Never mind -- beaten.
I thought that myself when I read that article that talked about a Data Scientist(tm)
I try to do something nice...
Let's face it. The biggest whine around here outside of Fire Borges! Fire Funk! is moaning about how young our offensive line is. But is our o-line really exceptionally young compare to others? In order to figure out exactly how young our offensive line is against other top programs, I went and created a list of all starting offensive line and their class designation.
Trusting fellow that I am, I went to the most prominent depth chart list online - Rivals. I took the info from their nicely formatted charts and posted it here.
Little did I know, Rivals does not have the journalistic integrity of New York Times. Their depth charts were of varying quality, fact-wise.
So, here I am again, starting from scratch and wasting 3 hours of my free time for all you ingrates. I hope you find it educational and somewhat useful.
This time, I went to every OFFICIAL school websites and got the class and high school graduation information from them. If I still have wrong info, well, thems the breaks.
One more thing, some of you on the other diary pointed out how no one else had as young players as we did between the tackles. I think this is a specious argument. Schofield is going to be a guard in NFL, it would be to his benefit to play guard during his senior year. However, the coaches have determined that it is in our best interest to have him outside. If having experience in the middle is more important, Schofield would be playing guard, not tackle.
One more one more thing. I am not implying that having one Frosh and One Junior is the same as having two Sophs. The average (median is useless with such small samples) is used because it gives the best indication of the overall experience level that you can use to compare. The actual class info is posted so you can determine whether or not ours is young in comparison to others in your own criteria.
I went and looked up bios of all 125 starting offensive linemen for AP top 25 teams. As I was browsing through, I noticed that quite a few of the headshots in the bios featured mad flow. Let me share a few of my favorites.
#3. Best Dreads - Cyril Richardson, Baylor
#2. Most Unlikely Flow - Rob Havenstein, Wisconsin
#1. No Explanation Necessary - Max Copeland, Missouri
As before, Freshman = 1, Redshirt Freshman = 1.5, Sophmore = 2, and so on
The average experience for all top 25 teams combined: 3.3
The average experience for the top 10 teams combined: 3.46
The top three teams with OL experience: Ohio (3.9), Oklahoma State (3.9), Oklahoma (3.8)
The teams with average experience of 3.0 or less: Auburn (2.5), South Carolina (2.9), LSU (2.5), Texas A&M (2.8), UCLA (2.2), Notre Dame (3.0), Texas Tech (2.9)
Is Our O-Line Really That Young?
Not really. Yes, they are younger than average at 2.8, but would be 3.3 (exact average of Top 25) if you replace Bosch and Kalis with Bryant and Miller. Even as is, there are about 1/3 of the teams in Top 25 who have equivalent or younger (in a few cases, SIGNIFICANTLY younger) offensive lines. I really don't think lack of experience explains away how Akron and UConn DT's pushed our OL around.
Complete List of Offensive Line Starters in AP Top 25
|Michigan||LT||Taylor Lewan||2009||RS SR||4.5||2.8|
|Michigan||C||Graham Glasgow||2012||RS SO||2.5|
|Michigan||RG||Kyle Kalis||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|Michigan||RT||Michael Schofield||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Alabama||LG||Arie Kouandjio||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Alabama||C||Ryan Kelly||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Alabama||RG||Anthony Steen||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Alabama||RT||Austin Shepherd||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|FSU||LT||Cameron Erving||2010||RS JR||3.5||3.4|
|FSU||C||Bryan Stork||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Oregon||LT||Tyler Johnstone||2011||RS SO||2.5||3.4|
|Oregon||LG||Mana Greig||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Oregon||C||Hroniss Grasu||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Oregon||RG||Hamani Stevens||2008||RS JR||3.5|
|Ohio||LT||Jack Mewhort||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.9|
|Ohio||C||Corey Linsley||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Ohio||RG||Marcus Hall||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Stanford||LG||David Yankey||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Stanford||C||Khalil wilkes||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Stanford||RG||Kevin Danser||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Stanford||RT||Cameron Fleming||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Baylor||LT||Spencer Drango||2011||RS SO||2.5||3.7|
|Baylor||LG||Cyril Richardson||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Baylor||C||Stefan Huber||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Baylor||RG||Desmine Hilliard||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Baylor||RT||Kelvin Palmer||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Clemson||LT||Brandon Thomas||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.5|
|Clemson||LG||Kalon Davis||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Clemson||C||Ryan Norton||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Clemson||RG||Tyler Shatley||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Clemson||RT||Shaq Anthony||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Missouri||LT||Justin Britt||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.4|
