Varsity Numbers: Isolating Explosiveness

December 12, 2013, 1:16 pm ET

Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Bill Connelly

As I've mentioned before, baseball stats came first with me. I always liked baseball stats more than baseball itself, but I loved the sensibility and generally intuitive nature of many baseball concepts. I have, to some degree, attempted to duplicate them in my use of college football stats: Success Rate and EqPts Per Play, the two measures that serve as the basis for S&P, are pretty clear imitations of on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Sure, I've built off of things from there in a very football-specific way, but the concepts are obviously quite sound.

One concept I've found myself thinking about lately is raw power, or raw explosiveness. With Success Rate, the goal is to measure efficiency, and with PPP, the goal is explosiveness. But the bottom line is, as in baseball, a lot of your explosiveness stats can come from your efficiency.

As a way of distilling a player's power in baseball, someone came up with the idea of Isolated Power, or ISO. There are a couple off different ways to measure that, but the simplest idea is to simply subtract a player's batting average from his slugging percentage. After all, if you batted 1.000 while hitting nothing but singles -- something that, as a lefty, I was able to do pretty well in slow-pitch softball: I walk up, everybody yells "LEFTY!" and shifts toward right field, and I poke a ball down the left field line and walk to first base -- you would also have a 1.000 slugging percentage. That's powerful! Only, it's not. You're never hitting for extra bases and have proven no power whatsoever.

It's the same thing with PPP. If a team gets exactly five yards per play on first down (50 percent of needed value), then gets four yards on every second down and three yards on every third down, it will have produced a 100 percent success rate. And by simply keeping the ball moving forward, its PPP average will be pretty good, too.

Since Success Rate and PPP are measuring two different things -- one looks at down-and-distance and deems a given play a "success" or not, while the other is working from a scale based on the equivalent point values of each yard line on the field -- we can approximate the same idea. What happens if we subtract a team's success rate from its average PPP to create an IsoPPP measure of sorts. What will that tell us?

Offense

Below are 2013 FBS offenses, ranked in order of IsoPPP (success rate and PPP, unadjusted for opponent, are also listed). We'll break things out by Rushing IsoPPP and Passing IsoPPP, as well.

