If we normalized to adjust for defensive scores, I'd guess

If we normalized to adjust for defensive scores, I'd guess
by tdiddy07 (2024-04-24 17:10:23)

In reply to: The offense was #7 in scoring last year with a newbie posted by RJD

the effective scoring offense would be closer to the 29th ranking for Total Offense. Because it was 47th in red zone scoring percentage and 16th in red zone TD percentage. (Why there isn't a readily accessible stat for scoring offense that removes non-offensive scores is beyond me. Another stat that adjusts for field position advantages created by defense would also be nice.) ND's defense was definitely notably better than average at creating scores and likely also better than average at creating short-field opportunities conducive to scoring. So 29thish is probably a good benchmark for where our offense actually stood last year and, thus, how progress should be measured this year.

I know you're always wearing your rose-tinted glasses, but it's hard to evaluate where we'll be this year. I would guess that if the talent were the same, we would have a more effective offense than last year, as I'll credit the idea that Denbrock has matured since he was generally not very good as the OC at ND. However, while RB should still be strong, our OL losses will probably be noticed. And our current strengths don't necessarily suit how Denbrock achieved success the past two years.

Nevertheless, assuming a strong OL performance, it'd be reasonable to have concerns that the in-over-his-head OC from last year could conceivably take what is still a strong stable of running backs and OL and actually produce a better scoring offense (defense-adjusted of course) in 2024 than would our current OC who will not have an elite athlete at QB and mature early round picks catching balls from him. If one took that position, he'd probably note that Denbrock was responsible for the 40th best scoring offense in 2014 (and 47th best TD percentage red zone offense) and (if all the homers are to be believed) 34th best scoring offense in 2015 (and whopping 79th best TD percentage red zone offense in 2015 despite a pretty balanced and talented attack). To say nothing of the 53rd best scoring offense in 2016 (and 55th best red zone TD percentage) when homers claim he was hamstrung.

% of available yards

Adjusts for field position.

If it's taken in the aggregate by total yards, yes.

But using it to call a 12-yard TD drive an unqualified success with predictive value for future scoring success simply because 100 percent of available yards on the drive were gained is not helpful. If that 12/12 is aggregated with a 35/70 drive and taken to show a 47/82 yards gained percentage, that has some value in isolating independent offensive value in a total yards context. But because total yards ignores the ability to score in the red zone, I find it less valuable as a go-to stat than scoring offense--so long as proper adjustments can be made to scoring offense to isolate offensive productivity into a predictive measure. The Kelly offensive tenure (including under Denbrock) consistently underperformed in scoring offense compared to total yards gained because red zone productivity of its candy-assed scheme ranged from mediocre to poor.

I like the concept of the SP+ comparing actual points scored v. expected points scored for an average team that takes into account the strength of defenses played. But I'm not totally clear on the full methodology. I would just make sure that the stat considers both the strengths of defenses played PLUS the expected point value of an average team based on each season's starting field position and compare to actual points scored from the starting position. I would find that more useful than a standalone % of available yards because it bakes in red zone efficiency translating to actual scoring.

Rubbish

You no like my numbers?

Good RBs won't exactly flourish in this rinky dink pass

based spread.

Rose Tint my white ass *

Adjusting for opponent strength, ND was 6th in 2015 in off

And 23rd in 2014. I didn't include that in my other post because I know the people I'm talking to find opponent-adjusted stats to be bullshit.

Click here for link at https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2019/4/4/18295248/2015-col

Thanks for the that. I'm not familiar enough with S&P+

to know how useful either the Success Rate is, or how the points per play component is setup. I assume the latter is based only on offensive scores. But I don't know if that component accounts for field position. (My understanding is that there's some attempt to account for field position in the overall rankings.)