Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Welcome To A Bizarre Afternoon With Donald Driver

The Toolbox: Offensive PPP

Babyfoot_tiny by Bill C. on in Stats You Need to Know

Last week we took a look at success rates, our efficiency measure of choice (offense, defense).  Today, we move to the other side of the S&P coin, EqPts Per Play, the explosiveness measure of choice, the slugging percentage to success rates' on-base percentage.

First, we start with the official EqPts definition at Football Outsiders:

Equivalent Points (EqPts): Method used by our college football analyst Bill Connelly, giving each yard line a point value based on the average number of points a team can expect to score from that spot on the field. (This is similar to the method we use to measure NFL special teams.) From there, each gain or loss is given a point value based on the change in EqPts.

Here's what I said about the EqPts concept in my very first Varsity Numbers column at Football Outsiders way, way back in aught-eight:

I enjoyed having Jerome "2 carries, 3 yards, 2 TDs" Bettis on my fantasy team that last year of his career, but let's be honest: Just about anybody could have come in and plunged in from the 1. Getting the ball to the 1 was the much bigger accomplishment, no? In this way, touchdowns are basically the Runs Batted In of football -- get enough of them, and it's damn impressive, but you need quite a bit of help racking up a big number.

Case in point: November 10, College Park, Maryland. Tight end Jason Goode catches two touchdown passes (of ten and seven yards) from Chris Turner as Maryland upsets No. 8 Boston College, 42-35. Good for Mr. Goode. However, what contributed more to Maryland's touchdowns -- Goode's two receptions or the 43-yard catch by Darrius Hayward that set up the first score and the 45-yard catch by Isaiah Williams that set up the second? What if we could apply a point value to all four catches?

So that was the goal. I determined the points scored on every possession of every game and assigned those points to each play of the possession. From there I was able to assign a 'point value' to every yard line based on the average number of points you could expect to score from there. And with that I was able to assign an Equivalent Point Value (EqPt) to every play.

The EqPts concept is perhaps best described by the following graph:

Click to enlarge.

This shows you, basically, the point value of every yard line on the college football field.  Note the different slopes.  A five-yard gain from your own one is worth fewer EqPts than a five-yard gain at the opponent's 30.  And since you still aren't guaranteed points until the ball crosses the end zone, a touchdown is still worth much more than anything else (6.96 points, to be exact, since college kickers can be expected to make 96.3% of their PATs).

Baseball's slugging percentage calculates the number of bases you earned per at bat.  EqPts Per Play (PPP), therefore, calculates the number of approximate points you earned with every play you ran.  It is my favorite creation, honestly, both potentially elegant and powerful.  Now let's see what it can do.

Star-divide

As we did last week with success rates, the best way to get a feel for the PPP measure is to first look at some anchors.  And as with success rates, the single-game measures come only from plays run during non-garbage time.

Smallest Single-Game PPP Against a Non-FCS Opponent, 2005-10
1. Buffalo (2005, vs Miami-OH): -0.26
2. Mississippi State (2005, vs Arkansas): -0.21
3. Temple (2006, vs Minnesota): -0.15
4. Washington State (2009, vs UCLA): -0.13
5. Idaho (2010, vs Boise State): -0.12
6. New Mexico State (2005, vs UTEP): -0.11
7. Washington State (2009, vs Arizona): -0.11
8. Tulane (2010, vs Central Florida): -0.09
9. Western Kentucky (2009, vs Tennessee): -0.08
10. UTEP (2009, vs Texas): -0.08

Other Games of Note
12. Northwestern (2010, vs Wisconsin): -0.08
23. Boston College (2009, vs Virginia Tech): -0.05
25: Boise State (2005, vs Georgia): -0.05
34. Arizona (2009, vs Nebraska): -0.03

So on average, every time these teams ran a play under "close" circumstances, they lost ground.  It's hard to win like that.  And I almost hate to bring it up, but ... that 2009 Washington State team really was among the worst major conference teams of all-time.  What you thought was reasonable improvement from Wazzu in 2010 was actually rather significant improvement.

