Gandalf the Maize
- Member for
- 3 years 16 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Taking each teams YPPA against is a really good idea. Well played.
- I think we might expect a downward slope even when teams' YPPA is taken into account, since 3 of our first 4 games are against crappy teams from crappy conferences. We would expect to outpace CMU and Akron's opponents in terms of YPP, while the same expectation might not be there for Nebraska or Northwestern's opponents. This would lead to the early data points being high on the graph causing to a natural downward trend.
- Somebody so inclined could test this by looking how many other BIG teams also see a regression in YPP when YPPA is accounted for. If 1/2 the teams regress while 1/2 improve, then we're really looking bad. If 80% of the teams regress, it probably is in part due to scheduling early season cream puffs. Free diary here, get it while it's hot!
- Any chance we can see how whether we regressed the past two years as well? You know, as long as you don't have anything better to do. If the regression is an every season thing, that's...suboptimal.
- 1,913 words
- Hennechart: 19 DO, 4 CA, 5 IN, 2 BR, 2 TA, 1 BA
- 11,253 words
- Devinchart: 5 DO, 21 CA, 3 MA, 5 IN, 6 BR, 1 TA, 2 BA, 6 PR, 4 SCR
- Pre-Borges: 57% comp, 6.2 YPA, 2.1 interception %
- Borges 1: 55% comp, 7.0 YPA, 3.7 interception %
- Borges 2: 58% comp, 9.1 YPA, 3.3 inteception %
- Post-Borges: 53% comp, 7.1 YPA, 1.8 inteception %
|3 years 11 weeks ago||Yeah, I figured it was taken||
Yeah, I figured it was taken into account. And you're right that I was thinking just of Coaches / AP rankings not KenPom. But still, man. Can you imagine a top five football team ever being a dog to an unranked team, even on the road? Just surprised about either (a) how much of an effect homecourt has in bball or (b) how much more parity there is across college bball.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||Does anyone else think it's||
Does anyone else think it's nuts that an unranked team can be favored over the #1 team in the country in Kenpom rankings? Not nuts like it's incorrect, but nuts that this actually seems semi-reasonable? Homecourt advantage is ROUGH in college bball.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||DNak attack!This is really||
This is really helpful. Depressing, but informative. I was hoping that the downward slope would be consistent across all the BIG teams. I shudder to think of what your line would look like if we didn't go ham in the last game.
IME this is the issue to consider when debating the future of Gorgeous Al. I'm sure there are mitigating factors. The experience stuff I did suggests that youth probably plays a significant role, especially with our young interior line. Personnel is probably a big part of it too.
My main point: These mitigating factors influence season averages of things like YPP, YPC, YPA, and sack percentage when compared to other BIG teams. They shouldn't, however, play a role in determining the slope of the intraseason progress lines you're producing. If anything, we should expect to improve more than other programs over the course of a year because of our youth, since younger players can be expected to improve more than older players.
If I were Davey B., this is the thing I'd be looking at.* I don't care that our YPC this year was 3.07 and the BIG average was 4.5 (actually no clue). All I want to see is improvement. It's not like we're starting from an elite point where the only place to go is down. Unfortunately, I just don't see it with Alan "Al" Borges. I hope I'm wrong.
* I'm not Davey B., and even as Gandalf I have no control over the affairs of the athletic department. So this really doesn't matter. It's just the 16,000th opinion on the subject.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||Agree that DB stats are dumb||
I'm surprised that "yards per attempt against" and "completion percentage against" isn't a standard metric for DBs. I agree that INTs and PBUs are pretty meaningless. It doesn't seem like it'd take much extra work to calculate these stats. It's like judging a QB just on the number of TDs he throws; it tells you something, but only a fraction of what some slightly more advanced stats tell you.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||It's really helpful to have||
It's really helpful to have all the one-score games compiled like this. If anything, I think this suggests that our record pretty accurately reflects the way we've been playing. As a guesstimate, I'm assuming we shoud win about 60% of one-score games due to usually having a slight talent advantage (at least based on recruiting star levels).
If we saw Hoke or RR was something like 11-1 or 2-10 in one score games, I'd say that we were particularly lucky or unlucky, and that maybe our overall record doesn't really reflect how well we were playing.
But Hoke is 9-7, and RR was 7-7 in the one-score games compiled here. This seems to be just about right. It's easy to just look at the ones that didn't go our way and think we were a couple plays away from greatness, but this year we were equally close to 2008 levels. Nice to put some numbers behind those gut feelings though. Thanks, Brhino.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||From what I've read, plasmas||
From what I've read, plasmas are great for darker areas (e.g., a basement), but you'd probably want to go LED or LCD if it's in a room that gets a lot of light. I'm sure some people have strong feelings about it, but IME I think they all have pretty sweet pictures.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Yeah that's a good point.||
Yeah that's a good point. Talent levels would probably look more like RR's tenure. Not bad, and better than Indiana, but not where they are now. You're right that some of the attraction of Michigan is the pro-style offense.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||No problem, glad you enjoyed||
No problem, glad you enjoyed it! I agree that it'd be useful to look at RB experience/talent, especially with the way our RBs seem to get blown up running and passing the ball.
