Is getting-to-the-quarterback-right-as-he-is-throwing-the-ball a skill? Can it be replicated? A quarter of a second sooner and Van De Steeg might have a sack. A quarter of a second later and Williams might have gotten rid of the ball before taking a hit. The randomness in this scenario is the timing. Did WVD deliberately time his hit on Juice?
The actual timing of when he hit the quarterback may indeed be lucky but the ability to apply pressure is a skill.
The way I view it, we can make a base assume for NCAA teams that QB pressure creates a turnover 5% of the time on average (the % is for illustrative purposes, it doesn't matter if it's accurate). The way you seem to be looking at it is that if a team is an anomoly their pressure results in a turnver 10% of the time resulting in a more turnovers and that can't be replicated. I'm viewing it as a team that gets twice as much pressure on the QB is twice as likely to create a turnover. So my point is, while the act of getting a turnover may have some degree of luck involved in it the actions that lead to the turnover (QB pressure) can predict teams that create more turnovers.
If you want an example of a team in the NFL that creates pressure and is consistently in the top one third of the league in turnovers look no further than the Baltimore Ravens.
Not necessarily. As I mentioned before, the '06 Gophers had an AWFUL defense and managed to finish sixth in the nation in turnovers gained. What was their recipe?
A defense can still be bad at tackling and give up a lot of yards but if you have a rush DE that can pressure the QB you are more likely to create more turnovers than a defense that causes no pressure. Van De Steeg had 10 sacks in 2006. I can't recall fumbles vs. int's in 2006 so I can't even speak to specifc examples.
How many fumbles are actually the result of a defender deliberately trying to strip the ball?
I couldn't give you a specific % but off the top of my head I can think of plenty of examples: Sherels strip of the Purdue WR, Van De Steeg's sack of Juice that Simoni picked up for the TD, the strip of PJ Hill from behind against Wiscy. Other fumbles weren't the result of a direct strip but rather a perfect form tackle delivered very hard--yes this is luck but teams/players that tackle at the ankles don't cause these fumbles--Brock's hit on Kory Sheets against Purdue, whoever the DB was that crushed the WR from Wiscy and gave him a concussion, and a few of those hits on BG players.
The point is that there are techniques that when taugt to players increases the % of causing a turnover. For instance, for a DE rushing from behind on a QB you want to strip down with your right arm to try to knock the ball loose. When chasing a ball carrier from behind the ball is vulnerable to either an upper cut punch between the rib cage and elbow or a swipe down from the top. Also, if you have ball hawking defensive players they see if the ball carrier lets the ball get away from his body (see Ralph Spry) and they make a play on the ball while tackling. Players are taught these techniques and some coaches just teach it better than others which can affect the fumble per tackle ratio.
Teams that finish +10 in turnover margin do worse the following year 65% of the time, while teams the finish -10 in turnover margin do better the following year 68% of the time (source: Phil Steele). That screams randomness.
That stat doesn't give much in the way of specifics for how much better/worse the team does so it doesn't really tell you that much. Do they go from +15 to +13? If so, that doesn't seem that random. Do they go from +15 to -5, that says it is either random or there are differences in the make up of the team (Sr QB graduates, freshman QB takes over--like Minnesota in 06 to 07). It sounds like +10 or -10 turnover margin is approximately 1 standard deviation away from the mean and to move further away from that is less common than to move back toward that. Not exactly random.
Why is it that fans always attribute an interception thrown by their team's quarterback or a fumble by their running back as a mistake made by their offense, yet seemingly every time the opposing team turns it over it's a great play by the defense? How does that make sense?
They aren't mutually exclusive events. The defense is is trying to increase the likelihood that an offensive player makes a mistake but the offensive player still has to make a mistake for a turnover to occur. When the turnover occurs it is both a good play by the defense to cause it and a mistake by the offensive player to turn the ball over. Situations like Jamal Harris dropping the ball with nobody within 10 yards of him are rare and I doubt Purdue fans would claim that was a good play by Purdue.
