The football equivalent of baseballs on base percentage is ?

[DarkHorse2001]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

 

[coolcock2001]

There it is, the ultimate Gamecock fan post. "Throw it to the tight end" was the answer all along

 

[DarkHorse2001]

There it is, the ultimate Gamecock fan post. "Throw it to the tight end" was the answer all along

Let me hear your ideas. I will not knock you for trying.

 

[robertfootball]

Net yards per pass attempt is one of the most important ones.

 

[Lakecock1]

Hmm..."Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is."

It is only simple on paper and in theory when a defense fails to adjust to what an offense is doing. Once a defense makes adjustments, then it becomes much more difficult to simply 'advance the ball 3.34 yards each down'. You can put 4-5 TE's on the field at the same time, and you will never be guaranteed of advancing the ball 3.34 yards each down the entire game. It MAY work for one drive, but that's about it.

 

[Gaimcock]

There it is, the ultimate Gamecock fan post. "Throw it to the tight end" was the answer all along

What's a tight end??

LOLOLOL!!!! 😅😁😊😀

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

This is kind of what they did at Stanford. Go look at what they were doing with Harbough and Shaw’s early years. They decided they couldn’t put recruit So Cal and Oregon in the “skill” department but they could get athletic large guys with big strong hands who were also smart enough to get into school. So they did. They recruited TE/OT type kids and converted them to where they fit. It worked. For a while. But eventually you’ve got to be able to throw the ball down the field. That take QB and WR talent.

 

[bucketdad]

My baseball philosophy says be prepared for everything and let the opposing defense dictate what you do on offense. That imo is what the best baseball teams are doing right now. Let's try that.
That said, big fan of heavy use of a TE... just dont want it to be our identity. Same as bunting

 

[ToddFlanders]

I think the current staff realizes the issues you mentioned and at least appears to be addressing that.

We need to take a more “Boise State” approach - or Stanford as also mentioned. Basically they think: if you can't out-recruit them, then out-develop them. With the right development, you can get a three-star kid and make him into a 4 or 5 star kid. You have to stick with it though. It's culture driven and real culture doesn't happen overnight.

But I do think the SEC is ripe for a team like that. So many of these staffs are filled with great recruiters (not so great at developing players). They come in as good players, but don't get any better (which is why Mahlzan got fired).

 

[bucketdad]

I think the current staff realizes the issues you mentioned and at least appears to be addressing that.

We need to take a more “Boise State” approach - or Stanford as also mentioned. Basically they think: if you can't out-recruit them, then out-develop them. With the right development, you can get a three-star kid and make him into a 4 or 5 star kid. You have to stick with it though. It's culture driven and real culture doesn't happen overnight.

But I do think the SEC is ripe for a team like that. So many of these staffs are filled with great recruiters (not so great at developing players). They come in as good players, but don't get any better (which is why Mahlzan got fired).

Lot a truth to that and it's not limited to football

 

[Captain Weegie]

Unfortunately, having an elite football team requires elite talent and depth.

The Stanfords and the Wisconsins of the world can put together nice seasons. But they aren't making the playoffs simply by having decent players make good plays.

Can Beamer recruit us to the next level? We won't know for another few years. But he does seem to possess the recruiting intangibles needed to make some noise.

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Unfortunately, having an elite football team requires elite talent and depth.

The Stanfords and the Wisconsins of the world can put together nice seasons. But they aren't making the playoffs simply by having decent players make good plays.

Can Beamer recruit us to the next level? We won't know for another few years. But he does seem to possess the recruiting intangibles needed to make some noise.

Agree 100%. However, I’d take Wisconson’s last 10 seasons over ours any day!

 

[DarkHorse2001]

Unfortunately, having an elite football team requires elite talent and depth.

The Stanfords and the Wisconsins of the world can put together nice seasons. But they aren't making the playoffs simply by having decent players make good plays.

Can Beamer recruit us to the next level? We won't know for another few years. But he does seem to possess the recruiting intangibles needed to make some noise.

