End of the Regular Season: Let's Take a Look at the Numbers

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Pass attempts

 

Looking back at the 2013 regular season, which we can all agree was largely disappointing, I've decided to take a look to see just where things went wrong in our wins and losses. Let's start with pass attempts. Was Beck philosophically different during our wins and during our losses. In our wins, we averaged about 28.5 passes per game whereas in our losses we averaged about 33.5 passes per game. Now, the argument that can be made that we had to pass more because we were behind and you need to preserve clock if you are to come back. The running game doesn't preserve clock, so you must pass. But the difference was not significant, so I'll statistically conclude that Beck was not philosophically different in our losses than in our wins but rather that his hand was forced in some cases.

 

Examining the difference between the games Taylor played and games Taylor did not play reveals that we averaged about 28.75 passes per game with Taylor under center and about 30.87 passes per game with Tommy Armstrong or Ron Kellogg III under center. The argument can be made that we were behind more when Taylor wasn't under center, but remember that Taylor played in the UCLA and Minnesota games, whereas Ron Kellogg and Tommy Armstrong played in the Michigan State and Iowa games. So both groups were under center in 2 losing efforts. Regardless, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant.

 

Let's take a look at each game and how much more or less we passed it in those games. Our average is 30.2 pass attempts per game.

 

Wyoming: -8.2

Southern Miss: -2.2

UCLA: +4.8

South Dakota State: -4.2

Illinois: -10.2

Purdue: +0.8

Minnesota: -0.2

Northwestern: +11.8

Michigan: -7.2

Michigan State: +1.8

Penn State: +5.8

Iowa: +6.8

 

Opponent's Pass Attempts

 

The teams that we beat averaged about 32.25 passes per game whereas teams that beat us averaged 22.75 passes per game. Again, the question remains as to how much of this difference should be credited to teams just having to pass more because they are behind and pass less because they are ahead. The difference between these two numbers was statistically significant.

 

Let's take a look at each team and just how many fewer passes they attempted against us:

 

Wyoming—Average: 39.5—Against NU: 44—Difference: +4.5

Southern Miss—Average: 40.7—Against NU: 37—Difference: -3.7

Illinois—Average: 37.9—Against NU: 31—Difference: -6.9

Purdue—Average: 35.5—Against NU: 36—Difference: +0.5

Northwestern—Average: 31.8—Against NU: 21—Difference: -10.8

Michigan—Average: 29.8—Against NU: 27—Difference: -2.8

Penn State—Average: 34.1—Against NU: 33—Difference: -1.1

 

UCLA—Average: 30.2—Against NU: 25—Difference: -5.2

Minnesota—Average: 19.8—Against NU: 17—Difference: -2.8

Michigan State—Average: 30.4—Against NU: 32—Difference: +1.6

Iowa—Average: 28.8—Against NU: 17—Difference: -11.8

 

So, only one team in the games we won went into desperation mode. That was Wyoming. Two of the games we lost started to pack it in and chew clock early. And conveniently enough those were the games in which we lost by the most, 20 to UCLA and 21 to Iowa.

 

Rush Attempts

 

In games that we won we ran the ball about 50 times per game and in games we lost we ran the ball about 35.25 times per game. I'll mention the concern with looking at just the attempts without regards to how far ahead or behind we were. But, looking back on the season, there wasn't really a point where we had to resort to the passing game and abandon the running game earlier than midway through the 4^th quarter. The only exception is the Iowa game. So if there's a fault I'll place on Beck is that I think he gets a little panicky and resorts to the huck-it-chuck-it football a little to quickly when we get behind. The difference between these numbers was statistically significant.

 

In addition, we also ran the ball an equal amount of times when Taylor played and when Taylor was sidelined with his many injuries.

 

So, in order to get a more complete picture of how Tim Beck decided to call the game and how adequate of a job he did, let's take a look at the difference between how much we ran compared to our average. Our average for 2013 was 45.1.

