ICYMI: Important statistics to take note of leading into next season ---

[Rhavicc]

Some feel that the program is on the rise already. Some others are skeptical, but when your really delve further into the statistics, the improvements of the team are noticeable on both sides of the ball. I'll run a few by you all.

Offensive statistics:

2012 1.95 ppp

2013 2.41 ppp; +0.46 ppp

2014 2.79 ppp; +0.38 ppp

2015 Goal: 3.25 ppp; +0.46 ppp

Offensively, the 2014 Cats continued their trend of improvement. In 2012, the Cats posted an offensive efficiency of 1.95 ppp, and in 2013, the Cats improved offensive efficiency to 2.41 ppp. In 2014, the Cats’ offensive efficiency improved again, this time to 2.79 ppp. That is 12th best in the SEC for 2014. Another improvement of 0.4 to 0.5 ppp over 2014 to 2015 will lift the Cats’ offensive output into the 3.2 to 3.3 ppp range which will be sufficient to lift them to the #8 position in the SEC.

To move into the top half of the conference on offense, the Cats will need an offensive efficiency of at least 3.6 ppp, an increase of 0.8 ppp over 2014. At 3.25 ppp, the Cats will average almost 40 ppg, which is an ambitious increase from last season’s 29.2 ppg. The top half of the SEC average 43 or more points per game.
As said, it is ambitious, but considering the huge improvement in talent between 2012, and 2015, it's not farfetched. I think there's an incredibly solid chance that we'll reach our +0.46 ppp goal, with the real possibility of improving it by +0.60 ppp (considering that we're fielding the best recruiting class in UK history next season, and we seen a notable improvement by fielding very, very few of them on the offensive side of the ball as true freshmen, and without having a couple of big playmakers at WR).


Defensive statistics:

2012 2.21 ppp

2013 2.12 ppp; -0.09 ppp

2014 1.81 ppp; -0.31 ppp

2015 Goal: 1.50 ppp; -0.31 ppp

Defensively, the Cats were essentially the same team in 2013 as it had been in 2012 with efficiencies of 2.206 ppp in 2012 and 2.119 ppp in 2013. In 2014, the Cats posted a modest improvement on the defensive side of the ball, lowering their defensive efficiency to 1.81 ppp.

The SEC median defense in 2014 had an efficiency of about 1.4 ppp, down from 1.6 points per possession in 2013. The Cats’ defensive improvement barely outpaced the SEC average defensive improvement. We'll make a safe assumption that the average SEC defense will be between 1.3 ppp and 1.5 ppp next season. If Kentucky improves a mere -0.31 ppp, they will have rose to the middle of the pack defensively. Again, considering the talent that we're bringing in for next season, and Mark Stoops being the defensive coach that he is, there's a very real possibility that we see such improvement, with the potential to even improve defensively by -0.40 ppp.
Consider that the defense will be more veteran oriented, with the best young talent that UK has seen on the field in its history providing depth, or replacing vets in the starting lineup that they may be better than, and an elite defensive coach, and you have some good things happening.


At these 2015 target levels of performance, the net game efficiency will improve from 0.98 ppp in 2014 to 1.75 ppp in 2015. The average SEC net game efficiency has been:

2010: 1.61 ppp

2011: 1.56 ppp

2012: 1.48 ppp

2013: 1.79 ppp

2014: 1.92 ppp

What you should read into these numbers:

Last year, the SEC was as efficient as it has been in the past 5 seasons. It's not a very real possibility that the average SEC team can maintain a net game efficiency of 1.92 ppp, and will likely fall back to around the 1.75 ppp - 1.85 ppp range. If UK makes a very realistic jump to 1.75 ppp (with the potential to be close to the upper estimate of 1.85 ppp net game efficiency (based on the progressions that UK has been making, and the recruits that are being fielded now), UK should field what we've all been wanting for a while now, an average SEC team that should see a bowl game.

Median levels of play in the SEC should correspond to four SEC wins, coupled with at least three non-conference wins, and probably four non-conference wins — 8-4 or 7-5. A more practical 2015 goal would be to win three SEC games and beat Louisville for seven total wins, with bowl eligibility not hanging in the balance for the Cats when they face the Cards at the end of November.

To elevate their game to the three SEC win level, they will need to increase their net game efficiency from about 0.98 ppp of 2014 to between 1.0 and 1.5 ppp in 2015. The increase of 0.1 to 0.6 ppp probably must come primarily from offensive gains (0.3 to 0.4 ppp improvements) with the defensive contributing to the team improvement at about 0.3 ppp as it did last season.

