TerryP
Staff
- I think the first key to understanding this game is to understand how one should approach analyzing any game. The biggest thing to look for is what a team does and how they do it, not the results that follow. For example, Auburn's great Hail Mary was a bad sign for their offense. Presented with a 4th and 18, Malzahn successfully drew up a pass thathad their most consistent receiver (Coates) running a dig 10 yards beyond the first down marker completely uncovered. Marshall, who had agreed with Louis to throw the bomb in the huddle, let loose a needless, low-percentage hail mary throw, overthrown into triple coverage. Every single thing about that says that Auburn could not execute when the game was on the line. Yes, they won, but it really had nothing to do with what Auburn did, and that's what matters.
Don't Throw Out the Record Books:
- I think most people understand this by now, but you shouldn't "throw out the record books" in a rivalry game. In fact, rivalry games are statistically more likely to be won by the expected favorites than other games. Even David Housel has admitted "[t]he best team going into this game wins it far more often than not, so you can't throw out the record book."
- My assertion here is supported by hard data. John Ezekowitz, a Harvard student and analytics expert for the Phoenix Suns, ran the data to determine what the chances were that an underdog was to underperform in a rivalry game versus the otherwise expected results. What he found was surprising: not only is an underdog less likely to cause an upset in a rivalry game (47.9% success rate against the Point Spread), but the results were actually more predictable than in non-rivalry games (Std Dev. of 15 versus 16.2).
See the study here.
- I have a theory on why this is the case. Generally, upsets occur when an underdog performs at a higher level than a favorite (this statement isn't as obvious as it seems at first blush). In many cases, this is because the favorite is unmotivated or inattentive (see UA vs. MSU). In rivalry games, however, rarely do you have a team that isn't going to put forth their best effort. Think about how unusual it seemed that Georgia appeared unprepared for their game against Auburn. In the back of your mind, you realize that rivalries usually face two teams giving their best. When Alabama meets Auburn Saturday, both teams will play having spent the past two weeks largely focused squarely on the other. Both teams have an SEC West berth on the line. Both teams have thoroughly prepared, and are fully motivated. In
short, the intangibles are balanced on both sides.
- So then, don't throw out the record books. In rivalry games, both teams usually give it their best. When they both give 100%, that means the better team ought to win. Taking My Theory to Task: Discipline vs. Physicality Against the Hurry Up No Huddle O.
- One of the continuing theories that I've put forth over the course of the year is that the key to defeating the Hurry-Up-No-Huddle offense is playing sound, disciplined defense. This runs contrary to the current line in the media, which is that physicality (like Stanford) is what beats the new up-tempo offenses. My theory is simple- these new offenses are predicated around the zone read and passing
elements to exploit defenses that aren't in consistent position.
- Every zone read Oregon runs can be read at the snap. Every time the running back is parallel to the quarterback, that means that they will run a zone read to the outside with the running back running across the formation. Whenever the running back is behind the quarterback, he is going to run straight ahead for an inside zone read. The trick is that Oregon uses tiny, ridiculously fast backs, so when your whole team goes "IT'S A RUN UP THE MIDDLE!" and crashes inside, they bounce the play outside for a 90 yard TD.
- The way to stop this style of offense? Simply do what the heck you're supposed to. You know what the play is, so you aren't going to be caught in a bad numbers situation. You just have to do your job. Oregon had many, many long drives against Stanford, but Stanford knew that if they didn't give up the big play, Oregon would eventually miss a pass, or get blown up for a loss and the drive would end. And that's exactly what happened.
- Arizona continued to support my theory this weekend. Oregon had six drives of 10+ plays in that game (SIX! We only had eight possessions- against UTC) and only generated 16 points in the ballgame. Amongst all this talk about how Stanford and Oklahoma State won due to their physicality (and does anyone else find it odd to hear OSU called "physical"?), Arizona is a clear outlier. They are not- a physical team. So, how then did they win? They played their assignments, and made Oregon work for their points. Oregon's offense is only really good for a guaranteed 4 yards. Eventually they will screw up once and find themselves in a 3rd and 6. Oregon is not built to
execute on 3rd and long ; they simply don't have standard passing sets.