Offense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Florida State	56.1%	1	0.81	1	0.25	1	52.0%	10	0.58	10	0.06	27	59.9%	1	1.03	1	0.43	2
Baylor	48.0%	20	0.72	3	0.24	2	48.4%	25	0.51	32	0.02	56	47.5%	21	0.97	2	0.49	1
Oregon	51.6%	4	0.75	2	0.23	3	53.8%	4	0.68	1	0.14	2	49.4%	13	0.83	6	0.33	6
Miami	46.0%	36	0.67	7	0.21	4	47.5%	31	0.52	22	0.04	38	44.3%	42	0.83	5	0.39	3
LSU	48.3%	18	0.68	6	0.20	5	46.2%	43	0.53	19	0.07	18	50.8%	7	0.87	3	0.36	4
Indiana	45.0%	46	0.64	15	0.19	6	46.5%	37	0.59	7	0.13	6	43.7%	51	0.68	30	0.24	32
Boston College	38.6%	99	0.57	37	0.19	7	38.0%	107	0.55	16	0.17	1	39.6%	76	0.62	58	0.22	44
Maryland	38.3%	103	0.57	44	0.19	8	38.6%	103	0.47	53	0.08	13	37.9%	92	0.67	36	0.29	15
Missouri	46.6%	27	0.64	14	0.18	9	48.6%	22	0.58	11	0.09	11	44.5%	38	0.72	25	0.27	22
Wisconsin	48.3%	17	0.65	13	0.16	10	50.0%	16	0.64	5	0.14	3	46.2%	26	0.66	39	0.20	57
Georgia	47.6%	23	0.64	16	0.16	11	45.7%	47	0.49	39	0.03	43	49.4%	11	0.78	9	0.29	14
Texas A&M	54.4%	2	0.71	4	0.16	12	55.0%	3	0.56	13	0.01	72	54.0%	4	0.83	4	0.29	13
Auburn	50.8%	9	0.67	9	0.16	13	55.6%	2	0.65	4	0.09	10	39.8%	75	0.72	24	0.32	9
Ohio	40.1%	86	0.56	48	0.16	14	35.8%	120	0.41	93	0.05	29	44.4%	40	0.71	26	0.26	23
New Mexico	44.9%	47	0.61	24	0.16	15	48.9%	20	0.60	6	0.11	8	32.4%	122	0.63	49	0.31	10
Alabama	51.3%	5	0.67	8	0.16	16	53.5%	6	0.58	8	0.05	35	48.9%	16	0.76	15	0.27	20
Northern Illinois	50.3%	11	0.66	11	0.16	17	53.3%	8	0.65	3	0.12	7	46.1%	29	0.67	35	0.21	53
Fresno State	49.4%	12	0.65	12	0.16	18	50.4%	15	0.47	52	-0.03	114	48.9%	14	0.73	20	0.24	31
Ball State	51.0%	6	0.66	10	0.15	19	45.7%	48	0.53	21	0.07	19	54.9%	3	0.76	16	0.21	49
San Diego State	39.1%	94	0.54	57	0.15	20	40.0%	97	0.46	63	0.06	24	38.1%	91	0.63	50	0.25	27
Ohio State	54.3%	3	0.69	5	0.15	21	57.6%	1	0.67	2	0.10	9	49.6%	9	0.72	23	0.23	39
Notre Dame	43.8%	62	0.59	31	0.15	22	43.4%	67	0.44	74	0.01	73	44.2%	46	0.72	21	0.28	16
Clemson	48.3%	19	0.63	18	0.15	23	47.6%	30	0.45	70	-0.03	114	48.9%	15	0.80	8	0.31	11
Stanford	46.5%	30	0.61	22	0.14	24	46.4%	38	0.48	42	0.02	59	46.7%	25	0.81	7	0.34	5
Kansas State	47.6%	22	0.62	20	0.14	25	47.5%	32	0.51	31	0.03	45	47.8%	19	0.78	10	0.30	12
Offense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
UAB	39.2%	93	0.54	63	0.14	26	42.6%	74	0.48	49	0.05	30	35.4%	108	0.60	65	0.25	29
San Jose State	46.6%	29	0.61	23	0.14	27	48.0%	27	0.41	94	-0.07	121	45.3%	33	0.77	12	0.32	7
Wyoming	43.2%	67	0.57	40	0.14	28	42.2%	79	0.55	15	0.13	4	44.1%	48	0.59	70	0.15	90
South Carolina	46.1%	35	0.60	26	0.14	29	46.0%	45	0.48	50	0.02	66	46.2%	27	0.74	19	0.28	17
Houston	40.9%	80	0.55	54	0.14	30	43.8%	64	0.44	72	0.01	79	38.8%	87	0.62	54	0.23	33
South Alabama	43.7%	64	0.57	38	0.14	31	43.2%	71	0.46	64	0.02	52	44.2%	44	0.70	28	0.26	24
Troy	44.1%	54	0.58	34	0.14	32	42.4%	77	0.42	84	0.00	86	45.5%	30	0.70	27	0.25	28
West Virginia	36.4%	117	0.50	85	0.13	33	33.1%	124	0.42	87	0.09	12	39.0%	85	0.56	87	0.17	71
Utah	36.9%	114	0.50	83	0.13	34	37.4%	111	0.40	99	0.02	57	36.4%	101	0.61	61	0.25	30
Colorado State	44.5%	51	0.58	32	0.13	35	45.1%	53	0.50	37	0.05	37	44.0%	49	0.66	40	0.22	41
Central Florida	49.3%	14	0.62	19	0.13	36	47.2%	33	0.48	51	0.00	82	51.3%	6	0.77	14	0.25	26
UL-Lafayette	47.6%	24	0.61	25	0.13	37	49.0%	19	0.49	38	0.00	81	45.5%	31	0.77	11	0.32	8
USC	40.4%	83	0.53	64	0.13	38	40.8%	87	0.45	67	0.04	39	40.0%	74	0.62	55	0.22	42
Bowling Green	51.0%	7	0.64	17	0.13	39	52.3%	9	0.52	23	0.00	89	49.6%	10	0.77	13	0.28	18
BYU	42.0%	72	0.55	54	0.13	40	42.8%	73	0.56	14	0.13	5	41.0%	69	0.54	97	0.13	107
Arizona State	46.5%	32	0.59	28	0.13	41	47.0%	35	0.49	41	0.02	65	46.1%	28	0.69	29	0.23	38
Ole Miss	44.1%	55	0.57	45	0.13	42	46.4%	40	0.48	48	0.01	69	42.2%	61	0.64	46	0.22	45
Old Dominion	43.9%	61	0.56	47	0.13	43	50.5%	14	0.51	29	0.01	77	40.8%	70	0.59	69	0.18	67
Oregon State	44.5%	52	0.57	43	0.13	44	45.4%	51	0.35	116	-0.10	126	44.1%	47	0.67	32	0.23	36
Boise State	46.8%	25	0.59	30	0.12	45	43.4%	67	0.51	24	0.08	16	50.1%	8	0.66	37	0.16	77
UCLA	44.6%	50	0.57	46	0.12	46	45.4%	50	0.48	45	0.03	50	43.6%	52	0.67	33	0.23	34
Washington	46.1%	34	0.58	33	0.12	47	45.1%	52	0.50	35	0.05	33	47.3%	22	0.66	38	0.19	60
Oklahoma State	45.6%	42	0.57	42	0.11	48	47.0%	34	0.47	55	0.00	88	44.3%	41	0.67	34	0.23	40
Oklahoma	42.6%	69	0.54	60	0.11	49	45.0%	55	0.51	27	0.06	23	39.0%	83	0.58	78	0.19	62
UTEP	38.7%	98	0.50	84	0.11	50	41.4%	82	0.46	65	0.04	41	34.3%	113	0.57	80	0.23	37
Offense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Utah State	39.9%	87	0.51	80	0.11	51	39.2%	99	0.45	69	0.05	28	40.4%	71	0.56	83	0.16	79
Middle Tennessee	42.3%	70	0.53	65	0.11	52	44.7%	58	0.51	30	0.06	25	39.4%	81	0.56	85	0.17	74
Texas	40.2%	85	0.51	78	0.11	53	40.2%	94	0.42	82	0.02	62	40.2%	73	0.62	57	0.22	46
Marshall	46.5%	31	0.57	39	0.11	54	45.9%	46	0.49	40	0.03	48	47.0%	23	0.65	43	0.18	66
Rutgers	40.8%	81	0.52	72	0.11	54	40.5%	89	0.41	91	0.01	71	41.1%	68	0.61	62	0.20	58
Louisville	50.8%	10	0.61	21	0.11	56	46.0%	44	0.47	58	0.00	80	55.1%	2	0.75	17	0.20	56
North Carolina	44.8%	48	0.55	50	0.11	57	44.8%	57	0.38	112	-0.07	122	44.9%	35	0.72	22	0.27	21
Georgia State	35.0%	121	0.45	109	0.10	58	37.3%	112	0.40	96	0.03	51	33.2%	120	0.49	108	0.16	80
Colorado	38.8%	97	0.49	91	0.10	59	34.2%	122	0.31	123	-0.03	113	42.8%	58	0.64	45	0.21	48
Washington State	41.6%	75	0.52	71	0.10	60	43.6%	66	0.42	79	-0.01	97	41.1%	67	0.54	96	0.13	106
Toledo	49.0%	16	0.59	29	0.10	61	53.5%	7	0.58	9	0.05	36	43.5%	53	0.60	64	0.17	75
Michigan	41.6%	76	0.52	74	0.10	62	38.7%	101	0.39	105	0.00	83	44.7%	36	0.66	42	0.21	52
Mississippi State	43.7%	63	0.54	62	0.10	63	43.3%	69	0.50	36	0.06	22	44.2%	44	0.58	76	0.14	102
Illinois	45.9%	37	0.56	49	0.10	64	47.6%	29	0.45	66	-0.02	109	44.7%	37	0.64	48	0.19	61