Credit Vaughtsviews, and his guest to coming up with these numbers. The next time somebody calls you a big blue homer because you project a 7-8 win season for 2015 (before bowl season), the statistics back it up. Nobody knows what will happen until the games are played, but based on the visible, statistically proven improvements of UK under Stoops, and the impossibility of the rest of the SEC to ever-lastingly maintain net efficiencies like last season, UK has a very real possibility of winning 7 or 8 games next season. Encouraging numbers, guys.

GBB!

 

[BlueTick2]

When you are at at the bottom the only way to go is up.

 

[Rhavicc]

When you are at at the bottom the only way to go is up.

Truth. And when several other SEC teams lose their QB's (or on the case of Florida, 7 offensive players, or perhaps Mississippi State losing 18 odd starters not named Dak Prescott) the likely way they're going is down, which is good news for UK.

 

[Rhavicc]

But what about other teams in the SEC? Aren't some of their stats improving too? Surely we aren't the only team in the SEC that is improving statistically in those areas.

I would be completely shocked if UK wins 8 games. Looking at our schedule, I see 6 wins and 7 if we are very lucky.

It's going to take a couple more years of signing top 25 classes before me make any noise in the SEC. We are basically dead last in recruiting in the SEC besides Vandy so how can we expect to climb the ladder soon? I guess Stoops could outcoach other SEC teams with less talent and still win, but that remains to be seen.

It's a long process.

Anything less than 6 wins this season will mean we are in bad shape. We have to get at least 6 wins to keep recruiting momentum. Patrick Towles and the O-Line need to improve significantly and get us to that goal.

There are, but there are also some that are regressing, probably more-so than those progressing. Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Auburn lose their starting QB's (which at that level hurts every team), the only one of those that brings back a proven QB is Auburn. LSU still doesn't have a QB, Mississippi State loses a ton of players, Florida lost 7 offensive players and probably the best defensive coach in the game. and Mizzou loses some very, very good defensive players, as well as offensive playmakers, but retain their QB for his 17th year of eligibility.
The teams I see notably improving are Arkansas, UK, Vandy, Tennessee, and Auburn (proven QB, bringing in very good players, and most importantly, Muschamp for their defense). I think the huge exodus of senior QB's, with some teams that kept their QB's losing a bunch of players hurts the league next year overall, which serves as an opportunity for UK to catch up. A number of teams will improve, but common knowledge suggests that more will regress. UK just needs to capitalize and keep stride as the SEC gets back on the up-swing with new players running their offenses, and more veteran players being fielded.

 

[wildcatbd21]

The offense getting to 40 PPG would be huge. What would our defensive PPG look like at 1.5 PPP? I would guess below 20.

 

[hmt5000]

There are, but there are also some that are regressing, probably more-so than those progressing. Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Auburn lose their starting QB's (which at that level hurts every team), the only one of those that brings back a proven QB is Auburn. LSU still doesn't have a QB, Mississippi State loses a ton of players, Florida lost 7 offensive players and probably the best defensive coach in the game. and Mizzou loses some very, very good defensive players, as well as offensive playmakers, but retain their QB for his 17th year of eligibility.
The teams I see notably improving are Arkansas, UK, Vandy, Tennessee, and Auburn (proven QB, bringing in very good players, and most importantly, Muschamp for their defense). I think the huge exodus of senior QB's, with some teams that kept their QB's losing a bunch of players hurts the league next year overall, which serves as an opportunity for UK to catch up. A number of teams will improve, but common knowledge suggests that more will regress. UK just needs to capitalize and keep stride as the SEC gets back on the up-swing with new players running their offenses, and more veteran players being fielded.

Agree with all that.

 

[Rhavicc]

The offense getting to 40 PPG would be huge. What would our defensive PPG look like at 1.5 PPP? I would guess below 20.

I'm not much of a mathematician, but if I had to take a shot at it, I think the numbers would come out to just below 19 ppg, but my instinct says that UK seen a 10 ppg offensive increase in part because of pace as well, so I think a more accurate estimate would be around 24 ppg if we play at last year's pace, which is a 7 point+ increase from last season. I'm content with allowing teams to score 24 ppg, and even more content with scoring 40 ppg.
The advanced statistics show that these improvements are very possible, though if you look at the basic numbers (simply saying that UK will go from scoring 30 ppg to 40 ppg), you would likely say it's a stretch.
A lot of momentum working in UK's favor though.

Agree with all that.

Glad I don't look like a blabbering imbecile. But as long as UK continues to improve at a higher rate than the other SEC schools, and a lot of those SEC schools will regress (besides those that I listed, mostly due to their youth), we're in very good shape.

