Sacks and interceptions, oh my!

The Mathlete’s latest post is about interceptions and sacks – more specifically,

… how does a viable pass rush or a ball-hawking secondary affect the performance of the opposing offense on plays where there isn’t a sack or a pick.  Likewise, what is the correlation between an offensive line that gives up sacks regularly or a mistake prone quarterback?

His findings will both surprise and not surprise you.

Not surprising, in that defenses that generate sacks and picks are better defenses for it, even on downs where neither occurs.  Interestingly, he finds that sacks are more valuable than interceptions.

On offense, though, those items don’t matter as much.  As somebody who sat through the second-half debacle of last year’s Kentucky game, it’s kind of hard to wrap my brain around this statement, but there it is:

… Interceptions and sacks will always be bad plays for an offense, but their rate of incidence is not strongly correlated to performance on other downs.  In fact, if given the choice between a quarterback who threw a lot of picks the prior year but was generally successful otherwise and a quarterback who was very safe but not all that productive, my guess is you will be better of going for the quarterback with the picks.

9 Comments

Filed under Stats Geek!

9 responses to “Sacks and interceptions, oh my!

  1. GirlDawg

    If you have a well tuned D to save your Arce.. It is Sunday have you given thanks for our prayers being answered? We have new D Coaches this year!!!

    Like

  2. Jeebus H. Feist that gave me a headache.

    The Red Blackman Theory on turnovers and sacks.

    Get sacks = Good
    Give up sacks = Bad

    Create turnovers = Good
    Give up turnovers = Bad

    I was amazed when I read this lil tidbit…..

    Georgia is tied for the best winning percentage in the nation when outscoring the other team.

    Like

    • NCT

      “Georgia is tied for the best winning percentage in the nation when outscoring the other team.”

      Wait. What?

      Like

      • Mayor of dawgtown

        Unfortunately, our beloved Dawgs also lose 100% of the games where the other team scores more points than the Dawgs do.

        Like

  3. JC in Powder Springs

    I’d have to argue about ‘less productive’ with few INTs & few TDs vs. ‘more productive’ with more INTs & more TDs – at least in the case of the 2010 Dawgs offense. The ’10 Dawgs need to control the ball on O: run frequently, use those terrific kickers effectively, eat clock and give the D the best field position possible. With our WRs and TEs it’s tempting but stupid to be pass-happy. Use the 5 returnees on the O-line and our fine backs to grind it out. When passing – either fling it long and let WRs run under it, or throw high-percentage passes and let AJ or TEs leg it out for yards.

    Murray doesn’t need to set records for TDs – that’s for Ealey & King. He needs to avoid setting records for INTs.

    Like

  4. 69Dawg

    I watched the 97 UGA UF game for the 1000th time yesterday and had forgotten that Mike Bobo had 3 count them 3 interceptions in that game and yes one was to a DL. Our coach taught Joe how he did it. The difference was his were in the enemy’s territory and the D kept them from scoring. All int’s are not the same, Joe just had a knack for the pick 6 type.

    The other point is the guys that knock Kirby Smart are nuts he had multiple interceptions and pass breakups in that game.

    Like

  5. MESSENGER

    [NOTE: Post removed by admin.]

    Thomas, I’ve warned you more than once that I won’t let you spam comments at GTP that were clearly meant for another blog/message board.

    I don’t have a problem with your negativity, but if you can’t be original here, don’t bother to show up.

    Like

  6. kckd

    I know a lot of people are blaming our bad turnover ratio on Cox’s INTs, but we had more in 2006 and had a much better turnover ratio. Our problem last year was two fold. Our offense gave up too many and our defense didn’t get any in return. Likely not to happen again.

    Like