Largest Single-Game PPP Against a Non-FCS Opponent, 2005-10
1. Cincinnati (2010, vs Miami-OH): 1.46
2. Miami (2005, vs Temple): 1.44
3. LSU (2006, vs Mississippi State): 1.31
4. Minnesota (2006, vs Indiana): 1.25
5. California (2009, vs Washington State): 1.19
6. Iowa (2005, vs Minnesota): 1.17
7. Hawaii (2006, vs Utah State): 1.15
8. Louisville (2010, vs Memphis): 1.13
9. Northern Illinois (2009, vs Eastern Michigan): 1.12
10. Colorado State (2010, vs UNLV): 1.10

Other Games of Note
16. USC (2005, vs Arkansas): 1.06
19. Alabama (2010, vs Duke): 1.04
23. Texas (2005, vs Kansas): 0.98
31. Missouri (2008, vs Nevada): 0.96

PPP is a pure measure of explosiveness and, indirectly, athleticism.  Teams with less athleticism than their opponents can outfox them into higher success rates ... but you really cannot fake explosiveness.  You either have it or you don't.  The teams on the above list bludgeoned their opponents with athleticism and big plays.  (And I think there's a pretty good reason why some of the same teams that are on the "Smallest" list were also victimized on the "Largest" list.)

I put the 2008 Missouri-Nevada game on there, simply because I cannot imagine 30 offensive performances better than it.  It was probably the most dominant offensive game I've witnessed in person.  Ten yards per play.  Touchdowns of 80, 59, 49, 32 and 27 yards. Chase Daniel, Jeremy Maclin, Derrick Washington (sigh), Chase Coffman, etc., were all at the top of their games.  It was so bad that my best friend and I turned to each other in the second quarter and said "It's never going to get better than this, is it?"  For that Missouri team, we were right -- it didn't.

Worst Single-Season PPP, 2005-10
1. Temple (2006): 0.11
2. Washington State (2009): 0.13
3. Temple (2005): 0.16
4. Florida International (2006): 0.16
5. New Mexico State (2009): 0.17
6. Stanford (2006): 0.17
7. Duke (2005): 0.17
8. Buffalo (2005): 0.17
9. Syracuse (2005): 0.17
10. North Texas (2006): 0.19

Other Teams of Note
14. Ole Miss (2005): 0.20
22. Notre Dame (2007): 0.21
28. Virginia (2009): 0.22
31. Washington (2008): 0.22
32. Kansas (2010): 0.23

At some point, I really need to dive into Notre Dame's 2007 collapse.  It was so, so stark.

Best Single-Season PPP, 2005-10
1. Oklahoma (2008): 0.57
2. Hawaii (2006): 0.57
3. Florida (2007): 0.53
4. West Virginia (2006): 0.53
5. Boise State (2010): 0.52
6. Texas (2005): 0.51
7. USC (2005): 0.51
8. Tulsa (2008): 0.51
9. Hawaii (2007): 0.50
10. Hawaii (2010): 0.50

Other Teams of Note
11. Florida (2008): 0.50
12. Cincinnati (2009): 0.50
13. Auburn (2010): 0.49
14. Oklahoma State (2008): 0.49
15. Stanford (2010): 0.49

So that 2006 Hawaii squad ended up at or near the top of the list of best 2005-10 success rates and PPP.  Proof that your best team doesn't always go the furthest.  The 2007 Hawaii team got the BCS bid thanks to a much easier schedule and close wins, but the 2006 team was better, especially on offense.

So there's your background.  Now here are your 2010 rankings.  Once again, teams are ranked in order of schedule-adjusted PPP; we will discuss the schedule-adjustment soon enough.

