Wilson v. The Average

Now that we have relatively advanced statistics regarding the performance of the 2006 SEC pass defenses, we can do a few other things.

For one -- and first and foremost here -- we can compare an individual quarterback's performance versus the average performance of the eight SEC quarterbacks that a particular defense faced in a given year. At bottom, it gives a lot of context to exactly how well a quarterback performed. Raw numbers only tell us, generally speaking, whether or not a player performed well in a game or a season, but comparing their raw numbers to the overall league average tells us not only how well they performed, but how well they performed in comparison to how well other players at the same position performed against those same teams.

So how did John Parker Wilson do as a whole, compared to the overall leave average?

All in all, Wilson's numbers were almost exactly identical to the league average, not really better and not really worse. Being very picky about, Wilson's numbers were generally just a hair below the league average, but by a very small and essentially insignificant amount. All told, Wilson had a higher completion percentage (56.52 for Wilson, to the league average of 56.37), and he also threw for slightly more yards per attempt (7.07 for Wilson, to the league average of 7.00). However, Wilson did have a lower touchdown rate, and a higher interception rate. All told, the combined QB rating of conference opponents against the eight SEC teams we faced in 2006 was 124.3, and Wilson clocked in just a hair below that at 122.4.

In terms of over / under performing the average, Wilson's best day came against LSU in Tiger Stadium. Though LSU held quarterbacks as a whole to under 150 passing yards per game and a completion percentage of lower than 50 per cent, Wilson threw for 291 yards against LSU, and completed 62.8 percent of his passes. Wilson's worst day came, oddly enough, the week before against lowly Mississippi State in Bryant-Denny Stadium. The Bulldogs struggled to defend the pass all year long, as opponents, as a whole, completed almost 60 per cent of their passes for over 220 yards per game, with a 3:2 touchdown to interception ratio. As with most other things that day for the Crimson Tide, it didn't quite go as planned. Wilson completed less than 50 per cent of his passes for under 200 yards total, and threw two interceptions against no touchdowns. Given the succession in games, I suppose an outhouse to penthouse reference would be fitting here.

All in all, though, the results are pretty good. Wilson was a first year starter, suffering from poor coaching and likely poor play-calling. Moreover, the offensive line was poor, and the running game was completely ineffective; arguably our worst since 1993. On top of all of that, Wilson played nearly all year with a badly sprained right ankle (i.e. his plant foot). About the only thing that Wilson had going for him in 2006 was a good receiving corps, and while good (Hall was great), after Brown was injured in the Ole Miss game, we never had another solid receiving threat. All told, while the wide receiver corps was pretty good (due to Hall's performance), it was far from extraordinary. Still, despite all of that going against him, Wilson put up average production numbers in 2007. Not a bad showing at all when you consider the circumstances.

It's just another good sign about the ability and potential of our starting quarterback.

Wilson Turnovers: How Costly Were They?

John Parker Wilson pleasantly surprised nearly everyone in 2006, and his play was generally lauded by nearly everyone. Despite being the pleasant surprise, however, Wilson did turn the ball over quite a bit in 2006, throwing eight interceptions in the eight conference games, with four fumbles lost. And, it takes no in-depth analysis to figure out that turnovers are deadly to your team's chances of winning.

But, of course, all turnovers are not created equal.

Despite early football research (The Hidden Game of Football, by Pete Palmer and Bob Carroll) indicating that the value of a turnover had a fixed points value, regardless of where it occurred on the field, later research showed that the value of a turnover increases when you get closer to the end zones, and decreases when you get closer to mid-field. It doesn't matter if you turn it over near your own goal line, or near your opponent's goal line, because it is costing you points either way; where you turn it over in that sense only influences whether you will lose points based off of you scoring less, or your opponent scoring more. All told, the value of a turnover, based on research from Football Outsiders, varies from 3.8 points to 4.25 points, depending on the field position of where the turnover occurs.

A variety of other factors can also greatly affect the value of a turnover, including the time remaining in the game when it occurred, who was leading and by how much, and how far the turnover was returned by the defense, just to name a few.

So, exactly how costly were the eight Wilson interceptions and four fumbles in conference play in 2006? Let's look at each interception and fumble, one-by-one, to get a better look.

For the interceptions...

1. Wilson was intercepted once in the Vanderbilt game. It occurred in the second quarter, on a first and ten, and we had the ball at our own 34. Vanderbilt, after a zero yard return, took over at their own 47 yard line.
   
2. In a 0-0 game in the first quarter against Florida, we were in Florida territory at the 34, facing a 3rd and 8. Wilson's pass was intercepted by Ryan Smith, who returned it 29 yards to the Alabama 47.
   
