correspondingly worse), then you want to limit them.

And yes, intuitively the length of individual drives will affect the scoring on each drive.

Huck,

If you are going to negate kicking error in regards to touchdowns, shouldn’t all field goal attempts result in three points?

From an offensive standpoint, a field goal attempt is neutral in regards to efficiency.

Also, this shit is really good.

I used field goal success rate as a (haphazard and lazy) proxy for field position. A 55-yard field goal attempt is the result of poorer offensive production than a 30-yard field goal attempt. And, of course, the 30-yarder should be made more often. That was the logic behind using actual field goal results. Obviously PATs are different in that for all PATs the offense reached the end zone.

I would love to see the formula that can measure fatigue, field position, talent, coaching, injury, experience levels, difference in talent, personnel match-ups, weather, game situations, and any other of the multiple of variables that makes sport. To deny the existence and the effect of any of these factors on a player, team, game, or season because you can’t measure them is crazy.

No statistic is trying to produce truth. It is merely trying to highlight tendency. Given a large enough sample size the factors you mention tend to mitigate themselves over time.

Huck,

A 55 yard field goal attempt after a drive starts at the 3 yard line and a 55 yard field goal after a drive that starts at the 40 are not the same.

Of course, I am way too lazy and stupid to do this myself, so I should probably just shut the hell up.

Regards,

TG

Ultimately my point is this. Huck hasn’t proved that TEXAS should have played at a faster pace, yet he said it was poor offensive strategy. I never really argued with his point IN GENERAL, and I did enjoy the article

Definitely. As I mentioned, I have the data regarding starting field position for all the drives, but that wasn’t used above. For this analysis, it’s probably most instructive to look at the point differential value. A 55-yard field goal attempt after starting on your own 3 can be viewed as the same as a 55-yard attempt after starting on your 40 if you are considering both offense and defense. Obviously you would still be neglecting special teams, but both situations are the result of “equal” combinations of offense and defense. The former just uses more offense and the latter uses more defense.

So Brick, tell me how you statistically measure the fatigue rate of players in a game?

What is the mathematical value of Shipley and Colt spending all those hours together busting their asses?

What is the formula for measuring the impact of Texas losing Irby and Davis adjusting by putting Shipley in the slot?

I fully understand numbers, math, science and such and have no fear or dread of any of it. Why? Simply because as much as we want to measure and quantify life we keep finding out that in life the certainties are uncertain.

Again, mathematically Texas should not have won that game. Don’t Huck’s numbers point out that logically OU should have won and yet Texas won.

No, I am not afraid of any of it. Actually quite amused when people get so hung up in numbers that they miss the beauty of those thing that can’t be explained or measured.

Huck -

Re this: “An interesting note from that data, though, is that in 2008 Big 12 teams averaged 2.97 points when starting inside their own 10-yard line (64 total drives). The interesting part? They averaged 1.95 on drives starting between the 10 and 19 (147), 2.43 on drives starting between the 20 and 29 (397), and 2.68 points on drives starting between the 30 and 39 (227). Any ideas on why that would be?”

It seems so counter-intuitive that I wondered how big a sample you had for each drive category — were there enough “inside the 10” starts to be significant?

So Brick, tell me how you statistically measure the fatigue rate of players in a game?

What is the mathematical value of Shipley and Colt spending all those hours together busting their asses?

What is the formula for measuring the impact of Texas losing Irby and Davis adjusting by putting Shipley in the slot?

All of these things can be measured, albeit imperfectly, by observing trends. Want to understand the relative impact of fatigue? Simply compare the efficiency of the unit of study at different points in a game. Want to understand the relevant value of Shipley and Colt fishing together? Compare the Colt-Shipley stats (YPA, completion percentage, etc.) to the same stats relating to Colt and other receivers. Want to understand Irby’s impact? Compare our success with him and without him.

None of these measures is perfect, but each, if properly designed, can yield a wealth of information. It’s one thing to be too lazy or disinterested to engage in the analysis itself. It’s quite another to criticize those like Huck who at least try to gain some insight into the value of various football strategies by analyzing the numbers.

BEHorn -

The numbers in parentheses represent the number of drives in each category that were included in the data.

Brick,

Huck made the point that Texas made a mistake by play too slower and has yet to show how playing at that pace hurt Texas last year.

It is an assumption that can’t be proven. The Horns went 12-1 and lost in a game in which how many on this site criticized them for leaving too much time on the clock. I merely pointed out the irony and have argued all along that the outcome of sport is impacted by what can’t be easily measured.

It is incredible to me numbers and formulas are given more credibility when time and time again sport reminds us just how hard it is measure all the variables that determine the outcome of the game. You want to wrap yourself up in numbers and theories be my guest. I prefer real world results.

