Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

By How Many Points Must Florida State Improve To Finish At Least 7-1 Or Better In The ACC?

This is a guest post by GraniteStateNole. 

This is the time of the year that we begin to turn our eyes to how we think FSU will do in the fall.

Every year, there are several among us who think that this is the year - FSU going to win all of its games - or maybe all but 1.  Others say, we may not be that successful but surely we're going to win the ACC or at least be in the ACC-CG.

We say that because, well, its spring and also because we feel good about the team.  The 'Noles have new coaches - especially on defense.  They have a potential Heisman winning QB returning and we expect the offense to again be special - but every team feels good about itself this time of the year.

One thing that we all have wondered about is how good will the defense be and if it improves - how many more wins might 'Nole fans expect.  For now, knowing how good the defense will be is strictly a matter of opinion.  But, it is possible to get an idea of how many more wins we might expect assuming particular degrees of improvement in the offense and/or the defense.

If you're not a numbers person, then this probably isn't for you.  You can however, skip ahead to the conclusions piece and perhaps get something out of this piece.

BILL JAMES AND EXPECTED WIN PERCENTAGE

Bill James is the father of sabremetrics in baseball.  If you don't know what that is - google it - but for the purposes of this post - lets just say that James excelled in manipulating statistics to reveal truths that were not evident with the old school stats like batting average or RBIs, etc.

One idea that James created was to figure out a team's projected win percentage based on runs scored and runs allowed.  James applied a version the Pythagorean Theorem to create an expected win percentage (EWP).

The formula is:  Expected WP (EWP) = (RS2) / (RS2 + RA2) where RS = runs scored and RA = runs allowed

So, if a team scored 64 runs and only allowed 29 (as Philadelphia has so far this season), then its expected WP would be .830 which is fairly close to Philly's current .875 winning percentage through 8 games.  Over the course of a larger sample size (162 games) the WP predictor is surprisingly accurate for most teams.  There are, however, occasionally teams that far exceed their EWP or fall far short of their EWP - these James attributed to simple variance (i.e. good luck, bad luck) and perhaps an ability to outperform in close games (perhaps the team has an exceptional closer, or perhaps they're stacked with HR hitters who can win a game with one swing).

APPLICATION TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL

We can apply the same formula to college football.  We do need to first understand that college football plays a much shorter season and so variance plays a bigger role.  Secondly, the nature of a football game is such that one big play can be decisive and because football awards different point values for different scoring types (7 points for a TD and 3 for a FG), the score in any particular game can overstate the actual competitiveness of that game.  Finally, the quality of opponents is more varied than in MLB (despite the existence of the Baltimore Orioles - there is no MLB equivalent to a Div II game).

Taking the last point first - one way to eliminate the problem of having vastly inferior opponents from skewing the data is to just confine our analysis to conference games only.  And in this case, I've chosen to focus first on just the ACC.  The ACC lends itself quite nicely to this analysis as it is a very balanced conference.

That makes the sample size smaller - so I'll look at 3 seasons of ACC play (2007 - 2009) which works out to 24 games for each team.  This is discussed later in this article.

Inside, we'll get into exactly what FSU needs to do.

Star-divide

Let's look at the data for last year 2009 for ACC play only.

Team

PS

PA

EWP

Actual Wins

Exp Wins

Delta

2009

UVA

123

216

0.245

2

1.96

0.04

2009

Duke

186

239

0.377

3

3.02

-0.02

2009

UNC

167

158

0.528

4

4.22

-0.22

2009

MIA

253

215

0.581

5

4.65

0.35

2009

VT

269

127

0.818

6

6.54

-0.54

2009

GT

261

180

0.678

7

5.42

1.58

2009

CLEM

268

169

0.715

6

5.72

0.28

2009

BC

174

196

0.441

5

3.53

1.47

2009

FSU

268

278

0.482

4

3.85

0.15

2009

WF

226

254

0.442

3

3.53

-0.53

2009

NCST

213

315

0.314

2

2.51

-0.51

2009

MD

161

222

0.345

1

2.76

-1.76

So, reading the first entry.  Based on UVA's points scored (PS) and points allowed (PA), UVA's Expected Winning Percentage (EWP) was .245.  They won 2 games last year.  Based on their .245 EWP, they should have won 1.96 games.  They "out-performed" their expected win total by 0.04 wins.  In other words, they performed almost exactly as we would have expected.

GT and BC were outperformers - each wining about 1.5 more games than their PS and PA predicted.  Perhaps it was just variance (i.e. luck).  Maryland on the other hand - should have won nearly 3 games in conference rather than the 1 that they did win.  MD was probably a better team than their ACC record gave them credit for (the advanced metrics certainly indicate that their defense was decent).

I did a similar analysis for the 2008 and 2007 seasons (I'll include those as reference at the end for those who want to glean through them).

HOW MUCH IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED TO WIN X NUMBER OF GAMES?

Next, I wanted to figure out - what EWP does a team need to have if they want to win say 7 ACC conference games.  Or 6 ?  Or 2?

So I compiled all the 7 win seasons in the ACC in this time frame.  Then all the 6 win seasons, etc. (There were no 8 win seasons from 2007-2009 in the ACC) and I calculated the EWP for those teams.  Here's the results:

ACC ('07-'09)

PS

PA

EWP

7 win

516

300

0.747

6 win

952

612

0.708

5 win

1642

1442

0.565

4 win

1616

1625

0.497

3 win

1036

1252

0.406

2 win

690

953

0.344

1 win

300

434

0.323

0 win

131

265

0.196

I probably should gather more data going back more years because you can see that there's not a lot of difference between the EWP needed to win 2 games vs. winning 1 game.  Suffice to say - if your EWP is in the .330 range - you're not going to win too many ACC games regardless.

So, it appears that if you want to go 7-1 in the ACC - you need to be around .750 EWP.  Fall a bit short (.700 EWP) and you're probably a 6-2 team, etc.  Not surprisingly - if your EWP is .500 you are most likely to win 4 of 8 games.

So, you're saying "so what?"  Why did you take us on this crazy trip?  Well, now that we know about where FSU needs performance to be to equate to a particular ACC win total - we can work backwards off of the PS and PA numbers to figure out how much improvement would be needed to reasonably believe that the 'Noles might win 7 games in the ACC.

HOW MUCH DOES FSU's DEFENSE NEED TO IMPROVE TO GET TO 7 ACC WINS?

These were FSU's stats from last year.  The 'Noles scored a pretty good 268 pts and gave up a pretty horrific 278 points in ACC play.  The 'Noles won about the number of games they should have won.  FSU's luck balanced out.

