The Toolbox: Offensive Success Rates
There's nothing I enjoy less than wading through a stats piece that casually refers to numerous stats with which I am not familiar. I feel like I'm out of the loop on an inside joke of sorts, and never mind the whole "I therefore don't really know what this post is about" thing. So with this extra little corner of the Internet to my name, I felt it would be worthwhile to, in the coming weeks, expand upon tools and concepts we've discussed at Football Outsiders, ones you will be reading about quite often at Football Study Hall. That's what The Toolbox series will be about.
First up are the primary concepts behind S&P and S&P+. Success Rate is the S in S&P+. It is the on-base percentage of football, a per-play efficiency measure that tells you how good your team is at avoiding wasted downs. (To that end, Points Per Play would be the slugging percentage piece of your general OPS equation.)
Here is the official FO definition for Success Rate:
Success Rate: A common Football Outsiders tool used to measure efficiency by determining whether every play of a given game was successful or not. The terms of success in college football: 50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down.
The idea behind Success Rate is simple: every play is deemed successful or unsuccessful based on down, distance and yardage gained. Plays on first, second and third downs (and fourth, for that matter) all have as close to the same success rate as possible (between 40% and 45%).
To see what Success Rate tells us, exactly, let's have a look at it in action. Two notes before moving forward:
1. Any reference to Success Rates as it pertains to rankings eliminates garbage time plays. Rankings are derived from plays that took place while the game was "close": within 28 points in the first quarter, 24 in the second, 21 in the third, or 16 in the fourth.
2. As a frame of reference, the average success rate for FBS teams from 2005-10 was 41.6%.
We'll start with some anchor data.
Ten Best Single-Game Success Rates (versus Non-FCS teams), 2005-10
1. California vs Washington State (10/24/2009): 89.5%
2. Florida vs Western Kentucky (9/1/2007): 86.4%
3. USC vs Washington State (10/18/2008): 83.3%
4. BYU vs Wyoming (11/7/2009): 82.9%
5. Missouri vs Miami-OH (9/25/2010): 82.4%
6. Texas vs UL-Lafayette (9/3/2005): 81.8%
7. Stanford vs Washington (10/30/2010): 81.5%
8. Alabama vs North Texas (9/19/2009): 81.3%
9. Iowa vs Minnesota (11/19/2005): 80.0%
10. Clemson vs Temple (10/12/2006): 80.0%
When Cal destroyed Washington State in 2009, they only had to run 19 plays to knock the game out of "close" range. Seventeen of those plays were "successful," 10 of 11 runs and seven of eight passes. (That Washington State shows up twice atop -- or abottom -- this list says a lot about the Paul Wulff era, but we'll get to that tomorrow when talking about defensive success rates.)
In all, teams have racked up a "close" success rate of 80.0% or higher 19 times in six seasons of play-by-play data. Eight came against FCS competition (the highest: Ball State's 90.5% versus Northeastern in 2008)
Ten Worst Single-Game Success Rates (versus Non-FCS teams), 2005-10
1. Florida International vs Florida (11/21/2009): 0.0%
2. Washington State vs Arizona (11/7/209): 0.0%
3. Boston College vs Virginia Tech (10/10/2009): 0.0%
4. Syracuse vs Penn State (9/13/2008): 0.0%
5. Syracuse vs Iowa (9/8/2007): 0.0%
6. Mississippi State vs Arkansas (11/19/2005): 0.0%
7. Akron vs Penn State (9/5/2009): 4.8%
8. Marshall vs Southern Miss (10/2/2010): 5.6%
9. Western Kentucky vs Tennessee (9/5/2009): 5.6%
10. Idaho vs Nevada (11/4/2006): 5.6%
Fourteen times in six seasons, a team has failed to register a "successful" play before the game was knocked out of "close" range. Congrats to Syracuse for pulling it off twice. (Congrats, too, to Wazzu, for finding a way to be victimized on both lists.) For the most part, these 0-fers took place in games that weren't close very long. Syracuse went 0-for-17 versus Penn State in 2008, which was the largest 0-fer on the list by an FBS team. (Morgan State went 0-for-20 against Maryland in 2010 while "close," and Delaware State did the same against Michigan in 2009.)
