Varsity Numbers: Cry Havoc

September 19, 2014, 11:25 am ET

Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Bill Connelly In Tuesday's Numerical column at SB Nation, I made reference to a measure I've been tracking for a while but haven't done much with to date. I included it in this offseason's team previews but never gave it too much emphasis.

Havoc rate is a pretty simple method for looking at how much hell a defense is raising. Add up tackles for loss (which includes sacks), forced fumbles, and defensed passes (picks and break-ups), divide it by total plays, and voila: havoc rate. The national havoc average in 2013 was 15.9 percent.

Against Georgia, South Carolina's was a paltry 11.7: four tackles for loss (two sacks) and three pass break-ups in 60 snaps. Not very good. However…

A) It represented significant improvement from South Carolina's first two games, in which the Gamecocks averaged a woeful 6 percent against Texas A&M and East Carolina: five tackles for loss, five passes defensed in 166 snaps. (Further frame of reference: Navy was dead last in havoc last year at 9.3 percent.)

B) South Carolina's second "sack" saved the game. Georgia trailed 38-35 with 5:24 left, and Damian Swann had just picked off S.C. quarterback Dylan Thompson and returned the ball to the Gamecocks' 4. Georgia offensive coordinator Mike Bobo had called seven consecutive run plays (three for Todd Gurley, one for Sony Michel, three for fullback Quayvon Hicks) to finish Georgia's last scoring drive, and he decided it was time for the play-action bootleg that tends to work pretty easily in those situations. Only, when [quarterback Hutson] Mason turned to run to his right after faking the handoff, [Gerald] Dixon was charging at him. Mason attempted to throw the ball at a back's feet (a "grounding" that doesn't tend to draw a penalty), but the ball deflected off of Dixon, and Mason was penalized.

It was a pretty tenuous call, and if the ball doesn't hit Dixon, it doesn't get called at all -- but it set into motion the chain of events that won South Carolina the game. Facing second-and-goal from the 14, Georgia quickly went three-and-out (thanks in part to a pass broken up by J.T. Surratt), and previously automatic place-kicker Marshall Morgan missed a 28-yard field goal off of the right hash. South Carolina moved the chains a couple of times, converted a fourth-and-1 by a literal millimeter, and ran out the clock for the win.

So while South Carolina didn't generate much havoc, it generated clutch havoc. That's something.

(I enjoy tossing in the word "clutch" at times, just to see which nerds' hackles get raised.) Simply making plays that show up in the box score doesn't make your defense good. Arkansas has made plenty of plays, as you'll see below, but currently ranks 63rd in Success Rate; Syracuse's front seven makes more plays than anybody, but the Orange rank just 58th in Success Rate. And in the name of Havoc, you might end up making yourself quite vulnerable to not only big plays, but huge ones. So before we go any further, realize that this is more of what I like to call a personality stat than an evaluative one. Still, it's a hell of a personality stat. It's incredibly easy to understand -- it was only one part of the Numerical, but it resonated more than the rest of the piece combined (sheesh, it's like nobody cares about the plight of Troy's football program or who Abilene Christian was playing 10 years ago). Plus, if you separate the numbers out by defensive unit (line, linebackers, secondary), you can figure out which teams are doing their damage where. In total, the Havoc stats as defined above hedge toward passes defensed; defensive backs have made 39.0 percent of all Havoc plays this year, while linemen have made 31.3 percent and linebackers have made 29.8 percent. And to be sure, breaking up a pass is not as destructive as making a huge sack. (Still, a breakup is only a happy bounce away from becoming an interception, so we shouldn't downplay it too much either.) With that in mind, here are the Havoc totals for 2014, broken down by unit. Note that each player's position is dictated by how he is listed in his school's official roster. If the roster is outdated, or if a player plays a pretty blurry position (a linebacker could really be spending a good amount of time as a defensive end in one system, or a makeshift nickelback in another), that could add some error to the data. But that's what we have to work with.