2010 FBS Offenses, Ranked by PPP+
Rk Offense ClosePPP+ Raw PPP Rk Rushing PPP Rk Passing PPP Rk
1 Auburn 174.6 0.49 3 0.40 8 0.65 1
2 Arkansas 160.4 0.45 9 0.34 34 0.53 7
3 Michigan 155.0 0.43 15 0.37 17 0.52 11
4 Alabama 153.1 0.47 5 0.42 4 0.52 10
5 Stanford 153.0 0.49 4 0.39 13 0.60 3
6 Boise State 149.5 0.52 1 0.42 5 0.61 2
7 Florida State 141.0 0.38 29 0.37 19 0.39 49
8 Ohio State 140.7 0.45 10 0.39 15 0.53 8
9 Virginia Tech 137.6 0.41 19 0.37 18 0.47 19
10 Nevada 136.1 0.46 8 0.44 2 0.49 15
11 Michigan State 135.6 0.43 17 0.39 12 0.46 21
12 Oregon State 133.1 0.35 57 0.34 36 0.35 72
13 TCU 133.1 0.47 6 0.40 9 0.55 5
14 Oregon 132.4 0.45 11 0.40 10 0.50 13
15 Wisconsin 132.2 0.44 12 0.43 3 0.45 24
16 Washington 132.0 0.36 47 0.33 42 0.39 51
17 Oklahoma State 130.7 0.44 14 0.39 14 0.48 18
18 Utah 130.6 0.39 26 0.30 65 0.46 23
19 South Carolina 130.1 0.39 23 0.34 33 0.45 25
20 Hawaii 129.5 0.50 2 0.49 1 0.51 12
21 Oklahoma 128.9 0.36 40 0.26 95 0.44 28
22 Pittsburgh 127.6 0.36 44 0.35 30 0.38 62
23 Baylor 127.1 0.42 18 0.34 31 0.48 17
24 East Carolina 126.0 0.39 22 0.36 23 0.41 36
25 Cincinnati 126.0 0.36 50 0.33 46 0.38 61
26 Notre Dame 125.6 0.35 55 0.28 82 0.40 45
27 Georgia 124.5 0.40 21 0.33 45 0.47 20
28 San Diego State 123.4 0.46 7 0.37 22 0.54 6
29 Missouri 122.8 0.36 39 0.40 11 0.34 82
30 Kansas State 120.4 0.37 33 0.36 25 0.39 48
31 USC 120.3 0.38 31 0.37 20 0.39 55
32 Iowa 119.4 0.39 24 0.30 69 0.49 14
33 Miami-FL 118.3 0.32 81 0.28 79 0.35 78
34 Maryland 117.2 0.35 53 0.28 78 0.42 35
35 LSU 115.8 0.33 66 0.33 43 0.34 81
36 Kentucky 115.6 0.37 34 0.33 47 0.41 37
37 Nebraska 115.2 0.37 35 0.38 16 0.35 75
38 Ole Miss 115.0 0.38 32 0.37 21 0.39 52
39 Texas A&M 114.9 0.33 68 0.33 44 0.34 83
40 Arizona 114.8 0.35 56 0.30 66 0.38 60
41 Florida 114.3 0.32 79 0.33 37 0.30 101
42 NC State 114.2 0.32 76 0.26 97 0.37 66
43 Tennessee 114.2 0.36 46 0.27 88 0.43 31
44 Northern Illinois 114.0 0.44 12 0.41 6 0.48 16
45 Navy 112.8 0.40 20 0.36 24 0.56 4
46 Texas Tech 111.6 0.35 52 0.29 77 0.40 44
47 Louisville 111.5 0.36 45 0.32 53 0.40 39
48 Minnesota 110.1 0.31 83 0.25 101 0.38 59
49 Arizona State 109.2 0.36 42 0.31 59 0.40 40
50 Tulsa 108.1 0.43 16 0.40 7 0.45 26
51 Clemson 107.7 0.30 87 0.28 83 0.32 90
52 Illinois 107.2 0.36 49 0.34 35 0.39 46
53 Air Force 106.8 0.38 27 0.35 29 0.52 9
54 Colorado 106.1 0.34 63 0.27 91 0.42 34
55 Florida International 105.2 0.35 51 0.35 28 0.36 70
56 Indiana 105.1 0.34 59 0.24 103 0.40 42
57 Penn State 104.2 0.32 78 0.26 94 0.38 58
58 Duke 104.0 0.32 80 0.32 50 0.31 98
59 North Carolina 103.7 0.33 64 0.29 71 0.37 64
60 Georgia Tech 103.5 0.34 62 0.34 32 0.31 97