- Auburn is no different. Auburn uses a tremendous amount of motion and a quick snap to try and force defenders out of position. The team with the most success against their rushing attack was Mississippi State. There's little doubt that LSU and UGA are more talented, but talent isn't really how you beat them (though there's no doubt it helps). The real key is that you just have to do your job.
The DEs need to set the edge and ensure that Auburn can't run easily off tackle. The interior linemen need to fit their gaps. And finally (and this is where we differ tremendously from what Auburn has seen to date), the linebackers need to read the play, flowing correctly to the hole to make the tackle. If our guys just do their job, they can stop this offense cold.
- Most of these have been pretty close (within a score) with the exception of 2013 LSU. However, the LSU game's halftime score of 17-14 was dead on with the model. The end result had more to do with one team that's improving and another that's getting worse.
Talking Points from the Statistical Model:
- Auburn's opponents gain over 90% of their average per/play yardage against them.
- The last time we faced a team in a big game that gave up that kind of yardage was UGA. They were giving up 86% of an opponent's average yards/rush and 90% yards/pass going into last year's SECCG. As we remember, we totally steamrolled them.
- AU is giving up 90% of average yards/rush and 92% of average yards/pass. We all know that Auburn is 10th in total defense, but let's just make it clear: there's absolutely no evidence to indicate that they will hold Alabama below their expected yardage totals.
I Don't Actually Expect my Model to be Correct, and Here's Why:
- Auburn's offense has shifted considerably when they face top-rated defenses (see second image).
- 8/11 of Auburn's opponents have been in the bottom half of the country in rushing defense.
- Against those teams, Auburn has run the ball for at least 60% of their total offense.
- They played 3/11 games against teams in the top half of the country in rushing defense.
- In those games, Auburn's rushing accounted for 26%, 49%, and 57% of their offense.
- In other words, when facing a rushing defense that would be considered "competent," Auburn begins to rely at least as much on the pass as the run.
- They have faced only two defenses ranked in the top 35 of the F+ rankings, the two Mississippi schools.
- Against Ole Miss, who is weaker against the run (61st nationally), they relied very heavily on the run, which accounted for over 75% of the yardage, passing for only 93 yards in scoring 30 points.
- In facing MSU, which has a better rushing defense, Auburn ran for only 26% of their yardage. In that game, and that game alone, Auburn relied on the pass as they squeaked by in a win.
- Now, again, the best rushing defense they've faced is 30th in the country.
- We are 4th.
- I fully expect that Auburn will be forced to shift away from the run to an extent we haven't yet seen this season for them to feel they have a shot at winning.
- Here's an example: The nature of their offense is that they sort of move in bursts, they take a short loss and then shoot forward for 15 yards. Rinse and repeat. Since we should be better able to react, we will most likely limit those 15 yard bursts to 5 yard runs. All of a sudden, the 2 yard loss and 5 yard run leaves a 3rd and 7. If they want to convert, they have to throw. But that means, assuming they
get the first down, they will have run for 3 yards, and passed for 7. That's a balance of only 30% run to 70% pass.
- It's the same thing we have seen with Oregon in the past. Do you guys remember them against Auburn in the BCSCG? Oregon quickly figured out that their running offense didn't work, so they were forced to throw. It's simple, but it's true. If Auburn can't generate yardage with their zone plays, they will have to manufacture that yardage through the air. It's simply the only way they'll have a chance to move the ball.
- This would be fascinating if it happens. We've only seen Auburn try to throw once, and it was in a slugfest against not-particularly-good Mississippi State team. The real truth is that it's a wildcard, we just don't know how good they'll be if they have to throw against a real defense.
- In the end, the whole point from all of this is that my statistical model will be wrong. The model assumes that Auburn will run for more yardage than it throws. I think, in this game, Auburn is going to have to throw more than they run. It's difficult to say, but I think that bodes well for us.
Don't Throw Out the Record Books:
- I think most people understand this by now, but you shouldn't "throw out the record books" in a rivalry game. In fact, rivalry games are statistically more likely to be won by the expected favorites than other games. Even David Housel has admitted "[t]he best team going into this game wins it far more often than not, so you can't throw out the record book."