What's the least-efficient full-game performance of the last six seasons? For FBS teams, it was Northern Illinois' incredible 3-for-48 (6.3%) performance against TCU in 2006. Runner-up: New Mexico State versus Ohio State in 2009 (4-for-45, 8.9%). For non-FBS teams: West Virginia Tech's 2-for-47 (4.3%) against Western Kentucky in 2007. Of course, WVT had an excuse that NIU doesn't: they're a friggin' NAIA team.
Ten Best Single-Season Success Rates, 2005-10
1. Hawaii (2006): 60.8%
2. Texas Tech (2008): 56.1%
3. Wisconsin (2010): 55.3%
4. Oklahoma (2008): 55.2%
5. Florida (2007): 55.0%
6. BYU (2008): 54.8%
7. Missouri (2008): 54.7%
8. USC (2005): 54.1%
9. Boise State (2010): 54.0%
10. Texas (2008): 54.0%
One of my favorite things about college football is how there are so many different ways to move the chains. Seeing a team like Wisconsin or Navy on the list above would be no surprise -- they're the prototypical grind-it-out, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust teams. But while Wisconsin locked down the three-spot, a run-and-shoot offense took the top ranking, while spread teams filled out most of the Top 10. Invention in college football derives from trying to find different ways to gain five yards, and in college football, there are many, many different ways.
(Speaking of invention ... it really is incredible to see just how far ahead of the curve the Big 12 was when it came to the spread. Of the top ten teams above, four were from the 2008 Big 12 alone. That was truly the perfect confluence of innovation and skill position experience.)
Ten Worst Single-Season Success Rates, 2005-10
1. Syracuse (2005): 26.8%
2. Temple (2006): 26.9%
3. Washington State (2009): 28.3%
4. Florida International (2006): 28.9%
5. Central Florida (2008): 29.8%
6. Ole Miss (2005): 31.4%
7. North Texas (2006): 31.7%
8. Notre Dame (2007): 32.2%
9. Kent State (2005): 32.2%
10. Duke (2005): 32.2%
None of these names should be too surprising. There could almost be a book written about just how far Notre Dame's offense plummeted between 2006 and 2007 -- biggest tumble on record, I believe -- but otherwise, this is just a who's who of pretty bad offensive programs.
With this background, here are all 120 FBS teams with their 2010 success rate, schedule-adjusted success rate (SR+) and Leverage Rate (another efficiency measure, the ratio of standard downs to overall plays).
| 2010 FBS Offenses, Ranked by Success Rate+ |
||||||
| Team | Success Rt. | Rk | SR+ | Rk | Leverage Rt. | Rk |
| Auburn | 0.523 | 6 | 138.3 | 1 | 0.750 | 4 |
| Boise State | 0.540 | 2 | 127.1 | 2 | 0.736 | 9 |
| Oklahoma State | 0.499 | 9 | 126.9 | 3 | 0.729 | 13 |
| Stanford | 0.531 | 4 | 126.3 | 4 | 0.746 | 5 |
| Alabama | 0.520 | 7 | 125.8 | 5 | 0.736 | 10 |
| Wisconsin | 0.553 | 1 | 125.5 | 6 | 0.767 | 1 |
| Michigan | 0.497 | 10 | 120.6 | 7 | 0.728 | 15 |
| Nevada | 0.528 | 5 | 120.1 | 8 | 0.761 | 3 |
| Florida State | 0.437 | 43 | 119.1 | 9 | 0.683 | 55 |