The next level for us is finishing in the top 25 again. Last time we did that was 2014.

 

[uscg1984]

I agree that there is probably room for a team to utilize analytics in college football with a great deal of success. But I'm not sure it's as simple as finding the football equivalent to baseball's OBP (if there is such a thing). I think it might require a paradigm shift similar to what Kevin Kelly did at at the Pulaski Academy high school team down in Arkansas. He is now the coach at PC and I'm curious to see how much of his unconventional system he brings with him to college ball.

Instead of simply looking at yards-per-carry and coming to the same conclusion you (and everyone else) came to that 3.34 yards per play will keep the ball moving, he concluded that a perfectly good 4th down is wasted by punting. Once you commit to the idea that you have 4 downs to work with, suddenly you only need 2.5 yards per play. He made a similar analysis about kickoffs and decided that the risk/reward ratio of onside kicks were so good that they did it all the time. And they found that if you only do onside kicks, your team becomes pretty good at it - much better than the average conversion rate of teams that only kick a couple per year.

I'm not suggesting that we should never punt and only do onside kickoffs, but that kind of outside-the-box thinking may be what it takes to achieve a level of success on the field necessary to compete for the kind of talent needed to seriously challenge the perennial powers.

 

[Thirdcatgy]

There are many interesting articles which have been published on the Moneyball concept as relates to college football. Believe there's also independent consulting companies who also promote themselves based on this ideology.

Hopefully Beamer has some early success and develops into a media darling.

That level of marketing is critical for us, and something Muschamp really wasn't bringing to the table.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

I agree that there is probably room for a team to utilize analytics in college football with a great deal of success. But I'm not sure it's as simple as finding the football equivalent to baseball's OBP (if there is such a thing). I think it might require a paradigm shift similar to what Kevin Kelly did at at the Pulaski Academy high school team down in Arkansas. He is now the coach at PC and I'm curious to see how much of his unconventional system he brings with him to college ball.

Instead of simply looking at yards-per-carry and coming to the same conclusion you (and everyone else) came to that 3.34 yards per play will keep the ball moving, he concluded that a perfectly good 4th down is wasted by punting. Once you commit to the idea that you have 4 downs to work with, suddenly you only need 2.5 yards per play. He made a similar analysis about kickoffs and decided that the risk/reward ratio of onside kicks were so good that they did it all the time. And they found that if you only do onside kicks, your team becomes pretty good at it - much better than the average conversion rate of teams that only kick a couple per year.

I'm not suggesting that we should never punt and only do onside kickoffs, but that kind of outside-the-box thinking may be what it takes to achieve a level of success on the field necessary to compete for the kind of talent needed to seriously challenge the perennial powers.

I agree with some of that. Punting on their side of the field on 4th and short leaves you thinking what if.

 

[bucketdad]

I agree with some of that. Punting on their side of the field on 4th and short leaves you thinking what if.

Agreed... as long as you have been decent at getting a few yards when you need them.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

Agreed... as long as you have been decent at getting a few yards when you need them.

Good time for a well coached team to go no huddle, quick snap.

 

[lilburncock]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

The 1950s.
3 yards and a cloud of dust.

 

[lowcountry_cock13]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

No offense but I think you missed the point of money ball. The concept was that you replace a guy like Jason Giambi making half your salary budget with multiple talented guys for cheaper because Jason Giambi is a big name but wasn’t worth the value he was actually making. Problem is that the blue bloods have talent all around the board because there is no salary cap- so you can have 9 Giambis on the field or in Alabama’s case 22

 

[lowcountry_cock13]

The 1950s.
3 yards and a cloud of dust.

I think this was the point of the option. Only problem is you burn 10 min off the clock to score once and you’re opponent has one WR that runs a 4.4 who scores in 15 seconds. The most talented QB, RB and WR want to play for the team that scores fast- so basically you just devolve into GT

 

[lilburncock]

I think this was the point of the option. Only problem is you burn 10 min off the clock to score once and you’re opponent has one WR that runs a 4.4 who scores in 15 seconds. The most talented QB, RB and WR want to play for the team that scores fast- so basically you just devolve into GT

And that is why it was lost in the 50's.

