Turnover margin - giveaway, takeaway, or dumb luck?

[ghost2]

Anyone up for a football conversation?


How do you view turnover margin as a relevant statistic/predictor? Generally speaking, are turnovers more "giveaway" (the offense making a mistake via bad decision or ball security), "takeaway" (defense making a heads-up play), or "dumb luck" (weird bounce, right-place-right-time, etc.)? If it's all of the above in combination, then how do you look at turnover margin in relation to other statistics?

 

[Consigliere]

Turnovers are part of the game, some are from making a play (Tracy Howard against Pitt or Gunter against UNC) and some are just dumb luck (see the VT game). It doesn't matter how you give up the ball or how you get the ball, it just matters that you have the opportunity to score more points.

I view turnovers similar to at bats in baseball. Forcing a turnover gives you another at bat and a chance to score. Giving up a turnover takes away an at bat and an opportunity to score.

 

[LuCane]

Anyone up for a football conversation?


How do you view turnover margin as a relevant statistic/predictor? Generally speaking, are turnovers more "giveaway" (the offense making a mistake via bad decision or ball security), "takeaway" (defense making a heads-up play), or "dumb luck" (weird bounce, right-place-right-time, etc.)? If it's all of the above in combination, then how do you look at turnover margin in relation to other statistics?

View them in context. Against what team? When did they happen? How did they happen? INT or Fumble? In 2011, Alabama had the best secondary in the nation. Absolutely nasty. Yet, their turnovers were down. If you're citing general numbers without providing context or digging deeper into the "why," you're either trying to mislead or headed toward dangerous waters.

 

[ghost2]

Exactly Lu - to me, turnover margin itself is a very misleading statistic in a vacuum, and yet one that pundits, commentators, and even coaches trot out every chance they get to either prove defensive prowess or offensive ineptitude. Two easy illustrations are the Florida and Virginia Tech games last year. I also think that "points off turnover" is a more telling statistic than turnover margin.

 

[LuCane]

I prefer to look at yards per play, 3rd down % and sometimes completion %.

 

[ghost2]

3rd down % is a big one for me too, though another one that can be skewed - 3rd and what? What are we doing on 1st and 2nd down that leads us to a terrible 3rd down %?

 

[LuCane]

3rd down % is a big one for me too, though another one that can be skewed - 3rd and what? What are we doing on 1st and 2nd down that leads us to a terrible 3rd down %?

Although it can be skewed, it's a good indicator of how your overall defense is performing. Most good defenses are dictating on 1st and 2nd down.

What are we, as in Miami, doing or not doing? We're not dictating. But, what do I know.

Here are some #s from last year's defense: while we had a heathy 18 INTs, we were 75th in the nation in yards per play (passing) and teams completed 60% of their passes against us. So, someone might cite the 18 INTs out of context, but miss out on the fact teams generally were very, very comfortable throwing the ball against us.

 

[Gamineal]

Anyone up for a football conversation?


How do you view turnover margin as a relevant statistic/predictor? Generally speaking, are turnovers more "giveaway" (the offense making a mistake via bad decision or ball security), "takeaway" (defense making a heads-up play), or "dumb luck" (weird bounce, right-place-right-time, etc.)? If it's all of the above in combination, then how do you look at turnover margin in relation to other statistics?

thats tough...but its the key with a combination of other factors..with out turnovers we lose, UNC, UF, For Sure.....
see our 2000 teams takeaways won time of possession, wearing down the other team running the ball winning games...for me its huge but being in the top 10 of this stat does not guarantee you winning anything

 

[killa1storm]

Combo of all three. It's one of the most variable statistics from year to year and so much goes into it. The other team plays a huge role as well. If you have an innaccurate QB for example you may be able to feast on him whereas you face a guy who is extremely accurate and even with tight coverage and a good play on the ball you still come away with nothing. I don't find it to be a reliable predictor from year to year.

 

[Supercane85]

Anyone up for a football conversation?


How do you view turnover margin as a relevant statistic/predictor? Generally speaking, are turnovers more "giveaway" (the offense making a mistake via bad decision or ball security), "takeaway" (defense making a heads-up play), or "dumb luck" (weird bounce, right-place-right-time, etc.)? If it's all of the above in combination, then how do you look at turnover margin in relation to other statistics?

View them in context. Against what team? When did they happen? How did they happen? INT or Fumble? In 2011, Alabama had the best secondary in the nation. Absolutely nasty. Yet, their turnovers were down. If you're citing general numbers without providing context or digging deeper into the "why," you're either trying to mislead or headed toward dangerous waters.

