We break out the advanced stats once again to how the Irish football team fared against Nevada in their 39-10 win. Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
This week features the return of garbage time! A reminder – I deviate a little bit here from some other sources – for example, Football Outsiders has used up 28+ in the 1st quarter, 24+ in the 2nd, 21+ in the 3rd, and 16+ in the 4th as their parameters.
I’m a little more subjective – there’s usually a clear inflection point where you can identify a significant strategic shift by both teams, and it doesn’t always match up to the point differentials above. (Note: this is also why if you compare my numbers for Notre Dame to other sources like Bill Connelly, they’ll be extremely close but not identical). From Saturday’s game, garbage time began with 8:30 remaining in the 3rd quarter, when a Tarean Folston touchdown run put the Irish up 32-0.
Explosiveness
After allowing Texas to rack up 6.22 yards per play, the defense rebounded with a nice effort against Nevada, holding the Wolfpack to just 3.4 yards per play. While Nevada’s offense is definitely bad, it was good to see the Irish perform well in areas they struggled and the Pack were potentially dangerous, like explosive running plays.
The young secondary, who somehow became even younger after Shaun Crawford’s devastating injury, didn’t allow a pass play over 15 yards before garbage time. Drue Tranquill made a solid play to break up an early deep ball, and the defensive game plan was fairly vanilla. That could be an intentional call not to use anything exotic against a weaker opponent, or perhaps signals a bit more bend but don’t break. I’m not holding my breath, but it could be a good idea!
Offensively, it was a good but not great performance against a defense that is likely to finish in the bottom 20-30 in FBS. Some of this was self-inflicted, with early penalties and a bad Kizer throw thwarting efforts to open up a huge lead by halftime.
Early on, this Notre Dame hasn’t been anywhere near as explosive as last year. In the passing game this was a near-certainty with Will Fuller’s departure, and it’s a small sample size so far – if Kizer can put that long bomb to Stepherson on the money, I’m not typing this sentence. The running game, though, has been a little bit more surprising; there’s noticeably less open space to operate than last year, and the switch from Prosise/Adams to Folston/Adams is a clear downgrade in terms of explosiveness. More on this below.
Efficiency
The Wolfpack’s efficiency running the ball surprised me – it seemed high compared to what I watched. Nevada was actually less efficient in garbage time, and only rushed for 3.8 YPC before then – they just took advantage of some very short 2nd and 3rd downs (off passes and/or penalties) that led to a few easy successes in a small sample size, since Nevada only ran 17 times before the garbage time cutoff.
I was optimistic in the preseason about the Irish front seven, and while a lot of that hope was killed in Austin, this game restored a small bit of it. James Onwualu and Isaac Rochell have made the strides expected as senior captains, and Te’Von Coney and Nyles Morgan had very nice games on Saturday.
Zero sacks through two games is gross, but I think we’ll see continued improvement from Jarron Jones (who had a nice pick, but no tackles yet), Jerry Tillery, and Daniel Cage. The Hayes brothers have some potential, with Jay getting in the game late and hopefully healthy, and Daelin getting some pressure on Saturday. I’m more than willing to trade off sacks for better defensive efficiency (although they’re definitely intertwined) or lack of big plays given up – it’s when we aren’t doing any of those that the frustration sets in.
I may say it until I’m blue in the face, but passing downs are huge with a young secondary, and once again the Irish were solid when they could win the leverage game. Notre Dame’s 22.7% success rate yielded on passing downs for the year is about the only place right now they’re above average nationally.
On the other side of the ball, it was a very efficient performance from DeShone Kizer, with Equanimeous St. Brown and C.J. Sanders continuing to shine. St. Brown has been solid acting through two games as a #1 target, with 30.4% of passes going his way at 9.4 yards/target. Sanders hasn’t seen as much action but has been even more efficient, with 11.2 yards/target and a 77.8% success rate when the ball has come his way.