Team

PS

PA

EWP

Actual Wins

Exp Wins

Delta

2009

FSU

268

278

0.482

4

3.85

0.15

Assuming that the offense turned in the same stellar performance, how much better would the defense need to be to project to 7 ACC wins?  Well, we know that FSU's EWP needs to be about .750 and we know the 'Noles scored 268 points in 2009 and we're assuming that to be constant for a moment.  This is just math applying the same EWP calculation, only working backwards.

The answer is that the defense would need to give up about 156 points in that scenario.  The 'Noles would have to be 122 points better on defense (or about 15.25 ppg).  I think its fair to say that that is unlikely to happen (FSU would have to improve its PA by about 44%).

Now keep in mind that FSU could outperform.  Perhaps catch a lucky break or two .  The 'Noles could get to a record of 7-1 and NOT have an EWP as high as .750.  GT and BC we saw outperformed by 1.5 wins just last year.  Let's assume that Florida State WILL outperform by 1.5 wins - that would mean that FSU would need to project out to 5.5 wins in EW to project out to 7 actual wins.  5.5 wins equates to about an EWP of .636.  So now how much improvement on defense would it need to make (remember we're holding the offense constant for now)?  The answer is 202 points would do it.  FSU would have to be 76 points better on defense (that's still a hefty 27% improvement in PA).

Here's the table for FSU PS = 268 (same as in 2009):

ACC ('07-'09)

PS

PA

EWP

FSU needs

PA

7 win

516

300

0.747

155.8

6 win

952

612

0.708

172.3

5 win

1642

1442

0.565

235.4

4 win

1616

1625

0.497

269.5

3 win

1036

1252

0.406

323.9

2 win

690

953

0.344

370.2

1 win

300

434

0.323

387.7

0 win

131

265

0.196

542.1


WHAT IF THE OFFENSE IMPROVED?


But, what if the offense, as expected, improves?  Well, how much do you think it will improve?

From 2007 to 2008, FSU's PS improved by 16%.  From 2008 to 2009, it improved by 20%.  Can it improve by as much again?  Let's say that it does.  Let's say it improves by 20%.  So now, instead of having 268 points scored in ACC play, FSU scores 322 (i.e we average 40.25 (that's an enormous and almost certainly unattainable number seeing that the offense was already one of the best in the history of the conference)).

What defensive performance would reasonably get FSU to 7 wins in that scenario?  The answer is FSU would need to hold ACC opponents to 187 points.  For 6 wins, FSU would need to hold teams to 206 points.  And if the 'Noles make no improvement on defense in this scenario - FSU should still expect about 5 wins in ACC play.

Here's the chart for FSU PS = 322:

ACC ('07-'09)

PS

PA

EWP

FSU needs PA

7 win

516

300

0.747

186.6

6 win

952

612

0.708

206.4

5 win

1642

1442

0.565

281.9

4 win

1616

1625

0.497

322.8

3 win

1036

1252

0.406

387.9

2 win

690

953

0.344

443.4

1 win

300

434

0.323

464.4

0 win

131

265

0.196

649.4

CONCLUSION

So, I hope that helps put some of this in perspective.  FSU's defense needs to improve substantially if it is to have a good chance to win 7 games in ACC play.  Even a 7 ppg improvement on defense and a 20% improvement on offense only leaves the 'Noles at an EWP of .678, or about 5-6 wins in the ACC (unless the 'Noles outperform their expectations (get lucky)). 

So the next time that someone tells you that they think that FSU is going to win out in the ACC or even take 7 games  and go to the ACCCG - you'll know what's really required to get there in terms of team performance.  FSU needs to improve substantially and primarily on defense to accomplish that.  Certainly it can be done, but the improvement required is non-trivial.

BONUS:  WHAT ABOUT BEING IN THE NC HUNT?

For fun, what kind of performance is needed to be in the NC Hunt?  Well, here's a table of the Top 15 BCS schools from 2009 and the Top 10 from 2008 and their EWPs.  These are for conference games only.  I excluded non-BCS schools because I think their level of competition in conference is quite suspect.  Also note that Pac 10 teams played 9 conference games in this time frame and Big East teams only played 7 so their wins and expected wins need to be viewed in that light.

BCS Rank

Year

Team

PS

PA

WP

Wins

Exp Wins

Delta

1

2009

BAMA

208

85

0.857

8

6.86

1.14

2

2009

Texas

317

145

0.827

8

6.62

1.38

3

2009

UF

221

96

0.841

8

6.73

1.27

5

2009

OSU

222

101

0.829

7

6.63

0.37

7

2009

Iowa

174

129

0.645

6

5.16

0.84

8

2009

Cinn

266

159

0.737

7

5.16

1.84

9

2009

PSU

214

119

0.764

6

6.11

-0.11

11

2009

Oregon

375

204

0.772

8

6.94

1.06

14

2009

Nebraska

150

105

0.671

6

5.37

0.63

1

2008

UF

359

100

0.928

7

7.42

-0.42

3

2008

USC

325

80

0.943

8

8.49

-0.49

4

2008

Texas

329

180

0.770

7

6.16

0.84

5

2008

OU

441

246

0.763

7

6.10

0.90

6

2008

Bama

255

115

0.831

8

6.65

1.35

8

2008

PSU

271

109

0.861

7

6.89

0.11

9

2008

OSU

238

98

0.855

7

6.84

0.16

10

2008

Oregon

373

249

0.692

7

6.23

0.77

The above teams averaged an EWP of .807.  To be elite (i.e. in the Top 5), teams needed to average an EWP of .846.  Tellingly, only two teams in the above had PA approaching even 250 points in conference play.

One other point worth making - the two top EWP teams over the last two years were 2008 USC at .943 and 2008 Florida at .928 - both of those teams lost 1 conference game that year.  Which just goes to show you that the laws of variance are sometimes with you and sometimes against you.  So even if you reach a point where you should reasonably expect to be at 7 wins, if luck runs against you - you might find yourself at just 6 or even 5 wins.  Such is the nature of the game.

Here are the 2008 and 2007 ACC tables that I mentioned earlier.