 

Wyoming: 63, +17.9

Southern Miss: 46, +0.9

UCLA: 42, -3.1

South Dakota State: 51, +5.9

Illinois: 50, +4.9

Purdue: 56, +10.9

Minnesota: 30, -15.1

Northwestern: 50, +4.9

Michigan: 43, -2.1

Michigan State: 32, -13.1

Penn State: 41, -4.1

Iowa: 37, -8.1

 

From a pass-run distribution standpoint, I don't think Beck had a bad game until Minnesota which was his worst play calling came this season. Michigan State wasn't good either. We were in those games until the very end, so passing to preserve clock shouldn't have been the reason. And as I think we'll see later (tomorrow's post), I don't think we were running the ball terribly against Minnesota or the Spartans either. His best play calling games, I believe came against Wyoming and Illinois.

 

 

Opponent's Rush Attempts

 

In games we lost, we faced a lot more runs than we did passes. We faced 36.87 rushing attempts per game in the games we won and faced 49.75 rushing attempts per game in the games we lost. Again, that could be due to the fact that teams wanted to chew clock. But let's take a look at the difference between the teams' average rushing attempts and how many they attempted against NU.

 

Wyoming—Average: 37.3—Against NU: 30—Difference: -7.3

Southern Miss—Average: 28.2—Against NU: 27—Difference: -1.2

Illinois—Average: 34.3—Against NU: 48—Difference: +13.7

Purdue—Average: 26.6—Against NU: 25—Difference: -1.6

Northwestern—Average: 42.3—Against NU: 47—Difference: +4.7

Michigan—Average: 40.8—Against NU: 36—Difference: -4.8

Penn State—Average: 41.8—Against NU: 44—Difference: +2.2

 

UCLA—Average: 44.2—Against NU: 42—Difference: -2.2

Minnesota—Average: 45.7—Against NU: 54—Difference: +8.3

Michigan State—Average: 41.1—Against NU: 48—Difference: +6.9

Iowa—Average: 43.3—Against NU: 44—Difference: +0.7

 

The teams we lost to were simply just teams who liked to run the ball more. And all but one of them ran at least their average rushing attempts against Nebraska's front seven.

[ladyhawke]

So, if you can't defend the run you can't win games-Right? Isn't that why Nebraska was so good back in the day? They could defend the run AND they played option football-our identity was a smashmouth running offense with a defense that stifled the opponent. What do we play now? What is our identity now? Could we develop a team that can defend the run no matter who we play? Could we develop an offense whose bread and butter is running the ball? Right now it feels like we are a mish mash of both with our passing game being the preferred mode of play. What will next year look like? More of the same? I hope not because frankly it doesn't work. Might look good on paper but what happens on the field is reality and it doesn't look like it works. Why did we go away from what worked? Nebraska played B1G teams when we were in the Big 8 and the Big 12. Why did we go away from what worked? I still don't get that.

I wonder what our team would look like if we could field the ball on kick off returns or NOT fumble the ball. Do we fumble the ball so much because our players don't know how to catch it correctly? I don't remember fumbles being a Nebraska trade mark but they are now. What will it take to change us into a relevant football power again?

[Foppa]

I understand the statistics. But at the end of the day, the defense was what we thought it was going to be. Growing pains at first, get better as the season went on. For the most part, that happened.

 

But the offense was a complete letdown, or at least as far as how 'great' they were supposed to be on paper. And then you have to take ANOTHER step down, because 1) Starting QB out for almost the whole season 2) All-American O-liner gone for the season 3) Tons of injuries to the rest of the O-line and receivers.

 

So at the end of the day, who do you have to blame?

 

A) Coaches?

B) S & C?

C) Players?

D) Circumstance?