 

[wildcatbd21]

I'm not much of a mathematician, but if I had to take a shot at it, I think the numbers would come out to just below 19 ppg, but my instinct says that UK seen a 10 ppg offensive increase in part because of pace as well, so I think a more accurate estimate would be around 24 ppg if we play at last year's pace, which is a 7 point+ increase from last season. I'm content with allowing teams to score 24 ppg, and even more content with scoring 40 ppg.
The advanced statistics show that these improvements are very possible, though if you look at the basic numbers (simply saying that UK will go from scoring 30 ppg to 40 ppg), you would likely say it's a stretch.
A lot of momentum working in UK's favor though.




Glad I don't look like a blabbering imbecile. But as long as UK continues to improve at a higher rate than the other SEC schools, and a lot of those SEC schools will regress (besides those that I listed, mostly due to their youth), we're in very good shape.

I could live with winning games 40-24 too. I say keep blabbering. You always have good info.

 

[WildCard]

OK, I'm puzzled.

First of all, as he notes, the metrics in the OP are not Rhaviccs' numbers but a cut and paste of a "guest post" to Larry Vaught's Vaughtsviews.com website. Vaught's guest poster did not identify the measure "ppp". We can logically assume(?) it means "plays per point" because the reciprocal measure "points per play" leads to wholly unrealistic numbers. For example 2.0 points/play x 60 plays/game = 120 points/game! Conversely, [60 plays/game] / 2.0 plays/point = 30 points/game

So if the objective is to measure "offensive efficiency" in terms of Plays per Point, like golf but unlike bowling, a lower number is better, i.e., it takes fewer plays to score that point. (In the above example 1.5 plays/point yields 40 points per game.)

To his credit the poster apparently deducted defensive and ST scores and used only the points scored by the offense. FWIW stats from one of my favorite stats sites for 2014 indicate 849 plays yielding 308 "offensive" points or 2.76 plays per point (very close to 2.79 "ppp" cited in the OP). I think he got the numbers right but went in the wrong direction with his conclusion that a larger number was "better".

Peace

 

[hmt5000]

Points per possession would be my guess

 

[Rhavicc]

OK, I'm puzzled.

First of all, as he notes, the metrics in the OP are not Rhaviccs' numbers but a cut and paste of a "guest post" to Larry Vaught's Vaughtsviews.com website. Vaught's guest poster did not identify the measure "ppp". We can logically assume(?) it means "plays per point" because the reciprocal measure "points per play" leads to wholly unrealistic numbers. For example 2.0 points/play x 60 plays/game = 120 points/game! Conversely, [60 plays/game] / 2.0 plays/point = 30 points/game

So if the objective is to measure "offensive efficiency" in terms of Plays per Point, like golf but unlike bowling, a lower number is better, i.e., it takes fewer plays to score that point. (In the above example 1.5 plays/point yields 40 points per game.)

To his credit the poster apparently deducted defensive and ST scores and used only the points scored by the offense. FWIW stats from one of my favorite stats sites for 2014 indicate 849 plays yielding 308 "offensive" points or 2.76 plays per point (very close to 2.79 "ppp" cited in the OP). I think he got the numbers right but went in the wrong direction with his conclusion that a larger number was "better".

Peace

ppp = points per possession.

 

[WildCard]

ppp = points per possession.

i'm a bit of a stats geek and, quite frankly, I have NEVER heard of that metric for football analysis. Basketball, yes, but football, no.

FWIW, "points per possession" would be the equivalent of "points per drive". I used ESPN game summaries as a source and, if I counted correctly, UK had 165 drives (i.e., "possessions") last year. That includes 3 OT possessions yielding 10 points in the FL game. (In my earlier post I did not account for OT plays and points. You can make a case either way but, IMO, an offensive start by rule on the opponent's 25 yard line skews the overall game metrics and should be disregarded in any "analysis".)

If we leave the OT possession and points in the mix that would be 308 (offensive) points off 165 possessions, an average of 1.867 points per drive (or possession, if you prefer). If we redact the OT figures it would be 298 points from 162 possessions, and average of 1.840 "ppp". Even when adding back the 42 defensive points scored in 2014 we get an average of 2.121 "ppp", still well off the poster's 2014 figure of 2.79.

If you or anyone else wants to see some further analysis along these (and the historical impact of the numbers) see Phil Steele's stat stuffed magazine (should be out in a couple of weeks). He alway has an article titled "YPP Factor" (i.e., yards per play) and the historical significance of year to year deltas in this metric.

On a related note, for those "expecting" a 10 point per game increase next year (up from 29.2 PPG last year), only 13 teams made a 10 point jump in scoring last year over their 2013 scoring. I have looked at this measure over a number of years and that number (i.e., 12-15 teams each year) is fairly typical. The 2013 scoring average of the those 13 teams was 18.8 points/game and 8 of those 13 averaged less than 24 points/game in 2013. Only 1 of the 13 scored above the 2013 national average of 28 points/game. The 2014 national scoring average was 28.2 point and the Cats just under that mark at 26.5.

Peace