2008 ACC EWP Table

Team

PS

PA

EWP

Actual Wins

Exp Wins

Delta

2008

UVA

125

143

0.433

3

3.47

-0.47

2008

Duke

139

212

0.301

1

2.41

-1.41

2008

UNC

184

169

0.542

4

4.34

-0.34

2008

MIA

219

220

0.498

4

3.98

0.02

2008

VT

151

138

0.545

5

4.36

0.64

2008

GT

180

156

0.571

5

4.57

0.43

2008

CLEM

166

134

0.605

4

4.84

-0.84

2008

BC

206

204

0.505

5

4.04

0.96

2008

FSU

223

176

0.616

5

4.93

0.07

2008

WF

133

144

0.460

4

3.68

0.32

2008

NCST

208

190

0.545

2

4.36

-2.36

2008

MD

127

175

0.345

4

2.76

1.24

2007 ACC EWP Table

Team

PS

PA

EWP

Actual Wins

Exp Wins

Delta

2007

UVA

202

151

0.642

6

5.13

0.87

2007

Duke

131

265

0.196

0

1.57

-1.57

2007

UNC

161

188

0.423

3

3.38

-0.38

2007

MIA

146

232

0.284

2

2.27

-0.27

2007

VT

255

120

0.819

7

6.55

0.45

2007

GT

160

173

0.461

4

3.69

0.31

2007

CLEM

230

149

0.704

5

5.64

-0.64

2007

BC

213

165

0.625

6

5.00

1.00

2007

FSU

192

174

0.549

4

4.39

-0.39

2007

WF

225

208

0.539

5

4.31

0.69

2007

NCST

144

248

0.252

3

2.02

0.98

2007

MD

194

180

0.537

3

4.30

-1.30

 

Bonus #2

Above I wrote:

Sometimes a team will far exceed its projection (perhaps the team has an exceptional closer, or perhaps they're stacked with HR hitters who can win a game with one swing).

The corollary in football might be a great kicker.  The 'Noles have a pretty good on in Dustin Hopkins and he improved as the season wore on. 

Bonus #3 (By Bud)

FSU gave up 278 points or 35 points per conference game last year, (or 5 touchdowns per game).  And the 'Noles ACC schedule is almost the same with the exception of one game:  FSU drops Georgia Tech (finally) for Virginia.  UVA's offense is pretty awful and Georgia Tech's is excellent.  FSU gave up 229 points in non-GTech conference games, or roughly 33 points per game. So what if, FSU could hold Virginia to 14 points rather than the 49 it gave up to Georgia Tech.  That would decrease the total from 278 to 243.  And what if, in the remaining conference games, FSU could allow one touchdown less per contest?  That would cut the point total in the non-GT conference games from 229 to 180.  Is that reasonable?  I don't know, but I do think it is reasonable to assume that no opposing offense will improve more than FSU's defense will. 

So, replace GTech with UVA, hold UVA to 14 points, and allow a touchdown less per game in the remaining 7 conference games, and FSU goes from allowing 278 points in conference to 194, an improvement of 30% in a single season!  That 30% improvement would put FSU at 6th in the conference, behind only 5 top-20 defenses. 

Then, because the defense is improved, the offense could score more points without improving its level of play, solely because it would benefit from better field position and more possessions.  If FSU could do all of the above and score one more touchdown per game, it would give itself about an even money shot to win 6 or 7 games.  It's not very realistic, but it's probably how it would work out if FSU were to win 7 games.

A big thanks to GraniteStateNole for this excellent column.

Comment 350 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Excellent piece

can’t wait to see someone again argue against the historical results, solid mathmatics, and rational logic/argument again with zero support and a “good fans expect to win every game” gibberish

EJ's response to his own role in 2010 Offense: "You still haven't seen what all (Ponder) can do."

by HerstyNole on Apr 27, 2010 9:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Love the baseball/football correlation

One critique though, I wouldn’t say Bill James “manipulated” statistics, but other than that it was a great piece

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 9:24 AM EDT reply actions  

Bad comparison, imo

Apples and Oranges. Football has a lot more varibles then baseball, like for instance, turnovers. There are no turnovers in MLB.

by Carryingaspearorrunningfromit on Apr 27, 2010 8:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

there are errors, which give an extra out, like a turnover gives an extra possession.

Regardless, they are obviously completely different sports and no one is arguing that, but the analysis can still be transferred.

>>>-----------;;;-->CP7 for Heisman>>>-----------;;;-->

by RollNole5 on Apr 27, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Atlantic

If you want to talk about just winning the Atlantic, you could probably get away with six conference wins. Every single year of its existence, the Atlantic winner went either 6-2 or 5-3.

At first glance, I didn’t buy the “kicker as HR hitter” comparison, but if you look at this chart it makes a lot more sense. Richard Jackson might have passed Spiller if he could make a few damn XPs. :-p

by OrangeBritches on Apr 27, 2010 9:26 AM EDT reply actions  

"despite the existence of the Baltimore Orioles - there is no MLB equivalent to a Div II game"

O’s fans have it hard enough. No need to kick us when we’re down. Plus, switch hitting Jesus is going to resurrect the franchise.

by Mr. Tito Carlos on Apr 27, 2010 9:27 AM EDT reply actions  

Wah Wah Wah...

Oriole fans crying…enuf!

It’s good to be a Rays fan.

"Bring back Fred Rouse--a true Nole"

by Randall W. Spetman on Apr 27, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Never thought I would see the day...

When someone would say that about the Rays.

by Jturner01 on Apr 27, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I dont know too many Os fans that cry about whats going on.

It sucks, but its been 12 years since they were any good. At this point its just accepting our fate, enjoying one of the nicest stadiums in baseball, and praying everything clicks one of these days. The only thing worse than being an Os fan right now is being a Pirates fan.

The Rays are a well-run franchise. I think Baltimore is trying to emulate that to a certain extent and rebuild from the ground up. Unfortunately it took 10 years of floundering to trigger the change.

by Mr. Tito Carlos on Apr 27, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Baltimore has some good young talent, and IMO probably would fare better

if not stuck in that division. They are underpeforming this year, though. They should be far better.

"Bring back Fred Rouse--a true Nole"

by Randall W. Spetman on Apr 27, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I love the O's and the sweep that will start tonight.

"Remember, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Except for Herpes. That s#!t will come back with you."

by Jamil Dawson on Apr 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ummm

Nevermind.

"Remember, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Except for Herpes. That s#!t will come back with you."

by Jamil Dawson on Apr 27, 2010 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Have you seen their roster?

Their record is indicative of their talent

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

This team isn't the worst in baseball

But you’re pretty much right. Even with a good core of Weiters, Jones, Reimold, and Matusz, the rest of the of the pitching staff – and the bullpen in particular – keep this team from being anything more than a 75 win squad. And thats being generous.

Trembley has to go. He hasnt helped any of the young players turn the corner.

by Mr. Tito Carlos on Apr 27, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wait a minute

There’s professional baseball? As in, people get paid to play baseball?

Who knew?

(I kid, I kid)

by Invictus13 on Apr 27, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sound familiar?
Unfortunately it took 10 years of floundering to trigger the change.

>-----:----:------>Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999

by FrankDNole on Apr 27, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hate to do this to you but...
The only thing worse than being an Os fan right now is being a Pirates fan.

Disagreed. Pirates don’t play in the AL east.

by l0stnumber on Apr 27, 2010 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

It is worse

That Pirates cant take advantage of a terrible division

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t agree entirely by the virtue that the O’s could have the 4th best team in the American League and not make the playoffs for years (or ever). What an absurdly hopeless feeling.

by l0stnumber on Apr 27, 2010 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Talked to an Orioles scout...