Texas Tech	45.3%	45	0.55	51	0.10	65	45.0%	55	0.43	77	-0.02	103	45.4%	32	0.61	59	0.16	81
Kent State	39.3%	92	0.49	88	0.10	66	40.0%	97	0.48	47	0.08	17	38.6%	90	0.51	105	0.12	108
Western Kentucky	49.3%	13	0.59	27	0.10	67	51.2%	11	0.50	33	-0.01	92	47.5%	20	0.68	31	0.20	55
SMU	41.5%	78	0.51	76	0.10	68	36.0%	119	0.42	86	0.06	26	44.0%	50	0.56	91	0.12	110
UL-Monroe	37.0%	113	0.47	105	0.10	69	36.3%	116	0.40	97	0.03	42	37.4%	95	0.51	101	0.14	100
Kentucky	39.1%	94	0.49	94	0.10	70	42.0%	80	0.50	34	0.08	14	36.0%	105	0.47	114	0.11	112
Cincinnati	48.0%	21	0.58	35	0.10	71	46.5%	36	0.40	101	-0.07	123	49.4%	12	0.75	18	0.26	25
California	38.2%	104	0.48	99	0.09	72	36.2%	118	0.36	115	0.00	86	39.1%	82	0.53	98	0.14	98
Rice	41.5%	77	0.51	79	0.09	73	44.7%	59	0.46	60	0.02	67	36.4%	102	0.58	73	0.22	43
Florida Atlantic	39.8%	88	0.49	90	0.09	74	40.1%	96	0.44	73	0.04	40	39.4%	79	0.55	93	0.15	83
Southern Miss	34.4%	122	0.44	113	0.09	75	33.7%	123	0.32	121	-0.01	97	34.7%	111	0.49	109	0.14	95
Offense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Duke	44.7%	49	0.54	61	0.09	76	46.4%	39	0.45	68	-0.02	106	42.8%	59	0.64	47	0.21	51
UTSA	45.6%	42	0.55	56	0.09	77	48.5%	24	0.54	18	0.05	31	42.7%	60	0.56	89	0.13	105
Hawaii	39.5%	91	0.49	95	0.09	78	40.5%	88	0.39	107	-0.02	107	38.8%	89	0.56	86	0.17	70
Eastern Michigan	40.2%	84	0.49	89	0.09	79	43.7%	65	0.46	62	0.02	54	36.4%	100	0.53	100	0.16	78
North Texas	44.1%	56	0.53	66	0.09	80	43.2%	70	0.42	85	-0.01	96	45.1%	34	0.65	44	0.20	54
Arkansas	42.9%	68	0.52	72	0.09	81	46.2%	42	0.48	44	0.02	55	37.7%	94	0.57	82	0.19	64
Texas State	39.6%	90	0.48	97	0.09	82	41.4%	83	0.46	61	0.05	34	36.9%	97	0.51	102	0.14	93
Virginia Tech	38.0%	107	0.47	104	0.09	82	35.8%	121	0.34	120	-0.02	102	40.2%	72	0.59	71	0.18	65
Georgia Tech	46.6%	28	0.55	52	0.09	84	50.7%	12	0.53	20	0.02	58	34.3%	113	0.62	56	0.28	19
South Florida	28.8%	126	0.37	124	0.09	85	27.8%	126	0.34	119	0.06	21	29.7%	124	0.40	123	0.11	114
UNLV	45.5%	44	0.54	59	0.08	86	43.8%	63	0.47	57	0.03	47	47.0%	23	0.61	60	0.14	101
Temple	45.8%	40	0.54	58	0.08	87	50.6%	13	0.48	46	-0.03	111	41.8%	62	0.60	66	0.18	69
Akron	38.6%	100	0.47	102	0.08	88	37.6%	110	0.38	110	0.01	74	39.4%	79	0.55	94	0.15	84
Syracuse	38.0%	106	0.46	106	0.08	89	40.2%	95	0.47	55	0.06	20	35.5%	107	0.46	115	0.11	115
New Mexico State	40.7%	82	0.49	92	0.08	90	38.1%	106	0.39	109	0.01	76	43.1%	56	0.59	68	0.16	82
Central Michigan	42.2%	71	0.50	82	0.08	91	41.1%	85	0.42	83	0.01	70	43.2%	55	0.58	74	0.15	86
Army	46.7%	26	0.55	53	0.08	92	49.5%	17	0.55	17	0.05	32	34.2%	115	0.56	90	0.22	47
Nevada	43.9%	60	0.52	69	0.08	93	40.3%	92	0.42	79	0.02	61	47.9%	17	0.63	51	0.15	89
East Carolina	49.2%	15	0.57	41	0.08	94	45.6%	49	0.43	76	-0.02	108	51.5%	5	0.66	41	0.14	96
Idaho	37.6%	109	0.45	108	0.08	95	41.2%	84	0.40	95	-0.01	91	33.8%	117	0.51	104	0.17	73
Penn State	44.0%	58	0.52	70	0.08	96	46.2%	41	0.41	92	-0.05	116	41.6%	65	0.63	53	0.21	50
Michigan State	41.9%	73	0.50	86	0.08	97	44.6%	60	0.43	78	-0.01	101	38.8%	87	0.57	81	0.18	68
TCU	39.6%	89	0.47	101	0.08	98	40.3%	93	0.39	104	-0.01	97	39.0%	83	0.54	95	0.15	85
Louisiana Tech	37.9%	108	0.46	107	0.08	99	43.1%	72	0.51	27	0.08	15	33.6%	118	0.41	121	0.07	123
Western Michigan	36.0%	119	0.44	114	0.08	100	38.7%	101	0.38	113	-0.01	95	33.9%	116	0.48	111	0.14	94
Offense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Arkansas State	43.9%	59	0.51	75	0.08	101	44.4%	61	0.46	59	0.02	64	43.2%	54	0.58	77	0.15	88
N.C. State	37.4%	110	0.45	110	0.07	102	38.3%	105	0.39	106	0.01	78	36.5%	99	0.51	103	0.15	91
Arizona	45.9%	39	0.53	67	0.07	103	49.2%	18	0.51	26	0.02	60	41.4%	66	0.55	92	0.14	103
Minnesota	41.2%	79	0.48	98	0.07	104	42.4%	75	0.44	75	0.01	68	38.9%	86	0.56	88	0.17	72
Navy	50.8%	8	0.58	35	0.07	105	53.6%	5	0.56	12	0.03	49	39.6%	77	0.63	52	0.23	35
Tennessee	41.7%	74	0.48	96	0.07	106	48.9%	20	0.51	25	0.02	53	33.5%	119	0.45	118	0.11	111
Nebraska	45.6%	41	0.52	68	0.06	107	48.6%	22	0.47	54	-0.02	104	41.8%	63	0.58	75	0.16	76
Iowa State	38.8%	96	0.45	111	0.06	108	41.5%	81	0.39	108	-0.03	112	36.2%	104	0.50	107	0.14	99
Buffalo	43.3%	66	0.49	93	0.06	109	42.4%	78	0.42	89	-0.01	90	44.3%	42	0.56	83	0.12	109
Florida	38.5%	101	0.44	112	0.05	110	40.5%	89	0.39	102	-0.01	100	35.7%	106	0.51	106	0.15	87
Kansas	33.6%	123	0.39	122	0.05	111	37.7%	109	0.40	99	0.02	63	28.4%	125	0.38	125	0.09	119
Iowa	44.5%	53	0.49	87	0.05	112	48.2%	26	0.42	81	-0.06	118	39.5%	78	0.59	67	0.20	59
Northwestern	45.9%	38	0.51	81	0.05	113	44.3%	62	0.44	71	0.00	84	47.9%	18	0.59	72	0.11	113
Memphis	38.2%	105	0.43	115	0.05	114	38.4%	104	0.42	88	0.03	44	37.9%	93	0.45	119	0.07	124
Tulsa	37.2%	112	0.42	117	0.05	115	40.4%	91	0.38	111	-0.03	110	33.1%	121	0.47	112	0.14	97
Tulane	37.2%	111	0.42	116	0.05	116	39.1%	100	0.39	103	0.00	85	35.4%	108	0.45	117	0.10	118
Air Force	46.5%	33	0.51	77	0.05	117	47.8%	28	0.48	43	0.01	75	41.8%	64	0.61	63	0.19	63
Florida International	30.5%	125	0.35	125	0.04	118	30.8%	125	0.30	126	-0.01	94	30.1%	123	0.41	122	0.10	117
Virginia	35.5%	120	0.40	120	0.04	119	36.8%	115	0.40	98	0.03	46	34.4%	112	0.40	124	0.06	125
Pittsburgh	43.5%	65	0.47	100	0.04	120	42.4%	75	0.42	90	-0.01	93	44.4%	39	0.53	99	0.08	120
Connecticut	36.9%	115	0.41	119	0.04	121	36.3%	116	0.35	117	-0.02	105	37.3%	96	0.45	116	0.08	122
Wake Forest	38.5%	102	0.42	118	0.03	122	41.0%	86	0.35	118	-0.06	120	36.6%	98	0.47	113	0.11	116
Vanderbilt	44.0%	57	0.47	103	0.03	123	45.0%	54	0.37	114	-0.08	125	42.9%	57	0.57	79	0.14	92
Massachusetts	36.0%	118	0.39	121	0.03	124	36.9%	114	0.31	125	-0.06	119	34.9%	110	0.49	110	0.14	104
Purdue	36.6%	116	0.39	123	0.02	125	37.0%	113	0.32	122	-0.05	117	36.2%	103	0.44	120	0.08	121
Miami (Ohio)	33.3%	124	0.30	126	-0.03	126	37.8%	108	0.31	124	-0.07	124	28.2%	126	0.30	126	0.02	126