61 Houston 102.9 0.38 28 0.33 41 0.42 33
62 Toledo 102.8 0.34 58 0.29 72 0.41 38
63 Troy 101.9 0.38 30 0.30 63 0.44 29
64 West Virginia 101.8 0.31 84 0.24 107 0.39 54
65 South Florida 101.7 0.29 96 0.27 91 0.32 91
66 Wake Forest 101.1 0.30 91 0.31 57 0.27 107
67 Fresno State 101.0 0.36 43 0.31 60 0.43 30
68 UAB 99.8 0.36 38 0.30 68 0.42 32
69 Central Florida 99.8 0.39 25 0.35 26 0.46 22
70 Virginia 99.7 0.33 73 0.30 64 0.35 79
71 Connecticut 99.7 0.29 94 0.29 75 0.30 102
72 Temple 99.3 0.34 60 0.33 40 0.35 76
73 Western Michigan 98.8 0.36 41 0.32 49 0.39 56
74 SMU 97.3 0.36 47 0.31 58 0.39 50
75 Wyoming 97.1 0.31 82 0.31 62 0.32 92
76 Mississippi State 96.7 0.33 65 0.30 67 0.40 41
77 Ohio 96.5 0.37 36 0.32 54 0.44 27
78 Eastern Michigan 96.4 0.32 75 0.29 74 0.39 53
79 Iowa State 95.2 0.27 105 0.27 89 0.28 104
80 Louisiana Tech 94.9 0.33 67 0.32 51 0.34 80
81 Southern Miss 94.9 0.37 37 0.33 39 0.40 43
82 Washington State 93.8 0.28 101 0.24 105 0.32 94
83 UNLV 93.1 0.27 109 0.22 113 0.32 96
84 Northwestern 92.1 0.33 72 0.28 84 0.38 57
85 BYU 91.5 0.31 85 0.28 81 0.33 85
86 Arkansas State 90.7 0.35 54 0.32 52 0.38 63
87 California 90.2 0.30 89 0.32 48 0.27 108
88 Army 89.7 0.32 74 0.32 55 0.36 69
89 UCLA 89.3 0.29 98 0.33 38 0.21 119
90 Marshall 88.9 0.29 95 0.20 116 0.37 66
91 Syracuse 88.6 0.28 100 0.26 98 0.31 99
92 Rice 88.6 0.33 70 0.28 80 0.39 47
93 Colorado State 87.4 0.28 99 0.26 96 0.30 100
94 Rutgers 85.7 0.27 108 0.21 115 0.32 95
95 Miami-OH 85.4 0.30 90 0.26 99 0.33 87
96 Idaho 84.6 0.33 71 0.27 93 0.37 66
97 Boston College 84.2 0.25 113 0.22 112 0.28 105
98 North Texas 84.0 0.33 69 0.32 56 0.35 74
99 UL-Lafayette 84.0 0.30 88 0.24 108 0.35 76
100 San Jose State 83.1 0.29 93 0.24 104 0.33 88
101 Kent State 80.9 0.28 102 0.29 72 0.27 106
102 Texas 80.8 0.26 112 0.27 90 0.25 111
103 UTEP 80.2 0.34 61 0.31 60 0.37 65
104 Central Michigan 80.0 0.30 86 0.27 86 0.32 93
105 Purdue 78.6 0.27 107 0.27 85 0.27 109
106 Vanderbilt 78.5 0.26 110 0.29 70 0.23 116
107 Utah State 78.1 0.27 106 0.29 76 0.25 115
108 Tulane 77.2 0.29 92 0.25 102 0.33 84
109 Florida Atlantic 76.4 0.27 104 0.19 117 0.35 71
110 UL-Monroe 74.5 0.29 97 0.23 110 0.35 73
111 Ball State 71.6 0.28 103 0.24 109 0.33 86
112 Western Kentucky 71.5 0.26 111 0.27 87 0.25 114
113 Middle Tennessee 70.1 0.32 77 0.35 27 0.28 103
114 Bowling Green 67.7 0.23 117 0.23 111 0.23 117
115 Akron 66.6 0.23 115 0.24 106 0.23 118
116 Kansas 65.9 0.23 118 0.26 100 0.19 120
117 Memphis 65.9 0.22 119 0.17 119 0.27 110
118 New Mexico State 64.0 0.23 116 0.22 114 0.25 113
119 Buffalo 63.5 0.24 114 0.15 120 0.33 89
120 New Mexico 60.9 0.21 120 0.18 118 0.25 112