…at one of our baseball games vs. UVa and after he took a picture of my Orioles championship jacket, he told me to keep the faith and that he really thought we would be turning the corner soon. I told him I would believe it when I saw it. And so far, I still despair.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.

by mmmCheese on Apr 27, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

at least

you aren’t the washington nationals.

by paperjames on Apr 27, 2010 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hey there buddy

we are currently 1 game over .500

Team GOLD

by fsugrizz on Apr 28, 2010 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think we’re underestimating how much FSU’s D could improve. I’m not saying they’ll remind us of the late 90’s, but even if they’re a middle of the road D, that should be good enough to win the Atlantic provided Ponder and Co click on all cylinders.

Currently Playing: God of War III
PS3 ID: Nole1021

by Jonathan Loesche on Apr 27, 2010 9:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Yes, a middle of the road D, going from ~90th to ~60th would require an improvement of 33%, which is exactly what Bud says in Bonus #3 of this article.

by mhauer on Apr 27, 2010 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Does it really require 33% improvement

I think it depends on how you define the 33% improvement. If the defense gives up a third less points than last season, it gets much, much better. If we’re saying that a 33% improvement means we move from number 90 to number 60, I don’t know how many fewer points/yards that really corresponds to.

The numbers stuff is interesting but for FSU to be a better defense, it’s really pretty simple. They need to tackle better. They need to rush the passer better. They need to cover better.

The offense can help the defense some by holding onto the ball.

While the numbers provide some historical, statistical data, the argument can be made that if they give up three less touchdowns last year, they win the division.

For me, the quesiton becomes, how many games going in can and should, FSU win. Based on what I understand is returning for FSU vis a vis their opponents, 6 conference wins is a reasonable expectation.

by Sobering on Apr 27, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes
Does it really require 33% improvement

Yes, and in this case we’re not talking 90 to 60, we’re talking points.

The offense can help the defense some by holding onto the ball.

The offense already held the ball a ton last year.

While the numbers provide some historical, statistical data, the argument can be made that if they give up three less touchdowns last year, they win the division.

We discussed this yesterday, you can’t do it this way because it assumes you get all the other breaks you did. Have to look at the point differential.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Both tables show that improving a D as bad as FSU's is a process and not a 1 year fix

A look at all teams that improved their D 30+% from 08 to 09 and where ranked 90th or worse in 07

A look at all teams that improved their D 30+% from 08 to 09 and where ranked 90th or worse in 08

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't really know anything about Nebraska,

Can someone enlighten me as to how they fixed their D?

"FEAR is just the Opening ACT!!!" Coach Coley

by NOLE09JON on Apr 27, 2010 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Coaching

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

precisely

They added what I believe was one of the top defensive coaches in the country.

Stoops isn’t that good, but I think he is close.

I think we can go from 108 to 60, which would be about a 40% increase.

I think that can put us in a situation to winn the ACC and make CP7 look gooood

by freshcollegeboy on Apr 27, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Stoops isn't that good?

I assume you mean not as good as Pelini

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

thats how I read it

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

Pelini has been a Tim Tebow for Nebraska (aka Savior)

I believe Stoops has it in him to do the same, we’ll just see what he does now that he is at a big time program.

by freshcollegeboy on Apr 27, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here is all teams ranked 90th or worst in 07 and how much they improved in 08.

Nebraska 108 73 32%
Bowling Green 106 68 36%
Ohio 100 64 36%
Air Force 92 58 37%
Minnesota 107 66 38%
N. Illinois 102 60 41%
Marshall 96 54 44%
Ball State 93 47 49%

In addition to those teams, a total of 34 Division 1 football teams improved their defensive FEI rank by 30% or more between 07 to 08. I’m not sure why you’re comparing teams’ ranks in 07 and their FEI change between 08 and 09. That would imply a 2 year turnaround instead of the 1 year turnaround that we are talking about.

Between 08 and 09, 30 teams improved their FEI rank 30% or more.

PS- you are not using the Defensive FEI rankings in your chart either, you are using the Defensive Efficency rankings. A slight difference.

by mhauer on Apr 27, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know its going to be a 2 year process, but right now I care about the 2010 season, not 2011.

by mhauer on Apr 27, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

My expectations are also based on two years,

I wish we had Ponder one more year. Although the new class of WRs are going to be sick.

"FEAR is just the Opening ACT!!!" Coach Coley

by NOLE09JON on Apr 27, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think EJ will be fine in 2011

He will be a redshirt junior, behind a great QB in Ponder and a great QB coach in Fischer. He already has good game experience. I only worry that the Oline will drop off some.

by PadraicTheSeminole on Apr 27, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

But the difference is still measurable in Year 1 over Year 0, right?

We’re talking about improvement for THIS year, so talking about a 2-year turnaround is secondary to this point.

We’ve also discussed ad nauseum some of the factors that make FSU a special case. No idea what a jump from 100-ish to top 50/60 translates to in conference PPG, but I feel pretty good about the first assumption.

Also… I think PF/PA is so interdependent it is hard to analyze with a simple ratio. If you’re not allowing as many points, you might actually slow your offense down, which, in turn, allows even fewer points. A lot of this theoretically is captured in the sample prognostications but it’s nothing close to a straight-forward prediction.

Very interesting piece overall though… props to Granite for taking the time to put this together.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just reading more comments, a lot of my "points" already made by others.

I think the key question mark is summed up by the veracity of the statement, “your best defense is a good offense,” and how that can be quantified into an equation such as this.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Curious what results would be if we went by DFEI rating and not rank

Rank could be misleading because the performance is not as evenly distributed as the ranking would make it appear. If most teams are tightly grouped around the mean – then a small change in performance would show as a large change in ranking; if they are more widely grouped about the mean then even a significant change might not show as much of a ranking change.

So, I think we need to look at the underlying DFEI rating. I looked at 2008 and 2009.

FIrst you have to standardize the DFEI rating since good teams get negative scores in this metric and bad teams get positive. I equated the best team in each year with 100 and the worst with 0 and then using the team’s performance relative to the best team rated the teams.

So in 2009 for example – Bama had the best DFEI (-0.699) and FAU has the worst (0.899) for a spread of 1.588. From that we can determine how each team is on that continuum. FSU checks in as being on the 40.55%.

The same exercise in 2008 had UF with the best DFEI (-0.787) and North Texas the worst at (0.815). On that scale, FSU checks in at 72.28%.

So now we can compare how FSU (and the rest of the teams did relative to THE best DFEI teams each year.

