this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
- Member for
- 6 years 28 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 years 42 weeks ago||They also don't include||
They also don't include home-field advanatge in their projections. I don't understand that philosophy.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||How capable is MSU of||
How capable is MSU of containing our offense? It seems like they have personnel suited to handle traditional pro-set and power offenses. But, I'm not sure if they have enough athletes that can succeed in space.
ND was the offense that gave them the most trouble this year. Last year, the 3 Big Ten rushing offenses that gave them the most trouble (in terms of yards per carry) was Penn State, Purdue and Illinois. Or, in other words, 3 offenses that liked to spread defenses out from the shotgun on a consistent basis.
Similar to our defenses under Lloyd, I kind of wonder if MSU has players and a scheme that fits very well against traditional offenses. But, once they play a spread team and/or a team with a mobile QB, their defense will get shredded.
Is there a chance that there is some validity to my theory, or am I just being a blatant homer? Probably a bit of both?
|4 years 42 weeks ago||How predictive is the type of||
How predictive is the type of data going forward? Do you know of any research on red zone offenses?
It would seem that red zone efficiency would be victim to small sample size issues. Its great in looking back and seeing how great we have been doing in this particular stat. But, how repeatable is this?
|4 years 42 weeks ago||"Starting field position for||
"Starting field position for the opposition after our kickoff remains at the 29 yard line (slightly better than average)."
Where do you get this data from? Link?
How about field position in general? I'd be interested to see what our average starting field position is on O and D and where that ranks nationally.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||Hard as it may be to believe,||
Hard as it may be to believe, we allowed 6.6 yards a play against Indiana last year. This year, we allowed 5.8. The total yardage is deceiving b/c of how many plays they ran. Some of that was b/c they didn't do a good enough job of getting off the field. The other part of that was that our offense didn't really have any time consuming drives. We either scored quick, or had to punt pretty quickly. I'd expect that Indiana probably has a better offense than they did last year and it could be argued that our defense played better against them this year than we had last year. That is one positive, I guess.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Scoring defense and scoring||
Scoring defense and scoring offense isn't necessarily reflective of the strengths of those 2 units. It includes a lot of other variables (special teams play, turnovers, average starting field position, number of plays a game for both sides of the ball, etc) that play a role. A team that prevents points at a premium rate may actually have a better offense and special teams unit than defensive unit.
For example, the offense may rarely turn the ball over, consistently drive the ball down the field and the special teams may consistently excel in hidden yardage and combine with the teams offense to give their defense much easier starting field position than the majority of defenses face. As a result, they would be expected to allow fewer points anyway. Additionally, the overall strength of a team could play a role. If a team is rarely trailing and often leads by a wide margin, then the opponent will likely have to become a one dimensional offense and throw much more often than they would prefer too. This will make it easier for the defense to defend and also play a role in the number of points they allow.
|5 years 37 weeks ago||How do you compute a pythag||
How do you compute a pythag record for football? Anyone know the formula?
|5 years 38 weeks ago||We have 23 scholarships to||
We have 23 scholarships to give out. 20 are currently verbal commitments. Cone and Patterson probably won't be back. Wright might not be either. That would give us 5-6 more to give out, at least. We should be able to sign 25 no problem, and have the ability to go up to as much as 28 if need be/if we want to.
|5 years 42 weeks ago||Great stuff. A weekly||
Great stuff. A weekly feature of this would be outstanding.
|5 years 43 weeks ago||So, maybe our defense is not||
So, maybe our defense is not as bad as is commonly perceived?
|5 years 43 weeks ago||Great, great stuff. I am||
Great, great stuff.
I am curious, though, on 2 things...
There has been new information coming out at Football Outsiders that suggests that QB's should take some blame for sacks. Why is that not part of your ranking for QB's?
And, catch rate is pretty constant to different receivers and the guys at Football Outsiders believe that targeted receivers should receive some of the blame for incomplete passes thrown their way. Why is that not part of your ranking for WR's?
I'm just curious more than anything. It sounds like you come from a sabermetric background and that goes against new saber research on football.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||http://www.advancednflstats.c|
|5 years 44 weeks ago||why would he? He doesn't||
why would he? He doesn't coach anymore and he can still add victories to his career win total.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||fumble recoveries are random,||
fumble recoveries are random, though. B/c of that, I think all fumbles need to be calculated in the formula and not just lost ones.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||This is true to an extent,||
This is true to an extent, and no one stat will tell the whole story. But, at least in the NFL, catch rate is pretty consistent for receivers regardless of the QB. I imagine that translates pretty well to college, as well.
Perhaps there should be a category that looks at Matthews difficult catches, but there should also be a category that looks at the amount of incomplete passes thrown his way.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||It could be argued that||
It could be argued that Moosman is our best lineman. We need to get him back and healthy for the State game, at the latest.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||Bingo. Catch rate, yards per||
Bingo. Catch rate, yards per attempt while thrown in a CB's direction, TD's allowed, etc. are also more telling than tackles, INT's and PBU.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||that becomes subjective,||
that becomes subjective, though.