3. Trailing Florida 14-13 with 8:30 to go in the fourth quarter, Wilson was intercepted by Ryan Smith on 2nd and 10. The interception gave Florida the ball at the Alabama 34, and set up a touchdown that put the Gators up 21-13.
   
4. Trailing Florida 21-13 with 4:30 to go, we had the ball, 2nd and 10, at the Florida 46, driving in an attempt to score a game-tying touchdown and two-point conversion. Wilson was intercepted after his pass sailed high over the head of Keith Brown into the arms of Reggie Nelson, who raced 70 yards for a Florida touchdown, putting the Gators up 28-13, and effectively ending the game.
   
5. Trailing Mississippi State 17-10 with three minutes to go in the second quarter, we had the ball 2nd and 8 at the Alabama 47, and Wilson was intercepted by Quentin Culbertson, who returned the interception for a touchdown, giving MSU a 24-10 lead.
6. Trailing LSU 28-14 with 3:15 to go in the third quarter, we had the ball 3rd and 12 from LSU 23, desperately needing a conversion to bring the game within one possession. Wilson fired down the field and was intercepted by Chevis Jackson.
   
7. Trailing Auburn 22-15 with less than a minute to go, we had the ball 2nd and 7 at our own 44. Wilson looked to his right and threw the ball, where it was intercepted at the Auburn 38 by David Irons, which ended the Iron Bowl and ultimately the Mike Shula era.
   

Now for the fumbles:

1. Tied 10-10 with Arkansas in the third quarter, we had the ball 3rd and 13 at the Arkansas 48. Arkansas made the perfect blitz / coverage call, and Wilson was doomed from the start. Instead of taking the sack, Wilson tried to stay in the pocket and make a player, where he was hit. The ensuing fumble was scooped up by Randy Kelly and returned 39 yard for an Arkansas touchdown; Arkansas 17, Alabama 10.
   
2. Trailing LSU 21-14 in the closing seconds of the first half, we had the ball 1st and goal at the LSU 8. We were looking for a touchdown to go into halftime tied, or at least a field goal. On first down, however, Wilson was sacked by Daniel Francis and fumbled. LSU recovered, and ran out the clock on the first half.
   
3. Leading Auburn 3-0 with the ball 3rd and 6 at our own 25, Wilson was sacked by Quentin Groves. A fumble ensued, which Auburn recovered, and that led directly to an Auburn touchdown, 7-3 Auburn lead.
   
4. Trailing Auburn 7-3, two Alabama offensive plays after the previous sack and fumble, Wilson was sacked on a 2nd and 16 from the Alabama 14 by Quentin Groves. Another fumble ensued, Auburn again recovered, and that led directly to another Auburn touchdown, 14-3 Auburn lead.
   

So what are we to take from Wilson's turnovers in 2006? I'd say three things.

One, Wilson did turn the ball over entirely too much in 2006. All told, he had eleven turnovers in eight conference games, and that is simply entire too many. By comparison, in 2005, Brodie Croyle had only two turnovers in eight conference games, and both of those came in the Mississippi State game. Granted, Croyle's turnovers in 2005 are very much at the lower end of the turnover spectrum, but nevertheless they do highlight the value that can be found in limiting turnovers. The 2005 offense was terrible, no two ways about it, but Croyle did protect the football and thus didn't give away points in that sense. Wilson couldn't replicate Croyle in 2006, and that was a large reason 10-2 crashed into 6-7.

Two, Wilson's turnovers, when they did occur, were extremely costly to the team. Ten of Wilson's eleven turnovers came when we were either tied in a game or trailing in a game, and that is nothing short of brutal. Turnovers are killers regardless of when they occur, but if you turn the ball over when you are tied or behind, it can really just end your chances of winning, which it did with us on many occasions in 2006. Moreover, the majority of Wilson's turnovers either occurred outside of the area between the thirties, and three led directly to touchdowns for the opposing defense. And, Wilson's interceptions were generally returned for a lot of yards, with opponents averaging around 20 yards per return. There are no two ways about it, though turnovers are generally costly, the majority of turnovers committed by Wilson were extraordinarily costly to the Tide.

Three, it is up for Wilson to improve. Many blamed the fumbles on the offensive line -- particularly in the Iron Bowl in the case of Chris Capps -- but at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility falls upon Wilson to protect the football. It does not matter if all five offensive lineman decide to scratch their privates instead of block the defensive linemen, it is still up to Wilson to protect the football. He should see the situation, and secure the football. If he has to take a sack, then so be it. Not doing so is a failure upon Wilson's part, not the offensive line, and it is a particularly damning failure when the oncoming defender -- as was the case with Quentin Groves in the Iron Bowl -- is well within Wilson's line of sight.