| Missouri | 0.472 | 17 | 118.4 | 10 | 0.690 | 48 |
| Oklahoma | 0.463 | 24 | 118.2 | 11 | 0.716 | 19 |
| South Carolina | 0.466 | 21 | 118.1 | 12 | 0.700 | 34 |
| Baylor | 0.466 | 20 | 117.4 | 13 | 0.696 | 35 |
| Pittsburgh | 0.437 | 44 | 117.2 | 14 | 0.683 | 58 |
| Virginia Tech | 0.462 | 25 | 115.2 | 15 | 0.714 | 21 |
| TCU | 0.535 | 3 | 115.1 | 16 | 0.746 | 6 |
| USC | 0.469 | 19 | 114.3 | 17 | 0.703 | 31 |
| Arkansas | 0.443 | 40 | 113.6 | 18 | 0.670 | 76 |
| Cincinnati | 0.427 | 57 | 113.6 | 19 | 0.677 | 67 |
| East Carolina | 0.461 | 26 | 113.4 | 20 | 0.703 | 32 |
| Ohio State | 0.464 | 22 | 113.3 | 21 | 0.708 | 26 |
| Hawaii | 0.506 | 8 | 112.0 | 22 | 0.716 | 18 |
| Kentucky | 0.460 | 27 | 112.0 | 23 | 0.713 | 22 |
| Texas A&M | 0.435 | 45 | 111.1 | 24 | 0.682 | 60 |
| Oregon State | 0.414 | 73 | 110.7 | 25 | 0.672 | 75 |
| Miami-FL | 0.421 | 65 | 110.5 | 26 | 0.658 | 98 |
| Central Florida | 0.486 | 11 | 110.3 | 27 | 0.735 | 11 |
| LSU | 0.419 | 66 | 109.6 | 28 | 0.694 | 38 |
| Northern Illinois | 0.485 | 12 | 109.6 | 29 | 0.707 | 28 |
| Georgia | 0.457 | 31 | 109.4 | 30 | 0.695 | 36 |
| Washington | 0.417 | 70 | 108.0 | 31 | 0.667 | 81 |
| Northwestern | 0.477 | 14 | 107.7 | 32 | 0.723 | 16 |
| Oregon | 0.476 | 15 | 107.5 | 33 | 0.692 | 41 |
| Michigan State | 0.448 | 39 | 106.7 | 34 | 0.681 | 61 |
| Iowa | 0.460 | 28 | 106.4 | 35 | 0.719 | 17 |
| NC State | 0.409 | 78 | 106.0 | 36 | 0.679 | 63 |
| Arizona | 0.459 | 29 | 105.9 | 37 | 0.689 | 49 |
| Georgia Tech | 0.433 | 51 | 105.8 | 38 | 0.728 | 14 |
| Navy | 0.473 | 16 | 105.7 | 39 | 0.762 | 2 |
| Notre Dame | 0.427 | 56 | 105.5 | 40 | 0.661 | 90 |
| Troy | 0.457 | 32 | 105.3 | 41 | 0.690 | 47 |
| North Carolina | 0.427 | 55 | 105.3 | 42 | 0.686 | 52 |
| Virginia | 0.451 | 36 | 105.0 | 43 | 0.673 | 74 |
| Air Force | 0.471 | 18 | 104.7 | 44 | 0.743 | 7 |
| Louisville | 0.426 | 60 | 104.5 | 45 | 0.674 | 70 |
| SMU | 0.463 | 23 | 104.2 | 46 | 0.670 | 77 |
| Houston | 0.456 | 34 | 103.8 | 47 | 0.695 | 37 |
| Texas Tech | 0.453 | 35 | 103.7 | 48 | 0.705 | 29 |
| West Virginia | 0.428 | 54 | 103.6 | 49 | 0.674 | 71 |
| Mississippi State | 0.434 | 47 | 102.8 | 50 | 0.712 | 23 |
| Southern Miss | 0.456 | 33 | 102.8 | 51 | 0.708 | 27 |
| Indiana | 0.450 | 37 | 102.8 | 52 | 0.665 | 83 |
| Florida | 0.399 | 86 | 102.6 | 53 | 0.659 | 95 |
| UCLA | 0.432 | 52 | 102.6 | 54 | 0.662 | 87 |
| Tulsa | 0.478 | 13 | 102.3 | 55 | 0.714 | 20 |
| Iowa State | 0.391 | 92 | 102.1 | 56 | 0.661 | 88 |
| Arkansas State | 0.442 | 41 | 102.1 | 57 | 0.687 | 51 |
| Penn State | 0.413 | 75 | 101.5 | 58 | 0.683 | 59 |
| Utah | 0.435 | 46 | 101.5 | 59 | 0.690 | 46 |
| Kansas State | 0.424 | 62 | 101.2 | 60 | 0.731 | 12 |
| Florida International | 0.426 | 59 | 101.1 | 61 | 0.683 | 57 |
| Duke | 0.414 | 74 | 100.7 | 62 | 0.674 | 72 |
| Army | 0.448 | 38 | 100.3 | 63 | 0.742 | 8 |
| Arizona State | 0.440 | 42 | 100.1 | 64 | 0.684 | 54 |
| UAB | 0.430 | 53 | 99.9 | 65 | 0.683 | 56 |
| Illinois | 0.423 | 64 | 99.9 | 66 | 0.691 | 44 |