I'd have been quite interested to see what Rich Rodriguez would have done in Ann Arbor in 2011 -- albeit with a different defensive coordinator. The Wolverines had a really, really strong offense in 2010, even though Denard Robinson predictably couldn't keep up his hilarious early pace.

Comment 8 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Football Study Hall

2011 Running Back Stats: Adj. POE And Highlight Yards

Apr 2012 by Bill C. - 3 comments

The Best Receiver Seasons Of The Last Seven Years

Apr 2012 by Bill C. - 11 comments

Week Two Expectations And Reality: Big Ten

Sep 2011 by Bill C. - 2 comments

2011 Big Ten Conference Summary

Aug 2011 by Bill C. - 9 comments

Interception Rates (Fun Stat Nerd Tidbit: Miami)

Jul 2011 by Bill C. - 5 comments

Summer Vacation: The Bowling Green Falcons And Some Long-Standing Personal Grudges

Jun 2011 by Bill C. - 1 comment

Around SB Nation

Mizzou Links, 2-17-12

Feb 2012 from Rock M Nation - 375 comments

Chase Coffman Signed By Tampa Bay

Feb 2012 from Cincy Jungle - 74 comments

TE Chase Coffman signed by Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Feb 2012 from Bucs Nation - 176 comments

Mizzou Links, 2-22-12

Feb 2012 from Rock M Nation - 284 comments

Bengals Banter: Signing Jim McNally Invites Memories Of Cincinnati's Golden Offensive Lines

Feb 2012 from Cincy Jungle - 0 comments

Read More: Jeremy Maclin (WR - Missouri), Chase Coffman (TE - Missouri), Derrick Washington (RB - Missouri), Denard Robinson (QB - Michigan), Michigan Wolverines

Comments

Display:

Rich Rod

Had it going at WVU, and looked to be turning it around at Meeechigan. I thought it was a mistake to fire him. Perhaps if they came out and did the same thing in 2011, but some schools don’t seem to have the patience.

by Mac6uffin on Mar 22, 2011 10:17 AM EDT reply actions  

Just found this blog

via OTE. I love what I’ve read so far, and am posting so that SBN will let me make this a favorite blog.

One more thing to prevent me from doing actual work.

Brunettes not fighter jets

by rockyh on Mar 22, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Seeing Iowa make the "Largest" list made me do a double-take.

Going back and reviewing the box score was shocking. TDs of 46, 71, 26 & 38 are almost unheard of in Iowa City, to see them all in one game is pretty spectacular.

