Quantitative Analysis

by Telemachus on Sep 18, 2008 4:41 AM PDT

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

How could we have beaten Tennessee and gotten pummeled by BYU? What's in store for us against Arizona this weekend?

After the BYU game I read comments describing the size of the BYU players compared to our Bruins. I could only listen on the radio and follow the game on BN so I thought I'd do some research. I've churned the numbers and got some interesting results.

I extracted data from team rosters and summarized the data into two tables. Note that I took rosters directly from team websites and did not account for position changes and injuries that have occurred since the rosters were posted. The first table simply shows the average weight of the offensive and defensive lines for UCLA, Tennessee, BYU, and Arizona. I've also included averages and counts for just the upperclassmen to get a rough sense of average weight by experience/probable starters.

BYU has the highest average OL weight at 307 and UCLA is last at 296. BYU's disparity increases significantly when looking just at upperclassmen; BYU's OL upperclassmen average is a whopping 321, while the average is not signficantly different for the other schools.

Interestingly, on the defensive side, UT's DL averages one pound less than UCLA's (258 versus 259) while BYU leads again with a 283 average and still leads when considering just upperclassmen. UA comes in at second with 270. A glaring issue for UCLA is having a mere three OL upperclassmen as compared to 8 and 7 for UT and BYU respectively.

So far, the numbers support the view that BYU's players are bigger than our players. However, additional analysis reveals the magnitude of this disparity. Obviously, offensive lines don't play against each other, they play against defensive lines. So how do the weights of the offensive lines compare against the defensive lines? This shown in the next table.

Starting with UT, UCLA's OL outweighs UT's DL by 38 pounds on average, while UT's OL outweighs UCLA DL by a 43 poound average. UCLA has an average net disadvantage of -5 pounds, which turns into an advantage of +2 pounds when considering just upperclassmen. From a purely physical point of view, I'd call this dead even. However, UT's experience level is better. They have 8 OL upperclassmen versus 3, and 11 DL upperclassmen versus 7. Seems to me the win here was due to a better headcoach/offensive coordinator combination and a little luck. And oh yeah, that Relentless Optimism.

Looking at BYU, their OL outweighs UCLA's DL by 48 (53 for upperclassmen), while UCLA's OL outweighs BYU's DL by a mere 13 pounds. This results in a huge +35 pound net average advantage (or +28 when limited to upperclassmen) over UCLA. Yeah, BYU is BIG. The outcome seems obvious, from a physical point of view. Turnovers during the game only served to make a difficult situation worse.

Looking ahead, the same analysis shows UA with a net +19/+15 average advantage, but we are nearly even with respect to upperclassmen. UA doesn't have as big a weight advantage as BYU, but that advantage is significantly greater than UT's over UCLA. Hopefully, coaching will overcome the physical disadvantage and we can keep it close going into the fourth quarter.

So this analysis seems to correspond with the first couple of games. Obviously this analysis does not account for skill level, conditioning and many other factors, but football is an incredibly physical sport. You need to start with a foundation of athletes with the size to compete. You can't coach size and when we're out-sized, we've got to be better in all other aspects of the game to have a chance. We'd better get recruiting going or we're gonna be referred to "gutty little bruins" again.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

2 recs | Comment 15 comments |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting

In my experience marriage does seem to increase one’s waist size. These numbers seem to support that.
Still, everything seemed to go BYU’s way that game. It was a perfect storm of events.

by bruin8uclap on Sep 17, 2008 7:07 PM PDT 0 recs

That is hilarious.

And are all the other stories I hear about this BYU place true? Curfews and no drink and stuff? Certainly wouldn’t work in an Irish university, let me tell ya…

Excellent analysis as well Tele, you’re more than just a pretty face.

by irishbruin on Sep 18, 2008 2:48 AM PDT up 0 recs

I have heard it's true

They apparently don’t serve caffeine at all at the stadium and of course no booze, but that is the case at other schools. Not sure about the bar scene, but I heard there are 2. eesh…

by uclafan11 on Sep 18, 2008 5:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

this is good stuff

people have been mentioning the lack of talent/experience/depth on our o-line but the lack of size hasn’t been mentioned. Blake and Bosworth are small DE’s and many of our OLs are small for their position. I’ve been thinking this all along-glad you put these numbers up. Just confirmed what I’ve been thinking too.

On the same note, I think we can overcome the challenge against UA. 15 pound disparity isn’t too bad-and the biggest problem vs BYU i think was the fact that our OL was only 13 lbs bigger than their DL on avg. We outweigh UA by 26 lbs, which should be enough to give KC time to throw.

by bucknellbruin on Sep 17, 2008 7:44 PM PDT 0 recs

As usual, the key is our offense taking time off the clock

While the net weight disparity is 15-19, the 41-45 pound edge UA’s OL has over our DL will be a killer if the defense is on the field all day. We manged to survive UT’s 33-43 OL edge since we had a slight time of possession edge of 30:09 to 29:51 in that game, versus the 37:36 to 22:24 edge BYU had over us.

by Telemachus on Sep 17, 2008 8:04 PM PDT 0 recs

Did the D Play Well From the Beginning?