|Missouri||LG||Mitch Hall||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Missouri||RG||Max Copeland||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Missouri||RT||Mitch Morse||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Auburn||LT||Greg Robinson||2011||RS SO||2.5||2.5|
|Auburn||LG||Alex Kozan||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|Auburn||RG||Chad Slade||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Oklahoma||LT||Tyrus Thompson||2010||RS JR||3.5||3.8|
|Oklahoma||LG||Adam Shead||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Oklahoma||C||Gabe Ikard||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Oklahoma||RT||Daryl Williams||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Miami||LG||Jon Feliciano||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Miami||C||Shane McDermott||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|South Carolina||LT||Corey Robinson||2010||RS JR||3.5||2.9|
|South Carolina||LG||AJ Cann||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|South Carolina||C||Cody Waldrop||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|South Carolina||RG||Ronald Patrick||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|South Carolina||RT||Brandon Shell||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|LSU||C||Elliott Porter||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|LSU||RG||Trai Turner||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|LSU||RT||Jerald Hawkins||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|Oklahoma State||LT||Parker Graham||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.9|
|Oklahoma State||LG||Brandon Webb||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Oklahoma State||C||Jake Jenkins||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Oklahoma State||RG||Chris Grisbhy||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Oklahoma State||RT||Daniel Koenig||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Texas A&M||LT||Jake Matthews||2010||RS JR||3.5||2.8|
|Texas A&M||LG||Jarvis Harrison||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Texas A&M||C||Mike Matthews||2012||SO||2|
|Texas A&M||RG||Germain Ifedi||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|Texas A&M||RT||Cedric Ogbuehi||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Fresno State||LT||Austin Wentworth||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.4|
|Fresno State||LG||Alex Fifita||2012||SO||2|
|Fresno State||C||Lars Bramer||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Fresno State||RG||Cody Wichmann||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Fresno State||RT||Justin Northern||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Michigan State||LT||Donovan Clark||2011||RS SO||2.5||3.3|
|Michigan State||LG||Blake Treadwell||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Michigan State||C||Travis Jackson||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Michigan State||RG||Dan France||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Michigan State||RT||Jack Conklin||2012||RS FR||1.5|
|Northern Illinois||LT||Tyler Loos||2010||RS JR||3.5||3.5|
|Northern Illinois||LG||Aidan Conlon||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Northern Illinois||C||Andrew Ness||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Northern Illinois||RG||Jeared Volk||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Northern Illinois||RT||Matt Krempel||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|UCLA||C||Jake Brendel||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|UCLA||RT||Torian White||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Louisville||C||Jake Smith||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Louisville||RG||Kmran Joyer||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Louisville||RT||Ryan Mack||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|UCF||LT||Torrian Wilson||2010||RS JR||3.5||3.7|
|UCF||C||Joey Grant||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|UCF||RT||Chris Martin||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Arizona State||LT||Evan Finkenberg||2009||RS SR||4.5||3.7|
|Arizona State||LG||Jamil Douglas||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Arizona State||C||Kody Koebensky||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Arizona State||RG||Vi Teofilo||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Arizona State||RT||Tyler Sulka||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Notre Dame||LT||Zack Martin||2009||RS SR||4.5||3|
|Notre Dame||LG||Chris Watt||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Notre Dame||C||Nick Martin||2011||JR||3|
|Notre Dame||RG||Steve Elmer||2013||FR||1|
|Notre Dame||RT||Ronnie Stanley||2012||SO||2|
|Wisconsin||LT||Tyler Marz||2011||RS SO||2.5||3.5|
|Wisconsin||LG||Ryan Groy||2009||RS SR||4.5|
|Wisconsin||C||Dallas Lewallen||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Wisconsin||RG||Kyle Costigan||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Wisconsin||RT||Rob Havenstein||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Texas Tech||LT||Le'Raven Clark||2011||RS SO||2.5||2.9|
|Texas Tech||LG||Alfredo Morales||2011||RS SO||2.5|
|Texas Tech||C||Jared Kaster||2012||SO||2|
|Texas Tech||RG||Beau Carpenter||2010||RS JR||3.5|
|Texas Tech||RT||Rashad Fortenberry||2009||SR||4|
Never mind -- beaten.