Not sure how well this will post (just did a preview – the answer is not well) – but here’s the table:

2008 ADFEI Team 2009 ADFEI Diff Rank
0.00 North Texas 30.98 #DIV/0! 1
1.62 Idaho 11.08 582.89% 2
9.43 UTEP 36.71 289.50% 3
15.48 Texas A&M 47.67 207.93% 4
23.97 Central Michigan 64.99 171.12% 5
13.17 Louisiana Lafayette 34.01 158.18% 6
22.85 Washington 55.54 143.11% 7
17.60 San Diego State 40.11 127.88% 8
29.15 Middle Tennessee 62.97 116.02% 9
26.47 SMU 54.85 107.24% 10
43.32 Nebraska 89.23 105.98% 11
29.21 Kent State 59.01 101.98% 12
41.20 Oklahoma State 82.05 99.16% 13
36.33 Navy 69.14 90.32% 14
33.08 Baylor 60.58 83.11% 15
25.72 Louisiana Monroe 45.47 76.79% 16
20.72 UAB 36.52 76.24% 17
26.65 Miami (OH) 46.73 75.30% 18
22.97 Tulane 37.47 63.11% 19
35.14 Louisiana Tech 55.54 58.04% 20
50.87 Miami 80.16 57.57% 21
29.03 Akron 44.58 53.60% 22
39.01 BYU 59.63 52.86% 23
27.97 Washington State 41.06 46.82% 24
58.43 LSU 85.26 45.93% 25
53.31 Air Force 77.33 45.06% 26
39.89 Buffalo 55.42 38.93% 27
29.90 Kansas State 41.50 38.79% 28
30.21 Indiana 41.75 38.19% 29
42.51 Kansas 58.50 37.62% 30
23.10 Iowa State 31.49 36.33% 31
47.57 Arkansas 63.48 33.45% 32
77.40 Alabama 100.00 29.19% 33
37.39 Western Michigan 48.11 28.67% 34
58.55 Arizona State 74.43 27.12% 35
39.89 Syracuse 50.38 26.30% 36
71.60 Penn State 89.99 25.68% 37
51.00 Ohio 63.54 24.59% 38
75.78 Ohio State 94.40 24.56% 39
58.43 Georgia 72.67 24.38% 40
49.75 Minnesota 61.78 24.17% 41
56.18 Virginia 69.52 23.75% 42
62.98 Wisconsin 77.39 22.88% 43
51.37 Army 63.10 22.82% 44
80.27 Iowa 98.36 22.53% 45
60.99 Oregon 74.56 22.26% 46
77.90 Oklahoma 94.08 20.77% 47
59.68 Arizona 71.73 20.19% 48
35.71 Houston 42.76 19.75% 49
55.99 Northwestern 65.37 16.74% 50
76.78 North Carolina 89.29 16.30% 51
62.30 Purdue 72.04 15.64% 52
53.43 Temple 61.27 14.67% 53
45.26 Wyoming 51.39 13.54% 54
43.57 Tulsa 49.43 13.46% 55
16.10 UNLV 18.26 13.39% 56
59.18 UCLA 66.88 13.01% 57
75.28 South Carolina 85.01 12.93% 58
53.12 Kentucky 59.70 12.38% 59
60.67 South Florida 68.07 12.19% 60
75.47 Virginia Tech 83.12 10.14% 61
57.49 Colorado 63.29 10.08% 62
76.22 Boise State 81.42 6.83% 63
87.83 Boston College 93.70 6.69% 64
29.21 Toledo 30.48 4.33% 65
70.35 Pittsburgh 72.98 3.75% 66
53.18 Missouri 54.85 3.13% 67
82.40 Mississippi 84.82 2.95% 68
44.88 Louisville 46.16 2.85% 69
55.93 Michigan State 57.37 2.57% 70
53.93 Maryland 55.29 2.52% 71
30.90 Rice 31.49 1.90% 72
68.16 West Virginia 69.21 1.53% 73
54.62 Oregon State 55.16 1.00% 74
47.25 Bowling Green 47.29 0.08% 75
67.10 Auburn 66.81 -0.43% 76
74.09 Utah 73.30 -1.07% 77
86.45 TCU 85.39 -1.23% 78
74.41 Tennessee 73.17 -1.66% 79
89.33 Texas 85.33 -4.48% 80
73.60 Texas Tech 70.03 -4.85% 81
83.90 Clemson 79.72 -4.97% 82
34.14 Memphis 31.86 -6.68% 83
42.63 Stanford 39.42 -7.54% 84
72.47 East Carolina 66.75 -7.89% 85
58.99 Michigan 53.65 -9.05% 86
59.68 Mississippi State 54.22 -9.14% 87
70.79 Vanderbilt 64.17 -9.35% 88
65.48 Central Florida 58.94 -9.99% 89
51.81 North Carolina State 46.10 -11.03% 90
53.18 Northern Illinois 46.85 -11.91% 91
45.82 Southern Mississippi 39.80 -13.14% 92
64.11 Notre Dame 55.54 -13.36% 93
34.46 Florida International 29.85 -13.37% 94
66.04 Georgia Tech 56.61 -14.28% 95
41.14 New Mexico State 35.08 -14.73% 96
35.83 Colorado State 30.54 -14.76% 97
41.01 Arkansas State 34.82 -15.09% 98
42.07 Troy 35.52 -15.58% 99
55.49 Marshall 46.66 -15.91% 100
100.00 Florida 81.74 -18.26% 101
70.04 Cincinnati 55.79 -20.34% 102
63.05 Rutgers 49.62 -21.29% 103
91.26 USC 70.65 -22.58% 104
58.49 Ball State 45.15 -22.80% 105
62.92 Duke 48.43 -23.04% 106
75.66 California 57.75 -23.67% 107
29.28 Fresno State 22.29 -23.85% 108
33.46 Hawaii 23.30 -30.36% 109
83.83 Wake Forest 58.06 -30.74% 110
59.74 Illinois 40.68 -31.90% 111
82.27 Connecticut 55.98 -31.95% 112
29.59 Nevada 18.70 -36.79% 113
63.30 New Mexico 39.86 -37.02% 114
36.64 Utah State 21.47 -41.40% 115
72.28 Florida State 40.55 -43.90% 116
34.02 Western Kentucky 18.51 -45.58% 117
59.86 San Jose State 31.68 -47.09% 118
35.58 Eastern Michigan 16.75 -52.92% 119
39.26 Florida Atlantic 0.00 -100.00% 120

Well, if you can get over the formatting – you’ll see that FSU had the 116th worst drop-off in defensive performance from 2008 to 2009 – we fell nearly 44%. No surprise there.

