Countdown to Football Frustration

Next Frustrating Hoops Victory

Next Lacrosse Annihilation

Bonanza of Numbers: Part IV

Let the Bonanza continue!

Drive efficiency is probably the best barometer for measuring an offense's true productive value. Through this methodology, noisy data is eradicated by using objective measurements of standard value and efficiency.

If you are looking for some more background information on drive efficiency (and to see how the Big East stacked up in 2004), I highly suggest clicking this text.

2005 Big East Drive Efficiency
TeamPFSEFDEFTOB
Louisville2.9842.7472.5099381.500
West Virginia2.3772.1441.912279.083
South Florida2.1251.8361.546235.000
Rutgers2.3611.9031.446221.167
Connecticut1.8131.5561.300213.250
Pittsburgh2.0391.7211.403211.833
Cincinnati1.9571.6281.299197.417
Syracuse1.4391.1090.7799127.917

PF = Points Factor
SEF = Scoring Efficiency Factor
DEF = Drive Efficiency Factor
TOB = Total Offensive Benefit


[Analysis]
Who would've thought that Dan Orlovsky, Connecticut's all-everything gunslinger from 2004, would be missed so much?

To say that Connecticut had a significant offensive fall from grace from 2004 to 2005 would be an understatement of epic proportion. Last season, Storrs housed the league's most efficient offense, chiming in with a 333.75 total offensive benefit value. This season, the Huskies barely managed to climb above the 200-point mark.

Connecticut's woeful offensive output appears to be directly attributable to the team's inability to string together prolonged drives. With a DEF of just over 1.3 (3rd worst in the Big East), the Huskies were simply unable to a) score when put in opportune situations, and/or b) sustain a drive to put the offense in an opportune situation.

As for the truly efficient offensive units in the Big East, Louisville is, not suprisingly, at the top of the heap. With an offense built around an ultra-accurate passer in Brian Brohm and a rusher that is cash money in short yardage situations, the Cardinals were unstoppable when they had the pigskin. With a total offensive benefit value that all but tripled that of Syracuse's, Louisville's "disappointing" season cannot be pinned on the offense's performance.

Speaking of Syracuse, the Orange were just pathetic on offense. I know this serves as no news flash, but it is eye-opening to see Syracuse get outpaced by Cincinnati by almost 70 points this season. And the Bearcats were essentially playing with nine new starters on offense this season.

Furthermore, the Orange reached a new four-year low with their offensive output this season. I'd like to believe that it's always darkest before dawn, but I think this offense is still a few hours away from sunrise.

As for the other squads on the list, I'll probably come back to them later for a further rundown. Until then, feel free to comment about any of this data in the "Comments" section below.

1 Responses to “Bonanza of Numbers: Part IV”

  1. # Anonymous Fan of Glaude

    Now that offensive efficiency is out of the way....

    What about defensive efficiency? Let's see a list that potentially includes Syracuse near the top.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Search

  • Air Your Grievances

  • syracuseorange44@gmail.com
  • This About Sums It Up

  • I am less smart for having read your blog.
  • - Anonymous Georgetown supporter.
  • You are an idiot...
  • - Anonymous Nunes/Magician Reader.
  • Congrats on not being very good at what you do.
  • - Anonymous ACC supporter.
  • You are a dweeb, my friend. Grow a backbone.
  • - Anonymous UConn supporter.
  • ...vacuous, asinine, and mind numbing...
  • - Anonymous commenter.
  • Honestly, just admit that you are pathetic...
  • - Anonymous commenter.
  • You just don't have hoops experience.
  • - Twitter commenter.
  • Leave the journalism to talented people. Brian is just another hack and another fair weather fan.
  • - Twitter commenter.
  • A bad blog about Syracuse athletics.
  • - UConn Fan on Twitter (after winning NCAA).






XML