Texas went 12-1 and beat a team with more talent and statistically a better football strategy. They came from behind in that game and took control in the third quarter and I have yet to see anyone give me a mathematical explanation other than the number of series.

Brick,

Huck made the point that Texas made a mistake by play too slower and has yet to show how playing at that pace hurt Texas last year.

Please point out where I said it hurt Texas last year.

General, Fair enough except that each game over a season isn’t exactly the same. Too many variables and that is my point all along. Not that playing a faster pace is bad or that trends don’t exist. Just that sport isn’t determined by numbers. In fact, some of the greatest moments in Texas football history are the byproduct of going against the numbers and to try to reduce sport to math and science is akin to doing the same to a great painting, poetry, or viewing the Grand Canyon at dawn. Just seems to miss the true soul of it.

You want to wrap yourself up in numbers and theories be my guest. I prefer real world results.

And what are those numbers based on, Cap’n? Look, no one here is arguing that statistics can perfectly predict outcomes. If that were the case, Huckleberry would be the new Warren Buffet. The point is that statistics can provide a useful way to convert knowledge of past results into a better chance for future success. This is truer in some sports (baseball) compared to others (football).

Huck, You are right. You said “the fact that Texas played so slowly is just a poor strategic decision”. I was wrong saying it hurt Texas.

My question again though is if Texas went 12-1 how could the strategy have been poor?

There is a point in an internet debate where you realize that only one poster doesn’t “get it”. I think we’re there with Captain Obvious.

I’m not sure how to explain it any differently than it’s already been explained.

Poor strategies don’t always backfire; occasionally a 25-footer when your team is down by one goes in at the buzzer to end the game. Good strategies don’t always win; sometimes the layin off the backdoor cut against a defender that’s been overextending when you’re down by one clangs off the rim. But you’d be smart to bet on the latter against the former.

Brick, No doubt and I am not denying statistics are useful, but my position all along is that football is more a game of strategy than statistics and there are too many variables to accurately account for all.

Real world results are not always a byproduct of statistics. If they were Texas would have never lost to NC State, the cockroach game against TCU, or beaten Nebraska in the Big 12 Title game.

If you go back to what I have said all along is where did the poor strategy of not playing faster hurt Texas ? How does that relate to Texas beating a more talented OU team that was using a mathematically better strategy?

Most will be glad when I say this is my last comment on this, but Texas beat OU not because of what can be measure, but what can’t be measured. Yes, it is damn corny, but I truly don’t believe you can quantify what Jordan Shipley means to this team. You can measure the production, but how do you measure the impact on his teammates who have seen him bust his ass to get back to where he is today? How do you measure what is inside Colt? To be praised as a freshman, get kicked around as a sophomore, and then bust your ass?

Tell me how you measure the it factor. You can’t.

Captain Obvious, do you believe bettering your retirement on the number 33 is a good strategy? Does it matter if the number 33 actually shows up or not?

Optimal strategies are those that maximize your chance of winning. They are forward looking. Actual outcomes do not factor in determining whether the strategy was good or bad, except to serve as a data point in making future strategy decisions. Huck is saying that Texas could have increased its chances of winning (forward looking) by adopting a faster pace.

Thanks Huck – I have ADD … and I’m dumb.

That said, the total # of drives starting inside the 10 (64) is less than half of the next-lowest total, and it looks like less than 10% of the total number of drives, I’m not sure you have a big enough sample to draw a conclusion.

Or so says the ADD-dumb guy.

I could go puntastic with Capt Obvious’s handle right now, but I will decline.

“Any ideas on why that would be?”

Yes, just the kind of thing you get with small sample-size statistics. So few drives start within the 10 that it would only take an extra unexpected TD or two to skew the points-per off the bell curve.

Do it for all leagues or for the Big-12 over a 5- or 10-year period, and the points-per should flatten out save for the small effect that 90-95% of the time, a home-run play from the 30 would also score from the 10.

Thanks for an entertaining analysis.

If you change four of the inside own 10 touchdowns to scoreless drives, Big 12 teams still outscored themselves when they started between the 20 and 29.

I haven’t run the formulas, but I would guess that 64 drives is starting to get statistically significant in a population of ~1000 total drives.

“Therefore the fact that Texas played so slowly is just a poor strategic decision. "

Fail. That’s pretty low rent football logic for this site.

I love Captain Obvious’s reliance on unmeasurables. Welcome to the David McWilliams era.

Newy,

Actually, faster pace is very sound football logic, you just need to do it both offensively and defensively. This means that you maximize your number of plays on offense and minimize your number of plays on defense.

Because of our secondary, we were unable to execute this last year defensively. Muschamp basically conceded the run by defending it with our backers and lineman only with 5 DB’s on the field playing some type of man free our cover 3 zone shell.