| San Diego State | 0.459 | 30 | 99.5 | 67 | 0.701 | 33 |
| Louisiana Tech | 0.418 | 69 | 99.4 | 68 | 0.691 | 45 |
| Minnesota | 0.411 | 76 | 99.0 | 69 | 0.660 | 91 |
| Clemson | 0.388 | 95 | 98.6 | 70 | 0.646 | 111 |
| Ohio | 0.426 | 58 | 98.4 | 71 | 0.705 | 30 |
| Colorado | 0.415 | 71 | 98.3 | 72 | 0.657 | 99 |
| BYU | 0.433 | 49 | 97.9 | 73 | 0.709 | 25 |
| Maryland | 0.384 | 97 | 97.8 | 74 | 0.657 | 100 |
| Nebraska | 0.418 | 68 | 97.6 | 75 | 0.692 | 43 |
| South Florida | 0.376 | 102 | 97.5 | 76 | 0.693 | 40 |
| Miami-OH | 0.419 | 67 | 97.2 | 77 | 0.669 | 79 |
| Central Michigan | 0.433 | 48 | 96.8 | 78 | 0.688 | 50 |
| Fresno State | 0.410 | 77 | 96.6 | 79 | 0.681 | 62 |
| Eastern Michigan | 0.394 | 88 | 96.5 | 80 | 0.658 | 96 |
| Connecticut | 0.371 | 104 | 96.3 | 81 | 0.660 | 92 |
| Western Michigan | 0.433 | 50 | 95.4 | 82 | 0.709 | 24 |
| Syracuse | 0.394 | 89 | 95.2 | 83 | 0.677 | 66 |
| Temple | 0.407 | 79 | 94.8 | 84 | 0.692 | 42 |
| Ole Miss | 0.392 | 91 | 94.8 | 85 | 0.658 | 97 |
| Tennessee | 0.379 | 101 | 94.4 | 86 | 0.643 | 115 |
| Washington State | 0.399 | 85 | 94.4 | 87 | 0.661 | 89 |
| California | 0.405 | 80 | 94.0 | 88 | 0.669 | 78 |
| Colorado State | 0.394 | 87 | 93.8 | 89 | 0.675 | 69 |
| San Jose State | 0.399 | 84 | 93.8 | 90 | 0.679 | 64 |
| Utah State | 0.390 | 93 | 93.7 | 91 | 0.666 | 82 |
| North Texas | 0.403 | 83 | 93.6 | 92 | 0.665 | 84 |
| Middle Tennessee | 0.424 | 62 | 93.6 | 93 | 0.685 | 53 |
| Toledo | 0.387 | 96 | 93.5 | 94 | 0.677 | 68 |
| Texas | 0.382 | 98 | 92.2 | 95 | 0.678 | 65 |
| Tulane | 0.415 | 72 | 91.9 | 96 | 0.669 | 80 |
| UTEP | 0.424 | 61 | 91.8 | 97 | 0.660 | 93 |
| Rice | 0.404 | 82 | 90.5 | 98 | 0.693 | 39 |
| Florida Atlantic | 0.368 | 106 | 90.5 | 99 | 0.646 | 110 |
| Idaho | 0.404 | 81 | 90.2 | 100 | 0.655 | 102 |
| Wake Forest | 0.375 | 103 | 90.0 | 101 | 0.650 | 106 |
| Wyoming | 0.379 | 100 | 89.9 | 102 | 0.649 | 109 |
| UNLV | 0.359 | 108 | 89.6 | 103 | 0.650 | 107 |
| Western Kentucky | 0.365 | 107 | 89.2 | 104 | 0.660 | 94 |
| UL-Monroe | 0.389 | 94 | 89.0 | 105 | 0.653 | 103 |
| Boston College | 0.339 | 117 | 88.0 | 106 | 0.643 | 114 |
| Rutgers | 0.345 | 114 | 86.9 | 107 | 0.617 | 119 |
| Bowling Green | 0.352 | 110 | 86.3 | 108 | 0.664 | 85 |
| Kent State | 0.380 | 99 | 86.0 | 109 | 0.662 | 86 |
| Ball State | 0.393 | 90 | 85.5 | 110 | 0.673 | 73 |
| Purdue | 0.369 | 105 | 85.1 | 111 | 0.651 | 105 |
| Marshall | 0.356 | 109 | 84.6 | 112 | 0.640 | 116 |
| UL-Lafayette | 0.348 | 112 | 84.2 | 113 | 0.653 | 104 |
| Memphis | 0.342 | 116 | 82.0 | 114 | 0.649 | 108 |
| Akron | 0.337 | 118 | 81.2 | 115 | 0.644 | 112 |
| Vanderbilt | 0.342 | 115 | 81.0 | 116 | 0.615 | 120 |
| New Mexico | 0.350 | 111 | 79.8 | 117 | 0.643 | 113 |
| Kansas | 0.336 | 119 | 78.9 | 118 | 0.656 | 101 |
| Buffalo | 0.348 | 113 | 76.9 | 119 | 0.624 | 118 |
| New Mexico State | 0.333 | 120 | 73.4 | 120 | 0.633 | 117 |
11 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Low Leverage Rate?