That said, you’ll also notice that 18 of the NCAA Division I’s 120 teams or 15% improved their relative DFEI ranking by 75% or more. If we were able to do that – we could get our defensive performance back to 2008 DFEI levels. In 2008 we only allowed 176 points in ACC play. Assuming we again score 268 in conference play in 2010 – that would lead us to expect 6 ACC wins – which might be good enough for an ACCCG appearance.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 27, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, our PS was hurt due to not having Ponder.

With a full season, our PS is increased, which doesn’t require the defense to improve as much to get to 7W

"Bring back Fred Rouse--a true Nole"

by Randall W. Spetman on Apr 27, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

We lost Ponder - but other teams also lost key players

In CP started games, we averaged 33 ppg in PS. In EJ started games, we averaged 35 ppg. Now, would we have scored even MORE points with CP at QB. Yes, I think so – but I don’t think the difference would make a huge difference in our EWP.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

True

though Greg Reid did go nuts in those 4 games.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 28, 2010 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

Talent is still there, just a matter of getting them to actually harness it.

Currently Playing: God of War III
PS3 ID: Nole1021

by Jonathan Loesche on Apr 27, 2010 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Harnessing it

is not a one off season task though. Even the best defensive coaches in FBS take two years.

by osceolafan850 on Apr 27, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly, the biggest jump was when CMU went from 109 (2008) to 35 (2009)

That was after they cleaned house on D in 2007 and implemented a new D in 2008, to expect a jump like that for us next year is unrealistic IMO

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

That never ceases to amaze me.

Especially in an offensive conference.

"Remember, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Except for Herpes. That s#!t will come back with you."

by Jamil Dawson on Apr 27, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do you understand what it would take for us to have a middle of the road D?

Not much actually. Because most of the time this involves getting good players. We already have good players. Also it usually involves needing to greatly improve the coaching. Our players had no playbook and were not coached.

Otherwise I would agree with you.

by scotradamus on Apr 27, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

To me, that's where the whole year 1 vs. year 2 thing comes in.

It actually shouldn’t take much time to improve to a “middle of the road” defense. Conservatively speaking, we have top 30 talent on defense, even accounting for youth/depth. So, playing at a top 60 level next year (again, “middle of the road”) already incorporates the necessity of additional time needed to reach your maximum potential… which is hopefully top 20 (at worst?) by year 2.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

It takes time to completely revamp the fundamentals of a defense

And to learn how to play in a zone scheme when all you’ve previously done is play man or cover one

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Am I arguing against that?

I simply pointing out that we don’t have to executive the new scheme perfectly to improve by a wide margin over last year… with the expectation of making a consecutive leap the following year, to place us in a position (outcomes) on par with our talent.

Top 60 next year is still grossly underachieving next year, based on the talent we have — explicitly due to the newness of our scheme.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

My estimations of our talent?

It’s purely intuitive… if you want to objectively document that, I guess we’d have to get into discussing stars and whatnot…. I think we’ve probably got a better star average on defense than all but the upper-level teams from BCS conferences, though this is mitigated somewhat by youth…. so top 30 seems like a reasonable ballpark.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Quick evidence on this front:

We’ve got 5-stars with at least 1 year of experience playing on DL (McDaniel), LB (Bradham), and DB (Reid). Very few teams can claim that.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't doubt the talent, I doubt the abilty to improve as much as you think they can

What evidence or examples do you have that talent like ours can improve so much

It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee

by RaysnNoles on Apr 27, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think there is a difference in talent this year to last.

names like Thacker, & Yarbarough will be traded for names like McLoud, and Woerner with the addition of McCallister who has some experience but was not healthy and a healthier McCray.

Not to mention upgrades at S and FS significantly.

And non-factors like Alexander and a mis-guided Carr suddenly looking like they will not only NOT be a liability but actually produce.

That alone, not including individual improvement among those with experience and scheme improvement are enough to make a significant bump IMO.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think we're a fairly unique situation.

So, not a lot of precedent to support… but your own chart shows Nebraska jumping from 108 to 73.

They’re probably about as close of a parallel as you could ask for, in terms of a 90’s power that had slid precipitously, but theoretically had some amount of talent at their disposal. Built into my impression is that we probably had slightly MORE talent than they possessed, on the whole (even accounting for Suh), giving us a slightly higher ceiling for immediate improvement.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nebraska? Bud's points below.

Nebraska did appear to have a pretty talented squad, so #73 was probably underachieving Still, I do think our ’10 talent is probably as good as or better than theirs was in ’08.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've consistently stated:

“underachieve relative to talent”

i.e., top 30 talent vs. top 60 efficiency.

I do not think it is underachieving versus expectations… just versus bodies.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ah, assuming every team was in its first year, then yes it makes sense in that vacuum.

but it clearly doesn’t work that way as most teams have players that have played within the system for a few years.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Understood.

However, I think available talent steepens the rate at which you can improve. Wake Forest takes 4+ years to get their relatively untalented guys into form such that they can field a good defense.

We can rely on athleticism (whatever definition you want to use for that) to compensate for execution in some aspects of our performance.

One example… our defenders will have make-up speed to allow them to cover up some mistakes… so if they’re in the right ballpark, at least, they still might be able to make a play, whereas a defender with less raw talent would not.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Simple multiplication.

0 scheme x 3* talent = 0 defense.
0 scheme x 4* talent = 0 defense.
0 scheme x 5* talent = 0 defense.

Kidding, obviously, but I’m sure there’s some truth to that.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

No...

Mangum started; your argument is invalid.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis— a true Nole! -FiestaNole

by Miaminole on Apr 28, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

They also have Allen, Crick, and Awkamaura

and they played zone defense before Bo arrived. Their culture shock is not what ours is.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another thing

I have an issue with saying player X at SS will be better than Mangum was at rover. In this situation, these players are asked to do completely different things. The positions aren’t comparable, IMO. The same could be said for several positions on this defense.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree athleticism is easily better. and that ALWAYS translates.

the fact that they are asked to do different things (hopefully better things) actually might make the gap even bigger between the two players.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

Jajuan Harley is more athletic than Terrance Parks. Would he be better at FS? Our team as a whole, especially our offense, proves that athleticism doesn’t always translate into a better player.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

I try to include mental capability when I judge "athletic ability".

for example I don’t think being 6’4" 240 and able to throw the ball through a brick wall means you are a good quarterback. the “it” factor is the ability to translate that to QBing.

IMO Parks and Moody have “it”. Mangum did not.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Harley is an enigma, due to concussion.

And while he has great “measurables,” those don’t always translate to football/instincts.

I think whoever we put on the field will be a more instinctual football player than Mangum… and faster, too.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Measurables = athletic ability, no?

That’s how I’ve always looked at it. You basically just reiterated part of my point. But, again, the SS this year will play a completely different position than Mangum did last year.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bottom line is Mangum would suck regardless.