If you look at TTR’s post about defense, then you can only conclude that Coach Boom is a witch.

Based on pace, the ultimate team would have a ball control no huddle offense (which we can do because of Colt’S absurd accuracy) and a defense proficient at three and outs.

We are there offensively, but I think it will be another year at least defensively because of our lack of depth in the interior defensive line.

Well that really the point general sir. Once again, not arguing against pace, but newy is talking about a specific team. Namely, if you don’t think your team is good at getting the other team off the field quickly (e.g. good at 3 and outs or turnovers or both) then you can’t just say a faster pace is better. It certainly increases your scoring potential, but it could potentially hurt your defensive effeciency.

Of course, Huck’s argument ultimately relies on you being the better team. So I would agree against most opponents go fast cause if you’re not first you’re last. However, if you know you’re going to face, say, a grueling four game stretch against top opponents, you may want to work on ball control.

Something just occurred to me. Would plays per game be a better way to measure pace than possessions? Possessions works in basketball because every possession is timed. However, a football game played at a slow pace (every play snapped as the play clock expires) could have more possessions than a football game played at a quick pace (every play snapped with 15 seconds left on the play clock) depending on the number of first downs gained and offensive production in general.

Maybe possessions isn’t the right way to judge pace. Perhaps a combination of possessions and plays. Seems like both have their drawbacks (big plays can hurt accuracy for the number of plays method). I’ll have to think about that one.

Plays, maybe. See Fiesta Bowl.

It occurred to me as I was thinking about how I imagined the SEC would have fewer possessions per game. Then I thought about games like that Auburn/Mississippi State 3-2 football game. I haven’t looked at it yet, but assuming that game had plenty of three-and-outs, you could be looking at a lot of possessions even if they waited until the end of the play clock every down.

“Newy,

Actually, faster pace is very sound football logic, you just need to do it both offensively and defensively. This means that you maximize your number of plays on offense and minimize your number of plays on defense."

That is equivalent to saying you need to score more points than the other team to win. Pace is not the only way to accomplish this.

Like the basketball analogy – pace will correlate generally to more possessions and points/game. What it will not do is predict wins against equal competition. The game circumstances should dictate if it is more advantageous to play a faster tempo or slower tempo. Being multiple is much more important.

Take the OU game last year. Midway through the 3rd quarter when the Oklahoma defense completely lost their legs (specifically the front seven) a smart coach – not Stoops – would have slowed the game down and tried to run the ball to pick up first downs to give his defense a chance.

Instead? He actually increased tempo. And a couple of 3 and outs just mudholed his defense for good. Game over. 5 quarters and we win 63-35.

And in the Fiesta Bowl with our offense stuck in rut we picked the tempo up to generate positive offense. The no huddle running attack worked.

Overall the strategy should be tied to a game plan to defeat your opponent – not just to run the score up on weaker competition. If your offense is not geared to play in a wide variety of games eventually you pay the piper.

See Oklahoma, circa 2008.

Football plays probably correlate better to the idea of a basketball possession, although the immediate objection is that the better team usually has more offensive plays, and the disparity widens with the quality difference between the teams.

I’d probably consider plays per minute. How many teams that play Tech try to run the ball, extend possessions, and keep the Tech offense off the field?

Newy -

Your example actually proves the point. What the game situation dictated in Dallas last year was that we were the superior team in the second half. Because of the particulars in that game, we were the team that should have expected to win each alternating possession in the 3rd and 4th quarters of that game. So, as you alluded to, smart strategy for Oklahoma would have been to minimize plays/possessions and smart strategy for Texas would ahve been to maximize the same.

As for the Fiesta Bowl example, that is a tactical situation. We were a better team than Ohio State so in theory we should have been pushing the pace all along. However, we gained an even greater than imagined advantage by running the no-huddle/hurry-up offense thanks to the inexplicably unprepared Buckeye defense.

Would plays per game be a better way to measure pace than possessions?

Huck,

Your work provoked a fascinating discussion. I appreciate the effort and any refinement to the theory will just be icing on the cake.

I wonder if Mack has anyone doing this sort of thinking. If not, he should.

Take the OU game last year. Midway through the 3rd quarter when the Oklahoma defense completely lost their legs (specifically the front seven) a smart coach – not Stoops – would have slowed the game down and tried to run the ball to pick up first downs to give his defense a chance.

1) No strategy works if you can’t execute the offense.

2) Would running the ball for three and outs have worked better? OU avg’d 1.8 ypc against us last year, so that probably would have been a poor decision. Stoops needed first downs and points, and he chose his best offense to try and get them.

huckleberry. I think plays per game at least has to be part of the criteria in your formula. That’s one thing Leach really tries to do and it works for him – run more plays than the opponent. He’s on record as saying he wants to run 100 plays in a game.