Story on ESPN today: Chain reaction: Are turnovers about more than luck?
Now, we've seen ways that Bud runs specific defenses like robbers to bait the offense into turning the ball over. But this article suggests that overall, turnovers may be just "luck" and variations are just statistical noise.
As a fan, and especially as a Virginia Tech fan, this is not very satisfying to consider. But is it true?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The fact that we have the most INTs in college football since 1995 helps me sleep at night and ignore E$PN
So just to follow up on this ... Virginia Tech is #1 in overall turnovers forced as well (at least since 2000, which appears to be as far back as these data go) ...
Team Stats - Opponent Turnovers (2000-2017)
As an interesting but somewhat irrelevant data point, LOLUVA shows up at #92 on that list.
Fumbles are more random than interceptions. Once the oblong spheroid hits the ground, all bets are off on which way it bounces.
forcing fumbles can be a skill, but "fumble luck" is a real thing and recovery rates for "maintaining possession" vs "changing possession" generally skew towards 50%
Example 1 - a team skilled at forcing fumbles forces 10 fumbles and recovers 50% - That's 5 fumbles
Example 2 - a team unskilled at forcing fumbles only forces 5 fumbles and recovers 50% - That's 2.5 fumbles
Forcing fumbles is a skill that seems to be worth practicing
It is, but not at the expense of making a tackle. You'll sometimes see defenders go for punches or rips and the ball carrier will run right through or past them. But in general, you can teach trying to force fumbles and it is a skill worth teaching. But forcing fumbles isn't entirely the same as forcing turnovers, because even though you'd expect 50% of the fumbles to be turnovers, it's not guaranteed.
Edit: For an example of fumble luck, look at the battle at bristol. we were incredibly unlucky with fumble recoveries and Tennessee was incredibly lucky. There were six fumbles in that game and Tennessee recovered all six of them (five VT fumbles, one UT). if that statistic skewed more towards the average, it's an entirely different ballgame
it is a skill worth teaching.
Boxing glove on a stick?
that would probably lean towards "preventing fumbles" but sure
Agree. It shouldn't be attempted at the expense of making a tackle and there are no guarantees of making the recovery. But with the recovery stats indicating it's a 50-50 shot, even if you don't get the 50% per game, it seems it would average out over time.
It isn't quite 50/50- Football Outsiders has found recovery rate changes depending on where the fumbles occur. Aborted snaps/botched handoffs are recovered more often by the offense, while fumbles downfield by receivers are more often recovered by the defense. (I can't find the article in front of me where they talked about this.) Still though, it's not that rare to see a fumble and 3 defenders by the ball yet the ball end up with the one offensive player capable of making a recovery or vice versa.
It is worth practicing, and some players are really good at forcing fumbles (Charles Tillman comes to mind). You should force as many fumbles as possible because no one's shown any repeatable skill at recovering fumbles, so the only way to overcome that variance is through volume.
Better said than what I was trying to explain
Bud's zone defense really confuses QBs, it you watch Bill Dozer's power hour, you can see almost every interception in the clips that the QB is fairly secure in throwing the ball but all of a sudden Lunch Pail D shows up in the landing spot. Off course some of the interceptions are also from pressure. But both are optimal for our defense.
Power Hour? well it is Friday, don't mind if I do.
Think I'll join you.
When the Hokies are ahead by two possessions...and the opposing team turns up their passing game in the 4th quarter, more often than not, it seems we seal the game with an interception. That's not random.
The article's claim is that everybody does that.
When a team is behind late, they have to pass and really the pass needs to be medium to long ... they need to get yardage in a hurry. But the defense is well aware of that so they are set expecting that pass to come. The offense is playing a riskier-than-normal approach ... and often enough the risk comes up snake eyes.
There is a trend for all teams, but I believe our turnover rate increases an even higher amount than the mean. I don't have any research and backup other than the # of Ints record we have since Bud took over and my eye.
VT's had a lot of great athletes at CB and while INTs may be random catching passes is a skill, so if you have DBs with good hands it stands to reason you would have more picks than expected given the circumstances. Someone with time might want to look at the numbers and see where VT comes out.
/puts finger on nose
I have zero statistical proof of this but it seems to me most college games end with an interception sealing the fate of the team trying to come back. Seems to happen way more than even a time-expiring field goal attempt.