The running game has been solid, but hasn’t looked like the attack that was #1 in Rushing S&P+ in 2015. Bridging off Eric’s review, the profiles of Notre Dame’s three runners also look very different, and a different allocation of carries may be needed:
Tarean Folston: 28 carries, 115 yards (4.1 YPC), 34.6% success rate
Josh Adams: 21 carries, 149 yards (7.1 YPC), 61.9% success rate
Dexter Williams: 8 carries, 59 yards (7.4 YPC), 75.0% success rate (all in garbage time)
In the offseason, I had a lukewarm take I threw out to our staff that it would be a good sign if Folston ended the season as Notre Dame’s third-leading running back. Even when healthy in 2014, Folston was very efficient but lacked explosiveness. As a sophomore, he averaged just 3.54 highlight yards per opportunity, which measures how running backs perform once they’ve benefitted from good blocking and enter the open field. That number ranked him 153rd out of 177 FBS running backs with at least 100 carries.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see Folston shake off some rust as the season goes on, but the numbers certainly support more carries for Adams and Williams in the near-term. Folston also brings some proven skills to the table in terms of knowledge of the offense and pass protection, but if he isn’t proving to be more efficient and is much less explosive, can you justify giving him RB1 carries?
Field Position
Average Starting Field Position:
Notre Dame: Irish 37
Nevada: Wolfpack 20
Looking back at stats from the 2014 season, teams with a field position margin from 15-20 yards won 92.8% of the time with an average margin of +28.6 points. Yes, field position is important, and this was a very nice game for the Irish.
Integral in this effort were boneheaded plays by Nevada – a safety on the 2nd quarter kickoff return gave the Irish possession back, two free points, and good starting field position on the next drive. Another penalty on a bad kickoff return backed the Wolfpack up and eventually led to a Sanders return almost to the red zone. Finally, Jarron Jones’ screen-pass snag again put the Irish right on the doorstep of scoring.
The only area for improvement has been inconsistency from Tyler Newsome, and comments from those close to the program suggest it’s likely just some needed mental focus and confidence when the lights come on. Justin Yoon missed an extra point, but that happened early last year too, and then he was perfect for the last two-thirds of the year, so not a cause for concern yet.
Finishing Drives
If there’s been reason to be excited so far about the offense, the red-zone execution has been extremely productive and clean so far this season. The problem in the past for Notre Dame the past few seasons wasn’t an inability to move the ball in the red zone, it was too often coming away with nothing after turnovers. Thus far the Irish have shown a number of different looks close to the end zone, and it may be the maturity of Kizer, but there’s been little risk so far.
Defensively, the Wolfpack only crossed midfield a few times before garbage time, and on the first possession came up empty on a 4th down attempt. To Brian Van Gorder’s credit, the Nevada offense threw a ton of different looks at the Irish early (three QBs on the first drive), and the defense was up to the task.
Turnovers
The Irish notched their first turnover of the season when Kizer threw a ball a little late and behind a previously open Stepherson. They’ll also have a little bit of film room material with some lax ball-handling near the sidelines, but those fumbles out of bounds were in low-risk areas and if anything should provide some focus.
The Jarron Jones interception was a thing of beauty, and Cole Luke would have added another pick if not for a true freshman moment by Khalid Kareem with an unnecessary late hit. Notre Dame games the past few seasons have been low turnover affairs – on both sides – and it’s interesting to have no forced fumbles so far for the Irish defense.
A new hope
This was a great bounce-back effort for a defensive unit sorely in need of some confidence. The front seven looked much more active and engaged, and while a young secondary lost a dynamic player in Shaun Crawford ,it’s a group that should get better each game with Studstill, Coleman, Love, and others gaining valuable experience. They’ll be tested against a hard-nosed Michigan State team that like Texas wants to pound the ball, but the Irish should match up better and be more prepared for it.
The offense will face an even tougher test, but has to feel confident about answering big offseason questions so far. Kizer has been excellent in his young career in big games, and concerns about who will step up at receiver being quickly answered by the duo of St. Brown and Sanders. Malik McDowell could cause all kinds of problems on the interior, and the offensive line will need to hold up in pass protection against an aggressive defense. More will come Friday, but I’m already looking forward to another big rivalry game against a Spartan team that has a lot to prove after a shaky opener against Furman.