Ike made football Saturday impossible.

Did our D play well the first few series it was on the field? Did it force 3 and outs? Or, did BYU move he ball and/or score on its initial possessions.

In my eyes, time of possession is meaningful if a D comes out strong, makes stops, and clearly starts giving ground after it has been on the field too long. Last year, I analyzed the data from several games to show that in the blow outs, the D — when it was strong and healthy at the start of the game — got run over. In my eyes, that put to rest the idea that the failure of the D was the O’s fault.

In the ugly blow out games last year, the D gave up either first possession yardage or scores. And, continued to do so throughout the games.

Was this one of those games?

I know NOTHING about the BYU game. However, looking at the scoring chart, it seems that the D got beat from the get go.

Last year, I was not a Walker fan. I am now. I became a Walker fan when CRN chose him to lead our D.IDo those of you who saw the game feel that we have improved our ability to D spread offenses? Were our schemes better? Is this a matter of talent and size, which we must accept?

One final thing, the D is not just Walker’s responsibility, it is a coaching staff responsibility. With this staff, Walker has the resources to develop schemes to stop the BYU types of O. I know that all of the coaches will be working to do so. However, the entire D is at a disadvantage it if must practice against our O. For the last tow summers, we’ve seen our D look great and wondered if that was great D or weak O. We learned that even when our O practices its heart out, it cannot test the D in ways that it will be tested in real games.

Tele, your excellent analysis makes clear why.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 18, 2008 5:59 AM PDT up 0 recs

Answering My Own Question: It Looks Like the D Was Weak From the Start

I just looked at the play-by-play stat’s and it looks like BYU ran all over us from the beginning.

On their first drive, against our fresh off the bench D, they ran 11 plays on a 75 yard touchdown drive.

On their second possession, we held them 3 and out.

On their third, 13 plays, 80 yards, touchdown.

On their fourth, 1 play, 37 yards, touchdown.

They scored on their 5th, 6th and 7th possessions — all in the first half.

From the drive chart, it looks like the D played better in the second half.

I know fatigue played some role, but I find telling the scores early in the first quarter when the D should not have been too tired to play well.

From a perspective of one who did not see the game, the drive charts and stat’s look very much like the blow out games we endured last year.

Last year, we had a very talented D and did not stop this type of offense leading many of us to believe that we needed to improve our schemes. This year we have less experienced talent (I still have confidence in the D talent we have — we are just younger). I’m hoping the coaching staff can step up and create schemes that put our talent in the right place to stop these types of offenses.

Lawyers know the best arguments an opponent can make against them. They anticipate them and then work to take them away.

I’m sure NC knows the best way to stop these offenses and will be working with DW to get it done.

I am not down on the D, the team, or the coaches. But, this loss tells me we have problems on both sides of the ball, that they are deeper than just our O line, and that we have work to do as a program both this season and in the years to come.

One big difference from last year — no one on the team or coaching it is pointing a finger at another unit. Last year there was grumbling about the O (even though stat’s showed the D had failed out of the gate in the big losses.) This year, it is a “team loss”.

That, in itself, shows that we are making progress.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 18, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up 0 recs

I Was With You Until the Very End

One thing that distinguishes BN from the other blog spots are the posts like this, where the authors have taken the time to actually analyze data and present reasoned conclusions. Tele, you did a great job.

But, those of us who lived through the “gutty little Bruin” years will continually take umbrage when the term is used in a derogatory way. The team, for which the term “gutty little Bruins” was coined, won its games by overcoming great size disadvantages with passion and coaching.

We should be so lucky as to have the headlines read “gutty little Bruins beat sc” or “gutty little Bruins beat #1 team and win Rose Bowl” — which is what they read in the year of the gutty little bruins.

Us Geezers have written post after post on the phrase. It is a cherished part of UCLA sports history and should never be used in a negative way.

Tele, your post is great and I hope you don’t take this personally. In fact, I agree. I hope we are working to even the size disparity that has such a clear impact on our program.

But, until we do, I hope this team becomes known as the “gutty little Bruins” — because, if it does, it will have overcome all the disadvantages you make clear, it will have used passion and great coaching to win the games it should win and also those it is predicted it should not. It will be a small team with a big heart.