Maryland has been a terribly inefficient team in 2013, with a woeful success rate, a 55 percent completion rate, and three running backs combining to average 4.4 yards per carry. But they can rip off big plays; injured receivers Stefon Diggs and Deon Long combined to average 16.3 yards per catch, Levern Jacobs has averaged 13.5, Nigel King 13.8, and Amba Etta-Tawo 15.5. For the season, six of the seven receivers with more than six catches have averaged at least 13.5 yards per catch, and all six players have at least one catch of 32 yards or greater. Plus, quarterback C.J. Brown has shown some explosiveness running the ball as well.

With IsoPPP, we get a better idea both for Maryland's explosiveness and for how far the Terps have been slowed down by inefficiency. While only 44th in raw PPP, thanks partially to success rate, Maryland is eighth in IsoPPP -- 13th in rushing and 15th in passing. Good Maryland plays are great Maryland plays; there just aren't many of them.

The same goes for Boston College, at least on the ground. Big Andre Williams has posted sensational numbers this fall considering the lack of help; receiver Alex Amidon is good (67 catches, 895 yards), but the next three leading receivers have caught a combined 33 passes for 256 yards, and backup running backs Myles Willis and Tyler Rouse are averaging only a decent 5.2 yards per carry. With all defensive eyes on Williams, he has occasionally struggled to find room to run, and BC's rushing success rate is a pretty awful 38.0 percent. But when he gets open field, he uses all of it. As a result, BC ranks first in Rushing IsoPPP, and Williams is a Heisman finalist.

On the flip side, you've got teams like Ohio State (fifth in PPP but 21st in IsoPPP), Alabama (eighth in Rushing PPP, 35th in Rushing IsoPPP), Navy (12th in Rushing PPP, 72nd in Rushing IsoPPP), and Louisville (17th in Passing PPP, 56th in Passing IsoPPP), good, efficient offenses that might not be as explosive in certain ways as the numbers would suggest.

Now let's look at the same (large) data set from the defensive side of the ball.

Defense

I've used iffy success rates and solid PPP numbers as a pretty easy sign for picking out bend-don't-break defenses in recent years. The IsoPPP concept allows me to go even further down that road. Hello, UCLA (90th in Success Rate, first in IsoPPP), Notre Dame (99th, second), Vanderbilt (94th, third), Navy (123rd, fifth), UTSA (88th, eighth), and MTSU (98th, also eighth). You are the nation's leading benders.