Can’t shake the feeling that our backs look a little dinged up.
Especially against Texas, they often seemed slow to get up and both Adams and Folston just don’t look to have the same pop as last year. Still, a reduced Adams is very fast.
These numbers definitely confirm that this was a better than expected defensive performance and worse than expected offensive performance. For explosiveness, I might argue we miss CJ even more than Will. CJ opened it up in the running and passing game.
Everything points to MSU being overrated, which puts the Irish in a great spot. Overrated team at home that hasn’t played a real opponent, but the Irish will still get the public perception boost of beating a quality BIG10 team. Then we pray the Spartans go and wreak havoc like they did last year. Jinx fully engaged.
Folston has definitely looked more hesitant, which is weird because decisiveness was always his strongest trait. I don’t think he’s any less explosive than before, or if he is the dropoff is marginal; it’s just that his lack of burst is glaringly obvious now that we’ve watched Prosise and Adams so much.
Speaking of Adams, I think he looks just fine – that 40-yard run with the series of jump cuts was amazing. He’s not as fast, of course, but I think Adams is probably a better receiver than Prosise. I’m not sure CJ would’ve made that over-the-shoulder catch against Texas. Williams has the speed to take it to the house too, although of course it remains to be seen how much run he’ll get.
You make a great point on the loss of Prosise, though, and I agree it’s flying under the radar a bit versus the loss of Fuller.
MSU lost a lot on both sides of the ball – three-year starter at QB and their top to WRs, and 5 of their top 7 DL tacklers. I don’t think they’re really a #12 team, but I’ll happily take the perception boost from a big win over them. As for the rest of their season, they get Michigan and Ohio State at home this year, and they should stomp everyone else in that sorry conference. So they have a chance to make some noise.
I agree that Adams looks fine – I can see where you’d think he’s a step slower, and he was dinged up against Texas, but I think he just hasn’t had the opportunity to get up to top speed in the open field yet – even that 40-yard run he was having to change gears to cut throughout, versus something like the Stanford run last season where it was pretty much a set-up, one cut, and accelerate with the angle. Hopefully we see a few runs like that soon.
Are we sure Adams isn’t as fast as CJ Prosise? I’m sure he’s not as quick in short spaces, but the long speed is there. Actually maybe you’re right.
I’d probably agree MSU is overrated given who they lost from last year, BUUUUTTTT…..
It’s tough to know with a tough opponent who played a nobody close in the first week and then had a bye before you. Maybe they suck and couldn’t pull away from Furman or maybe they just played it vanilla as hell and were satisfied to just get into that bye week with a W. And maybe (definitely) they were looking ahead to us during Furman week. Just like Clempson v. Louisville last year (though MSU’s athletes won’t be quite that good), I would be hesitant to read too much into the Furman game. The personnel losses are definitely an issue though.
If we shut down the run, it’s ball game. They will not have the weapons to hurt us otherwise and we should be able to outscore them.
Also, man, not a lot of motivation should be required. We want to make it to the playoff. So do they. They want to stop us. They scheduled a bye week to do just that. Gotta take what’s ours. If they punch you in the mouth, then you hit them with bat, burn their mf’ing house down, and shoot their dog. Unleash hell and make them regret ever deciding to play the game of football.
I like the cut of your jib…
Lets leave the dogs out of this, fellas. Dogs are people too!
Civilization auto-rec
Def my favorite leader background-wise. You pre-ordering Civ6? I’m just having too much fun with V, dunno if I will have time for 6 just yet. In any case, I’ll probably wait until they get all the mods and things up and running for 6 first…
Nah, i’ve played just about every version of Civ ever, but i would never pay full price for it. For over 20 years they’ve been saying that, finally, this time we fixed the combat system. Diplomacy has gotten marginally better, and there are a few other mechanics that continue to be head-scratchers, but ultimately the game will have major holes. i’ll never not play, but i also won’t reward them with a full price purchase when they put more effort into bells, whistles, and graphics instead of polishing the game mechanics.
