• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Gene Claude said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am

   I think red zone conversions are not a great stat, in that drawing a line at the 20 is arbitrary and missed field goals are mostly not a defensive skill. The third down conversions are an issue, certainly.

   The one thing that you left out is that MU is first in the conference in preventing big plays. We’ve given up only four 25+ yard passing plays and only two 20+ yard rushing plays.

   One thing this means (I think, help me consider this) is that MU’s defense ends up facing more third downs than most teams. And that seems to be true, we have faced 100 third downs, or 16.6 per game, most in the big 12. So, while our overall percentage of stops on those is not great (although, not horrific), we actually are getting more third down stops per game than any other team in the conference. And, if you throw in fourth downs (we are first in the conference in percentage), the defense is getting a lot of stops.

   When you throw in the failure to force interceptions, I think what we are seeing is an extreme version of the bend but don’t break defense. Limit big plays (which also limits INTs and TFLs–we are 9th per game in TFLs) and hope to force a turnover on downs at some point in the drive.

   Is this better? I’m not all that sure, but it has resulted in fewer points being scored against the defense. As Phenom points out, that could be because we haven’t faced the good offenses yet…..

2. glenn said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 10:28 am

   whoa, dude. longhorn here. i don’t think first year stats tell that much. will’s defense last year showed promise but wasn’t remarkable. i fully expect next year will show another leap in performance, though lesser. i still remember with a touch of bittersweet some sooner in early 2000 asking if a coach would fire his brother. you have to give them time regardless of whether they were on the present staff or not. personal emphases and getting kids trained and doing things the way a coach wants but with instinct takes time.

3. Phenomenal Smith said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 10:29 am

   Well, Gene, glad to see you read the whole article. Big play info is there.

   Also, it should be pointed out that Mizzou’s big play per play was in the top half of the Big 12 last year. It’s not like Mizzou was prone to giving up big plays last year, at least not when compared to our Big 12 brethren.

4. Phenomenal Smith said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am

   Re big pass plays in ‘08, here are the conference rankings in percentage of pass plays that were 25+ yards.

   1. OSU 2.9%
   2. CU 3.9%
   3. BU 4.9%
   4. KU 4.8%
   5. MU 5.1%
   6. TT 5.7%
   7. OU 5.7%
   8. KSU 6.1%
   9. A&M 6.3%
   10. UT 6.3%
   11. ISU 8.6%
   12. NU 9.1%

   I’m not sure if much can be drawn from this other than Mizzou’s problem last year wasn’t the propensity to give up the big play. I mean, there’s no correspondence between big play rate and team quality, so it doesn’t really matter. The only reason it’s an issue is perception – so many people have said Mizzou’s defense was bad last year because it gave up so many big plays that people have started treating it as fact. It’s just not true.

5. Vasherized said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 10:56 am

   The one thing that you left out is that MU is first in the conference in preventing big plays. We’ve given up only four 25+ yard passing plays and only two 20+ yard rushing plays.

   Given that Texas only attempted about four 25+ yard passing plays I think your ranking is safe here.

   Let’s check back on these stats in mid-November. It’s an interesting comparison for now but as you mentioned too early to draw meaningful conclusions from other than Will Muschamp is delivering the goods as expected.

   I’m in the camp that Eberflus was overrated and parlayed an NFL job from having a loaded defense that was helped by a PlayStation offense, not because he coached them up.

6. Gene Claude said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am

   Sorry, Phenom, saw it right after I clicked. I got too intrigued by your post to wait to the end. I’m trying to figure out why it feels like our defense is better this year, and if I’m missing anything in the stats that matter. It very well could be that the big 12 context is just much better, like your pitching feels better at Petco, right?

   I guess the point of stopping big plays is that you get more chances to force a turnover on downs or get a turnover. If you aren’t more successful on those additional chances, then who cares?

   The point of the defense is to get the ball away from the opposing offense with as few points scored as possible. The ways you do that are turnovers on downs (either stopping them on fourth or forcing a punt), turnovers and missed field goals. The first two have some defensive skill element, the third probably not much. I think you can ignore missed field goals as a defensive skill.