I do not believe that we should be overly critical of Wilson, mind you. He did have a solid season in 2006, and did quite well. And he was a sophomore, a first-year starter, and it is essentially a given with quarterbacks of that nature that they will commit several costly mistakes early on their careers, and Wilson was no different. The point of it all is that -- and the analysis says essentially this -- Wilson hurt his team quite badly in 2006 with turnovers, and that he must improve that in the 2007 season if we are to have the success that we all want, whether it be as an offense or as a team.

Beyond completions, attempts, and touchdowns, perhaps the thing most should keep their eye on this season with regard to John Parker Wilson is turnovers.

D.J. Hall: Record Breaker

Anyone who knows anything about football can tell you that D.J. Hall is a great receiver. In 2006, he broke just about every Alabama single season receiving record, and if he stays even remotely healthy in 2007, he'll own essentially every receiving record in Alabama football history.

All of the mainstream statistics for the receiver position, however, are all cumulative, and thus can be inflated by increased opportunities. In short, a receiver can put up big numbers and still not have a particularly good year, with the reason for the big numbers being so many passes were thrown his way. Considering John Parker Wilson set the Alabama record for single season passing attempts in 2007 with 393 attempts, I wondered if that could have possibly been the real underlying reason to Hall's successes in 2007.

So, I applied the usual analysis, I broke down every pass thrown to Hall this season in the eight conference games.

Long story short, the pass attempts didn't inflate Hall's numbers, he was just that good.

All told, in the eight conference games, 78 passes were thrown to D.J. Hall. Of those 78 passes, Hall caught 47 of them, which gives him a catch rate (percentage of passes thrown to a particular receiver that were actually caught by that receiver) of 60.26%, which is a very high number, especially considering the quality of competition faced in SEC play. Hall went up against opposing team's best cornerback, and often times faced double coverage, but yet he still had a Catch Rate of over 60%, a truly impressive number. To give the number some context, generally speaking, the best NFL receivers have a Catch Rate in the sixty-percent range.

And these weren't short throws, either. It wasn't as if Hall was continuously running five yard curl routes, racking up easy receptions. Hall averaged just under 17 yards per catch on those 47 receptions, so his receptions were generally downfield, more difficult, catches.

Hall's catch rate is even more impressive when you put it context with what surrounded him. The quarterback throwing him the ball, John Parker Wilson, was a first year starter, and Wilson was constantly under pressure due to a poor pass blocking offensive line. Moreover, teams keyed on the pass all year long due the complete ineffectiveness of our rushing attack. Beyond that, Hall largely lacked a legitimate receiving threat to compliment his abilities. Keith Brown was hurt in the Ole Miss game, and never really recovered, and no legitimate receiving threat appeared the rest of the year (aside from Stover in the Iron Bowl).

At bottom, opposing teams knew that Hall was all we had, and they put all of their emphasis on stopping him. We threw to Hall 12 times against Tennessee, 17 times against Mississippi State, and 14 times against LSU. Again, opposing defenses knew he was our only real threat down the stretch, but even so they simply could not stop him.

Beyond that, though, the breakdown showed that we didn't exactly throw to Hall in ideal situations. We threw to him a lot on 1st down (36 times), but when we threw to Hall it was almost always in situations where lots of yardage was needed. Granted, that shouldn't be too surprising -- after all, long yardage situations is why you are throwing in the first place -- but it would have been nice if he could have been utilized better. The underlying idea to play-calling is that you should pass when other teams expect a run, and run when the opposing defense expects a pass, and Shula and co. failed miserably at that in 2006 in relation to Hall. Generally speaking, when you have a play-maker wide receiver, you would like to throw him the ball in situations where the opposing defense expects the run, which should free up man-to-man coverage on the outside for your play-maker receiver. We didn't do that at all in 2006. Of the 78 passes to Hall in 2006, only seven of them came with five yards or less needed for a first down. Unfortunately -- another sign of poor play-calling -- we largely threw the ball to Hall when it was obvious we needed to pass.

Beyond all of the foregoing, we must keep in mind one other thing. Hall played almost all of the 2006 season with a serious left shoulder injury, and injury that was severe enough to require off-season shoulder surgery.

Despite all that he had going against him, Hall caught just about everything that was thrown in his general direction. Actually, the play-by-play data at RollTide.com does not list Hall with dropping a single pass that was thrown his way in conference play in 2006, and, moreover, a large chunk of his incompleted passes were desperation throws late in games that were effectively over.

