You Be The Analyst: Third Down Conversion Rates
by kleph on May 14, 2010 10:17 PM CDT
in Football
Email
Print
Two very unrelated things got me thinking about conversion rates this week. First was a blog post by the only Auburn fan worth reading on the internet, Jerry Hinnen over at War Eagle Reader. He took regression to the mean and applied it to the Barn's prospects next year and name checked Football Outsiders' theory of third downs.
Then I happened to watch the 2007 Independence Bowl where we simply abused the Colorado for a quarter-and-a-half then decided to take off early for the holidays. Not only did we seem to have developed an addiction to three-and-outs, our defense kept making bone crushing plays on two downs and then would give up a conversion to the Buffs.
We were making the decidedly mediocre Cody Hawkins look so good that Bob Davie was gushing over him like Gary Danielson over Tebow. And, no, I'm not exaggerating.
Davie kept making great hay about the fact John Parker Wilson entered the game ranked the second worst quarterback in all of Division I in terms of third down conversions. I have no idea if that was true or not but I did get curious about Wilson's performance for the game and I went and dug up the numbers.
While they weren't as bad as I thought, that's not saying they were particularly good either. Alabama went 50% (7/14) on third downs while allowing Colorado to beat 56% (9/16). And then I started wondering what our overall numbers looked like for the Saban Era. And it turns out they look like this...
Third Down Efficency
|
Then, because I had the info right in front of me, I looked up fourth down as well...
Fourth Down Efficency
|
So what does any of this mean? I have no idea. So I figured I'd post it and see what you guys could come up with in the comments.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll bite (as one who is completely unqualified):
Third downs: I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I’d say that since all of them are nearly dead even that we must have been far more successful on first and second downs in 2008 and 2009 than in 2007. Frankly, I didn’t notice our “dismal” third down percentages the last two years like I did in 2007 and farther back, and I think it was because we simply moved the ball better overall.
Fourth downs: Even though we were just slightly above average last year compared to the year before, we simply tried more often and succeeded more (not percentage wise, but numerically) than we did in the previous two years. I’d read this to mean that we had better field position as a result of moving the ball better this past year than the years prior, and were in position to do it more.
That’s my un-expert analysis based on absolutely no hard data whatsoever. OTS?
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on May 14, 2010 11:05 PM CDT reply actions
well the two things i've noticed since posting this...
is that 2007 was the last year our opponents third down percentage was greater than ours. and that opponents fourth down efficiency has plummeted while their number of attempts has risen. put those together and it seems to indicate we have a massive beast of a defense but i could be mistaken.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
There are so many variables its hard to tell but your analysis is good. It would be interesting to see time of possession, number of possessions, we had each of those years to see what the percentage of 3rd or 4th downs we had compared to possessions. Also how many 3rd downs were in close games compared to blow outs. Basically you are gonna get 14 3rd downs per game and the more you convert the better. I would like to see how many 2nd downs we had as well.
if you know where we might find those numbers
i’d appreciate the hell out of it.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
time of possession for 2009 was 33:31and 2008 was 31:46 in 2007 it was 29:34
http://www.rolltide.com/fls/8000/files/football/2007/teamcume.htm
http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2009-2010/teamcume.html
Increased TOP means our offense is getting much better and so is our defense based on the style we play. Pound it with our backs and having a tough defense.
I would need more time and less beers to figure out the 3rd and 4th downs in close games compared to blow outs.
and don't forget
you have to add an extra game to the schedule for the last two years. not sure how that might affect the average though.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
The other thing to note is, how many 1st and goal situations we had. Because when its 1st and goal you can no longer get a first down and if we scored on 3rd down, it still counts as a third down but not a conversion.
given our appalling red zone efficiency in the past two years...
i think we can safely assume it’s a limited factor.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
isnt that amazing?
we almost run the table in 2008, DO it in 2009 and yet we have basically SUCKED in the red zone. now i am all for scoring with big plays but i sure would like to be comfortable knowing we will likely get 7 points when inside the 20 instead of seemingly always settling for 3 – especially given our kicking ‘situation’. i expect that this year, with the hosses we have in the backfield and experience on the o-line, that will change for 2010 (fingers crossed AND hoping for the best). i marvel at the thought of what we can do if we increase our red zone efficiency and it SHOULD scare the shit our of our opponents which makes it even MO BETTA
"You have to create 6 seconds of hell each play..."
Coach Nick Saban
My guess for the reduced efficiency on 3rd and 4th down from 2008 to 2009 is that as good as the ’09 OL was, the ’08 OL was almost without compare as far as lining up and blowing the opponent off the line of scrimmage. Even if other teams knew a power run up the middle was coming, they were almost powerless to stop it. That of course translates into high short yardage conversion rates. The ’09 line was possibly as good overall, but had a little more finesse and little less raw power as compared to their ’08 counterparts.
The biggest reason for the low conversion rates for opponents in 08 and 09 was Terrance Cody. It’s a lot harder to pick up a short yardage down when a run up the middle is a lost cause.
Your point about Cody is dead on.
And that is one of those things that people who criticize him overlook big time. How many punts did he cause just by being there? How many 4th down conversions did we stop just because the other team chose to pass rather than run at him. He gets no stats for those things, but deserves most of the credit. I’m missing him already!
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on May 15, 2010 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Zeke you are right.
The 2008 O line was better. Another factor was that Julio was hurt (more) in 09 than in 08.
Let’s be honest in 09 we won some games (LSU & UT) on some big plays, and we won another game on one drive (Auburn.)
That being said I suspect in 2010 our O will have a much higher 3rd down conversion. Every aspect of our Offense will be imporved this year. Every aspect.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
Damn 2007 Independence bowl....
It is going to be a long off season. Well it is better than the police blotter…crosses fingers, fixes horseshoe.
I understand hate. I'm a Alabama fan.
Hopefully it'll be the last independence bowl we're in for a good damn while.
Fight on, fight on, fight on men! Remember the Rose Bowl, we’ll win then.
one of the reasons i was curious to watch this game again
was that it certainly was a bittersweet conclusion to saban’s first year but it was also a watershed of sorts. the team pulled itself out of a tough four-game skid after starting off the season rather well. the desire to finish strong both to the season and the game were clearly evident. but was there anything to predict the explosion in ability that occurred in the 2008 season opener against clemson? no. not really.
but the weird tendency to go soft with a good lead was certainly there. we would see this again against georgia in the blackout game and the national championship against texas. we seem to do better with a slim lead and opponent who thinks they still can win the thing. maybe this is something to do with the style of defensive plays we use in such situations, i don’t know.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
OMG UR lookin at AUBERN blogs?!
You must secretly want to be an AUBURN FAN!
Fight on, fight on, fight on men! Remember the Rose Bowl, we’ll win then.
worse
i secretly like the work of an auburn football blogger.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Secret Fail.
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on May 15, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions
I think.... (shocking I know)
that while these numbers show overall improvement, they clearly show room for more. Which I look at with optimism. The coaching staff has areas to focus our players onto. This makes repeating as champions only a sideline issue while making each units efficiency the primary goal…..Call it Sabanball.
That white stuff on the top of chickencrap is.....chickencrap.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Roll 'Bama Roll
Related FanShots on Roll 'Bama Roll
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