Lost in the discussion of youth is the fact that we had three fifth year seniors last year who played somewhat poorly, two of whom were returning starters that clearly regressed from where they were before. This was written off entirely to Barnum and Omameh not being good natural pullers. It was widely if not universally accepted that the offensive line would be better this year because we had guys more naturally suited to run power plays. Specically, pulling. Hasn't happened.
You have a range of expectations with every player each year. Barnum, Miller, Omameh, Mealer, Kalis, Bryant, and Glasgow -- out of those 7 guys, the only ones whose performance the past couple of years hasn't been at the rock bottom of the range of expectations is Glasgow. Everyone else has fallen short of reasonable expectations that take into account experience, recruiting accolades, and natural fit. Every one of those guys, incidentally, has some excuse that exists on the periphery. i.e. "he's young, he was only a 3* guy, etc". Those excuses are valid to a point, but they only get you so far. -44 yards rushing against Michigan State with an endless string of sacks and QB hurries is catastrophic underachievement, no matter how many returning starts our interior line has. That's the one positive that comes out of this game -- it was so decisively terrible that you can't accept youth as anything other than a small part of the problem.
Look at Auburn 2012.
|Auburn||LT||Greg Robinson||2011||RS FR||1.5||2.2|
|Auburn||RG||Chad Slade||2010||RS SO||2.5|
They put up 108 yards running but were shutout against Bama. They went 3-9.
Well sure SEC schedule vs Big Tehhhnnn!
Maybe, I just need to get to: It is what it is. We'll probably win a few more games - maybe 8-4 or 9-3 - and that is quite an accomplishment given what the coaches have to work with. Next year will be a trial of patience as well (we'll look a lot like Auburn above). 2015 improves but Shane's 1st year starting. And hey, there is always the stacked 2016 team!
Breathe in, breathe out .... relax ...
And that's probably the answer to "why is Alex Kozan so good?" It's got to be easier to figure things out when you're playing alongside four returning starters.
experience. I found this chart without looking too hard. Phil Steele seems to know is stuff pretey well and according to his research we have the 73rd rankled O line based on games started. Check this out: http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2013/JUN13/DBJune08.html
Seriously? Do you see who is lower than us? Here are just a few...
#109 Oklahoma State
#119 Texas Tech
You seriously think this is the best measure?
We're all looking at the same raw data, but drawing different conclusions (or at least roughly falling into two distinct camps). A lot depends on what methodolgy we want to apply to the data, and what additional information to include or exclude, but in the end, it doesn't seem to have changed anyone's mind (though I could be mistaken on this). For me the data confirms what I suspected: youthfulness (and lack of experience) is likely a huge part of Michigan's offensive woes.
That is because you are using a completely subjective criteria (aka "youthfulness"). When you are using a subjective criteria, you can interpret it however way you want it to fit your preconceived notion.
I am using an objective criteria (average class). Based on that, Michigan ranks somewhere just below average. We can argue whether or not that objective criteria is the correct one to use, but I am using an objective criteria, not subjective.
According to what can be considered fairly flawed "objective data", Michigan is ranked 23 out of the 26 teams listed, in a data set that is fairly significantly negatively skewed. Even by your calculations that are set to make Michigan look closer to average, they are no where near it.
So despite the fact that the OL is really only as strong as it's weakest link (or weakest links), a despite the fact that you learn a significant amount from year one to year two and playing year one to playing year two, and despite that your data puts too much emphasis on the strengths of an OL, it still proves that Michigan is quite young. You can say "but it's only .5 away from average" and "but there are n other teams that are within a close amount", but with a data set that only ranges from 3.9 to an extreme outlier at 2.2, and is extremely negatively skewed, well, it looks to me like Michigan is relatively young.