There are no two ways about it. When you break down Hall's performance using advanced statistics, he really was just that good in 2006, and assuming he can stay healthy in 2007, he's going to likely have an even better year, and break essentially every Alabama receiving record.

Hall's big performance is enough to make the case that he is quite possibly the greatest pure wide receiver we've ever had at Alabama.

2006 Season: How Johns Was Under-Utilized

As mentioned in the previous post, it was much the debate last Fall over whether or not Jimmy Johns was being utilized correctly. After charting every carry Johns had last season over the course of our ten big games, we can take a much closer look at that.

Against Hawai'i, Johns had seven carries in the first half. All seven carries were successes when judged by the Running Back Success Rate, and the seven carries resulted in a grand total of 56 yards, thus averaging eight yards per carry. Moreover, five of the runs either went for a first down, or put the Tide within one yard of a first-down. Yet, for some reason, after picking up nine yards on a second and ten in the second quarter, Johns didn't see another carry until the fourth quarter, and ultimately that carry would be his last of the evening.

The following week against Vanderbilt, it was more of the same. Johns had five carries in the first quarter, three of which were successes, and they ground out 25 yards of rushing. After the initial success in the first quarter, though, Johns didn't see another carry until mid-way through the third quarter, which resulted in a fumble (backup-itis?). All told, after his hot first quarter start, Johns saw two carries the rest of the day.

Against Arkansas, it was another solid start, with four carries for 18 yards in the first half. Then, inexplicably, he dropped off the map. After that, Johns only saw one carry (a draw play on a 3rd and 26) before finally being inserted at the end of the fourth for some token carries to run out the clock, and presumably set up a successful Leigh Tiffin field goal.

Against Ole Miss, more of the same. Johns started out with 29 yards off of just four carries, three of which were successes, in the first quarter. From that hot start, he only saw one carry the rest of the day.

Against Tennessee, Johns was hot early yet again. He had three carries in the first half for 38 yards, including a 26 yard scamper. All three carries were successes, and either picked up first downs for the Tide or put them within two yards of a first down. Yet, after the hot first half start, Johns didn't see another carry for the rest of the day.

Same thing again when we played LSU. Johns started out with four carries for 25 yards in the first half, two of which were successes. Yet, after another good start in the first half, Johns never saw a carry in the second half.

Finally, it all culminated in the Independence Bowl, where Johns again looked good early. In the first half, Johns had 38 yards off of just five carries, four of which were successes. Yet, after the initial first half success, Johns only saw one carry in the entire second half, and if my memory is correct, that was an attempt at a bit of a gimmick play.

The story just keeps repeating itself. Johns would have a lot of success on carries in the first half, and then Shula would rarely, if ever, call his number in the second half.

In the seven games I just mentioned, Johns had 33 first half carries for 229 yards. On average alone, that's 6.93 yards per carry, but moreover, an amazing 24 of his 33 carries were successes, giving him a success rate of 72.72%. Long story short, Johns' productivity on the limited first half carries he had was simply incredible.

And then Shula, for whatever reason, decided Johns shouldn't get the time of day in the second half. All told, despite the great production in the first half from Johns, Shula rewarded him by giving him less than 10 second half carries over a seven game stretch. Even with a stagnant offense and an even more stagnant running game, Shula chose to keep what was statistically by-far his best back on the sideline.

Small wonder Shula is no longer at the Capstone, and an even smaller wonder that he is not calling plays with his new position with the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Analyzing Jimmy Johns

Jimmy Johns and his performance in 2006 was very much the hot topic of discussion last Fall. For months, almost from the first snap of the Hawai'i game to the end of the Independence Bowl, Darby v. Johns debates filled Alabama message boards and other mediums of football discussion. Of course, the performance of Johns is not purely one of past relevance for the Crimson Tide. With Darby gone, Johns has the most experience of any returning back, and his performance will likely be a key determinant of the success in our rushing attack in 2007.

Thus, I decided to break down John's performance in the 2006 season.

Just scratching the surface, using the standard statistics, Johns logged 66 carries for 293 yards, and thus averaged 4.4 yards per carry. He had one touchdown, and his longest run from scrimmage was 26 yards. Of course, the purpose of this blog is to go much deeper than anything you will find in a traditional stat-line, so let's start delving further right now.

For starters, I charted every carry that Johns had in ten games this season. The eight games included the standard eight conference games, the season opener against 11-2 Hawai'i, and the Independence Bowl vs. Oklahoma State. I chose to ignore the results from the Duke game and the Florida International game, mainly because both were such terrible teams (0-12 each), and many of the carries by Johns in both games came from the quarterback position where he was running Shula's variant of Meyer's Tim Tebow package, which does us little or no good in evaluating Johns' effectiveness as a tailback.

