Penalties/Points Allowed

by hailtogeorgia on Nov 17, 2008 3:30 PM EST Comment 10 comments

After the Dawgs faced Auburn and, once again, struggled to limit the number of penalties committed, I decided to look at some stats and see if there was any correlation between the number of points given up and penalties committed. I start this off by reminding everyone that Richt decided to start disciplining the team for penalties around the time of the Vanderbilt game (perhaps just before the Tennessee game). Starting with the Vanderbilt game, penalties began to decrease. After the Vandy game, our defense then gave up three straight 38+ point performances. There was then a public outcry for the defense to step up, the defense had an "enough is enough" meeting and vowed to play with more passion. The penalties come back. Here are how the numbers themselves panned out:

In seven games with nine penalties or more, we gave up a total of 123 points, averaging out to 17.57 ppg. In four games with eight penalties or less, we gave up a total of 139 points, averaging out to 34.75 ppg. The games with eight penalties or less were to Vanderbilt, LSU, Florida, and Kentucky.

I realize relative offensive prowess of our opponents influences the amount of points given up, but I did think it was interesting that as soon as we began to limit our penalties with any sort of consistency, our points allowed skyrocketed. As soon as our defense catches flack and decides to play with passion again, the penalties go back up and our points allowed goes back down. Any thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting point

On a points-per-game basis, how did the Georgia D fare against each of these teams? In other words, how many points did the ’Dawgs give up to each team, and how many points per game are those teams averaging, both overall and in conference play?

Knowing that would give us some basis for comparison. It was no surprise that Florida scored more points than Auburn, because the Gators have a much better offense than the Plainsmen. How did the points Florida and Auburn scored against Georgia compare to their overall averages, though?

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Nov 17, 2008 4:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the breakout (with those games with eight penalties or less in bold):

GSU: 21 pts. scored, yearly avg: 31.8, 32.6 conf.
CMU: 17 pts. scored, yearly avg: 28.7, 29.5 conf.
SCar: 7 pts. scored, yearly avg: 22.4, 19.1 conf.
ASU: 10 pts. scored, yearly avg: 23, 24.3 conf.
Bama: 41 pts. scored, yearly avg: 31.7, 29.9 conf.
UT: 14 pts. scored, yearly avg: 16, 13.5 conf.
Vandy: 14 pts. scored, yearly avg: 21.3, 18.1 conf.
LSU: 38 pts. scored, yearly avg: 32.1, 27.3 conf.
UF: 49 pts. scored, yearly avg: 44.1, 44.9 conf.
UK: 38 pts. scored, yearly avg: 23.5, 19 conf.
Auburn: 13 pts. scored, yearly avg: 18.9, 13.3 conf.

So, of the four games we played where we had eight penalties or less, we kept only one team under either their yearly avg. or conf. avg. (Vanderbilt). Of the seven games with nine penalties or more, we allowed only one team to score more than both their yearly and conf. avg. (Alabama) and allowed one other team to score more than their conf. avg. but less than their yearly avg. (Tennessee).

Note: Tennessee only outscored their conf. avg. by half a point.

Pretty strong data?

by hailtogeorgia on Nov 17, 2008 5:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I see your overall point, but....

I’m sensing a classic correlation/causation problem here.
The unstated assumption underlying this data would be that in an attempt to limit penalties the defense played “tight” or “hesitant.” And that this resulting hesitation led to the poor performances.
I’m a big believer in finding hidden stats that actually tell us a lot about a team or a season; I just think there are too many unaccounted for variables (turnovers, special teams, field position, weather conditions, etc.) to draw a conclusion here.
I do think you are right that we have, perhaps, put too much emphasis on penalties. They have made games tighter than they should have been, but in our two losses, we would have been whipped even without penalites.

by Travis Rice on Nov 17, 2008 8:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

We may have lost those games, yes (or not)...

But I don’t think we would have been ‘whipped’ even if we were to lose. Much of the time with penalties it’s ‘when’, not what. We committed a PI on a third down play in the ’Bama game that gave them momentum; we got a PF on our interception of Tebow in the UF game that certainly changed momentum as well, just for starters.

by The ArchDawg on Nov 17, 2008 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea, the when is huge - we have destroyed momentum so many times

by tankertoad on Nov 18, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Travis (and good to see you online)

This is what I have been arguing for weeks – there are so many “variables” I dont see how anyone or any stat can ID a specific problem. Weak special teams alone will screw up stats tremendously (giving your opponent the ball on the 40 from a kick off, missing FGs, and blocked punts just destroys stats)

My only concern with penalties is in the PF area. At least half the PIs were bogus calls, and things like offsides are going to happen. But the PF’s are a problem.

by tankertoad on Nov 18, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

I would like to point out that I was not trying to say that our defensive struggles are directly attributable to trying to limit the number of penalties. I even stated that the offenses of our opponents most certainly influence the number of points our defense gives up in games. I guess I should have also included that there are, certainly, a myriad of other variables that can influence the number of points we allow, many of which have been stated in the comments left here. I simply found it interesting that when we focused on limiting penalties, our defensive prowess seemed to dwindle, and vice versa. While I do not believe that the attempt at limiting the number of penalties is solely responsible for our poor defensive play, I definitely believe that it contributed to it (as did many other factors). That said, my opinion is simply that given the current situation, I’ll take a higher number of penalties as long as the defense is playing passionately and aggressively. We, as fans, have been very quick to hound the defense for the lack of pressure on the quarterback (especially by the ends) and the limited number of sacks compared to last year. I firmly believe that, in trying to get more pressure on the quarterback and rack up more sacks, it has led to more penalties (namely, more personal fouls). Have they come at bad times? Yes. Do I think we would’ve won had we not had them? No. Sure, there could’ve been some major momentum changes in both the Alabama and Florida games had it not been for personal fouls (a fumble and an interception were negated in both games, respectively). However, the games were not lost because of these penalties. They were lost because we were outplayed.

by hailtogeorgia on Nov 18, 2008 3:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is well written and thank you

I think what i see is a poor correlation of solid fundamentals, discipline and agressiveness. You don’t have to get PFs (and a lot of them were simply not needed, not related to the defense or agressiveness) if you are strong in fundamentals and discipline – which leads to proper agressiveness. Agressiveness without discipline is wrecklessness, which is a strong word, but has certainly came to mind more than once this season. And I fault that not on the defense or the Defensive coach.

by tankertoad on Nov 18, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares? Everyone go to FireMarkRicht.net!!

I’m just joking!!!! I just visited that site and what a bunch of morons. If that’s how I have sounded on this board for even a fraction of a nanosecond while watching UGA’s painful play over the last few weeks, I apologize.

by VDawg on Nov 18, 2008 9:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nah, you're all right, VDawg

Voicing legitimate areas of concern (which is what you’ve done) is one thing; Mark Richt isn’t perfect, nor are his assistants, and changes of some sort clearly need to be made. Points concerning the sort and severity of those changes are valid topics for discussion, which sometimes will get heated because of the passions college football inflames in its partisans.

It’s the “Mark Richt has to go!” kooks who are divorced from reality. As the Mark Richt Victory Watch regularly reiterates, he is the most successful coach we’ve ever had. If Coach Richt should be fired, every coach we’ve ever had should have been fired.

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Nov 18, 2008 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs