Hidden Numbers #1: Drive Success Rate
Everyone knows that the Saints have a dynamic offense and opportunistic defense. However, what does that really mean? Periodically, I'll try to find a "hidden number": some statistic or indicator that shows just where the Saints excel (or where they don't). These things might not always be obvious, but they do contribute to wins and losses. After the jump, we'll tackle the Saints' penchant for having successful drives.
Successful Drives
One of the goals of football is, obviously, to score points. Another goal is to prevent the other team from scoring points. One way to achieve both of these goals simultaneously is to have sustained drives, preferably leading to points. After all, long, point-scoring drives add to your team's score while preventing the other team from adding to their score. Not bad, eh?
One way of measuring the effectiveness of an offense at doing just that is "drive success rate". Drive success rate, as defined by Football Outsiders, is the percent chance that any set of 4 downs results in a first down or a touchdown. In other words, for each set of downs, a team is successful if it gets a first down or touchdown, and is unsuccessful if it punts, turns the ball over, or gets a field goal.
For example, if the Saints get the ball on their 20-yard line after a kickoff and run a screen to Pierre Thomas for 14 yards and a first down, that's a success. It's now 1st and 10 on the 34. If the Saints run the ball twice and then pass it 40 yards downfield for another 1st down, that's another success. Now, it's 1st and 10 at the opponents' 20 yard line. If the Saints stall on the next set of downs, but are able to kick the field goal (obviously, I'm assuming Hartley is out), then they get 3 points, but weren't successful on that set of downs.
So, in our example drive, the Saints' drive success rate was 67%: they had 3 first downs, 2 of which were successful. Divide 2 successes by 3 sets of downs, and you get 67%.
Generally speaking, the more successful your offensive drives are (and the less successful your opponents' drives are), the better your team will do.
This is an area where the Saints' offense excels: this year, the Saints have a 74% drive success rate. That's third in the NFL, behind the Colts (75.1%...they almost always lead this category) and the Patriots (77.4%, which is the highest in the league since the 2008 Patriots unbelievable 81.2%). The NFL average is usually around 68 or 69%.
Looking at some of the Saints' per-drive numbers, you'll see they're gread in many areas. The Saints rank near the top of the NFL in yards per drive (averaging over 36), points per drive (2.3), and touchdowns per drive (0.263), and fewest punts per drive (0.2). Simply put, the offense has been very good at moving the ball down the field.
So, why hasn't the offense been as explosive as last year's? Looking at the drive statistics, there are a couple of hidden indicators related to drive success. The first: interceptions. The Saints rank 31st in interceptions per drive, averaging .131 interceptions per drive. That means that, every 8 or so possessions results in an interception. That's not so good.
The second reason is average field position. The Saints rank 23rd in starting field position, starting their average drive at about the 29 yard line. That measn means the offense often finds itself digging out of a hole. While to offense is great a digging out of holes, doing so adds a degree of difficulty makes things like throwing interceptions more likely. The Saints' special teams really haven't done them any favors this year.
Still, the Saints' offense is excellent at sustaining drives, one of the best in the league. That's one of the many reasons that they keep defensive coordinators up at night.
19 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rectilinear
We have a high risk, high reward type of offense, based on making long passes.
Looking at the defense, DSR says we’re about average, which seems fair. We’re most successful at preventing TDs and causing fumbles, which are good things to be, but we do give up yards. The typical drive goes into the red zone, we prevent, and hold them to an easy FG, or cause a turnover.
Interesting that both NE and ATL have overall low grade defenses, but are strong in getting INTs. Where have I seen that before?
"I hear the question, and I'm not going to answer it," Gregg Williams
Looking at the drive statistics, there are a couple of hidden indicators related to drive success. The first: interceptions. The second reason is average field position.
The third:
The Saints’ run-pass ratio on scoring drives, as opposed to non-scoring drives.
Care to share those numbers, Stuart?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
by coldpizza on Dec 18, 2010 7:46 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I'd like to see those, too
It's gonna be a great year.
by Hans Petersen on Dec 18, 2010 8:19 AM CST up reply actions
So would I
but I don’t have them. That’s a good project, I’ll see if I can get to it tomorrow during the second game. If so, I’ll post them here and stick them in next week’s 4th & Geaux.
by Stuart Carlton on Dec 18, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions
Excellent question good Sir...
The Saints must repeat so I can watch the Saints win the Superbowl LIVE... Not on vhs two months later....