Team Havoc Rate, Through Three Weeks (2014)
Team	Havoc Rate	Rk	DL	Rk	LB	Rk	DB	Rk
Florida	27.8%	1	9.4%	7	4.1%	72	14.3%	1
Virginia Tech	27.6%	2	6.5%	33	8.6%	8	12.5%	2
TCU	27.4%	3	11.5%	2	7.4%	17	8.5%	16
Virginia	26.2%	4	5.7%	43	12.0%	1	8.6%	14
Wake Forest	26.2%	5	9.1%	11	9.5%	4	7.6%	26
Northern Illinois	25.3%	6	8.1%	15	7.1%	19	10.1%	5
Utah State	24.1%	7	5.8%	37	8.4%	11	9.9%	6
Mississippi State	23.5%	8	6.8%	27	8.3%	12	7.1%	42
Boise State	23.1%	9	7.6%	18	8.4%	10	7.1%	39
Arkansas	22.1%	10	9.4%	8	6.5%	26	5.8%	68
Clemson	21.7%	11	10.0%	4	6.3%	28	5.4%	77
Missouri	21.6%	12	11.7%	1	1.8%	114	7.6%	30
Baylor	21.5%	13	10.8%	3	5.6%	45	5.1%	86
Oklahoma State	21.5%	14	8.5%	13	6.0%	35	7.0%	44
Ole Miss	21.2%	15	6.9%	26	2.0%	113	12.3%	3
Ohio State	21.0%	16	6.8%	29	8.3%	14	6.0%	60
Syracuse	20.8%	17	9.7%	5	9.7%	3	1.4%	128
Louisville	20.2%	18	6.8%	28	3.8%	80	9.6%	7
Wisconsin	20.2%	19	3.8%	82	10.5%	2	5.9%	66
Stanford	20.1%	20	5.0%	51	8.3%	13	6.2%	54
Penn State	20.1%	21	9.2%	10	3.3%	92	7.6%	28
LSU	20.0%	22	7.4%	20	4.3%	67	8.3%	19
Marshall	19.8%	23	7.7%	17	3.2%	94	9.0%	10
Oregon	19.7%	24	4.9%	54	5.4%	48	9.0%	9
Pittsburgh	19.7%	25	6.6%	31	6.0%	34	6.6%	49
Team	Havoc Rate	Rk	DL	Rk	LB	Rk	DB	Rk
Oregon State	19.3%	26	4.1%	74	7.0%	20	8.1%	20
Oklahoma	19.0%	27	4.9%	55	5.8%	43	8.4%	18
Miami	19.0%	28	4.2%	72	8.8%	6	5.6%	73
South Alabama	19.0%	29	3.6%	87	6.2%	30	9.1%	8
Akron	18.6%	30	7.2%	21	6.2%	29	5.2%	84
Auburn	18.6%	31	7.1%	22	4.3%	67	7.1%	38
Appalachian State	18.5%	32	4.6%	60	9.3%	5	4.6%	97
Rutgers	18.3%	33	7.5%	19	2.7%	102	7.5%	31
Old Dominion	17.9%	34	7.1%	23	5.7%	44	5.2%	82
Nebraska	17.9%	35	5.5%	46	3.4%	90	8.9%	11
Maryland	17.9%	36	4.0%	78	6.7%	23	7.2%	37
Iowa	17.8%	37	7.9%	16	5.0%	55	5.0%	88
Memphis	17.8%	38	4.4%	68	8.5%	9	4.8%	91
Florida International	17.7%	39	9.1%	12	2.6%	103	6.0%	62
Kansas State	17.7%	40	4.6%	62	5.0%	52	8.1%	22
Utah	17.7%	41	9.5%	6	2.4%	106	4.6%	98
UAB	17.6%	42	3.4%	93	7.9%	16	6.0%	59
North Texas	17.6%	43	9.3%	9	3.5%	86	4.8%	94
UTSA	17.5%	44	7.0%	24	2.0%	112	8.6%	15
Arkansas State	17.5%	45	4.1%	73	4.8%	56	8.1%	23
Boston College	17.4%	46	3.5%	89	6.5%	24	7.3%	36
Central Michigan	17.2%	47	6.5%	32	1.6%	118	7.7%	25
UL-Monroe	17.2%	48	2.7%	108	5.9%	40	8.1%	21
Michigan State	16.9%	49	5.8%	40	4.2%	71	6.9%	46
North Carolina	16.9%	50	4.4%	69	6.1%	33	6.4%	52
Team	Havoc Rate	Rk	DL	Rk	LB	Rk	DB	Rk
San Jose State	16.8%	51	1.2%	127	3.6%	83	11.2%	4
Georgia Tech	16.7%	52	7.0%	25	1.1%	123	8.6%	13
Texas	16.6%	53	8.3%	14	4.8%	57	3.5%	116
Notre Dame	16.6%	54	5.8%	39	4.3%	70	6.5%	50
UTEP	16.5%	55	4.9%	53	4.1%	74	7.4%	34
San Diego State	16.4%	56	6.3%	34	5.5%	47	4.7%	96
California	16.3%	57	5.1%	50	5.1%	51	6.1%	56
Georgia	16.2%	58	3.0%	103	8.1%	15	4.4%	104
Western Michigan	16.1%	59	5.4%	49	4.7%	59	6.0%	58
Kentucky	15.7%	60	6.2%	35	1.7%	117	7.4%	33
Army	15.7%	61	2.5%	111	6.8%	21	6.4%	51
Tennessee	15.7%	62	5.4%	48	5.9%	40	4.4%	103
Washington	15.7%	63	5.5%	45	6.1%	32	4.0%	111
N.C. State	15.7%	64	5.8%	38	3.8%	81	6.1%	57
