Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Week In Worst: When Baseball Goes Wrong

Virginia Tech Offensive Efficiency in 2010

For the third year, we're going to look at the Virginia Tech Hokies' efficiency stats in conference play. There are two primary schools of thought with efficiency stats. There's the drive-based formula devised by Brian Fremeau and the play-based formula used by SBN's own Bill Connolly of Rock M Nation. Both formulas can be found over at Football Outsiders.

I use a very, very watered down set of efficiency stats that are a little easier to understand. Basically, we're going to compare how yards the Hokies gained in games compared to what they should have gained based on how many plays they ran in that game. You can go back and look at the 2009 numbers and 2008 numbers for a comparison to what we're about to see.

Star-divide

Note: These stats are from conference games only. Non-conference games are outliers because scheduling philosophy varies from school to school. You take the yards per play allowed by the opponent and multiply it by Virginia Tech's plays in that game to get the Hokies' expected yards. Then, you compare it to the yards the Hokies actually racked up. If you meet expectations, your efficiency will be 1.000, the higher the number the better.

Raw data from the amazing cfbstats.com.

First up, rushing.

Abbreviations: YPC - opponent's yards per carry allowed without sacks; Rush - VT carries minus sacks; ExYds - expected yards for VT; Yards - VT yards with sacks taken out; Eff - VT efficiency. Sacks are removed from these stats because the NCAA counts sacks as rushing attempts from some ungodly reason.

VT Offensive Efficiency - Rushing 2010
Opponent YPC Rush ExYds Yards Eff
Boston College 3.3 38 123.8 118 0.953
NC State 4.6 33 152.5 337 2.210
Wake Forest 5.0 53 266.8 299 1.121
Duke 4.8 38 182.9 166 0.908
Georgia Tech 5.2 40 209.5 198 0.945
North Carolina 4.8 35 169.4 193 1.139
Miami 5.4 43 231.0 289 1.251
Virginia 5.7 39 224.0 204 0.911
Florida State 4.5 40 179.2 185 1.032
Total 4.9 359 1750.8 1989 1.136

2009 Rushing Efficiency: 1.146
2008 Rushing Efficiency: 0.994

Here's the passing stats.

Abbreviations: YPA - opponent's yards per attempt allowed; Pass - VT pass attempts; ExYds - expected yards for VT; Yards - VT actual yards; Eff - VT efficiency.

VT Offensive Efficiency - Passing 2010
Opponent YPA Pass ExYds Yards Eff
Boston College 6.0 21 125.1 237 1.895
NC State 7.3 24 175.7 123 0.700
Wake Forest 8.1 35 283.9 314 1.106
Duke 8.8 31 272.9 332 1.217
Georgia Tech 7.7 25 192.2 137 0.713
North Carolina 6.8 28 189.4 249 1.315
Miami 5.8 15 86.7 118 1.361
Virginia 8.5 24 204.5 182 0.890
Florida State 6.7 28 188.4 263 1.396
Total 7.2 231 1667.7 1955 1.172

2009 Passing Efficiency: 1.568
2008 Passing Efficiency: 0.911

And finally, put them all together to get offensive efficiency and scoring efficiency.

Abbreviations: YPP - opponent yards per play allowed; Plays - VT plays; ExYds - expected yards for VT; Yards - VT actual yards; Eff - VT efficiency. PPP - opponent points per play allowed adjusted for non-offensive points; Plays - VT plays; ExPts - expected points for VT; Points - VT points minus non-offensive points; Eff - VT efficiency.

VT Offensive Efficiency - Yards 2010
Opponent YPP Plays ExYds Yards Eff
Boston College 4.5 61 275.5 343 1.245
NC State 5.3 61 320.8 440 1.372
Wake Forest 6.0 89 533.5 605 1.134
Duke 6.2 70 436.6 491 1.125
Georgia Tech 6.1 65 397.6 335 0.843
North Carolina 5.3 66 353.0 418 1.184
Miami 5.1 63 323.3 369 1.141
Virginia 6.5 64 417.8 383 0.917
Florida State 5.1 71 362.1 442 1.221
Total 5.6 610 3400.8 3826 1.125
VT Offensive Efficiency - Points 2010
Opponent PPP Plays ExPts Points Eff
Boston College 0.236 61 14.4 19 1.317
NC State 0.342 61 20.8 35 1.679
Wake Forest 0.511 89 45.5 52 1.143
Duke 0.412 70 28.9 44 1.525
Georgia Tech 0.392 65 25.5 21 0.823
North Carolina 0.348 66 23.0 26 1.131
Miami 0.311 63 19.6 31 1.582
Virginia 0.503 64 32.2 37 1.150
Florida State 0.270 71 19.2 37 1.929
Total 0.368 610 224.7 302 1.344

2009 Offensive Efficiency: 1.170
2008 Offensive Efficiency: 0.903

2009 Scoring Efficiency: 1.376
2008 Scoring Efficiency: 0.810

It should come as no surprise that the rushing and passing numbers were similar considering how balanced the Hokies were in 2010. What also isn't surprising is that the number wound up being favorable for the Hokies since all of these games were wins.

For the Curious (Using Full Season Stats)

vs. Boise State
Rush Eff: 0.856
Pass Eff: 1.599
Total Eff: 1.196

vs. Stanford
Rush Eff: 1.068
Pass Eff: 1.086
Total Eff: 0.850

Against Boise State, Tyrod saved us from our early season offensive line disaster by having a nice game through the air. The Broncos stopper our ground game cold, which teams have tended to do early in the season against us. The offensive line hasn't clicked at the beginning of the regular season since probably 2005, which is one of the reasons we keep losing early games, along with scheduling.