I guess a "hands rating" could be needed. Catch rate, in general, is a good stat for WR's.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||small sample size is a||
small sample size is a problem in the early going. The glitches get sorted out as the year wears on.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||So, essentially, the trouble||
So, essentially, the trouble is finding out what values to give to touchdowns. I think sacks should also be discounted for b/c new info is coming out that suggests that QB's have a lot more ability to avoid sacks than we originally thought/is commonly believed. I think setting up a team for a FG try should also be included (not sure how that would be possible to account for, though).
Other things... we would need to account for the strength of the defense the QB played and the drops his WR's had.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||I think a cool feature would||
I think a cool feature would be to add like a "stats" tab and keep a running track of a player's +- throughout the year.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||If there have been any||
If there have been any studies done on the importance of touchdowns, first downs, yards per completions, etc. and the potential penalties that come with interceptions and negative yardage through sacks then that would make any formula that much better. Otherwise, throwing random numbers in there to multiply things by in any formula is a cause for it to be picked apart.
If anyone is familiar with sabermetric thinking in baseball, then what I would propose is a formula similar to the one used for wOBA. Find out how much a touchdown contributes to a win, or first downs, or yards per completion and how much interceptions contribute to a loss, etc. and then calculate a formula off that. It is certainly possible, but it would take a lot of research.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||I had 6-6 as our floor, with||
I had 6-6 as our floor, with 9-3 as our ceiling. Split the difference and I had us at 7-5 or 8-4 depending on injuries, random variance/good luck or bad luck. I'm going to stick with 8-4 going forward. I thought we'd beat ND before the year so that game did not change my expectations much.
The key is going to be Tate's health/development, and limiting injuries on the defensive side of the ball.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||One thing to look for this||
One thing to look for this year with regards to underclassmen is a lot more of them leaving with the uncapped 2010 NFL season and the potential rookie salary limit in 2011. If Warren is close to first round status, he may take a chance to cash in on the last opportunity that NFL rookies will have the capability to do so.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||I think this could be another||
I think this could be another flaw in the stat, then. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like they threw some random numbers together to multiply by.
One of my favorite stats for baseball is wOBA. It looks at mounds of historical data and applied values to walks, HR's, singles, etc. based on how important they are for a hitter in creating runs. If similar research could be done and assign appropriate numbers to short completions/long completions, or interceptions or touchdown passes or the amount of yards thrown for, etc. then I think the stat would be much improved.
Just in general, I think there is a need for more advanced stats in CFB. It would be much harder to do than baseball b/c of how complex football is but I do think the Football Outsiders have done a good job so far with NFL data. Catch rate, for example, appears to be a good advanced stat for receivers. It is hard to design stats for offensive lineman, but rush yards in their general direction/sacks allowed/pancake blocks/percentage of times not allowing a sack could be a place to start for a possible formula. Corners and safeties allowing catches in their zones could be analyzed, in addition to their pass breakups, int's, tackles/missed tackles. A running back's ability to block is probably able to be quantified in some way. In addition, breaking tackles/yards after contact, yards per carry, "long runs," consistent positive yardage, touchdowns, fumbles, catch rate, etc. could be a place to start for a potential formula for a RB. For D Lineman, you would need to look at how many yards were allowed rushing in their general direction, pass hurries, sacks, tipped balls, how many times they were pancaked, tackles for loss, etc. For linebackers, missed tackles/tackles in open space could probably be quantified. I guess you could also look at how many rush yards were accumulated in their zone on a particular play/ pass yards were accumulated in their zone per play. There would probably also be a way to factor in what player they were assigned to cover during a particular way, and you could apply all that to a formula with tackles for loss, tipped balls, assisted and unassisted tackles, interceptions, fumbles caused, etc.
Just thinking out loud and rambling. I do think, eventually, stats will be taken to the next level in football.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||How did they come up with||
How did they come up with those exact numbers to multiply in the formula. Example: why is a touchdown pass multiplied by 330 and not 430? Why are yards multiplied by 8.4? Etc...
|5 years 45 weeks ago||If there are no rate stats||
If there are no rate stats included in the formula, like yards per completion, or yards per attempt, etc. then that is an incredibly flawed stat.
There was an article on Football Outsiders that showed a statistically significant correlation between rate stats and future success. If the passing efficiency rating only looks at cumulative stats then it is an even worse stat than I already thought it was.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||Pass efficiency is not the be||
Pass efficiency is not the be all-end all stats for QB's like it is sometimes used as.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||Tip of the cap to ya, Chris.||
Tip of the cap to ya, Chris.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||Not gonna lie... there||
Not gonna lie... there passing game is the real deal. Clausen has an NFL arm and some electrifying playmakers on the outside with a veteran o-line. They are going to light up the scoreboard quite a bit this year.
I'm taking ND over MSU.