Turnover Margin

[nu2u]

The turnover margin stat (TM) is frequently cited as the difference between a win or a loss and that the higher the total turnover margin is generally associated with a higher team winning percentage overall. Lost fumbles and interceptions are a big part of the game, arguably bigger when the opponents are more evenly matched. Its a balance sheet stat - protect the ball when your team has possession (a Ferentz mantra), create takeaway opportunities on defense.

How strong is the correlation between turnover margin and winning percentage? this site found a fairly strong correlation but there are many variables which effect the outcome of a game.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...e-football-turnover-margin-winning-percentage

They attempt to formulate a predictable formula based on the correlation:

"So if your team averages a turnover margin of around +1, you can expect them to win around 8-9 games (all other things equal -- and they never are). I think the best way to look at this is as follows. Let's say your team is talented enough to win around 6 games. For every 0.5 in turnover margin that they are able to achieve, you can expect around 1.25 extra wins."

Anyway, Iowa is off to a positive TM+3 thanks to the three fumble recoveries against Miami of Ohio in the season opener (versus Iowa's turnover free performance). The Hawkeyes ended last season TM+11 overall. It would not be accurate to say the plus takeaways is the main reason Iowa finished undefeated in the regular season. But it obviously contributed significantly. Regarding last season's TM:

• Iowa's biggest TM+ games were against Maryland (+3) and Nebraska (+3)
• Iowa recorded both a fumble recovery (FR) and INT in 5 of 14 games
• Starting with Pitt, Iowa recorded 7 consecutive +TM games (avg +1.7 per game)
• Regular season, Iowa recorded more than twice as many INTs (17) vs. FR (8)
• CJ Beathard threw only 5 INTs in all games (vs. 11 team FL)
• Beathard had only 3 INTs thru 12 games, he threw 2 INTs in the BTCG
• Regular season, Iowa's biggest TO game (2 FL) was against N. Texas, its largest margin win
• From ISU thru Nebraska (10 games) Iowa either won or tied TM; both MSU and Stanford won TM vs. Iowa post-season.
• Iowa's biggest TM loss (-2) was vs. MSU in the BTCG which was also the narrowest margin of defeat (13-16).

What to make of it all? I don't know but this is starting to look like a term paper. Obviously, you want to be on the plus side. Ferentz is constantly preaching ball safety for a good reason. Also, it really helps to have a steady, reliable QB running the offense and big playmaker(s) on defense.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

From what I have read on the subject, turnovers are a very good explanatory variable, but are not a good predictive variable. In other words, knowing which team won the turnover battle gives great insight as to which team won the game, but it is difficult to predict which team will win turnover battles in future games.

This has led many to conclude that winning the turnover battle is largely attributable to luck - there are many variables beyond the control of the players that determine whether a turnover occurs. For example, compare in the Miami game compare McCarron's "drop" versus the fumble Hockaday caused. These plays were very similar in that the receiver "caught" the ball and was immediately hit which forced the player to lose control of the ball. The difference is that Hockaday's hit was a half-second later than Miami's hit, and thus we benefited on both plays by having our forced fumble upheld while Miami's forced fumble was overturned. Additionally, I'm sure everyone still remembers CJ's interception in the endzone in the Big 10 Championship game. That was a good throw, and a safe throw, but the ball took a weird bounce which allowed a Michigan State defender to intercept.

Furthermore, there are variables within the players' control which can have odd effects on the turnover margin stat. Consider a top-notch defense that forces many 3-and-outs. This defense is on the field less than the average defense, and thus will have less chances to force turnovers. This seems counter-intuitive, because you would expect that the better the defense is, the more turnovers they will cause, but it could have the opposite effect if the defense is so good that the opposing offense is only able to run a few plays on each possession.

 

[ichawk24]

Fumbles are luck. Particularly recoveries.

But interceptions, or lack of them, are definitely a skill and can be projected.

 

[Ree4]

Fumbles are luck. Particularly recoveries.

But interceptions, or lack of them, are definitely a skill and can be projected.

I would partially agree, I think there is a larger luck component to forcing and recovering fumbles than interceptions but they also have a large skill factor as well. Ripping and punching the ball are drills that are practiced regularly, awareness can be coached. Sure the way the ball bounces is unpredictable but if your guys fly to the ball, more bodies nearby will lead to a better chance of recovery. Ball security can be taught as well, some people tend to fumble more than others