[skersfan]

I don't think anyone is to blame. When Taylor played the first play we knew he was not 100%. For the offense to be what most expected he had to be. The Oline injuries killed Tommy more than Tommy. A lot learned this year, great experience for young kids. Like I have said before, I am not really down on this year, I think the kids did as good as they could. We were beaten by better teams on that day. Michigan State showed that we have the basic talent to be good in the Big 10.

 

I actually think the staff did more than most could do with the injuries and turnovers.

 

Bo needs to clean up his act a little more, and we should be good to go for me.

[Hooked on Huskers]

IF .......

 

Admit it, three games was very easy to lose, NW(hail mary), Michigan(last minute series) and PennSt (OT, thank god for PSU kicker). 5W and 7L with no bowl invitation a.l.a. Clown-esque in 2004 and 2007. Praise the Lucky Star.

 

However, if positive turnover margin in UCLA/MN/MSU/IOWA games, then 11W and 1L, even 12 wins.

[Sparker]

IF .......

 

Admit it, three games was very easy to lose, NW(hail mary), Michigan(last minute series) and PennSt (OT, thank god for PSU kicker). 5W and 7L with no bowl invitation a.l.a. Clown-esque in 2004 and 2007. Praise the Lucky Star.

 

However, if positive turnover margin in UCLA/MN/MSU/IOWA games, then 11W and 1L, even 12 wins.

 

Pretty much a perfect summary of the season.

[Hooked on Huskers]

IF .......

 

Admit it, three games was very easy to lose, NW(hail mary), Michigan(last minute series) and PennSt (OT, thank god for PSU kicker). 5W and 7L with no bowl invitation a.l.a. Clown-esque in 2004 and 2007. Praise the Lucky Star.

 

However, if positive turnover margin ^^^ in UCLA/MN/MSU/IOWA games, then 11W and 1L, even 12 wins.

 

Pretty much a perfect summary of the season.

oh, I forgot, insert without injury bug

[Sparker]

IF .......

 

Admit it, three games was very easy to lose, NW(hail mary), Michigan(last minute series) and PennSt (OT, thank god for PSU kicker). 5W and 7L with no bowl invitation a.l.a. Clown-esque in 2004 and 2007. Praise the Lucky Star.

 

However, if positive turnover margin ^^^ in UCLA/MN/MSU/IOWA games, then 11W and 1L, even 12 wins.

 

Pretty much a perfect summary of the season.

oh, I forgot, insert without injury bug

On the topic of extremes (5-7 vs 11-1) I also think its interesting how bipolar this season was emotionally. Jack Hoffman, Tape Gate, practice movie prank, sideline meltdown, harlem shake, fire me if you want, Hail Mary play of the year, we don't need Tommie Frazier, etc.

[I am I]

Great breakdown of the numbers BBB12. Thanks.

 

I think a even deeper analysis could be made on our "tendencies".

For instance: what was our run/pass ratio on 1st and 3rd down?

What was our ypc in the 1st qtr v 4th?

If we were up by more than say, 14 pts, did we run more or was there still our "statistical preference" run/pass?

 

When putting together a game plan each week, offenses and defenses look at the percentage of plays and which plays were run on 1st down, 3rd down; 3rd and long, redzone and goal line, for example. Like, some teams run a lot of screens on 3rd down--did they al of a sudden run draws and slants against us?

 

In other words, did we stick to our game plan and exert our preferences, or did we seem random and "mish mash"? And I think a lot of husker fans get frustrated because we don't seem to have that real identity (whether true or false, the data could tell us) on say 3rd and short or 1st qtr v 4th qtr.

 

My guess would be that we were consistent but w the dang penalties and crappy turnovers/punt return game, it seemed dismcombobulated. Like, how do you run your offense effectively w statistical preference when you're backed up inside the 5 yd line like agaisnt Iowa 4 or 5 times?

 

 

[NUinID]

IF .......

 

Admit it, three games was very easy to lose, NW(hail mary), Michigan(last minute series) and PennSt (OT, thank god for PSU kicker). 5W and 7L with no bowl invitation a.l.a. Clown-esque in 2004 and 2007. Praise the Lucky Star.