BYU	15.6%	65	0.5%	128	8.8%	7	6.4%	53
Minnesota	15.6%	66	4.0%	76	4.0%	79	7.6%	29
Alabama	15.6%	67	3.9%	80	7.2%	18	4.5%	99
Tulsa	15.4%	68	5.8%	40	5.8%	42	3.4%	117
Arizona State	15.0%	69	1.8%	120	5.9%	39	7.0%	43
Temple	14.9%	70	6.7%	30	2.2%	108	6.0%	63
Toledo	14.9%	71	5.5%	47	3.5%	87	5.9%	64
Purdue	14.8%	72	3.1%	101	4.0%	76	7.6%	27
Florida State	14.7%	73	3.5%	92	2.4%	105	8.7%	12
Tulane	14.7%	74	4.7%	58	4.7%	60	5.3%	80
USC	14.6%	75	2.4%	113	5.1%	50	7.1%	41
Team	Havoc Rate	Rk	DL	Rk	LB	Rk	DB	Rk
Vanderbilt	14.4%	76	2.5%	112	6.4%	27	5.6%	73
South Florida	14.4%	77	3.4%	94	5.0%	52	6.0%	60
Buffalo	14.4%	78	4.8%	56	2.2%	111	7.4%	35
Colorado	14.3%	79	4.3%	70	3.1%	96	6.9%	47
Nevada	14.3%	79	6.2%	36	2.2%	109	5.9%	65
Ohio	14.2%	81	3.8%	83	6.0%	35	4.4%	101
East Carolina	14.2%	82	4.6%	63	4.1%	73	5.5%	75
Central Florida	14.2%	83	3.7%	84	3.4%	91	7.1%	40
Indiana	14.1%	84	3.8%	81	6.2%	31	4.1%	110
Kansas	14.1%	85	2.6%	110	3.0%	97	8.5%	16
West Virginia	14.0%	86	2.8%	106	6.5%	25	4.8%	95
Miami (Ohio)	13.8%	87	3.3%	97	4.4%	66	5.6%	70
Wyoming	13.8%	88	3.9%	79	6.0%	37	3.9%	114
Illinois	13.7%	89	4.8%	57	5.6%	46	3.3%	118
Bowling Green	13.6%	90	5.7%	42	4.5%	61	3.0%	123
Georgia Southern	13.6%	91	3.5%	91	2.2%	110	7.5%	32
Houston	13.6%	92	4.7%	59	3.2%	93	5.7%	69
Eastern Michigan	13.5%	93	4.1%	75	4.1%	75	5.4%	78
Washington State	13.4%	94	1.9%	118	4.5%	61	6.9%	45
Texas A&M	13.3%	95	5.6%	44	2.6%	104	5.2%	85
Hawaii	12.9%	96	4.0%	76	4.4%	63	4.4%	101
Louisiana Tech	12.6%	97	3.2%	100	4.3%	69	5.2%	83
Georgia State	12.4%	98	1.9%	119	5.0%	54	5.6%	71
Connecticut	12.3%	99	2.8%	105	6.7%	22	2.8%	124
Western Kentucky	12.2%	100	4.5%	66	3.5%	89	4.3%	108
Team	Havoc Rate	Rk	DL	Rk	LB	Rk	DB	Rk
Arizona	12.1%	101	1.3%	126	4.0%	77	6.7%	48
Air Force	12.0%	102	3.7%	86	5.2%	49	3.1%	120
Massachusetts	12.0%	103	3.3%	99	3.1%	95	5.6%	71
Middle Tennessee	11.8%	104	2.6%	109	4.4%	64	4.8%	92
Northwestern	11.7%	105	3.4%	95	4.0%	78	4.3%	106
Duke	11.7%	106	3.4%	96	0.5%	128	7.9%	24
Iowa State	11.4%	107	4.3%	71	1.0%	124	6.2%	55
Michigan	11.4%	108	4.6%	61	1.4%	121	5.4%	76
Texas State	11.3%	109	2.8%	104	3.6%	82	4.8%	90
Troy	11.2%	110	4.5%	64	1.3%	122	5.4%	79
Colorado State	10.9%	111	1.7%	123	4.4%	64	4.8%	92
Fresno State	10.7%	112	1.4%	125	6.0%	38	2.6%	125
UL-Lafayette	10.4%	113	4.5%	65	3.6%	84	2.4%	126
New Mexico State	10.2%	114	1.5%	124	2.9%	98	4.4%	105
New Mexico	10.1%	115	2.2%	116	2.9%	99	5.1%	87
UCLA	10.0%	116	2.2%	115	3.5%	88	3.9%	113
Southern Miss	10.0%	117	3.3%	97	0.5%	127	5.2%	81
Florida Atlantic	10.0%	118	3.5%	90	2.3%	107	4.1%	109
Idaho	9.9%	119	5.0%	52	2.8%	100	2.1%	127
Navy	9.9%	120	2.0%	117	4.7%	58	3.2%	119
Ball State	9.8%	121	2.4%	113	1.5%	120	5.9%	67
Cincinnati	9.8%	121	3.0%	102	1.8%	115	4.9%	89
Rice	9.8%	121	4.5%	67	0.8%	126	4.5%	100
Kent State	9.6%	124	3.7%	85	2.8%	101	3.0%	122
SMU	8.9%	125	1.8%	122	3.6%	85	3.6%	115
UNLV	8.6%	126	2.7%	107	1.6%	119	4.3%	107
Texas Tech	7.9%	127	1.8%	121	1.8%	116	4.0%	112
South Carolina	7.5%	128	3.5%	88	0.9%	125	3.1%	121