He doesn’t have good football feel. and the other two do. If you have the measurables and the feel you will thrive in any scheme.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

You mean he won't be playing the famed FSU "Pylon" DB position anymore?

That is, an object you pass by on your way to the endzone?

The fact that we’re replacing the Pylon position with an SS is a positive.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hate to say so but you're wrong!

Pylons don’t run the wrong way… they at least stay in their lanes.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think an olympic sprinter might have had measurables over Deion's,

but Deion was more “athletic.” I guess coordination/instincts are some elements, to me, that distinguish between “athleticism” and “measurables”.

Greg Reid doesn’t have fantastic measurables relative to many CBs out there… but he’s an insanely “athletic.”

These of course are connotations associated with words that will vary from person to person, but to say the 11th man on the field, Mangum’s replacement, won’t be an improvement, is unnecessarily splitting hairs, to me.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wasn't necessarily talking about Mangum, specifically

I’m trying to say that you can’t make a claim like whoever we play at corner or safety this year will automatically be better than the guy who played it last year, because they’re doing totally different things.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fair enough.

P. Robinson, schemeless, was still a 1st round pick. We won’t have a 1st round pick on the field at CB next year.

The unit playing with some (any?) cohesiveness, however, will account for much more than the change in performance of any individuals.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

You say potato... I think I view the culture shock as a plus not a negative.

If we assume the scheme was SO outdated then there is more room for improvement than a team who essentially ran a similar scheme but is now better at execution and play calling.

We are improving all three, so it’s possible we actually have more to gain than they did in the short run.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would learning something completely new be a positive

Nebraska already knew how to do many of the things they just tweaked them up.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you and I are playing pool but i'm using a toothpick and your using a cue.

yes I have to learn to use a cue, but crap, I was using a freaking toothpick before! I may not be as good as you immediately (i think this is your point). It will take time to learn the cue. But I should still gain on you a ton right off the bat, cause I’m not using a freaking toothpick anymore.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

But you missed my point which was... I'd be instantly a heck of a lot better than I was trying to play with the wrong item.

While you have a limited celling for improvement. I should both be WAY better instantly, and improve TONS over time as well.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, agreed

I’m simply saying that if I walked into the bar and I saw you playing with that cue and didn’t know that you just started playing, I would think you were either physically or mentally handicapped.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thats exactly what I thought about our defense last year....toothpick my friend, toothpick.

Most D’s (Nebraska example) are learning to better use their cue. lets say that’ worth a 50% improvement but will take 2 years.

How much room is their to improve if you weren’t even using the right tool for the job? way more than 50% some imediatley and some over time. IMO. I’ll let it go now. :)

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Eh

I’ve seen some big idiots with a cue

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

True :)

But he’s got a chance, maybe 1 out of 5… no chance even to get lucky with a toothpick.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL

rec’ing just for the analogy

by freshcollegeboy on Apr 27, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Because we're about delta's.

If your assumption is accurate, we have huge chunks of real estate to gain by learning how to tackle, shed blocks, etc.

And I am not certain about your assessment of their D…. they were, after all, 108. Since they had talent (as you document), coaching had to be a big, big problem. Not specifically familiar enough with the situation to know for sure, but you can logically deduce as much from evidence.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think guessing a ranking at this point is pretty arbitrary

I think we’re going to see mistakes galore on defense this year. People just really underestimate how long this process takes. We had all of 15 chances to subject that side of the ball to a completely new way of playing the game this spring. That’s barely enough to get their feet wet.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

We're also talking about the average over the course of a year.

We may start out 90-ish, finish our bowl game playing 30-ish, and average out to 60.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

I certainly hope to see improvement from Samford on

But, confounding that somewhat will be preparing for each team’s specific attack. I think we’ll get work on fundamentals enough to see improvement throughout the season, but we’ll see.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

My whole point in entering into this is that it seemed like folks...

…were getting hammered on the margins a little too much. I’d say very few would guess we’ll have less than a top 80 defense next year (full season average), while very few would guess we’ll have top 40…. but that entire range represents a >20% improvement in efficiency. (Admitting that we still haven’t seen the precise correlation between DFEI and points allowed.)

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good point DK.

However, one thing that could improve quickly is our ability to make a damn tackle. My statistics are on the remedial level, but it seems like with a high school level of competent tackling, we could easily shave 7 points per game.

by mountain renegade on Apr 27, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Time, I dont believe is a first order effect.

For most coach time constitutes recruiting players, the coach adopting his scheme to fit the personal /players he has until he gets the players he wants, and then getting everyone to come up the learning curve.

We have the talent, the personal to were he wont need to change the scheme he wants to run, and with the level of talent we have, I believe the learning curve will not be as bad.

by scotradamus on Apr 27, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure I read you correctly

What I mean to say is this.

A coach comes in to say run a 3-4. The team has always played a 4-3. He has no nose tackle and a bunch of players that are not suited for this tech. He adjusts his defense for this. He recruits the type of player to run his defense. Takes time. We have the talent Stoops needs. Stoops does not need time to get the type players to run his defense.

A coach has to recruit good players. Takes time. We have good players. Stoops does not need time to get good players

A coach needs to develop his players. This is tricky to me. Our players have had what appears to be very little coaching. So good coaching should pay huge dividends. There is a learning curve, but good players (like good students) tend to move up the learning curve faster. So there are two advantages there. Finally what about bad habits. Well, I don’t know there.

by scotradamus on Apr 27, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

A coach needs .

time

to develop his players.

Otherwise, I agree.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

As far as time goes,

Dont we save some by not having to make them “unlearn” something? I mean, they were starting at zero. Nowhere to go but up.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis— a true Nole! -FiestaNole

by Miaminole on Apr 28, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

Again, we had 15 practices to re-teach half of the team to play football. During this dead period, there are no upperclassmen who have been in the system to teach the younger guys how to play. I think that’s huge, and I think it’s part of what creates the jump in performance from year 1 to year 2.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think our coaches are going to simply find a way to get our guys mentally prepared.

Not going as far as Rich Rod, mind you.. but our guys will make progress in knowing the sets this offseason.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

They can only do so much

Learning the theory is important, but only so much progress can be made without being on a field facing live situations.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Aye aye.

I still am actually comforted by the fact that we are in uncharted territory. We don’t know what kind of a leap a team can make given our level of talent transitioning between no scheme and this particular scheme.

As editors, I understand hesitation about making any bold predictions, but from the layperson’s standpoint there is a lot of reason to be optimistic.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

Good attention to detail. But usually when a bunch of people are getting together learning something new, especially something like sport that they love, usually you sit together and talk more about it than you would, if you already understood it.

by scotradamus on Apr 27, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think they'll know what to talk about

At least not in the correct way. And talking is one thing—doing things correctly in live action is a completely different animal.