Defense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
UCLA	44.3%	90	0.46	21	0.02	1	44.0%	69	0.40	30	-0.04	13	44.8%	95	0.53	24	0.08	6
Notre Dame	46.1%	99	0.48	36	0.02	2	47.5%	97	0.42	49	-0.05	7	44.5%	93	0.56	39	0.11	14
Vanderbilt	44.9%	94	0.48	29	0.03	3	49.1%	107	0.45	64	-0.05	10	41.0%	60	0.51	15	0.10	7
Iowa	38.2%	26	0.41	5	0.03	4	38.6%	34	0.35	7	-0.04	14	37.9%	27	0.48	10	0.10	11
Navy	52.5%	123	0.56	86	0.03	5	54.1%	125	0.46	74	-0.08	2	50.6%	122	0.67	97	0.17	51
Florida State	31.1%	2	0.34	1	0.03	6	30.5%	2	0.32	3	0.01	56	31.7%	4	0.37	1	0.05	1
Stanford	39.1%	32	0.43	9	0.03	7	37.0%	22	0.36	14	0.00	38	40.6%	55	0.47	8	0.06	2
UTSA	44.1%	88	0.48	31	0.04	8	46.7%	92	0.40	31	-0.06	4	41.7%	70	0.55	37	0.13	24
Middle Tennessee	45.9%	98	0.50	50	0.04	8	47.4%	96	0.43	58	-0.04	12	44.0%	91	0.57	53	0.13	23
Bowling Green	41.8%	56	0.46	22	0.04	10	45.0%	82	0.47	79	0.02	60	38.9%	33	0.45	7	0.06	3
Louisville	35.3%	8	0.40	4	0.04	11	37.2%	23	0.34	4	-0.03	23	33.6%	9	0.44	6	0.11	13
Kansas State	43.6%	81	0.48	33	0.05	12	45.6%	84	0.41	42	-0.05	11	41.5%	64	0.56	40	0.14	30
Northwestern	44.6%	92	0.49	47	0.05	13	45.9%	86	0.43	52	-0.03	19	43.5%	87	0.55	38	0.12	16
Toledo	47.2%	104	0.52	69	0.05	14	48.7%	106	0.46	73	-0.03	25	45.2%	98	0.59	67	0.14	27
Ole Miss	43.5%	77	0.49	40	0.05	15	44.2%	71	0.41	38	-0.03	17	42.7%	82	0.58	57	0.15	35
LSU	43.7%	84	0.49	42	0.05	16	47.8%	100	0.45	65	-0.03	18	39.5%	41	0.53	28	0.14	26
SMU	47.6%	107	0.53	73	0.05	17	49.4%	110	0.41	37	-0.09	1	46.2%	106	0.63	86	0.17	56
Cincinnati	37.9%	19	0.43	11	0.05	18	36.6%	20	0.34	6	-0.02	27	39.0%	34	0.51	16	0.12	15
Wisconsin	36.6%	17	0.42	6	0.05	19	38.4%	32	0.35	9	-0.03	20	34.9%	13	0.48	9	0.13	21
Houston	42.7%	67	0.48	34	0.05	20	42.3%	55	0.39	25	-0.04	16	43.1%	85	0.57	52	0.14	29
Utah State	36.6%	18	0.42	7	0.06	21	35.5%	16	0.29	1	-0.07	3	37.7%	26	0.55	36	0.17	62
Michigan State	29.7%	1	0.36	2	0.06	22	30.0%	1	0.31	2	0.01	51	29.5%	1	0.40	2	0.10	9
Missouri	42.4%	63	0.48	35	0.06	23	43.4%	65	0.47	88	0.04	85	41.6%	65	0.49	12	0.07	5
Nebraska	43.7%	83	0.50	51	0.06	24	47.0%	94	0.44	61	-0.03	22	39.7%	42	0.56	47	0.17	54
East Carolina	38.2%	25	0.44	15	0.06	25	36.3%	18	0.37	17	0.01	49	39.7%	43	0.50	14	0.10	12
Defense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
South Florida	43.4%	73	0.49	48	0.06	26	43.1%	61	0.41	41	-0.02	28	43.7%	88	0.58	62	0.15	33
Purdue	51.9%	122	0.58	103	0.06	27	55.2%	127	0.50	97	-0.05	9	48.2%	115	0.68	100	0.20	79
Miami (Ohio)	53.6%	124	0.60	108	0.06	28	54.9%	126	0.52	106	-0.03	24	52.2%	124	0.69	104	0.17	55
Washington	39.8%	36	0.46	23	0.07	29	44.9%	79	0.44	62	-0.01	37	35.3%	15	0.48	11	0.13	20
Boise State	41.7%	54	0.48	37	0.07	30	38.2%	28	0.37	18	-0.01	34	45.5%	99	0.60	75	0.15	34
Oklahoma State	35.6%	10	0.42	8	0.07	31	34.5%	11	0.34	5	0.00	41	36.6%	19	0.50	13	0.13	22
Memphis	40.5%	42	0.47	26	0.07	32	41.2%	46	0.36	12	-0.05	8	39.9%	47	0.58	54	0.18	63
North Carolina	42.3%	61	0.49	46	0.07	33	43.7%	67	0.43	55	-0.01	35	40.4%	53	0.58	56	0.17	59
Marshall	38.2%	24	0.45	18	0.07	34	40.7%	44	0.38	21	-0.03	25	35.1%	14	0.54	30	0.19	69
Wake Forest	40.5%	43	0.48	28	0.07	35	40.2%	42	0.40	29	0.00	39	41.0%	59	0.56	41	0.15	37
Alabama	36.5%	16	0.44	12	0.07	36	36.4%	19	0.35	10	-0.01	32	36.7%	20	0.52	21	0.16	41
Ohio State	40.8%	48	0.48	32	0.07	37	41.3%	48	0.35	11	-0.06	5	40.4%	51	0.57	50	0.17	53
Michigan	41.8%	55	0.49	43	0.07	38	42.0%	52	0.41	35	-0.01	31	41.6%	69	0.58	55	0.16	46
Maryland	38.3%	27	0.46	19	0.08	39	35.4%	14	0.40	32	0.05	94	41.2%	61	0.51	18	0.10	10
Duke	42.7%	67	0.50	58	0.08	40	46.7%	93	0.43	56	-0.04	15	38.2%	30	0.59	65	0.21	86
Virginia Tech	31.4%	3	0.39	3	0.08	41	32.1%	4	0.35	8	0.03	73	30.7%	2	0.43	4	0.13	19
Central Michigan	47.8%	108	0.56	88	0.08	42	51.0%	119	0.54	114	0.03	75	43.8%	90	0.58	59	0.14	28
South Carolina	40.3%	39	0.48	38	0.08	43	42.4%	56	0.43	52	0.00	44	37.9%	28	0.55	35	0.17	58