Great info, Stuart
love this insight ful stuff. Good work Stuart….. Two comments
1) I agree with CP, the run pass ratio that he references would be interesting to evaluate
and
2) The whole analysis would be more revealing if somehow a FG could be classified or weighted a little differently than a failed third down conversion. To clarify, IMO a FG is only partly unsuccessful – it is putting points on the board. Granted, a FG is less successsful than a TD- which is the ultimate goal. So, a FG prevents an offense from getting a TD and the resulting extra 4 pts, but it is way more successful than a punt or failed 3rd down or failed 4th down attempt. Three points is always better than zero.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
good words, Phil
It's gonna be a great year.
by Hans Petersen on Dec 18, 2010 8:19 AM CST up reply actions
Agreed. I think another factor that should be considered is field position surrendered on unsuccessful 4th down attempts. And that would tie into FGs, as Philinwood touched upon. Let’s assume the average starting field position for the opponent following a score of any sort is the 20 yard line. Well, not only should FG ending drives be worth roughly 3/7ths the value of TD ending drives, UNSUCCESSFUL drives (of any sort) should vary in value, based on how far you managed to move the ball down the field. So, while a failed drive to the 10 certainly wouldn’t compare to a TD drive, it should at least hold A SMALL PERCENTAGE of that value, being that you pinned your opponent deeper than you would have on a subsequent kickoff. Score and that really doesn’t factor in. Punt and your net is in essence an extension of that failed drive. Make sense?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
that makes sense- to take it to another level...
you would almost have to put a “moral victory” into the math- i.e. a field goal after team A fumbles in the red zone and a great defensive effort by team B prevents a TD is really a small victory for team B and a slight downer for Team A in a way.
Also, a blocked field goal would not be the same as a failed 3rd down yada, yada…but now it;s getting a little carried away.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
You could use CAPITOL letters for almost and lower case for NOT QUITE......Ha
Y’all being too scientific for my simple mind. I always thought a touch down shoud be six points, an eatra point is just that, and a filed goal is three, but because of the difficulty on a two point conversion, it should be valued a higher number like 4 points because it is the same effort from the offensive team as a touch down. Again, I aint no brain scientist but that could add another dimention to the game of football. That would give you more stats to figure out. Now you can kick me off CSC……………..Wait till you hear about my new Playoff system. I will ber coming out with next week……….Ha…………….
My Magnificent Black and Gold Warriors
if a 2-point conversion were worth 4 points
Teams would never kick the extra point. They’d go for 4 each time, because they would make it often enough to make up for the losses.
If it were worth 3 points, most teams would probably go for it each time, too.
Thanks for reading!
by Stuart Carlton on Dec 18, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions
The success rate would be a lot less
and more interesting. Dont ya think ????
My Magnificent Black and Gold Warriors
It would be more interesting
I wouldn’t complain, I just think teams would rarely kick the extra point.
Right now, depending on which set of numbers you look at, teams make about 40-55% of their two-point conversion attempts. At 40%, it would be an optimal strategy to run a play (instead of kicking it) if the conversion were worth 3 points. At 55%, teams should go for it nearly every time with the conversion worth 2 points.
Of course, there could be strategy later in the game where the sure 1 point were the better choice to make.
There’d be a lot more interesting football decisions to make if the point value were higher. You’ve convinced me: I’m in favor of the 3-point conversion. Let’s take football back from the kickers!
by Stuart Carlton on Dec 18, 2010 4:59 PM CST up reply actions
Great points
That would be an interesting add-in.
But, even if you’d gain explanatory power, you’d lose some of the simplicity of DSR, which can be a benefit in it’s own right.
by Stuart Carlton on Dec 18, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions
Nice post, Stuart
Very informative and enlightening. We’ve got to get the Special Teams returns kicked up a notch…or two.
You said, “So, why hasn’t the offense been as explosive as last year’s?”
I’m thinking one reason is probably that during the first half of the season defenses were laying way back to specifically stop the long ball they had seen all of ‘09. What Payton did was settle for underneath completions, screens and dump-offs.
Now, that the defenses are trying to stop that type of offensive march, the long ball has been more in play than at the beginning of the season.
You can’t stop Payton, you can only try to contain him.
Our Time
You might be on to something
I was wondering about just that, but going back to look at all of the drive charts to find out wasn’t something I was going to do :)
by Stuart Carlton on Dec 18, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions
To me the biggest plus in sustained drives is wearing out other teams defenses.
It is true, that it keeps the other team’s O off the field, but long drives also limit the number of scoring opportunists for the Saints. So that’s a wash. It does wear the other teams D down and rests ours. Leading to big fourth quarter scoring opportunities [ think the stats bear this out ] against gassed defenses.. Probably just stating the obvious. On the ST’s play. Ours is killing us. Browns started all day from the 40- 50 and saints inside the 15 or even 5. We saw how well that worked for us. It sure seems like when we do get a good run back there is a holding penalty. Lesser teams would be dead meat if they had to play all day on long fields. The Saints , being the team they are, have been able to over come this area of less than stellar play. Sure hope this phase gets cleaned up.
by saints-fan-in-miss on Dec 18, 2010 2:39 PM CST reply actions

by 


