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

The football equivalent to On base % is probably third down conversion rate….

 

[jweaks]

The equivalent is first downs. First downs lead to scoring position. Scoring position leads to scores.

 

[alaskagamecock]

At the end of the day the teams with the most talent are going to win. Look at the sheer number of players put into the NFL from Bama, Clemson and Ohio State and there is your simple explanation. Having an abundance of talent year over year yields the greatest success, period.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

At the end of the day the teams with the most talent are going to win. Look at the sheer number of players put into the NFL from Bama, Clemson and Ohio State and there is your simple explanation. Having an abundance of talent year over year yields the greatest success, period.

You are right, but not unequivocally right. Every year there is a substantial number of players that make it to the NFL that were lightly recruited. Rivals or any other recruiting service did not spot them during their high school days. These are future NFL players that were under the radar. They did not play for a P5 team. If a coach could correctly evaluate this talent he would become ultra successful. The most recent NFL draft had 11 of these players in the first three rounds. Alabama had 8 players picked in three rounds. Clemson had 4 players in three rounds. Ohio State totaled 6 in three rounds.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

The football equivalent to On base % is probably third down conversion rate….

Just a matter of opinion, but I would equate third down conversion to batting average.
On base % to yards per play.

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Just a matter of opinion, but I would equate third down conversion to batting average.
On base % to yards per play.

Maybe. 🤷‍♂️. Certainly interesting. I think there have been studies that show the team that has the most explosive plays, fewest turnovers, and highest 3rd down % wins 98% of their games. I’ll what the baseball equivalent of those would be. I heard that from Noel Mazzone in a clinic once.

 

[vehemon]

Some of you may remember about a month ago I posted a thread about a Moneyball type of system, strategy working for college football. In the SEC there are perennial top tier teams. There are aspiring top tier teams. There are consistent bowl teams, and then there is South Carolina. We have been playing SEC football for nearly 30 years. Trying to beat the bluebloods at their own game. Trying to play and recruit much like they do. What do we have to show for this? South Carolina needs to play the game different than others are playing it. Recruiting with a different mindset is important. Why keep doing the same thing, and expect for no good reason it will be different this year, or any year.

The key stat in Moneyball was on base percentage. All the other teams were placing many other things ahead of just getting on base. If we could move the ball 10 feet per play. The drive never dies. The best defense is a good offense, but not a fast strike offense. Ball control keeps the clock running. It keeps all that talent the best teams have that we are unable to match up against off the field. Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is. Is this the equivalent of on base percentage?

My simple theory. Could more tall, strong, good hands, tight ends be our answer? More tight ends on the field, instead of smaller faster sprinting wide receivers. More passes near the line of scrimmage. Finding a mismatch between tight ends and linebackers. Make linebackers play lots of pass coverage against multiple tight ends. Get the linebackers concerned with the big tight ends, then run it at them. Eventually the safeties and Cb's move closer. That is when you can find single coverage on the receivers. Keeping the defense guessing and off balance. I know it is simple, but I think if it was our offensive objective it would produce more wins.

We never match the best teams in recruiting. They get top ten classes every year. We have to do something different and do it good. There are many players drafted by the NFL every year that were overlooked by nearly every P5 team in the nation. Effective evaluation of the overlooked players would close the talent gap. How can that be accomplished? What do you think our new staff could do different that would work? Post your opinion and ideas.

There's a lot of potential with pattern recognition software and getting a quick % of what offense someone is about to run.

Defensive audibles could be much more efficient if there's a factual way to get this information analyzed within a second of a team's offense lining up. It's actually pretty simple to put together once you have the player analyzing software locked down and able to import previous games into a knowledge base.

Coaches already do this obviously by pure sight but it could be another tool for them to make more informed decisions.

