Coaching and Turnovers
I've seen a lot of discussion about turnovers lately, for obvious reasons. Some blame it on coaching, some on inexperience, some on variance, etc. People have asked what kind of record Rod's teams have had over the years in regard to turnovers. Well, when you are looking for college football stats from the last 8-9 years, you can find just about any of them here:
http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/footballMenu.html
WVU's turnover track record was pretty damned good under Rod:
Year Turnovers Lost Rank
2007 21 T34th
2006 17 T11th
2005 17 T14th
2004 22 T56th
2003 20 T31st
2002 15 T2nd
and now, drumroll please..........Rod's first year at WVU
2001 32 T108th
Fumbles not so good (but keep in mind that they ran the ball a LOT at WVU, obviously):
Year Fumbles Lost Rank
2007 15 T105th
2006 9 T30th
2005 10 T53rd
2004 11 T72nd
2003 12 T59th
2002 6 T2nd
2001 13 T88th
They look pretty solid to me after that first year.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:27 PM ^
This should probably be a diary...FYI...just sayin'.
Brian's theory on turnovers is that they are nearly random, so I don't think you can go back and look at Rich Rod coached teams and conclude that Michigan shouldn't be turning the ball over as much as they are....here's what Brian says:
The theory of turnover margin: it is nearly random. Teams that find themselves at one end or the other at the end of the year are highly likely to rebound towards the average. So teams towards the top will tend to be overrated and vice versa. Nonrandom factors to evaluate: quarterback experience, quarterback pressure applied and received, and odd running backs like Mike Hart who just don't fumble.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:43 PM ^
turnover margin: it is nearly random
This post may be on to something. If a player (whether carrying or throwing the ball, or making a key block) is uncertain as to his assignment (which would be more common when implementing a new system), he may be hesitant or even blow his assignment.
Uncertainty causes mistakes. Implementation of a new system is undoubtedly going to cause much more uncertaintly and hesistation. I would guess a statistical analysis would reveal a positive residual.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:33 AM ^
"I would guess a statistical analysis would reveal a positive residual."
It is wonderful to understand where this inherent geekiness is coming from. I am totally with you here. Even without the scientist's (or economist's) perspective, a great many of our turnovers have been due to uncertainty and shaky nerves. Turnovers for this young offense are to be expected I would say, and they certainly not random. When Mike Hart fumbled twice inside the 5 in the bowl game, THAT was random.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:40 PM ^
September 29th, 2008 at 9:36 AM ^
September 29th, 2008 at 2:00 AM ^
September 29th, 2008 at 2:46 PM ^