The Only Colors: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Ole Miss-Alabama: "Let's Go Eat.Wait. What Happened?"

Getting Disruptive

Knock down quarterback good.

More photos » Al Goldis - AP

Knock down quarterback good.

Boiled down to its basics, playing offense successfully in the sport of football is pretty simple:

  • Gain 10 yards in 3 tries.
  • Repeat until you reach the the end zone.

(We'll skip the "does punting really make sense?" debate for now.)  At the hypothetical extreme, a team that could gain exactly 3.5 yards on every play could achieve that goal.  Alternately, two rushing plays of 5 yards each or a single pass completion in three attempts for 10 yards does the trick.

The goal of any football defense, then, has to be to disrupt the opposing offense's rhythm, with the goal of creating a situation where picking up 3-5 yards per play isn't enough to keep a drive going.

Looking at the statistics available to us, there are four quantitative indicators of a defense's ability to disrupt the opposing offense.  In ascending order of disruptiveness:

Star-divide

  • Quarterback hurries: Increasing the odds the offense will throw an incomplete pass and lose an opportunity to gain yardage
  • Tackles for loss: Increasing the yardage the offense has to gain to achieve a first down by sacking the quarterback or stopping a running play for a loss
  • Forced fumbles: Creating the opportunity to recover a fumble and end the opponent's offensive possession
  • Interceptions: Definitively ending the opponent's offensive possession

(If specific stats on penalties by the opposing offense--holding, etc.--were readily available, I'd include those, as well.  Also, I'm defining "forced fumble" liberally, counting any fumble by the offense, even if it's not directly attributable to a defensive player.)

With the goal of creating a nifty new statistic, we can start by summing these four numbers.  There's some double counting involved (a sack can result in a forced fumble, a quarterback hurry can result in an interception), but those instances tend to place more weight on turnover-inducing plays, which is fine.  The summed number is then divided by the number of plays run by the opposing offense (tempo-free!) to arrive at a number we'll call Disruption Percentage.

Here are the Disruption Percentage numbers for MSU's first seven games this season:

QBHTFLFFINTTOTALPlaysDisrupt%
Montana St 5 4 0 0 9 54 16.7
Central Mich 0 6 0 1 7 76 9.2
Notre Dame 1 4 1 1 7 71 9.9
Wisconsin 4 3 1 0 8 81 9.9
Michigan 1 10 3 1 15 60 25.0
Illinois 6 8 0 1 15 60 25.0
Northwestern 2 6 3 0 11 76 14.5
TOTAL 19 41 8 4 72 478 15.1

File this table under "Promising Trends."  After making disruptive plays on only about one-tenth of plays by the opposing offense in the first three games vs. FBS opponents, the MSU defense boosted the percentage to 25.0% for two consecutive games and then put up a decent percentage last week--in light of the fact that Northwestern ran so many short pass routes, which presumably makes it harder to disrupt the play.

Some of the trend has to be chalked up to the order in which our opponents were scheduled.  Notre Dame has the most efficient offense in the nation according to Football Outsiders, and Central ranks in the top 30. Illinois, on the other hand, ranks among the 20 least efficient offenses in the country.  But Wisconsin, Michigan, and Northwestern, are all in the 35-50 range--so the improved numbers against the Wolverines and Wildcats are definitely an encouraging sign.

(Sidenote, in case you didn't click through to the FO page: MSU currently ranks #7 nationally in offensive efficiency, adjusted for strength of opponents, and #42 in defensive efficiency.  Iowa is #16 on offense and, SHUDDER, #1 on defense.)

MSU only had to replace 4 defensive starters from last season, but two of those starters were defensive linemen who had combined for 15.0 TFLs last year (Brandon Long and Justin Kershaw) and another was Otis "Turnovers Are My Middle Name" Wiley.  So it may have taken some time this season for the defense to get into a disruptive groove (the emergence of Jerel Worthy has certainly helped; see below).  Let's hope the numbers are telling a real story here and the 2009 version of the defense--now having that base 4-3 defense down cold--will continue to consistently create disruptions for opposing offenses, starting this Saturday vs. Mr. Stanzi (8 INTs, 133 negative rushing yards) and Co.

Appendix: 2009 MSU Individual Defensive Disruptive Play Leader Board

PLAYERQBHTFLFFINTTOTAL
Greg Jones 5 8.5 0 0 13.5
Trevor Anderson 4 5 0 0 9
Eric Gordon 0 7 1 0 8
Jerel Worthy 1 6.5 0 0 7.5
Chris L. Rucker 1 2 1 1 5
Colin Neely 2 2 0 0 4
David Rolf 2 1.5 0 0 3.5
Brandon Denson 2 1 0 0 3
Dan Fortener 0 1.5 0 1 2.5
Oren Wilson 1 1.5 0 0 2.5
Kevin Pickelman 0 2 0 0 2
Johnathan Strayhorn 0 2 0 0 2
Trenton Robinson 0 0 0 1 1
Jeremy Ware 0 0 0 1 1
Adam Decker 1 0 0 0 1
Jon Misch 0 0.5 0 0 0.5
Team 0 0 6 0 6
TOTAL 19 41 8 4 72

1 recs  |  Comment 15 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from The Only Colors

The road ahead

Jan 2010 by KJ@theonlycolors - 11 comments

Catching up on Football News

Jan 2010 by LVS - 4 comments

Comments

Display:

Nice post.