Louisiana Tech	41.0%	51	0.49	44	0.08	44	43.6%	66	0.41	36	-0.03	21	37.6%	24	0.61	77	0.23	97
Syracuse	41.6%	53	0.50	52	0.08	45	41.3%	47	0.41	43	0.00	40	41.9%	72	0.58	58	0.16	41
Ball State	43.6%	79	0.52	68	0.08	46	44.7%	75	0.48	91	0.03	76	42.4%	75	0.56	44	0.14	25
Oregon	39.2%	34	0.48	27	0.08	47	39.2%	36	0.41	44	0.02	61	39.1%	35	0.55	33	0.15	40
BYU	35.5%	9	0.44	13	0.08	48	35.4%	13	0.36	13	0.01	52	35.5%	16	0.51	19	0.16	44
USC	34.2%	6	0.43	10	0.09	49	34.0%	9	0.41	46	0.07	109	34.3%	11	0.44	5	0.10	8
South Alabama	42.0%	58	0.51	60	0.09	50	43.4%	64	0.49	95	0.06	100	40.5%	54	0.53	23	0.12	17
Defense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Baylor	35.8%	13	0.45	17	0.09	51	37.6%	25	0.37	15	-0.01	33	33.9%	10	0.53	27	0.19	72
Air Force	54.8%	125	0.64	116	0.09	52	53.8%	124	0.56	120	0.02	69	56.5%	125	0.76	115	0.20	76
Minnesota	42.2%	60	0.51	63	0.09	53	44.4%	74	0.46	77	0.02	62	39.9%	48	0.56	46	0.16	49
Northern Illinois	44.4%	91	0.54	77	0.09	54	46.6%	90	0.41	39	-0.06	6	42.5%	77	0.65	90	0.23	92
Arkansas	48.3%	111	0.58	99	0.09	55	50.6%	113	0.49	96	-0.01	30	45.9%	102	0.66	96	0.20	82
Tulsa	42.1%	59	0.52	67	0.09	56	44.1%	70	0.47	84	0.03	74	40.2%	49	0.56	43	0.16	45
Texas State	40.1%	38	0.50	49	0.10	57	40.7%	43	0.41	45	0.00	47	39.5%	39	0.56	48	0.17	57
Miami	43.9%	85	0.53	76	0.10	58	45.2%	83	0.47	85	0.02	63	42.2%	73	0.61	76	0.19	70
Western Michigan	46.9%	102	0.56	92	0.10	59	50.1%	111	0.54	113	0.04	84	41.8%	71	0.60	74	0.18	66
San Diego State	40.6%	44	0.50	56	0.10	60	38.0%	27	0.39	27	0.01	57	42.6%	81	0.59	68	0.17	52
Central Florida	40.4%	40	0.50	55	0.10	61	42.8%	60	0.46	75	0.04	79	38.7%	32	0.53	26	0.14	31
Florida Atlantic	34.5%	7	0.44	16	0.10	62	36.0%	17	0.48	92	0.12	123	32.7%	7	0.40	3	0.07	4
Penn State	38.6%	29	0.48	39	0.10	63	35.5%	15	0.40	34	0.05	97	41.6%	67	0.56	42	0.14	32
Oklahoma	38.5%	28	0.49	41	0.10	64	41.1%	45	0.45	67	0.03	78	36.2%	17	0.52	20	0.16	48
Texas Tech	43.5%	76	0.54	77	0.10	65	45.8%	85	0.51	101	0.05	94	40.9%	58	0.57	49	0.16	43
Kentucky	48.4%	113	0.59	104	0.10	66	48.2%	103	0.53	108	0.04	89	48.5%	117	0.66	95	0.17	60
Tulane	35.7%	11	0.46	20	0.10	67	34.6%	12	0.39	24	0.04	87	36.7%	21	0.53	22	0.16	46
Western Kentucky	40.5%	41	0.51	61	0.10	68	43.1%	62	0.45	70	0.02	68	36.8%	22	0.58	63	0.22	88
Kansas	42.7%	69	0.53	74	0.10	69	42.6%	58	0.47	82	0.04	90	42.9%	83	0.59	69	0.17	50
Mississippi State	41.8%	57	0.53	72	0.11	70	38.2%	29	0.47	78	0.09	116	45.2%	97	0.58	61	0.13	18
Georgia Tech	43.2%	72	0.54	81	0.11	71	39.9%	39	0.39	26	-0.01	36	45.9%	102	0.66	93	0.20	77
Kent State	46.5%	101	0.57	95	0.11	72	50.6%	115	0.49	94	-0.02	29	41.6%	66	0.67	98	0.26	110
UL-Monroe	43.5%	78	0.54	83	0.11	73	47.9%	102	0.48	93	0.01	48	39.3%	37	0.60	72	0.21	85
Arizona	39.1%	33	0.50	54	0.11	74	38.4%	31	0.41	47	0.03	72	39.8%	45	0.59	66	0.19	72
Wyoming	47.0%	103	0.58	101	0.11	75	46.2%	88	0.47	86	0.01	54	48.0%	114	0.70	107	0.22	91
Defense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Boston College	42.3%	62	0.53	75	0.11	76	42.1%	53	0.43	57	0.01	53	42.5%	79	0.63	84	0.20	81
Akron	40.6%	44	0.52	64	0.11	77	40.0%	40	0.42	50	0.03	70	41.2%	63	0.61	80	0.20	78
Texas	40.6%	46	0.52	66	0.11	78	40.1%	41	0.47	87	0.07	108	41.2%	62	0.56	45	0.15	36
Georgia	41.0%	50	0.52	70	0.11	79	42.1%	54	0.44	63	0.02	67	39.7%	43	0.61	78	0.21	87
Rice	35.8%	14	0.47	25	0.11	80	38.9%	35	0.40	33	0.02	58	32.2%	5	0.55	34	0.23	93
Southern Miss	44.2%	89	0.56	84	0.11	81	41.6%	50	0.44	59	0.02	66	47.7%	111	0.72	110	0.24	100
Florida	37.9%	20	0.49	45	0.11	82	43.2%	63	0.45	68	0.02	59	31.6%	3	0.54	32	0.23	94
North Texas	36.3%	15	0.48	30	0.11	83	32.8%	5	0.40	28	0.07	107	39.3%	36	0.54	31	0.15	38
TCU	32.6%	5	0.44	14	0.12	84	32.8%	6	0.37	16	0.04	88	32.4%	6	0.51	17	0.19	68
Iowa State	43.9%	86	0.56	85	0.12	85	46.0%	87	0.54	115	0.08	114	41.6%	67	0.57	51	0.15	39
Pittsburgh	39.9%	37	0.52	65	0.12	86	41.8%	51	0.43	54	0.01	50	37.9%	29	0.61	79	0.23	96
