2017 Yards Per Play: SEC

I always enjoy Matt Melton’s annual jog through conference statistics.  As the header indicates, his latest analysis of the SEC has been posted.  I don’t think you’ll find much of a surprise here.

Yeah, LSU underachieved a little and maybe Mississippi State overachieved a little (although I think in the case of MSU, when it lost in conference, it tended to lose really, really badly, which no doubt skews the numbers), but overall… well, let Matt lay it out.

… Since Net YPP is a solid predictor of a team’s conference record, we can use it to identify which teams had a significant disparity between their conference record as predicted by Net YPP and their actual conference record. I used a difference of .200 between predicted and actual winning percentage as the threshold for ‘significant’. Why .200? It is a little arbitrary, but .200 corresponds to a difference of 1.6 games over an eight game conference schedule and 1.8 games over a nine game one. Over or under-performing by more than a game and a half in a small sample seems significant to me. In the 2017 season, which teams in the SEC met this threshold? Here are SEC teams sorted by performance over what would be expected from their Net YPP numbers.

No SEC teams significantly over or under-performed relative to their expected record based on YPP. The top three teams dominated the conference, finishing a combined 21-3 with Auburn’s loss to LSU the only one coming against the other eleven. There is really nothing interesting or new to report in that regard. So, instead I’ll focus on something that is rather interesting.

The point left hanging there really is interesting.  It’s an exploration of how long SEC coaches who win their division stay on afterwards.  Let’s just say you could make an argument that winning a division could put a coach on the hot seat.  It just means more, man.  Take a minute and read Matt’s data.


Filed under SEC Football, Stats Geek!

11 responses to “2017 Yards Per Play: SEC

  1. Uglydawg

    I wonder how Georgia compares to MO and a couple of other teams (top chart) for long pass completions. Am I wrong in my belief that Georgia didn’t have a lot of long passes? It’s great that we didn’t need them, but how much better would the results be with a constant deep threat?
    Then again, deep threat teams also have considerable numbers of in-completions resulting in zero yards for that play and even sacks for a negative number, so I guess it evens out somewhat, or even improved the Dawgs numbers with the fantastic running game.
    The more one considers all of this, the more ifs and buts one sees.
    A good..really good..duel threat QB would negate much of the negative yards from taking a sack or throwing the ball out of bounds factor, but would it be a bigger deal than a fantastic offensive line to protect a patient, pro style QB?
    That’s the thing CKS will have to figure out. I think 2019 will be the year we get the answer.


  2. Greg

    The Jake Fromm effect…..funny how some laughed and ridiculed others at the idea a year ago. Hope he stays healthy & it continues.


    • Macallanlover

      Too many put an emphasis on the distance a ball is thrown and not the total yardage of the pass play. Most long passing TDs are on short, to medium, length throws where the receiver covers most of the yards after making the reception


      • The Truth

        And Terry Godwin and Mecole Hardman are two guys that can cover that ground. Hope we give them opportunities.



      • Uglydawg

        Yep. Yards after catch. That’s why it is so important that a QB be able to hit a receiver in stride and not make him wait for or catch the ball a little behind him.


        • ASEF

          Accuracy, anticipation, arm strength, in that order. And a line that can eliminate distractions to the targeting computer.


  3. Cosmic Dawg

    YPP…if special teams are factored in, does any other metric really count?