I think this is an interesting way to look at defensive performance. I might argue it would make sense to “weight” INT’s (and lost fumbles) higher than TFL and hurries. Assuming all 4 disruption categories have equal impact is not necessarily accurate. Obviously a turnover is more disruptive to an offense’s effectiveness than a QB hurry. If you allocated a certain weight to each of the 4 factors, then summed, it might be a little more represenative of true “disruption”.

I by no means am trying to be negative, just a fellow quant nerd who REALLY enjoys reading your guys work. (been a lurker for ages and finally signed up). Thanks for the effort you put into the site – it is much appreciated!

by ChicagoDan on Oct 22, 2009 12:32 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Thanks

Turnovers are certainly more disruptive. But they’re also more random. So giving everything equal weight (other than some double-counting, as noted above) creates a less random measure of “disruptiveness.” I think.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Oct 22, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One stat I'd add

Passes defended. I think those are a bit more disruptive than hurries, but less disruptive than tackles for a loss. This would allow the numbers to be a bit more even, because I believe they might be slanted a bit towards the DL/Linebackers currently.

by Pete Rossman on Oct 22, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I contemplated that

I think you can argue it both ways. It’s disruptive in that it eliminates an opportunity to gain yardage. But it’s not disruptive in a proactive sense (like a QB hurry is); you’re letting the ball come to you. This needs further study.

Agree on how it skews the individual numbers.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Oct 22, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Data

This year, the number of pass break-ups per game has fluctuated in a very narrow range—between 2 and 4—so it wouldn’t make any real difference in the numbers.

Last year, there was a lot more fluctuation. The peak was 12 pass break-ups in the NW game. Anyone remember what drove that?

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Oct 22, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd also add ...

… that tackles for a loss or no gain, as well as forced fumbes, have the added benefit of decreasing the available number of downs for an opponent to gain a first down.

Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss. -- Lou Mannheim, Wall Street

by ChiSpartan on Oct 22, 2009 12:34 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Great post

Top 4 were no surpise

"There are no next times when you're competing for big things." - Tom Izzo
Go Spartans

by msufan23 on Oct 22, 2009 12:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

This is fantastic

The four factors (or is that name sacred?) almost seem like the defensive corollary to M.O.E. — which I did a post about ages ago, in the pre-TOC days, and might revisit at some point.

"Do not cheat your team or your teammates. Know your plays. Block. Protect. Add to what we are trying to do."
The Only Colors

by LVS on Oct 22, 2009 1:12 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Believe it or not

I consulted that post as a reference (but didn’t deign to link to it).

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Oct 22, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

KJ, Super Inspirational

Hope I spelled that correctly.

I think this is a great metric you have come up with. I would like to help you with it. I am going to add something to the MSUFR to give a point whenever the Defense does something to disrupt a play.

I am not sure whnat QB hurries end up as completed passes (can they?) so I can actually go through and give credit to MSU for every positive defensive play. Hopefully it works out.

by DrDetroit on Oct 22, 2009 7:06 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If we can keep this up

then we have a decent chance. The biggest chink in Iowa’s armor is their propensity for STANZIBALLS. If we can keep up the pressure and get Stanzi to panic, that will go a long way toward getting the W.

by SpartanDan on Oct 22, 2009 7:18 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The only thing I'd add, if possible

Is pass defenses, which are basically the secondary-equivalent of a tackle for no gain as they eat up a down with no gain for the offense. A poor man’s substitute would be incompletions (or incompletion percentage) by the opposing QB, but those could be due to the opposing QB sucking rather than the defense being good. I like these metrics, though – they help prevent DAD.

by TheCrestedHelm on Oct 23, 2009 8:49 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The more I think about it,

I think pass break-ups should be included. They are to interceptions what QB hurries are to sacks.

I do worry it skews things toward pass defense, but I guess that’s where the majority of opportunities to create wasted downs/losses/turnovers are.

Fight for The Only Colors: Green and White!

by KJ@theonlycolors on Oct 23, 2009 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Um... obvious penlty

Why post a photo of an obvious face-mask penalty? Whether called or not. Wasn’t there a better photo showing our dominance against our rivals from the south?

by MSULaxer27 on Oct 23, 2009 10:47 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The SBNation blog covering the Michigan State Spartan football and basketball teams.
Start posting about the Spartans »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Why playing overseas is a good alternative
Spartan_helmet_small
Breaking Down - Kalin Lucas
Accordion_small
Coaching Tree Article
Bulldog_puppy_small
One informed National opinion on Lucas...
Small
Signing Day
Accordion_small
Efficiency Margins - the halfway home, shamelessly plagiarized edition
Small
Help...
Small
Depth ratio: a bad omen?
Accordion_small
Defensive coaching tendencies
Small
Is Mateen Cleaves a great NCAA Tourney MOP?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Onlycolors-lg_small KJ@theonlycolors

Sbnation2_small Pete Rossman

Woodward_small LVS

Editors

Square_sun_small Steve Hendershot

Oldspartan_small Rob Visconti

Official Partner of CBS Sports