Fitz gets destroyed in pass protection and he's a senior. But so do the young guys and they're, well, young. I guess that's why the large FBS-wide analyses are useful, since they can help point a general finger towards either youth, talent, or bad coaching being the problem.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Any idea if Indiana's OC is||
Any idea if Indiana's OC is the guy responsible for their up tempo offense? Or is it Kevin Wilson? Either way it looks AWESOME, and if it is their OC, surely we could poach him. Running that kind of offense with our talent (star rating-wise) would be interesting to see.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Yeah, I agree that salary's a||
Yeah, I agree that salary's a pretty poor proxy. Tough to measure "talent" though without it being tautological. I was just trying to think of ways to to explain teams' best OLs playing LT, and I thought one reason might be because that is what preps them to become the best pros (i.e., LT is the most important position in the pros).
I was thinking of the Lawrence Taylor thing too, but any idea if there has ever been a quantitative study on where most QB injuries come from? I was really suprised that sacks tend to correlate the best with the interior of the line, so I wonder if a few anecdotal weak side hits have somewhat entrenched this as a fact. No idea how you'd prove it without some serious work, but it's interesting to think about.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||I'm trying to think through||
I'm trying to think through this, and I'm still not sure I quite have my head wrapped around it. I mean I get that survivorship exists. But my initial reaction though is that this would actually decrease the r-squared that we get when we look at experience and success, meaning that there are probably a good number of freshman and sophomores in there because they're good and not because they have to be. If they're good they should help produce more YPC or fewer sacks, and if younger people are producing fewer sacks or more YPC, then that should lessen the correlation that we see.
Interesting analogy to the Bill James stuff. I think that's essentially what we see with a lot of the freshmen who are starting. Reflecting on this, I think that perhaps the best metric for experience along the o-line might be the oldest person on the 2-deep at a given position. So if Bosch is backed up by Bryant, the position gets a 2.5 (RS Soph) instead of 1.0 (FR).
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Yeah, all else being equal, I||
Yeah, all else being equal, I think this would say would should improve on the line despite losing some good tackles. There are enough Michigan-specific factors that it's really impossible to say with any certainty, but I'd be the experience on the interior helps us more than losing the tackles hurts us. One can hope, right?
|3 years 13 weeks ago||I think I get what you're||
I think I get what you're saying. Basically that older o-linemen are better not because they are older, but because they are just more talented or lucky (and thus fend of younger guys). I guess it's possible that this influences the results to some extent. But shouldn't that survivorship bias show up at the tackle position as well as the interior?
Also is there evidence showing that mutual fund managers don't get better with experience? It seems logical to me that OL would get better with experience, and so if mutal fund managers don't and OL do, then I'm not sure the analogy applies.
And it's certainly possible that outliers drive some of the trends. I would tend to doubt it with the fairly large sample sizes. But it's possible.
Honestly, I've beaten the dead horse about as much as I care to. But I'd be interested in seeing the results if you carry out your proposed study. Not sure how you would measure "how good" an OL was after year 1 or 2 and then "how good" they are now.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Nice work, Mr. Utah. Have you||
Nice work, Mr. Utah. Have you thought about trying to visualize the data in a graph of some sort? Might help your argument come across even stronger. Thanks for the expanded look at youth though. I know it's kinda beating a dead horse, but it's also nice to have some reason for optimism.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||This is really interesting!||
This is really interesting! Thanks to everyone who's done the comparative / contextual work as well. That stuff really helps. My gut reaction is that things aren't that bad...except for the last four games where things have COMPLETELY FALLEN APART. With cupcakes excised we've still got more above the break even line.
Is it encouraging that we're still generally above the line? Or discouraging that the second of this season is a tire fire? I don't know. Both?
Does anyone else just wonder why we couldn't have RichRod but with a Mattison DC? Beating a dead horse, I know, but man. I mean there's a decent change RR and BH end up with the same record in year 3, except RR was trending up after getting his own players and BH is trending down after doing the same. Why can't we have nice things?
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Interesting AND depressing!||
Interesting AND depressing! Nice combo. A couple thoughts...
|3 years 13 weeks ago||This is the best thing about||
This is the best thing about rooting for the bball team. I mean we lost, and we're probably the better team, and it sucks. But Beilein's history shows that over the time the coaches will adjust, the players will develop, and the team will improve.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||What do you think?||
What do you think?
|3 years 14 weeks ago||The very first UFR||
The very first Upon Further Review. (Offense vs. NIU 2005)
Most recent offensive UFR (vs Northwestern)
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Hey Brian from 2006. Somebody||
Hey Brian from 2006. Somebody linked to this in one of the threads and I noticed it didn't have any comments! Great post and great game. I really liked what the defense was able to accomplish. Tell them to look out for OSU at the end of the year though, that one looks like it might be a shootout.