- My assertion here is supported by hard data. John Ezekowitz, a Harvard student and analytics expert for the Phoenix Suns, ran the data to determine what the chances were that an underdog was to underperform in a rivalry game versus the otherwise expected results. What he found was surprising: not only is an underdog less likely to cause an upset in a rivalry game (47.9% success rate against the Point Spread), but the results were actually more predictable than in non-rivalry games (Std Dev. of 15 versus 16.2).
See the study here.
- I have a theory on why this is the case. Generally, upsets occur when an underdog performs at a higher level than a favorite (this statement isn't as obvious as it seems at first blush). In many cases, this is because the favorite is unmotivated or inattentive (see UA vs. MSU). In rivalry games, however, rarely do you have a team that isn't going to put forth their best effort. Think about how unusual it seemed that Georgia appeared unprepared for their game against Auburn. In the back of your mind, you realize that rivalries usually face two teams giving their best. When Alabama meets Auburn Saturday, both teams will play having spent the past two weeks largely focused squarely on the other. Both teams have an SEC West berth on the line. Both teams have thoroughly prepared, and are fully motivated. In
short, the intangibles are balanced on both sides.
- So then, don't throw out the record books. In rivalry games, both teams usually give it their best. When they both give 100%, that means the better team ought to win. Taking My Theory to Task: Discipline vs. Physicality Against the Hurry Up No Huddle O.
- One of the continuing theories that I've put forth over the course of the year is that the key to defeating the Hurry-Up-No-Huddle offense is playing sound, disciplined defense. This runs contrary to the current line in the media, which is that physicality (like Stanford) is what beats the new up-tempo offenses. My theory is simple- these new offenses are predicated around the zone read and passing
elements to exploit defenses that aren't in consistent position.
- Every zone read Oregon runs can be read at the snap. Every time the running back is parallel to the quarterback, that means that they will run a zone read to the outside with the running back running across the formation. Whenever the running back is behind the quarterback, he is going to run straight ahead for an inside zone read. The trick is that Oregon uses tiny, ridiculously fast backs, so when your whole team goes "IT'S A RUN UP THE MIDDLE!" and crashes inside, they bounce the play outside for a 90 yard TD.
- The way to stop this style of offense? Simply do what the heck you're supposed to. You know what the play is, so you aren't going to be caught in a bad numbers situation. You just have to do your job. Oregon had many, many long drives against Stanford, but Stanford knew that if they didn't give up the big play, Oregon would eventually miss a pass, or get blown up for a loss and the drive would end. And that's exactly what happened.
- Arizona continued to support my theory this weekend. Oregon had six drives of 10+ plays in that game (SIX! We only had eight possessions- against UTC) and only generated 16 points in the ballgame. Amongst all this talk about how Stanford and Oklahoma State won due to their physicality (and does anyone else find it odd to hear OSU called "physical"?), Arizona is a clear outlier. They are not- a physical team. So, how then did they win? They played their assignments, and made Oregon work for their points. Oregon's offense is only really good for a guaranteed 4 yards. Eventually they will screw up once and find themselves in a 3rd and 6. Oregon is not built to
execute on 3rd and long ; they simply don't have standard passing sets.
- Auburn is no different. Auburn uses a tremendous amount of motion and a quick snap to try and force defenders out of position. The team with the most success against their rushing attack was Mississippi State. There's little doubt that LSU and UGA are more talented, but talent isn't really how you beat them (though there's no doubt it helps). The real key is that you just have to do your job.
The DEs need to set the edge and ensure that Auburn can't run easily off tackle. The interior linemen need to fit their gaps. And finally (and this is where we differ tremendously from what Auburn has seen to date), the linebackers need to read the play, flowing correctly to the hole to make the tackle. If our guys just do their job, they can stop this offense cold.