   Currently, Mizzou is third (behind OU and UT) in punts forced per game at about 6.8 (and was third last year in the conference, I believe). You throw in a little less than one stop on 4th down a game and that gives you somewhere around 7.5 defensive stops on downs that result in no points for the offense. Add in an abysmal 1.3 turnovers/game. So, the Mizzou defense is forcing in the neighborhood of 8.8 points-free stops a game.

   Doing the same numbers for last year’s Mizzou defense leads to about 7.7 points-free stops a game. But that is for the entire year, and you would expect as Mizzou gets into the meat of the Big 12, that 8.8 stops/game might be coming down…..

7. DocNice said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm

   I think you’re overanalyzing here, or perhaps underanalyzing. Something like that. Listen, you should believe your eyes when they tell you that the defense is better.

   I don’t see how 3rd down conversion is more important than total yardage. The 3rd down conversion bothers me, but not that much considering that a) the difference between sucking and top 25 is maybe 5% or so. And b)Considering how wildly that number can swing based on one game when you only have 6 games total, I don’t give it a lot of stock. Our worst 3rd down conversion games were actually some of our best defensive games. Furman had 56%. Nebraska 47%. No other game was above 40%, and the best offense we’ve faced was held to 28%.

   If we’re at 40% at the end of the year, get back to me.

   As for red zone defense, yes, that’s an abysmal number, and only slightly better if you look at the more relevant TD% (66%, ranks 95th). However, we’re top 35 in number of trips inside the red zone, so teams are not getting there often. One trip less would be top 25, which is impressive given all the short fields our defense has faced this year.

   Also, while our conference defensive rank is worse, our stats are better, and our national defensive rank is markedly better (scoring D 35th vs 68th). Considering we’ve played mostly non-conference games, as well as quality conference opponents, that’s relevant.

   Lastly, I recall judging the team last year on yards per play. Last year was 5.3 (60th nationally) vs this year at 4.7 (26th nationally).

8. Phenomenal Smith said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm

   Doc, good points.

   I don’t like total yards because it doesn’t factor in returns, field position or penalties. If you win the field position battle, like Okie State did, its total yards will be affected. I don’t want to applaud the defense for holding Okie State’s yards down when we let them start every drive around midfield.

   I don’t like scoring defense because it includes points scored by opposing defenses. That’s so dumb it makes my brain hurt.

   I realize that they can be helpful, but they’re flawed enough I don’t like to even consider them. That’s my problem. Muschamp considers scoring defense, but he’s probably smart enough to back out special team and defense TDs.

   I didn’t think last year’s defense was bad so when I say the defenses are comparable, I’m not saying this year’s defense is bad. The biggest thing hold back this year’s defense is the lack of turnovers.

9. Barking Carnival — Blog — Davis v. Yost in Stats that Matter said:

   October 21st, 2009 at 9:10 pm

   [...] I posted a little something on Muschamp’s proclaimed Stats that Matter. I will now apply those stats to the Tiger and [...]

10. Gene Claude said:

    October 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 am

    Trusting your eyes in evaluating defenses when you watch every game might make sense. Trusting your eyes about defense when you watch all Mizzou, a little other Big 12, makes no sense.

    Trusting your eyes led the Colorado Rockies to about 9 years of misguided thinking. Context is everything.

    Our defense is doing a better job this year than last getting off the field and holding scoring down. Unfortunately, so are most defenses in the Big 12, because the offensive environment is back to normal.

11. Barking Carnival — Blog — Texas Preview said:

    October 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am

    [...] know what? They’re good. Really good. As Phenom has pointed out in both versions of Stats That Matter, even though Texas has struggled offensively (if you want to read more on the [...]

12. Barking Carnival — Blog — Defensive Stats That Matter said:

    November 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    [...] stats not produced by Huckleberry. They’ve gotten better at those stats. The dilettantes at Pulling Teeth are totally incredulous that someone can hold Nick Florence to less than 400 yards passing and that [...]

Leave a Reply