Connecticut	39.3%	35	0.51	62	0.12	87	33.7%	7	0.39	23	0.05	93	44.6%	94	0.63	87	0.19	67
Buffalo	37.9%	20	0.50	53	0.12	88	38.4%	30	0.42	48	0.04	80	37.4%	23	0.58	60	0.20	83
Utah	38.0%	23	0.50	57	0.12	89	38.4%	33	0.39	22	0.00	42	37.6%	25	0.60	70	0.22	90
Georgia State	47.6%	106	0.60	107	0.12	90	46.6%	90	0.47	80	0.00	43	49.0%	119	0.79	118	0.30	119
UL-Lafayette	45.1%	95	0.58	98	0.12	91	44.2%	72	0.45	66	0.00	45	45.9%	101	0.70	106	0.24	101
Indiana	49.4%	116	0.62	111	0.12	91	50.8%	117	0.53	109	0.02	65	47.7%	110	0.73	111	0.25	108
San Jose State	48.2%	110	0.61	109	0.13	93	50.6%	114	0.57	121	0.06	102	45.6%	100	0.65	91	0.19	75
Auburn	43.4%	74	0.56	89	0.13	94	44.7%	78	0.50	98	0.05	98	42.2%	74	0.61	82	0.19	71
N.C. State	43.4%	74	0.57	93	0.13	95	46.3%	89	0.53	110	0.07	106	40.6%	56	0.60	71	0.19	74
Fresno State	38.8%	31	0.52	71	0.13	96	38.0%	26	0.43	51	0.05	91	39.5%	39	0.61	81	0.22	89
Ohio	41.0%	49	0.54	82	0.13	97	39.6%	38	0.47	83	0.07	110	42.5%	77	0.62	83	0.20	80
Washington State	44.0%	87	0.57	96	0.13	98	44.9%	80	0.47	81	0.02	64	43.1%	84	0.68	101	0.25	109
UNLV	42.5%	64	0.56	90	0.14	99	45.0%	81	0.54	111	0.09	118	39.9%	46	0.58	63	0.18	65
Arkansas State	43.6%	82	0.57	97	0.14	100	47.6%	98	0.52	103	0.04	86	39.4%	38	0.64	88	0.24	102
Defense	Succ. Rt.	Rk	PPP	Rk	IsoPPP	Rk	Rush. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Rush. PPP	Rk	Rush. IsoPPP	Rk	Pass. Succ. Rt.	Rk	Pass. PPP	Rk	Pass. IsoPPP	Rk
Massachusetts	47.5%	105	0.61	110	0.14	101	48.6%	104	0.52	104	0.03	77	46.1%	105	0.73	112	0.27	111
Texas A&M	45.7%	97	0.60	106	0.14	102	50.1%	112	0.55	117	0.05	92	40.3%	50	0.65	92	0.25	107
Hawaii	42.8%	70	0.57	94	0.14	103	44.7%	76	0.46	71	0.01	55	40.4%	51	0.70	105	0.30	117
Arizona State	35.7%	12	0.50	59	0.15	104	36.8%	21	0.48	89	0.11	121	34.6%	12	0.53	25	0.18	64
Clemson	32.1%	4	0.47	24	0.15	105	31.5%	3	0.41	40	0.09	119	32.7%	8	0.53	29	0.21	84
Tennessee	43.2%	71	0.58	102	0.15	106	47.6%	98	0.54	112	0.06	103	38.2%	31	0.63	85	0.25	105
Rutgers	41.0%	52	0.56	91	0.15	107	33.8%	8	0.37	19	0.04	81	46.0%	104	0.69	103	0.23	95
West Virginia	40.7%	47	0.56	87	0.15	108	37.4%	24	0.44	60	0.07	104	44.3%	92	0.69	102	0.25	104
Illinois	47.9%	109	0.63	114	0.15	109	47.0%	95	0.55	116	0.08	111	48.9%	118	0.73	113	0.24	103
Colorado State	38.7%	30	0.54	80	0.15	110	34.4%	10	0.38	20	0.04	82	43.3%	86	0.71	108	0.28	112
Oregon State	42.5%	65	0.58	100	0.15	111	44.4%	73	0.51	102	0.07	105	40.8%	57	0.65	89	0.24	99
Old Dominion	55.0%	126	0.70	122	0.15	112	51.7%	122	0.52	105	0.00	46	58.2%	126	0.89	125	0.31	120
Colorado	43.6%	79	0.59	105	0.16	113	44.7%	77	0.50	99	0.05	99	42.6%	80	0.68	99	0.25	106
Temple	46.3%	100	0.62	112	0.16	114	42.7%	59	0.45	69	0.03	71	49.5%	120	0.78	117	0.28	114
Virginia	37.9%	22	0.54	79	0.16	115	39.3%	37	0.48	90	0.09	117	36.4%	18	0.60	72	0.24	98
Idaho	48.3%	112	0.65	117	0.17	116	48.7%	105	0.52	107	0.04	83	47.9%	113	0.76	114	0.28	113
Nevada	49.7%	119	0.67	118	0.17	117	50.9%	118	0.68	126	0.17	125	48.4%	116	0.66	94	0.17	61
Florida International	45.4%	96	0.63	113	0.18	118	47.9%	101	0.56	119	0.08	115	42.4%	76	0.71	109	0.29	116
Army	49.7%	118	0.68	119	0.18	119	49.2%	108	0.55	118	0.06	101	50.5%	121	0.91	126	0.40	125
New Mexico	51.8%	121	0.71	123	0.19	120	51.8%	123	0.63	124	0.11	120	51.9%	123	0.81	121	0.29	115
UAB	48.6%	115	0.69	121	0.20	121	49.3%	109	0.57	122	0.08	113	47.8%	112	0.81	122	0.33	122
Troy	42.6%	66	0.63	115	0.21	122	41.4%	49	0.46	76	0.05	94	43.8%	89	0.81	120	0.37	123
UTEP	48.5%	114	0.72	124	0.23	123	50.7%	116	0.63	123	0.12	122	44.9%	96	0.87	124	0.42	126
New Mexico State	49.6%	117	0.73	125	0.23	124	51.3%	120	0.68	125	0.17	124	47.6%	109	0.79	119	0.31	121
California	44.8%	93	0.68	120	0.24	125	42.5%	57	0.51	100	0.08	112	46.7%	107	0.84	123	0.37	124
Eastern Michigan	49.7%	119	0.74	126	0.25	126	51.7%	121	0.72	127	0.20	126	47.5%	108	0.77	116	0.30	118