 

However, if positive turnover margin in UCLA/MN/MSU/IOWA games, then 11W and 1L, even 12 wins.

 

I have a real hard time with the if argument in a positive or negative way. You can look at pretty much any team's season and play the if game. It simply is what it is, a season.

[Redux]

Overall being forced to start a Freshman and a 3rd string QB for a majority of the year we played about as well as expected. Yeah back in the day we still woildve gone undefeated but man were young and man were we beat up. I just domt see how next year we arent leaps and bounds better.

[Hooked on Huskers]

......On the topic of extremes (5-7 vs 11-1) I also think its interesting how bipolar this season was emotionally. Jack Hoffman, Tape Gate, practice movie prank, sideline meltdown, harlem shake, fire me if you want, Hail Mary play of the year, we don't need Tommie Frazier, etc.

Tape Gate !!??!! . Clever....... I never heard of "Tape Gate" description until now. HC Tricky Dick Nixon?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Great breakdown of the numbers BBB12. Thanks.

 

I think a even deeper analysis could be made on our "tendencies".

For instance: what was our run/pass ratio on 1st and 3rd down?

What was our ypc in the 1st qtr v 4th?

If we were up by more than say, 14 pts, did we run more or was there still our "statistical preference" run/pass?

 

When putting together a game plan each week, offenses and defenses look at the percentage of plays and which plays were run on 1st down, 3rd down; 3rd and long, redzone and goal line, for example. Like, some teams run a lot of screens on 3rd down--did they al of a sudden run draws and slants against us?

 

In other words, did we stick to our game plan and exert our preferences, or did we seem random and "mish mash"? And I think a lot of husker fans get frustrated because we don't seem to have that real identity (whether true or false, the data could tell us) on say 3rd and short or 1st qtr v 4th qtr.

 

My guess would be that we were consistent but w the dang penalties and crappy turnovers/punt return game, it seemed dismcombobulated. Like, how do you run your offense effectively w statistical preference when you're backed up inside the 5 yd line like agaisnt Iowa 4 or 5 times?

 

Yeah, I didn't have much time to get into more numbers. I have them in a database, so it'll just come down to analyzing and what not.

 

What you said about looking at tendencies as far as each down is concerned is an excellent and better idea, it just takes a lot of time and a lot of looking at the tape, which I have neither the time nor ability to do. It'd be interesting to see how many times we had a possession where we ran ran ran unsuccessfully and then came out and threw it, or stuff along those lines. I'm also curious as to what the longest streak of run plays called was this season (in a situation where the game wasn't yet decided).

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I understand the statistics. But at the end of the day, the defense was what we thought it was going to be. Growing pains at first, get better as the season went on. For the most part, that happened.

 

But the offense was a complete letdown, or at least as far as how 'great' they were supposed to be on paper. And then you have to take ANOTHER step down, because 1) Starting QB out for almost the whole season 2) All-American O-liner gone for the season 3) Tons of injuries to the rest of the O-line and receivers.

 

So at the end of the day, who do you have to blame?

 

A) Coaches?

B) S & C?

C) Players?

D) Circumstance?

 

I don't want to place any blame on one specific person or group of people. The mantra is that a team fails because the team failed. The team fails. There was something everyone could have done to make things go better. And then you have your freak incidents where if lineman X was maybe an inch further away from lineman Y he wouldn't have rolled his ankle. Stuff like that you just can't control for.

[Huskerzoo]

The problem is you're taking all of these statistics out of context. What do the numbers say when the game score is equal- +- one score? What about interaction effects with score difference and time remaining, I bet you'd get more than just a main effect. What about proportion of run to pass compared to number of plays run?

 

Teams throw more when they're behind. Teams run more when they're ahead. You try to account for this anecdotally, but who are you to say when time management was important or not? You also fail to account for how you determined significance.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're creating a strawman argument.