Turn over margin is very important. More than not a turn over creates a short field. Or it kills a possible scoring drive.

 

[terra99pin]

There is some luck and some skill involved, but I generally feel like fumbles are much more frequently due to dumb luck than skill, with sack-fumbles being an exception. So looking at the Florida game as an example, I think both picks by Rayshawn and Tracy in the red zone were good D, and the fumble Tyriq caused was obviously forced. Burt the other two fumbles were basically random, imo. Same goes for our fumbles in the Va tech game.

 

[DeadPoets]

Teams with the best turnover margins, in all team sports, are generally playing for it all at the end of the year.

In college it's an even bigger deal than the pros because momentum swings are much greater.

 

[HurricaneU]

I'm reposting this article here because it discusses Turnovers and their impact on the outcome of a game. In sum, turnovers can be huge. But on average, I think their impact is often over-stated when viewed in isolation of other factors such as explosiveness, 3rd-Down conversions, etc.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/24/5337968/college-football-five-factors

As others have indicated, the timing of the turnover is the more critical question. Turnovers between the 20s are nice. Turnovers inside the 20s are killers.

 

[ghost2]

3rd down % is a big one for me too, though another one that can be skewed - 3rd and what? What are we doing on 1st and 2nd down that leads us to a terrible 3rd down %?

Although it can be skewed, it's a good indicator of how your overall defense is performing. Most good defenses are dictating on 1st and 2nd down.

What are we, as in Miami, doing or not doing? We're not dictating. But, what do I know.

Here are some #s from last year's defense: while we had a heathy 18 INTs, we were 75th in the nation in yards per play (passing) and teams completed 60% of their passes against us. So, someone might cite the 18 INTs out of context, but miss out on the fact teams generally were very, very comfortable throwing the ball against us.

Ah gotcha - for some reason I was thinking Offense 3rd down % not defense. Yes, 3rd down % is a huge issue with our current defense along with YPP. It got to the point I was actually more confident in our D getting a stop on 3rd and 2 than on 3rd and 12...

 

[ghost2]

I'm reposting this article here because it discusses Turnovers and their impact on the outcome of a game. In sum, turnovers can be huge. But on average, I think their impact is often over-stated when viewed in isolation of other factors such as explosiveness, 3rd-Down conversions, etc.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/24/5337968/college-football-five-factors

As others have indicated, the timing of the turnover is the more critical question. Turnovers between the 20s are nice. Turnovers inside the 20s are killers.

Thanks for posting that!

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Check my sig for the answer.

 

[JHallCanes]

Stats can always be turned and manipulated.

However, when this defense was applying pressure, it forced turnovers. When you do that, the "bend don't break" defense that a team like New Orleans rode all the way to the Super Bowl, suddenly doesn't look so bad. No pressure, no turnovers, no bueno.

Turnover margin might not be an end all be all, but it sure does allow a team a better opportunity to overcome their faults.

 

[mitchellorin]

The only times turnovers are based on luck, in my opinion, are when a runner falls weird and the ball pops out or when a ball is intercepted off of a bounce off the receivers' hands. Otherwise I think turnovers are based on actual forced fumbles, ball-hawk DBs, or just bad plays by the QB. I don't think turnovers just magically happen though. If my high school team were to play Bama, I would guess Bama would have a very favorable turnover margin.

 

[RiDLer80]

I'm reposting this article here because it discusses Turnovers and their impact on the outcome of a game. In sum, turnovers can be huge. But on average, I think their impact is often over-stated when viewed in isolation of other factors such as explosiveness, 3rd-Down conversions, etc.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/24/5337968/college-football-five-factors

As others have indicated, the timing of the turnover is the more critical question. Turnovers between the 20s are nice. Turnovers inside the 20s are killers.

That's a really good article.

 

[RiDLer80]

I don't think it matters if turnovers are giveaways or takeaways. Good teams don't turn the ball over. It all comes back to coaching and discipline.

Whether it's a running back getting stripped because he has poor ball-security, a QB getting strip-sacked because of poor pass protection and ball-security, or a QB forcing a pass into a tight window and it getting tipped for the pick, good teams hold on to the ball.

Even the Florida game. When Burton was stripped in the red-zone to end the half, he had poor ball-security and the defense hustled to the ball. Self-inflicted turnovers are still turnovers. I don't believe in luck. The VT game: Burns got stripped because the VT player hustled and they rallied to the ball.