If you learn a significant amount in your first year on campus, why is a guy like Kalis so damn bad? If you learn a ton over the first year playing, why are they not really getting any better? It's not like it's magic and at the end of the season they level up, so why, 8 games into the season, do none of them have the slightest clue what to do with a MLB blitz?
Not when the sample data is this small. Standard deviation on this data is 0.45. It would be well within statistics standard to say that .5 away is close.
Michigan is tied for 22nd in your objective criterion. You say that's "somewhere just below average"; I'd call it "somewhere just off the bottom."
Well, you could, but you would be wrong.
I guess I never read the o.p. that carefully. But
Yes, they are younger than average at 2.8, but would be 3.3 (exact average of Top 25) if you replace Bosch and Kalis with Bryant and Miller.
is the kind of thing you cannot do in a study like this unless you're going to do it with every single team. You're comparing Michigan's five oldest with everyone else's actual starting line.
What would Notre Dame's number be if you replace Stanley and Elmer with Heggie and Hanratty? What would LSU be if you replace Turner and Hawkins with Fanaika and Washington? What happens to the overall average if you do this with everyone? And why do you care--do you really want to compare bench players and not actual starters? (Other people have argued that the quality/experience of the players beaten out is important, but I didn't think you had.)
It makes it look like you're deliberately trying to twist the data to fit your conclusion. You went to an awful lot of effort to collect the data in the first place; it's a shame to treat it that way.
But Miller did start, and I didn't use 3.3, did I?
You did use the argument. And you don't know who might have started at some point in the season for other teams. And Bryant didn't start.
Forget the "looks like" in my earlier statement. You're making a convincing case that it's eactly what you're doing--you decided in advance what the result needed to be and you're flailing for arguments in favor.
Thanks for your work. In retrospect, moving Scholfield (back) to guard might have helped. At least you'd get some better play out of the interior line and wouldn't have the three weakest links together in the middle. Since Mags is playing anyway, he could've been at his apparent longer term spot and you might have been able to help him more by putting a TE next to him (of course I'm not sure our TEs would be much help).
Thanks for fixing the data!
People hate average, and they have a point. Lewan getting a 100% grade (no MA/MM all season, all blocks ending in his defender on the ground) does nothing to stop the nose from penetrating. So, average is flawed. BUT, it is probably the best way to do any sort of comparative study.
My problem is your scale. True freshmen have no experience. At all. Start them at 0, not 1. Also, true sophomores are generally a lot better than red shirt freshmen, as by the time their second year rolls around, the sophomore has played (hence no red shirt) and so, has been coached up much more. People that red shirt get very little individual coaching in the framework of the offense. While the others are being coached running plays, they are running the scout team, where a the coach running them through the paces is a defensive guy.
Fr = 0
RsFr - .5
So - 1.5
RsSo - 1
Jr - 2
RsJr - 2
Sr - 3
5Sr - 3
I honestly have no idea what this would do to the data. But this makes sense to me, as the red shirt year is simply not as valuable as a year spent having played. So, a freshman starts at 0, as he has no experience. A RsFr gets .5 for having gone through a year of conditioning and getting mental reps, but not a full 1 because he hasn't played. A So gets a 1.5 because he has presumably spent a year playing, whereas the RsSo gets a 1 because, while he is a year older, he might not have played, whereas someone that has burned a red shirt has definitely played. After that, the numbers become equal regardless of redshirt status. They players are far enough from it to have any sort of real difference. They are now upperclassmen with at least 2 years of real coaching (again, the redshirt year isn't really about coaching, at least during the season).
I think this would give a more realistic picture if you are going to use average (and I think its fine). Its a way to weigh playing time properly without relying strictly on number of starts. At a certain point, starts approach a point of diminishing returns. 5 starts are way better than 0. 20 starts are way better than 5. 35 starts are probably not much better than 20. You probably have approached your peak.
Long story really short: a So. should be worth more than a RsSo. Just because, by not having been redshirted, they have definitely played, whereas a RsSo may not have a single snap under his belt.