A moneyball approach doesn't really work for football simply because baseball can be played at a much slower pace.
Outside of HRs, games are won and lost on lots of pitches and situational plays and has a MUCH greater volume of data exposed.

A break down of one player on a single play in football could mean a team winning or losing. Raw intuition, knowledge, conditioning, and experience is what decides games.

Unless players can privately be talked to by their coach/QB/MLB/etc; the single best way to give your team an advantage is having a loud and disruptive stadium while the opposing team is on offense. Simple as that.

Non stop yelling, synchronized physical movement in the fans area, crucial songs playing before the ball is set, anything to disrupt communication for the offense. Shaw was a huge part in that home streak he had... but that stadium helped him out with the noise they brought for each and every game. Before we started mixing with wine and cheese fans near the field that won't even stand up and yell on the first defensive play of the game.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

Hmm..."Advance the ball 3.34 yards each down. Sounds simple, maybe because it is."

It is only simple on paper and in theory when a defense fails to adjust to what an offense is doing. Once a defense makes adjustments, then it becomes much more difficult to simply 'advance the ball 3.34 yards each down'. You can put 4-5 TE's on the field at the same time, and you will never be guaranteed of advancing the ball 3.34 yards each down the entire game. It MAY work for one drive, but that's about it.

FYI, Running the football last season we averaged 4.5 yards per carry. I think we were about in the middle of the SEC in that stat.

 

[paladin181]

3rd down conversion %. No team is ever successful without a decent 3rd down conversion rate. 3rd down conversions mean the ball is moving. Unless a team is turning the ball over a ridiculous amount of the time, 3rd down conversion % is a good indicator of success.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

3rd down conversion %. No team is ever successful without a decent 3rd down conversion rate. 3rd down conversions mean the ball is moving. Unless a team is turning the ball over a ridiculous amount of the time, 3rd down conversion % is a good indicator of success.

Before Moneyball, on base percentage stat was not considered important enough to factor into evaluating players. OBP definitely would not have equated to football third down conversion rate. Moneyball changed the game. On base percentage became the most important factor in player evaluation. Do not discount a stat not used much today by coaches or other talking heads. A better understanding of an obscure football stat today, might change football forever in the future.

 

[lowcountry_cock13]

The equivalent is first downs. First downs lead to scoring position. Scoring position leads to scores.

So punting is like striking out? Or would punting be ending an inning?

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Before Moneyball, on base percentage stat was not considered important enough to factor into evaluating players. OBP definitely would not have equated to football third down conversion rate. Moneyball changed the game. On base percentage became the most important factor in player evaluation. Do not discount a stat not used much today by coaches or other talking heads. A better understanding of an obscure football stat today, might change football forever in the future.

If this were the case everyone would be running the triple option. It’s just simply not. When you play against teams that are more talented, bigger and faster ANd are sound defensively you can’t run the ball 65 times a game. You just won’t be successful. The recipe is win the turnover battle, win the chunk play battle, and convert third downs.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

If this were the case everyone would be running the triple option. It’s just simply not. When you play against teams that are more talented, bigger and faster ANd are sound defensively you can’t run the ball 65 times a game. You just won’t be successful. The recipe is win the turnover battle, win the chunk play battle, and convert third downs.

Puzzled how you have this conclusion after reading my previous post.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

So punting is like striking out? Or would punting be ending an inning?

No longer on offense. Time to play defense. Seems like the end of the inning to me.

 

[iohbird]

I would agree with many posters who say third down conversion percentage. But I would say that the best way to do that is a good gain on first down. Second and short (5 or less yards) is you best path to a third down conversion. Similar in baseball to getting ahead in the count and getting a man on base with no outs.

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Puzzled how you have this conclusion after reading my previous post.

What other offense runs the ball 90% of the time or are you advocating for throwing the ball 4-5 yards at a time? That in and of itself lends itself to really difficult time going down the field.

 

[jweaks]

So punting is like striking out? Or would punting be ending an inning?

I would say it's more like ending the inning.