A team has to earn the label “gutty little Bruins”. With this coaching staff, this team has a chance of doing so. For us, but more for them, I hope this happens. If it does, they will walk through life knowing the wonder of overachieving, and that’s not a bad thing to take away from one’s college years.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 18, 2008 5:44 AM PDT 0 recs

No offense taken, 66

Actually, I tried to be somewhat ambiguous about the reference to “gutty little bruins.” I’m also a bit of an old-timer (Class of ‘77), so I do appreciate the positive aspects of the phrase as Terry Donahue embodied that as a player (in fact, I loved it, since I’m a little guy!) You’re right that if this year’s team earns the moniker by over-achieving, we Bruin fans would be proud. Unfortunately, some of those outside the Bruins fan base use it derisively (like the sUc knucklehead I have at work).

P.S. Glad you and your family survived Ike. Best wishes as you continue to deal with getting things back to some level of normalcy.

by Telemachus on Sep 18, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

Interesting analysis. Still I think the most glaring difference between the two

games was the opponents’ quarterback play. UT’s Crompton was incompetent. Tennessee had opportunity after opportunity in the first half to blow us out of the game. Bad pass after bad pass by Crompton killed their drives. Crompton was 19/41 overall with an interception. Lame. Meanwhile, BYU’s Hall played well and despite one interception as well, he didn’t make the drive killing bad passes that crompton made. The guy threw five TD passes in the second quarter and seven overall. Hence BYU ringing our bell over and over. Yes, they had great field position starting drives in our territory five times compared to UT’s once, but you still have to score the ball. BYU did. UT didn’t. The chief difference, IMHO, was the QB play.

by EBuzMiller on Sep 18, 2008 6:54 AM PDT 0 recs

Amazing

I consider myself a fan, been following bruins since, and here comes my age, the days of Pepper Rogers. I was a pre-teen then. Since I’ve been poking around BN, I have come to realize that I’ve never seen football like most of you guys and gals here. I just let the games entertain me, and piss me off, more so in the last decade here at UCLA. A game tells me everything a I need to know about a team, a season more. But some of the posts here are truly amazing in the depth and involvement with all things Bruins. Now don’t get me wrong, I cheer just as loud as you here and I swear to all hell when the boys across town kick our ass, all too frequent lately. Worse time as a bruin—Karl Dorrell, best time—8 years in a row against, what do you guys call them, SUC! You guy s are amazing. And keep on posting.

by brewinz on Sep 18, 2008 7:04 AM PDT 0 recs

Great stuff Tele

This is the kind of stuff I like to do! Last year, there was a picture from the BYU game in which their OL just looked monstrous…and our defense looked like shrimps.

You’re right, though, there is more to it than just the sheer size. For example, the Denver Broncos consistenly have the smallest offensive line in the NFL. However, those guys are fast and agile and you see the Broncos doing a lot of sweeps and pulls to the outside. We don’t have the big uglies to run up the middle, so we should try to do this more (I’m sure Palcic knows what he’s doing!). Actually, on the play in which Carter fumbled, that’s exactly what he was doing. We had to get away from that as we fell further behind though. As long as the team we play does not have fast outside linebackers, this is pretty much our only resort, with the receivers doing some good blocking downfield.

by tasser10 on Sep 18, 2008 12:20 PM PDT 0 recs

Thanks, Telemachus

for some interesting stuff. I know you are not suggesting that size is all there is to football, but it is certainly a factor. Speed, strength, mental toughness, technique and teamwork can compensate for some deficiency in size, but fatigue is the enemy of all those things. Hence, the defense must get some rest. So the offense must chalk up some time of possession. However, this is not the answer but merely a restatement of the problem. Can we do that? To win, we have to. Also, the BYU thing really cannot be explained rationally. They should certainly have won, but not by such a margin. So I don’t think it is beneficial to over-analyze it, and I think that schools who are studying that film will not be preparing for the real Bruin team, even with all its very real limitations. Again, Saturday will tell us a lot. I expect reality to be re-established. I expect us to be in the game, maybe win. That’s what a couple of martinis can do!

by ReineSeite on Sep 18, 2008 1:56 PM PDT 0 recs

Tele

You’re numbers on BYU’s offensive line are quite a bit different from the numbers posted at the start of the game when the announcers introduced BYU’s starters. IIRC, BYU’s STARTING offensive linemen averaged 6’5 1/2, 328, which of course, further supports what you are saying.

I deleted the game tape from my DVR, so I cant verify it.

by bornagainbruin on Sep 18, 2008 4:43 PM PDT 0 recs

Your're right, I didn't calculate the numbers based on starters

However, that’s why I did the second calculation based on upperclassmen, since that would probably skew the numbers towards the starters. That seems to fit, since my calculated average weight of upperclassmen is 321 – very close to the 328 that you recall.

by Telemachus on Sep 18, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up 0 recs