All told, in those ten games, Johns accumulated 51 carries for 274 yards. However, I decided to omit three of those carries for a variety of reasons (one was a halfback pass gone bad, another was a draw play on third and 25+, and the other was an intentional carry solely to move the ball to the middle of the field at the end of a half). Once adjusted for those carries, Johns carried the ball 48 times for 267 yards, thus averaging 5.56 yards per carry.

Impressive as that yard-per carry number may be, Johns' performance looks better the deeper we go.

Football Outsiders came up with Running Back Success Rate in order to take down and distance into account in whether or not a particular run is successful. Long story short, a run is considered successful if it generated 40% of yards needed for a first down on first down, 60% of yards needed on second down, and 100% of yards needed on third and fourth downs. Obviously, the higher the success rate for a tailback, the more he consistently picks up the needed yardage, and the lower the success rate for a tailback, he's less consistent in picking up the needed yardage. In the NFL, a success rate of 50% or higher is considered very good, while a success rate of 40% or lower is considered very poor. So how did Johns stack up? Of his 48 runs, 28 were successes, which means he had a whopping 58.33% success rate. Though I would imagine success rates for good backs in college football tend to be a bit higher than in professional football (due to greater disparities in talent between good and bad players), a success rate of almost 60% would be considered very high. Any time a player, at any level, can create a successful play almost 60% of the time he touches the ball, it's speaks highly of that particular player, especially when he does so with an offensive line as poor as the line we had in 2006.

Beyond that, Johns did an exceptional job of limiting negative plays. Football Outsiders, again, came up with a statistic to measure negative plays by tailbacks, called the Stuffed Rate. Technically, a back is "stuffed" if he gains zero or negative yards on first down, or if he gains less than one-fourth of the yards needed for another first down on second and third down. Using that metric, Johns was again impressive. Of his 48 carries, he was stuffed a mere 6 times, for a Stuffed Rate of only 12.5 percent. Again, a very impressive statistic that speaks volumes of Johns performance. On the whole, studies have indicated that backs that consistently gain positive yardage have a higher value than backs who are more boom and bust -- those who have big gains sprinkled in with several no gains and negative plays, and that seems to fit Johns to a T. All told, he consistently gained positive yardage at a very high rate all season.

Another thing to consider, largely on those lines, is how a few long gains can impact a back's average. In reality, a couple of very long gains in a season when a back has a relatively few amount of carries can change a tailback's yard-per-carry average by two yards or more (Tide fans may well remember when Santonio Beard averaged over 7 yards per carry in 2001 when that very thing happened). As a result, a few big gains skew the data to make it seem like a particular back consistently gained more yardage, when in reality he wasn't as good, but had a couple of big runs along the way (Again, Beard, 2001). You can get around that, statistically speaking, by capping the runs of more than 10 yards and just counting them as a 10-yard run. For example, a 75-yard run goes down statistically as a 10-yard run. So what effect does that have on Johns' performance? Again, Johns performs well here. Johns had 6 carries of 11 yards or more in 2006, and once you cap those runs at 10 yards, Johns ran for 224 yards on 48 carries, which still yields a yard-per-carry average of 4.66. Again, even when you cap the big runs to keep them from skewing the average, Johns still shows through as a consistent yard-gainer almost every time he touched the football.

Let's go one step further by categorizing Johns' carries by yards gain on each individual carry:

Negative to 2 yards: 14 times (29.17%)
3-5 yards: 15 times (31.25%)
6-10 yards: 13 times (27.08%)
11+ yards: 6 times (12.50%)

Again, Johns looks very impressive. Over 70% of his carries went for three yards or more, and right at 40% of his carries yielded six yards or more. Again, the basis is the same: Johns consistently gained good chunks of positive yards each time he touched the football with relatively few negative plays mixed in.

I, for one, have been a bit harsh on Johns and his performance in 2006. However, perhaps next time I should keep my mouth shut before I do a more thorough analysis. After analyzing his season much closer, Johns looked very good in 2006. Certainly, he needs to improve greatly on the fundamentals of being a tailback, but even with poor fundamentals, he still had a very solid and productive season in 2006. Much of that, of course, can be chalked up to Johns' amazing physical abilities, something everyone has gushed about since he stepped onto campus over two years ago. Without doubt, Johns has a lot of work to do off the football field, but on the football field he looked very good in 2006.

Judging by his performance in 2006, mixed with his amazing natural abilities, if Johns can get it together off-the-field and with his fundamentals, he seems to have the potential to be a truly great back.