As for Stanford, you'll noticed we actually performed above expectations in the individual rush and pass games, but that the total efficiency is well below what we should have had. That's because the astounding 70 sack yards we allowed gets factored back in. Again, the offensive line failed us in a game against a team with top talent.

Amazingly, our two worst games efficiency wise against ACC play came against two defenses we probably should have destroyed -- Georgia Tech and Virginia. This I think you can blame on conservative play calling. I think we held back against the Wahoos to save guys for the ACC title game and I have no idea what on earth we were doing in that Georgia Tech game, but it sure didn't work.

The Hokies rolled through ACC play because they never really allowed a team to make them one-dimensional. And the one time they were, they found both extremes. The lowest single rating, rushing or passing, was passing efficiency against NC State. But in that same game they blew the doors off their expected yards on the ground, helping them come back to beat the Pack.

We were an extraordinarily efficient team against our own league, but talent deficiency caught up with us against the two top teams we played outside the league, primarily on the offensive line. You can blame play calling all you want, but the Stanford game came down to having a poor game plan rather than individual play calling. We met our expected yards, but had no answer or adjustment for Stanford's pass rush.

And as for the Boise State game, a lot of people point to the decision to throw the ball on third-and-eight as the reason Virginia Tech lost. But look at those efficiency numbers. We were having a lot of success through the air, but they were crushing our run game. A first down and the game's over. So if you make the decision to try and end the game, you're going to do so with the your senior quarterback's arm, who had been having success against the opposing defense. Of course you throw it.

If you run it, you're going to get stopped short of the first down and take 40 more seconds off the clock, giving the Broncos the ball with about a minute to play. Well, they only needed 38 seconds to score anyway.

Why did I just re-live all that? Good grief I have a problem.

Anyway, back on point with the stats and the efficiency and the thing and the stuff.

Yeah, we were pretty good against our league. Not quite as good as last year, but good compared to what was expected. There's not going to be a change on the offensive staff, so you're just going to have to deal with it.

Last year I wrote that if we could put together an offensive line that the numbers we had in 2009 could be duplicated. I don't think this year's line was as good as last year's, but they put together a season that was about 150 yards (in nine games) away from duplicating the previous season's efficiency stats.

For the second consecutive year, the passing efficiency was better than the rushing efficiency thanks to Tyrod. I doubt that will be the case next year with a new quarterback under center, meaning the rushing efficiency is going to have to improve, even from the current numbers, for the Hokies to win another conference title.

Comment 3 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

dammit furrer

For a guy who put together such an awesome analysis of the offensive numbers for the season, you are way out of whack on the end of the Boise State game. The 3rd and 8 call wasn’t the problem. It was the 2nd and 6 abortion that cost the Hokies that game. Recall that Boise had just taken a timeout so the Hokies had plenty of time to set up that play so of course it was a total bust that lost 2 yards on a Tyrod scramble instead of a designed run with RMFW or Darren Evans and a fullback in there to boot.

And you say “why not pass it there” and the answer is because at that late juncture in the game, the Hokie running game had sprung to life. Evans had just ripped off 4 yds and RMFW had doubled his rushing total for the game on that one drive alone. Of course, if you want to argue indefinitely that a pass play was called for there because of our efficiency numbers, how about a quick 10 yard hitch route, or hit the tight end, or god forbid a slant. Anything that’s a higher % pass than a deep go route up the sideline. Thanks for bringing back such great memories.

MadJay
www.techsuperfans.com

by MadJay on Jan 12, 2011 7:13 PM EST reply actions  

Jay does indeed sound mad...

can’t disagree with a lot of it, but it’s been several months at this point… I’m surprised at how clearly you remember this, and how raw the emotions still seem to be.

by hokiegrad on Jan 12, 2011 9:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Totally agree

I totally agree with MadJay, the other problem with our offensive coordinator is the inability to adjust at half time like you saw in the orange bowl. Why didn’t Tyrod roll out a lot more and use his mobility instead of playing in the shotgun and having to scramble all the time if a play failed. Are there no quick throws, screens, quick slants or 10 yard crossing routes in our playbook? Despite a screen once or twice that seemed to have worked, I didn’t see any other good plays during the Orange Bowl. The line is a big problem every year because of Newsome’s idea of a smaller more athletic line against the bigger lines of top defenses. Since Stinespring and Beamer haven’t done anything to fix this in 5 or 6 years, the wall this program has hit lies on their shoulders.

by charchar on Jan 13, 2011 2:16 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Virginia Tech Hokies community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Simply Amazing
Small
Cool Hokie ringtones
An_early_human_small
David Wilson goes in the FIRST ROUND to the Giants!
Avatar_small
Weaver Searching for the Next Basketball Coach
Small
Vote for EMILY on Hokie Heels Facebook page.
Small
Let's remember Emily by naming Hokie Heels after her!
Avatar_small
VT Spring Game...Who's Going?
315545_1981119458653_1563180275_31869315_5504062_n_small
Johnson Wagner shoots 79 at the Masters
Small
Fuller and Exum to start spring at CB's
Small
Thoughts about Frank Beamer

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editors

Photo_3_small chicagomaroon

315545_1981119458653_1563180275_31869315_5504062_n_small Josh Parcell

Me_small VTCody

Authors

36937_1407079748247_1570020053_30963868_6279841_n_small Casey Richey

Photo_276_small Mark Trible

Small Courtney Lofgren

Meeee_small Ty Hodges

Small debbieballard