The disparities between PPP and IsoPPP rankings are more stark on defense than offense, especially as it pertains to run defenses. On offense, the top seven teams according to Rushing PPP are also in the top 10 for Rushing IsoPPP. On defense, only one of the top seven teams (Utah State) can say the same. There is something about the way teams attack (or are attacked by) the run that leads to pretty interesting separation here. Perhaps it's because there are few huge run plays overall?

[ad placeholder 3]

These numbers do poke at least a small hole in Michigan State's success, by the way. The Spartans' success rates are so incredible that they distract us a bit from the fact that, especially on the ground, they are not quite as good at preventing big plays as we might think.

If it turns out that this is a pretty useful concept (and I think it might be), I might attack it from a different angle in the future. One idea (which would take a bit of preparation) would be to determine the point value of a successful play -- if a five-yard gain on first down is "successful," what is the value of a five-yard gain on a given play? -- then subtract the final point total of the play from that. This would get at who is gaining/allowing yards/points beyond the pale. Still in brainstorm mode, however.

This Week at SB Nation

Monday
Eight 2013 College Football Playoff brackets, from 4 to 32 teams

Tuesday
The Numerical, Week 15: Auburn's efficiency, Connor Cook's improvement, and losing by winning

Wednesday
SEC Championship: Beyond the box score
Week 15 college football advanced box scores

Thursday
THIS TRAIN: When two unlikely teams met in the SEC Championship, we saw a glimpse into the future of the conference

Comments

8 comments, Last at 13 Dec 2013, 11:00am

#1 by Kal // Dec 12, 2013 - 3:06pm

Really neat idea!

This goes well with a concept I've been thinking about - the value of getting 'ahead' in the count beyond just having a success. It comes about because of the value of getting to a sweet down and distance - 2nd and 1. 2nd and 1 is almost a surefire conversion, but it also allows a team to almost perfectly go for a long gain or some trickery because they're virtually guaranteed to pick up that yard on 3rd and 4th. In some ways, gaining 9 is better than gaining 10 as you pick up that free down. You could look at other downs and distances in a similar way; how much easier is it to get a good gain on 2nd and 3 instead of 2nd and 5? It's not just looking at how valuable those yards are on the field (which is also important and something DVOA sorely lacks) - it's how valuable those yards are for a given down and distance.

#2 by Andreas Shepard // Dec 12, 2013 - 3:26pm

One way of measuring this that might be useful is PPP per successful play. That might more directly get at the key question - when you have successful plays, are the REALLY successful, or just a little successful.

#3 by Aaron Brooks G… // Dec 12, 2013 - 3:53pm

How does Miami (OH) end up with negative offensive PPP? Under your SLG/AVE example, that shouldn't be possible unless they lost yards on the season.

"These numbers do poke at least a small hole in Michigan State's success, by the way. The Spartans' success rates are so incredible that they distract us a bit from the fact that, especially on the ground, they are not quite as good at preventing big plays as we might think."

Isn't the correct takeaway from this that the only way to gain rushing success on MSU is to have big plays? Indiana got almost all of their rushing yards on one or two long runs. NW QB scrambled their way to a couple of 3rd-long conversions. Both Nebraska and OSU broke off a couple of long runs, but they had some sustained success, too.

#4 by AnonymousBoob (not verified) // Dec 12, 2013 - 4:52pm

Agreed on your last point. The IsoPPP ranking doesn't indicate Mich St. is ranked 51st in giving up big running plays. What it indicates is that Mich St. is ranked 51st in the percentage of successful running plays that end up in big plays. However, because they give up so few successful running plays, they still allow very, very few successful big plays on the ground.

Major difference. The baseball analog would be player A who hits 0.400 with an ISO of 0.150 (SLG 0.550) versus player B who hits 0.200 with an ISO of 0.250 (SLG 0.450). Player B produces a higher percentage of power per his hits, but player A is still better at producing total bases overall because he is successful with a simple base hit much more often. Obviously, player A remains the better player, just as Mich St's run defense remains elite even if it gives up a higher proportion of big plays per successful plays than other quality defensive units.

#5 by AnonymousBoob (not verified) // Dec 12, 2013 - 4:56pm

Good stuff. What could be an impact here is how a unit attacks another unit based upon expected success rate. If a team (say Stanford) knows they can line up and get positive running plays virtually every down with straight ahead power, they would probably be less likely to call plays with higher IsoPPP. What is the point if you are confident you can methodically march down the field? Why take the risk?

#6 by intel_chris (not verified) // Dec 12, 2013 - 9:14pm

I like this idea. It seems like a good complement to DVOA in that it helps capture the teams that can generate big plays. I've always thought DVOA emphasized consistent good performance more than actual scoring. It would be nice to have a set of metrics that emphasized different aspects of good play. The ability to generate big plays, is the ability to threaten the other team with a score. DVOA is more a measure of how well one plays positional football. However, if the other team can generate scores even when pinned deep in their own territory, the ability to pin then an extra 5 yards deeper in their territory isn't much of an advantage.

#7 by dcrockett17 (not verified) // Dec 13, 2013 - 11:00am

I was thinking as I got to the end that "what this approach needs, particularly on defense, is DVOA," and that seems like kinda what you are suggesting at the end.

#8 by dcrockett17 (not verified) // Dec 13, 2013 - 11:00am

I was thinking as I got to the end that "what this approach needs, particularly on defense, is DVOA," and that seems like kinda what you are suggesting at the end.