Statistical Model:
- This is the prediction
- Bama wins 37-28, Bama +48 yardage
- To recap, here are the predictions that have been made
with this model in the past:
- 2012 LSU: Bama wins 27-17, Bama +71 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 21-17, Bama +104 yardage)
- 2012 TAM: Bama wins 33-27, Bama +14 yardage (Actual Bama
loses 24-29, Bama +13 yardage)
- 2012 UGA: Bama wins 35-25, Bama +79 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 32-28, Bama +118 yardage)
- 2012 ND: Bama wins 30-16, Bama +55 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 42-14, Bama +227 yardage)
- 2013 LSU: Bama wins 36-33, Bama +8 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 38-17, Bama +88 yardage)
- This is the prediction
- Bama wins 37-28, Bama +48 yardage
- To recap, here are the predictions that have been made
with this model in the past:
- 2012 LSU: Bama wins 27-17, Bama +71 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 21-17, Bama +104 yardage)
- 2012 TAM: Bama wins 33-27, Bama +14 yardage (Actual Bama
loses 24-29, Bama +13 yardage)
- 2012 UGA: Bama wins 35-25, Bama +79 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 32-28, Bama +118 yardage)
- 2012 ND: Bama wins 30-16, Bama +55 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 42-14, Bama +227 yardage)
- 2013 LSU: Bama wins 36-33, Bama +8 yardage (Actual Bama
wins 38-17, Bama +88 yardage)
- Most of these have been pretty close (within a score) with the exception of 2013 LSU. However, the LSU game's halftime score of 17-14 was dead on with the model. The end result had more to do with one team that's improving and another that's getting worse.
Talking Points from the Statistical Model:
- Auburn's opponents gain over 90% of their average per/play yardage against them.
- The last time we faced a team in a big game that gave up that kind of yardage was UGA. They were giving up 86% of an opponent's average yards/rush and 90% yards/pass going into last year's SECCG. As we remember, we totally steamrolled them.
- AU is giving up 90% of average yards/rush and 92% of average yards/pass. We all know that Auburn is 10th in total defense, but let's just make it clear: there's absolutely no evidence to indicate that they will hold Alabama below their expected yardage totals.
I Don't Actually Expect my Model to be Correct, and Here's Why:
- Auburn's offense has shifted considerably when they face top-rated defenses (see second image).
- 8/11 of Auburn's opponents have been in the bottom half of the country in rushing defense.
- Against those teams, Auburn has run the ball for at least 60% of their total offense.
- They played 3/11 games against teams in the top half of the country in rushing defense.
- In those games, Auburn's rushing accounted for 26%, 49%, and 57% of their offense.
- In other words, when facing a rushing defense that would be considered "competent," Auburn begins to rely at least as much on the pass as the run.
- They have faced only two defenses ranked in the top 35 of the F+ rankings, the two Mississippi schools.
- Against Ole Miss, who is weaker against the run (61st nationally), they relied very heavily on the run, which accounted for over 75% of the yardage, passing for only 93 yards in scoring 30 points.
- In facing MSU, which has a better rushing defense, Auburn ran for only 26% of their yardage. In that game, and that game alone, Auburn relied on the pass as they squeaked by in a win.
- Now, again, the best rushing defense they've faced is 30th in the country.
- We are 4th.
- I fully expect that Auburn will be forced to shift away from the run to an extent we haven't yet seen this season for them to feel they have a shot at winning.
- Here's an example: The nature of their offense is that they sort of move in bursts, they take a short loss and then shoot forward for 15 yards. Rinse and repeat. Since we should be better able to react, we will most likely limit those 15 yard bursts to 5 yard runs. All of a sudden, the 2 yard loss and 5 yard run leaves a 3rd and 7. If they want to convert, they have to throw. But that means, assuming they
get the first down, they will have run for 3 yards, and passed for 7. That's a balance of only 30% run to 70% pass.
- It's the same thing we have seen with Oregon in the past. Do you guys remember them against Auburn in the BCSCG? Oregon quickly figured out that their running offense didn't work, so they were forced to throw. It's simple, but it's true. If Auburn can't generate yardage with their zone plays, they will have to manufacture that yardage through the air. It's simply the only way they'll have a chance to move the ball.
- This would be fascinating if it happens. We've only seen Auburn try to throw once, and it was in a slugfest against not-particularly-good Mississippi State team. The real truth is that it's a wildcard, we just don't know how good they'll be if they have to throw against a real defense.
- In the end, the whole point from all of this is that my statistical model will be wrong. The model assumes that Auburn will run for more yardage than it throws. I think, in this game, Auburn is going to have to throw more than they run. It's difficult to say, but I think that bodes well for us.
