Mizzou 2009, Part One: Blaine Gabbert and the Four-Year Precedent - Why establishing expectations is so difficult
By this point, Missouri fans know all the questions around the conference. Is Kansas the most talented team in the North and, if so, will the schedule still prevent them from winning the division? Is Nebraska officially "back" enough to take the division despite trips to Columbia and Lawrence? Is this the year Colorado finally justifies a slew of "sleeper picks" from assorted media?
Within the confines of the Missouri program, there are multiple questions, to be sure. How will the offense and defense perform under new coordinators? What kind of depth can Missouri develop on the defensive line? Does the pass defense have anywhere to go but up?
But there's simply no avoiding THE question, and that question comes in the form of the 6-5, 240-pound righty wearing No. 11 behind center: How exactly will Blaine Gabbert perform for the Missouri Tigers in 2009? That question spawns another question, however. What is a fair expectation for Gabbert in 2009?
And, thus, the impossibility of determining the parameters of statistical success begins.
Now, I don't aim to (nor could I) infringe upon the statistical sovereignty of The Boy Bill C., but for months, I'd been wanting to look at the first year numbers of quarterbacks in similar situations. What follows the jump is a year-by-year breakdown of the last four seasons, looking at underclassmen in their first years of starting for teams coming off of a season in which they were ranked OR at least received votes in the final AP poll, as well as what their performances may mean for Gabbert in 2009.
2008
(click to enlarge)
2008 fails to provide a compelling comparative paradigm for Gabbert. It's somewhat hard to believe, but Marc Verica ends up as the gunslinger of the group in terms of attempts, finishing with the highest completion percentage but also an unsightly 1:2 TD:INT ratio. The two crown jewels of this group, Terrelle Pryor and Jeremiah Masoli, can attribute a decent portion of their successes to unique skill sets, skill sets not likely to be seen from Gabbert unless Yost begins calling the zone read 35 times a game. It's here where we begin to see why style of play is the lurking variable in this equation. This exception also applies to Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan, whom I lumped into a collective vortex of mediocrity in the first year of the Rich Rod regime. The interesting cases here are Jarrett Lee and Mike Hartline. They had the collective misfortune of stepping under center following two extremely successful predecessors in Matt Flynn and Andre Woodson. Lee, in addition to throwing six pick-sixes amongst his 16 INTs, accounted for 22 percent less yardage than Flynn. Hartline's struggles to replace Woodson's 3700+ yards and 40 TDs resulted in more playing time for Randall Cobb.

(click to enlarge)
Talk about a small sample size. Raise your hand if you were expecting comparisons between Gabbert and Chris Turner and Sean Canfield. As a sophomore, Turner (and his awesome blond afro) supplanted Jordan Steffy as the starter for the Terps for the last eight games of the season. Yes, Gabbert is expected to lean heavily upon Derrick Washington and DeVion Moore, but in 2007, Turner's job was to defer to seniors Keon Lattimore and Lance Ball to the tune of 32 carries a game. Canfield's numbers are slightly skewed by a late-season injury, as well as Oregon State's 55-45 run-pass numbers in 2007. Yost has indicated throughout the offseason that he'd love to get Missouri closer to a 50-50 split, but it's hard to imagine MU keeping the ball on the ground 55 percent of the time. And then there's Sam Bradford, the football equivalent of the guy who always ruined the curve in all your classes. Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to have Gabbert put up Bradford-esque numbers, but placing an expectation of a 4:1 TD:INT ratio and a Big 12 title is almost the QB equivalent of Coulter-level hype.

(click to enlarge)
OK, remember what I said about Bradford ruining the curve? I take it back. Look at the yearly comparison. Graham Harrell alone might have been enough skew the numbers (after all, the attempts -- usually in the 280 range -- spiked to 373), but throw in great debuts for Chase Daniel and Colt McCoy and an under-appreciated season from Nate Longshore and the numbers jump. Instead of settling near the 3:2 TD:INT ratio for the four-year average, this rather prodigious group edged closer to 2:1. Here is where we start to get a better window for comparison. Gabbert is indelibly linked to Daniel, but is the average Missouri fan expecting him to approach the numbers reached by Daniel in 2006? It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but he also inherits a cupboard that (although not bare) isn't nearly as stacked as Daniel's was. With the Big 12 skewing the averages, the completion percentage, yards/attempt, and TD:INT ratio start to seem fair given Gabbert's situation in 2009.

(click to enlarge)
If you bow at the throne of Rivals rankings, allow me to cite chapter 2005. In the previous three years covered, only one five-star underclassman (Matthew Stafford in 2006) had seen significant starting time for a team coming off of a season in which the program received Top 25 votes. The 2005 sample includes two five-stars in Kyle Wright and Rhett Bomar. For all the grief Wright got during his tenure at Miami, it all started relatively well in 2005. The 18 TDs would be a career high for Wright. Meanwhile, Bomar used his time off from Big Red Sports/Imports to put together a slightly less impressive debut. Granted, Oklahoma ran the ball on 59 percent of plays in 2005 thanks to the tandem of Adrian Peterson and Kejuan Jones, keeping his numbers (and his importance to that offense) relatively low.