Twitter

by The Mexican't on Mar 22, 2011 4:42 PM EDT reply actions  

So I understand the concept of EPP,

but what Im semi curious of is does it take into account what down the play was on. Because given a scenario like FSU vs UF 2003, PK Sam’s bomb of a catch was great and was what scored the winning touchdown, but the 4th down conversion the play before made those points possible. So essentially what I mean is that the 24 yards Dominic Robinson got should count just as much as the 52 yard bomb that PK Sam caught. I understand it wasn’t as explosive, but without the conversion on 4th, the 52 yards bomb never happens.

So what I’m really wondering is how would you be able to combine the success rate into the epp and generate an importance per play of a drive.

by fsugrizz on Mar 22, 2011 8:05 PM EDT reply actions  

Once upon a time...

…I looked at 2nd-level PPP (which took down into account) and 3rd-level PPP (down and distance), and what I quickly found was that their correlations to actual quality were not as good as with PPP itself. 2nd-level PPP has some value (five best 2ndPPP from the last six years, all from 2008: Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Texas, Rice), but 3rd is crazy (two best 3rdPPP: 2007 Ball State, 2007 Rice). It appears to be a tool that might fill in some gaps here and there, but it’s crazy enough that I haven’t figured out what to do with it yet.

Rock M Nation (Twitter)
Football Outsiders (Twitter)
Football Study Hall
personal Twitter

by Bill C. on Mar 22, 2011 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not that I know for sure

but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t account for what down the play was on.

That would be an interesting measurement to try and figure out. I think the difference is in what a play is worth vs. how important was the play… Yes, the bomb doesn’t happen without the conversion. But without the bomb, the conversion is worthless.

Lot’s of variables to figure out the importance per play.

by BenDNole on Mar 22, 2011 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

The perspective I am looking at is

that the bomb doesn’t happen without the conversion, but I disargee without the bomb the conversion is useless. Because there were 3 more tries to get 10 yards. So thats essentially the success rate. But what I was semi interested in, was more of a clutch explosive rating. We needed a good chunk of yards in that game, and were boom or bust on that drive. 4 yard run, 6 yard sack, incomplete pass, 24 yards on 4th and 14 and then 52 yard bomb.

I dont know how non-trival it is but it could give some insight. A plausible reasoning could be that teams with higher 3rdPPP tend to be in worse situations so they need more yards to get conversions. It may just be that teams with high 3rdPPP could be inversely related to Success rated, like I said I dont know.

The only reason I really brought this up is because of when you posted above

However, what contributed more to Maryland’s touchdowns
and it got me to thinking that about the fact the touchdown isn’t always possible without the preceding events barring 1 play drives. Ie first downs penalties etc. Therefore the play that scores the touchdown has to reflect the preceding events depending on the preceding events. In the Maryland case, yes the TD’s were not at all possible without the bomb that got them there, but was the bomb on first down leaving 3 downs left?

 It would seem that the larger down it is the more important the bomb would become. A bomb on first down isn’t as demeaning as a bomb on 3rd down because the result of the play from a bomb on first down is the same as before it. 3 more downs to get a defense off the field. i.e. it was 1st and 10 before the bomb and its 1st and 10 after the bomb the only difference is field position. Whereas a bomb on 3rd down results in a 1st down so you essentially had two wasted plays as a defense so you lose field position at the chance to get off the field barring a turnover. I hope you understand what I mean by that because I know its not necessarily worded so eloquently.

by fsugrizz on Mar 23, 2011 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

I was at

the Cincinnati v Miami (OH) game on top of the single game chart and it was a pretty breathtaking performance on offense. The difference in terms of athleticism was so, so stark. The Bearcats had 21 plays of 10 or more yards, and 5 plays of 40 or more, and that was just in the first half. The starters sat at the start of the third.

by Matt Opper on Mar 25, 2011 1:56 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Chief Nerd

Babyfoot_small Bill C.

Authors

Kleph_logo_copy_small kleph