Could someone confirm or fix my understanding of run success rate? I ask because the Nevada success rate seems high to me as well, so I just want to make sure I understand, it may just be a case of lyin’ eyes.
On a 1st and 10 to be a successful run for the sake of the efficiency stat the run would have to gain 5 yards (50% of the yardage needed), while on 2nd and 10 it would need to gain 7 yards or on a 2nd and 6 it would need to gain 4 yards (70% of the yardage needed). On third and fourth downs to be a successful play you have to pick up all of the yardage needed for either a first down or touchdown.
From the Football Outsiders website – it’s their metric:
If you really want to geek out on it, here’s a very detailed article on how they came up with it and what it means:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2004/introducing-running-back-success-rate
Bill Connelly has actually tweaked the FO definitions above for college football, and it’s the way gambit described – 50% of needed yards on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, and gaining a first down on 3rd/4th (this was from 2014/15, but I don’t believe he’s changed it).
I’ve used the same metrics because a) it’s a lot easier for charting purposes not worrying about quarter, and who is ahead and behind and b) that way I can compare apples to apples with his numbers for other teams in previews/recaps.
Since you asked specifically about running success rate, I’d also point out that success rate is the same for run/pass – it’s all just about how much of the needed yards for a first down you gain.
Thanks for both replies.
Do you compile the stats for the ND games yourself, Michael or is there a database you pull them from?
I started charting the ND games myself last year, and mostly utilizing the official ND play by play for confirmation. It’s a bit tedious, but once I have it in Excel I can pull all kinds of things myself in terms of situational tendencies and stats, and over time hopefully keep adding more and more.
For example, adding passing/standard downs and leverage rate stuff this year is new, and I’m hoping for next year to use better data for explosiveness instead of 10+ yard runs and 20+ yard passes as a bit of a proxy. What most advanced stats use is a version of points per play (Connelly uses IsoPPP+), because if you look back at the data in terms of expected points, a 10-yard gain from an opponents 20 to 10 yard-line is much more valuable than from your own 10 to 20. I think I can get there, but it requires inputting more data per play as well as a function assigning point values to each yard line, and I ain’t there yet.
18stripes came to play SCHOOL.
Wow. Thanks for going to such number crunching lengths to write free content for us knuckleheads.
Translation: thanks for being such a loser so we can have more nowlej.
#spreadsheetsarecoolandsoami
Holdup, what Offer Code did you use to get free access?? I’m on the $1.99/article plan. I was tempted to just pay the $500 per year because, duh, savings, but I wanted to give it a year before committing to anything. I do get free shipping though, so that’s pretty sweet…
Wait, do you get commenting free? Am I the only one that has to pay to read and post comments? Man…
I can sell you some gift cards at $.50 on the $1.00 if you’re worried about spending too much here. I buy them through the loyalty rewards program.
Oh, that’d be great! Thank you so m—-
/please deposit another $1.25 to continue this comment…
I, for one, am very concerned about Michigan State. I think D’antonio and his staff are as good as any program in college at evaluating talent as it applies to his schemes. BK is very good at finding the Will Fullers out there, but I think D’antonio does it even better.
Also, I heard an interview with D’antonio during fall practice on XM, he said he had over 100 situations that he had to put his team through prior to the start of the season. He didn’t emphasize technique, he emphasized situational football. Is this a common coaching philosophy? I can’t remember BK stressing anything like that. Could one our smart guys expound on that as a coaching philosophy?
MSU scares me because I have tremendous respect for D’antonio. I’m an ND fan, so, of course, I detest everything about MSU. But I think D’antonio is one of the top coaches in college, and he scares me.
Not sure where else to share this, but if anyone complains about NBC revenue money you can show them this: http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091316aab.html. $100 million from the NBC contract(s) has now been allocated to scholarships.
From the article:
[…] 18 Stripes: Five factors review: Notre Dame […]
This a bot?
Tex has been uploaded to the cloud
Something to do with automatic pingbacks – articles referenced between blogs. I don’t entirely get it, but it’s not a bot, it’s a feature.