Also, did you know that four years from when you posted this that our offense will be putting up crazy yards while our defense sits around eating baloney? And three years after that our offense will put up negative rushing yards multiple times in the season, but our defense will be quite solid? Ahh the pendulum of time.
How do I know this? I'm a WIZARD.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Do not take me for some||
Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks!
The story of my MGoPoints began long ago. Back in the haloscan days, to be exact, when a one sentence update was all you would get about a 5* DE commitment. Ah, to be young again! Of course I wasn't Gandalf the Maize back then, merely Gandalf the Blue. I wandered far and wide in those days, encountering things more horrifying than one dares to imagine in the current age: the Horror, Armageddon, GERG. It was only when I was able to sublimate these terrors to enhance their antipodal highs - 100th game, UTL I, Denard - that the transformation was complete. But I digress...
Actually, our rushing woes led me put together a study on how o-line experience correlated with run game success. I wanted to post it as a diary but had no points. So I sent a raven to Brian, and he gifted me my first hundred so I could post. Misopogon ended up selecting me as the diarist of the week, and in addition to solidifying the new greatest moment in my life, I think he gave me like 200 points as a reward.
The rest of the story can be found in the Silmarillion, but perhaps those tales are best left for another day...
|3 years 14 weeks ago||+1 insightful||
Thanks Mr. Carson! The winged hat helps people identify me when they look to my coming on the first light of the fifth day.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||This is good shizz! Really||
This is good shizz! Really interesting study; it's nice to put Kalis' development in perspective. Even as a five star you're more likely to never start a game than you are to become an All-American. Probably wouldn't have guessed that. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Lindley Stats||
I think I would give Borges a positive here for QB development considering the increased YPA, despite the fact that completion percentage stays about the same and interception percentage increases slight from pre-Borgesian times. Brian did mention he had a full time QB coach at SDSU, so make of that what you will. Thanks for pointing this out.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||The question of whether||
The question of whether Gorgeous Al has a track record of developing quarterbacks is a really important one. My first thought is that it should receive a bit more treatment in a post of its own, but with all that bouncing around it sounds like it's difficult to say too much.
The guy's been a D1 OC for 20 years if you include Boise State in the early 1990s (which was actually D1-AA at the time), and we have all of 3 data points for whether his quarterbacks improve. McNown = yes, Cox = no, Paus = maybe. If you include Denard and Devin then that's probably 2 more in the "no" pile.
My 2 cents?
Cent 1 - It's not the smartest thing to hire someone who has bounced around so much because it's really difficult to tell whether they're (a) good at long term development, (b) good when taking people by surprise (i.e., before the rest of the conference gets wise to them), (c) come into good situations, or (d) just aren't very good. I realize this is hard to do in big time college football, because programs constantly take fliers on people who have shown success after two or three years so there aren't many people around at lower level schools who have demonstrated long terms success.
Cent 2 - I'd bring in a dedicated QB coach with a track record of QB development even if it's at lower levels. No clue about the number of assistant coaches you can have, but this seems like a way to potentially improve the situation in future seasons without the risk of mixing things up too much (e.g., if you fired the OC).
|3 years 14 weeks ago||I hope you're referring to||
I hope you're referring to changing your name. But either way I think the results should prove interesting.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Great stuff, Misopogon||
I'm with you in "we should be spreading the field out because we can't block" department. My initial thought was wondering whether this trend held up all season, but you mentioned that'd be too time consuming. I was thinking of this as an alternative...
Could you look at YPP, YPA, YPC, and Run% for 2 wides, 3 wides, and 4 wides for the season? I'm thinking you might be able to pull that from the UFR data. I know someone looked at YPP from all the different formations, but in a sense I think that's a bit under-aggregated. This might also help isolate the causal variable as Dileo vs the formation.
Also, have you thought about changing your name to Misopogon in real life? That would be awesome.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||+1 humorous -1 unfortunate||
|3 years 14 weeks ago||I don't think Yeoman's||
I don't think Yeoman's arguing that experience is the only factor that governs offensive success, just that it plays a small role. Do you think this is wrong? And if so, do you have any multivariate data that lacks suppressors, has only invariable interactions, nonspurious effects, and demonstrably reliable independent and dependent variables to back up this assertion? Obviously if there are specific errors or biases those should be corrected, but just calling it useless seems a bit harsh and unproductive.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Interesting stuff. I like the||
Interesting stuff. I like the comparison between the deviation from baseline efficiency and experience/inexperience. I'm surprised that cuts the r-squared down so much. Also, I'm glad your basic look at experience and YPC produced the same results! That could have been embarrassing...