Would a low leverage rate (Florida State) and a high success rate indicate that the team was much more successful on passing downs? Also how is schedule taken into account for SR+?
Honestly...
…I’m still trying to figure out the relationship between teams with good success rates and less-good leverage rates (and vice versa). My only immediate explanation for teams like Florida State is that they were mostly efficient, but when they fell off-schedule and into passing downs, they couldn’t dig themselves out.
As for the schedule adjustment … the very quick explanation is that I simply compare a team’s output to the output that would have been expected based on the opponent. In the above SR+ ratings, 100.0 is deemed dead-average, above is good, and below is bad. So another way to look at the numbers would be to say that Auburn was 38.3% above average in terms of efficiency, based on their output and opponent, while New Mexico State was 26.6% below average.
Would teams that passed more on 1st down have a lower leverage rate by definition of the pass?
Just a quick glance at the above chart seems to show that most of the run based teams were higher on leverage than teams that were more pass based. Then again I would think those same teams would have a lower success rate also.
How would penalties play into this also since success rate is based on a percentage and leverage is based on a yard number? Probably not enough penalties occur to make much of a difference.
Honestly, I doubt run-pass has a lot to do with it...
…there are a lot of ways to gain five yards, and like the “Best Success Rates” list shows, you can end up with a high success rate running or passing.
While success rate and leverage measure basically the same thing, it’s still a bit different.
- Let’s say you gain exactly three yards every play. A gain of three on first-and-10 is not successful, but it results in a “standard down” of 2nd-and-7. Gain three more on 2nd-and-7, and it is not successful, but it results in another “standard down” of 3rd-and-4. Gain three on 3rd-and-4, and it’s not successful but again results in a “standard down” of 4th-and-1. Gain three on fourth-and-1, and it’s a success. That’s a 25% success rate and a 100% leverage rate.
- Let’s say you lose six yards on first down. Unsuccessful, results in a passing down. On 2nd-and-16, you gain 11 yards. Successful, results in a passing down. Gain six yards on third-and-5; success!. That’s a 66.7% success rate, 33.3% leverage rate.
So if a team ranks a lot higher in success rates than leverage (Missouri, Arkansas, Miami), then that perhaps suggests that they were having to recover from occasional first-down issues? Maybe? Just spitballing. If that’s true, then that would suggest that teams with high leverage ranks and lower success rates (Navy, LSU, N.C. State) were able to avoid big losses but had to rely on third down conversions.
Wouldn’t it be the reverse for FSU? So many pass downs yet a very high success rate?
'11: Minimum Goal: 9-3 Regular Season. Given FSU's non-con slate, don't care who the 9 are.
'10: 7th in offense, 41st in defense. Division Champions. 10-4. (6-3)
'09: 8th in offense, 88th in defense. 7-6 (4-4)
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
Data is incorrect
Syracuse did not field a football team between 2005 and 2008 :)
(anyone who believes otherwise has clearly never watched any GERG-coached SU games)
Sorry, sorry, I misread the Excel sheet...
…it was actually Seraphus, the British immigration law specialists. Their offense is horrendous.
Wow Navy was funky.
Dr. Ausgiano schools me in the classroom and on the field of battle
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Mar 15, 2011 1:48 PM EDT reply actions
I'm still new to the football stats revolution
Is their a football equivalent to WAR?
"Time for the laser show, boys!"- Aubrey Huff
Adopted Giant: William VanLandingham
I'm on the Twitters
Not really...
…hard to get too far with the “replacement player” idea at any position beyond QB/RB/WR. It’s very, very difficult to objectively evaluate the other positions without some serious context.
This confirms to me, indeed,
that Kansas sucks balls. It’d be interesting to trace their offensive freefall after the loss of Reesing and co.

by 