What does it all mean?
(click to enlarge per game averages)
So, what does it all mean? Very little. The numbers show that the majority of underclassman starters even at recently successful programs A) are going to be relatively protected, B) will be hard pressed to have the astronomical TD:INT ratios we're used to, and C) can't really provide us with a perfect mold to place around Gabbert. According to the numbers, the average line of the first-year underclassman starter ends up being 15-for-25 for 182 yards with a touchdown and a pick. More Derrick Washington or less Derrick Washington, it's difficult to envision Gabbert only putting the ball up 25 times a game. In the 2006 analysis, I said those numbers start to look fair for Gabbert: 60 percent completion, 7.3 yards per attempt, and a 2:1 TD:INT ratio. Presuming Gabbert hovers around the 35 attempt average, that puts his nightly projections around 21-for-35 for 255 yards, and hopefully not worse than 2 TDs/1 INT.
Of course, in the end, gaudy stats don't necessarily mean success (see: Juice Williams' 451 yards and 4 TD against Missouri last season). But as much as I can dance around applying finite expectations to Gabbert (and trust me, NO ONE loves ignoring stats for gut feelings more than me), if it's time to start applying digits to Gabbert's debut season as starter, this seems like as good a launching point for discussion as any.
1 recs |
4 comments
|
Comments
When did The Boy (still calling him that) turn into rptgwb?
Awesome stat analysis.
by solidpit on Aug 4, 2009 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
actually, i think this calls for a more qualitative analysis
this is a case where i don’t think the numbers provide much insight at all. not that you did a poor job, mind you. it’s just that for many reasons that you laid out, those other cases just aren’t comparable to gabbert’s. you have to find the most comparable case in terms of returning offensive talent, offensive philosophy, and qb skill set. and as you allude to it, the most directly comparable case is clearly chase daniel’s first year as starter, colt mccoy’s a distant second. (the primary advantages for daniel over gabbert were overall talent and experience at the skill positions.)
like daniel, gabbert has a few snaps under his belt (though not as many) prior to taking over as full-time starter. he has been on the field at game speed, and didn’t make an ass of himself. it’s one less adjustment he has to worry about making. that’s meaningful. a poor opening series vs illinois shouldn’t destroy his confidence. one slight “advantage” gabbert may have over daniel as a first time starter is that he played with many of the receivers who are slotting in as first time starters with him on the scout team. he already knows alexander, jones, et al.; another thing he doesn’t have to learn from scratch. add that he will be walking in behind a comparably good, potentially better offensive line, and gabbert is set up to perform comparably to daniel. there’s little reason to think otherwise, though we shouldn’t be stunned if and when he does not. i anticipate that the two will have comparable BTBS numbers at the end of the year. i’m just not very confident that’s how it will play out; so much randomness.
one thing i am confident about is that gabbert is set up to have a potentially epic first four games, as he’ll have the advantages of already knowing the offense and having played with the skill position players while defenses won’t have much film on him. i wouldn’t be shocked if he throws some picks too, especially if zook does some stunting and blitzing that we haven’t seen on film, but he’s going to put up some numbers early. i feel very confident about this.
but be forewarned: the first four games are often fool’s gold. the key to gabbert’s season will be how he adjusts in conference once people have film on him. the two biggest determinants of gabbert’s overall performance are: 1) the running game/playing ahead of the chains, and 2) field position/the return game. the first point is obvious but should be noted anyway. pinkel/yost cannot afford to be as cavalier about down and distance as they were with daniel even in his second year. they’ve said all the right things so far about the running game, but we’ll see how it goes once the bullets start flying. the second point is similarly important. mizzou need to replace some of what maclin brought to the return game. i’m really worried about this because you just don’t know how this will turn out until kickoff. good offensive field position makes defensive coordinators conservative.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Aug 5, 2009 10:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
You’re dead on about all of this. Whereas Bill has always been the quantitative analysis guy, I’ve always been (almost to my own detriment, in many circumstances) a “just look and evaluate with your gut” type of football fan. But I’ve been asked about what determines success for him SO many times in a manner that didn’t allow me to back my way out that I had to inquire about what the numbers had to say about previous QBs in similar situations. More than anything, rather than a concrete number, I wanted a baseline for realistic expectation.
Additionally, as you mentioned, I think the numbers here show what makes his case unique. Of the 24 situations compared in the analysis, you really can’t paint Gabbert in any of those molds, aside from a couple cases in 2006.
And you’re absolutely right about the first four games. Unless D-Wash and Moore get something like 38 combined carries to will Missouri to a win on the ground against Illinois, we’re going to have a FAR better understanding of what to expect from Gabbert once that Illinois game ends.
by RPT on Aug 5, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious what the people who voted for the higher expectations option think those expectations should be.
Does him being a 5-star carry that much weight in expectations? Not judging by any means, just curious.
Chicago White Sox Examiner — Your what hurts?
by UribeAuction on Aug 6, 2009 6:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