Let's ask Marcus about the turnovers in the 2005 Miami game to see if it was about more than luck?
Great memories of my first game in Lane Stadium...
Generally speaking, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
History bears this out.
One of my farvorite sayings.
Forcing turnover opportunities is both luck and skill. Turning those opportunities into turnovers (fumbles, passes defensed) IS luck, as recovery rates trend towards 50% for all teams historically. So you practice forcing opportunities, you practicing protecting the ball, then when shit happens hope for the best.
I don't do math so...
There's probably a strong element of both involved. It's understandable for a team that's losing to be more likely to turn the ball over (depending on the score and time) because said team is likely aggressively pushing the ball down the field. Couple that with the likelihood that passes net more yards quicker, and statistically passing plays result in more turnovers, and...boom goes the dynamite. Luck plays some part in it I would guess i.e. right place, right time, etc. However, I would think skill and overall ability as a player is a hefty part of the equation.
Off the top of my head probably sloppy statistical test...
(average of Bud's' interceptions - overall average # of interceptions) / (standard deviation of average interceptions / (number of years -1)^0.5)
would give you a t value, easily transformed into a probability of that value of Bud's interceptions occurring given that interceptions are random.
I would need to put more thought into it, including accounting for number of games, to get anything I would trust, but this would give a general idea of how likely it is that Bud has just been lucky. I would stay away from fumbles, because of the previously mentioned randomness in who recovers.
It's not random.
I present exhibit A
No. I really wasn't a VT football fan until I got to Tech (Rockville, MD native). I watched a lot of football on TV (mostly Redskins and Florida State) played through high school. The regularity which I witnessed VT FORCING turnovers, blocking kicks changed my mind. This was fall 1996 and THIS WAS BEAMERBALL.
The real question is: are random threads/posts regarding turnovers being random, random??
That was a really interesting read. Yes, there's a ton of randomness to turnovers, but there's obviously more to it than that
This part intrigued me.
Yeah, unless you call a turnover on downs a turnover, right?
That's super interesting and another piece of evidence to support the never punt strategy, employed by the high school coach down in Arkansas.
I hope that one day someone at the college or NFL level will have the guts to give it a try (even if it's not quite "never" punt). That would be a blast to watch. I bet once that happens the game will change forever, especially since the rules continue to swing towards an advantage for the offense.
Isn't that pretty close to CPJ's gameplan down at GT? I have no stats handy to back this up, but it seems that because of the way his offense operates, 4th downs are almost always short yardage situations, and unless he's backed up inside his own 30, he's probably going to go for it.
Isn't that essentially what Leach does/did?
Never punt, always go for it on 4th. Because statistics are in your favor. Or am I thinking of the wrong pirate?
I think Young Sheldon also told his dad to always go for it on fourth down, too.
Some say that Bud is given a pass when in reality, he just has the defense in such good positioning, especially in the secondary, that those passes are just naturally taken away.
lol. Of course there's some element of randomness to it, but it can't be a real question whether there's skill involved. In any given game a team can get hot or cold with turnovers, but over the course of a season or multiple seasons hard to ignore patterns seem to emerge with certain players/teams.
Fumbles aren't random they have killed Tech so many times. UGA, Tenn, OKST, JMU. It's footballs that have something against the Hokies.
Trick question: turnovers are delicious
Here's a fun debate for TKP that I once had. Do you consider a turnover more of a dessert pastry or more of a breakfast pastry like a donut or danish? Also, fritters>>>>turnovers
The answer is Ice Cream
Its a handheld pie.
any pie can be a handheld pie if only you have the dedication
Ah but some more so by design.
This is an example of that design for portability.
All pastries are dessert pastries. The fact that "breakfast pastries" are a thing makes it clear why we have obesity problems in America.
Life is short - eat desert first (thing in the morning)!
Trick question: turnovers are delicious
No doubt, at least in part. And one would certainly look at that picture and conclude that at least this particular turnover is not random at all. It is basically portable pie, and that's not an accident.
But I have to say, as one who watched the Debacle at Bristol ... there is such a thing as a turnover which is NOT delicious.
Somewhat relevant to the turnover discussion, but also a fun Friday Morning watch. NEW TO ME
The idea of turnovers being a product of luck makes the idea of a Miami player getting a swag chain for getting lucky just that much funnier