Missouri's defensive line, led by destructive ends Markus Golden (6.5 tackles for loss, 4.0 sacks, one pass defensed) and Shane Ray (7.5 TFLs, 5.0 sacks, one forced fumble) and tackle Lucas Vincent (2.0 tackles for loss, 1.5 sacks), is allowing the Tigers to play reasonably passive defense in the back seven. That shows up especially in the fact that the Tigers' linebackers have made fewer plays than almost anybody. Mike Scherer (MLB) and Kentrell Brothers (WLB) have combined for 17 solo tackles, 32 assists, and only one tackle for loss. But the Tigers have played efficient ball, and the GoldenRay combination allows them to blitz without blitzing.

[ad placeholder 3]

Missouri's line is active, but Syracuse's front seven has easily been the most aggressive overall. Combined Front Seven (or Six) Havoc Rate:
1. Syracuse (19.4%)
2. TCU (18.9%)
3. Wake Forest (18.6%)
4. Virginia (17.6%)
5. Baylor (16.4%)
6. Clemson (16.3%)
7. Boise State (16.0%)
8. Arkansas (15.9%)
9. Northern Illinois (15.3%)
10. Mississippi State (15.2%) TCU, by the way, is almost No. 1 here despite the loss of star end Devante Fields to general stupidity in the offseason. Granted, the Frogs' averages have potentially been boosted by playing Samford and Minnesota, but they have 21 tackles for loss in two games without Fields, which is rather unfair. So what does this mean exactly? It may be more descriptive than evaluative, but how does it tie to stats that are actually evaluative?

Correlations
	Total Havoc Rate	Success Rate	IsoPPP
DL Havoc Rate	0.706	0.432	0.148
LB Havoc Rate	0.539	0.369	0.119
DB Havoc Rate	0.600	0.381	0.106

	Success Rate	IsoPPP
Total Havoc Rate	0.630	0.213

It would make sense that Havoc Rate and Success Rate are rather closely correlated. If you think about the extreme versions of defenses -- great Success Rates, terrible IsoPPP rates (Michigan State, for example); terrible Success Rates, great IsoPPP rates (a bend-don't-break style of defense like UCLA's or Notre Dame's) -- it would certainly stand to reason that the former would be making more plays behind the line of scrimmages and getting more hands on footballs. This somewhat confirms that aggressiveness is a key to efficient football (but isn't the only way to play good defense).

[ad placeholder 4]