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

That is one of the most important functions of coaching, isn't it?

To borrow the phrase, I think we will be “grinding” harder than any other team in the ACC, due to the fact that we have what I believe to be the best combined coaching + support staff in the league. Not only have we implemented greater support structures (“SEC-like”) to facilitate their success, they are better coaches because they know how to motivate and train players to play within their systems, more efficiently.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Head in sand? Sticking neck out? Or both?

Agree that it is only the slightest of differences, but we have a lot of small factors that cumulatively suggest — to me, as a myopic homer — that we’re going to hit the ground running at a decent rate.

Again, regardless of the details I’ve communicated (or how it’s been interpreted), the bottom line is that I feel pretty comfortable predicting top 50/60 def. efficiency next year — outside chance at even higher, if some newcomers like McCloud exceed expectations — and then top 20 the following. I don’t think a lot of the folks that are arguing with me are far off the low ends of my estimations for improvement.. are they?

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nebraska jumped 35 spots, from 108 to 73.

We’re starting at 92.. knock off 35 we’re sitting in the 50’s.

I know that’s in absolute terms rather than proportionate, and there are myriad reasons why we may not take the same path, but this is where I am relying on a lot of positive smoke signals (for lack of any hard data in either direction) to guess we come out on top of the improvement curve.

Trying to think of any solid metrics to support… one input, simply swapping out Yarborough, Stewart, Thacker for some heavier guys on the line, and then additional good weight across the board at LB, slides us significantly up the all important front-7 weighting scale (as you’ve documented)… even simpler terms, just thinking about the two-deep rotation on our DL this year vs. last is a pronounced improvement in talent and size.

by arrdub on Apr 27, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Easier to progress to the middle

You’re right, a 35 spot exchange can’t be transferred

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd but my money on this assertion.

less about the upperclassmen, more about time with the coaches. They can learn individually what they are supposed to do, but putting it together as a team on the field has to take time.

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 27, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

put

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 27, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

And the 5th element.

Milla Jojovich

"Bring back Fred Rouse--a true Nole"

by Randall W. Spetman on Apr 27, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Number junkie's dream!

Loved the piece. The thing I’m hoping for is that last season’s PA number was an anomoly. Considering the previous 2 years were at ~175, the 100 PA jump last season may very well just be a fluke, and we may easily see a 100 point drop, just to get back to our “usual” level, although not yet “elite” level.

by burkenole on Apr 27, 2010 9:29 AM EDT reply actions  

I thought that too and ran the numbers

Assuming a 15% increase in PS = 308.2 and PA dropping to the 2007/2008 levels = 175, that produces an EWP of 0.756 = 6.05 expected wins. It’s interesting that average total ACC wins was 5.74 as predicted by all of us in the article by SWFLNole a couple weeks ago. I think 6 conference wins is the most we can realistically expect this year. I want 8, but 6 seems more realistic.

by SteelerNole21 on Apr 28, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

6 wins it if we beat BC at home, IMO

Though I guess they do have a chance to go 7-1. I am rooting hard for VT to beat them in Boston.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 28, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

I figure we beat Wake, UVA, NC State and Maryland. Then 1 of Miami/BC and 1 of UNC/Clemson for a total of 6. Don’t know if that will get us to the ACCCG, but it very well may. Clemson’s schedule looks pretty tough. We may need to beat BC to give them their second conference loss and hold the tiebreaker with them.

by SteelerNole21 on Apr 28, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think Clemson finishes 3rd even if they are the 2nd best team in the division

My guess right now

1. FSU & BC tie at 6-2, but FSU beats BC to win tie breaker.
3. Clemson at 5-3 (3 losses come from @ BC, @ FSU, @ UNC, Miami, GT)
4. NC State 3-5
5. Maryland & Wake 2-6, 2-6

by Bud Elliott on Apr 28, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

In this scenario do we lose to Miami and UNC?

If Clemson loses to us and we can split the UNC/Miami games I like 7-1 maybe the variant 1.5 should be who you play in other division on given year…. UNC and VIRG is not daunting.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 28, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

UNC is arguably the best team in that division..

I think in the 6-2 scenario in which we beat BC we lose 2 of Miami/ UNC/ Clemson.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 28, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

the UNC game should be awesome.

Their stout defense vs. our offense should be an awesome matchup. Their offense will be subpar, but improved from last year, similar to our defense. Will likely come down to special teams and/or turnovers.

Right now I have us losing to Clemson and Miami, but winning the other 6 conference games (including BC). I agree with Bud above and think that Clemson loses three of @ BC, @ UNC, Miami, GT giving us the division based on head to head tiebreaker vs. BC.

by SteelerNole21 on Apr 29, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree

We won’t be favored @ Miami, but UNC is really good.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 29, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

on Defense. Which is why I have trouble seeing us lose to them at home.

Offense that has been anemic on the road? I rather think we lose to Miami than UNC or Clem. But Miami will be coming off a ridiculous road stint, so they may not be favored. figure we’re 3-1 going in and they probably are not.

Giddy-up!

by truecolors on Apr 29, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would you assume that they won't improve by a bunch on offense?

FSU won’t be favored over Miami. Period. It just will not happen. If FSU were favored over Miami by 3, that would imply the ’Noles being favored by 10 at home.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 29, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Excellent work!

We can also calculated Probability of Victory for a single game using POV = 1/(1+10^(-MOV/18.8)) developed by College Football By the Numbers, the sample set used to develop the formula is a little small, but doable for football.

If we just look at ACC play, we can find the POV for each season based on the average points scored for and against. Here’s what it looks like where Ewins is expected wins and Awins is Actual Wins.

Year For Against POV EWins Awins
2006 22.5 20.75 55.3% 4.4 3
2007 24.0 21.75 56.8% 4.5 4
2008 27.9 22.00 67.3% 5.4 5
2009 33.5 34.75 46.2% 3.7 4

I guess you could say that in 2009 we got lucky.

We can also see that our offense has really been rolling with major year over year improvement and can see how much we need our defense to improve. In order to go 7-1(87.5% POV), we would need have an average margin of victory of 17 points. For that happen, our offense would need to improve by 20% again for 2010 and our defense would need to allow nearly 13 fewer points a game or allow roughly 1/3 fewer points.

If our offense remains stable but defense produces on par with 2008, we would have a POV of 80.3% for 6.4 expected wins. I’m not sure 7 wins is doable, but I do think that 5-6 wins is doable.

by mhauer on Apr 27, 2010 9:33 AM EDT reply actions  

Great job

Thanks for putting the numbers together, it’s fascinating to see it spelled out this way.

"Can you live in that moment, as best you can with clear eyes & love in your heart - with joy in your heart? If you can, then you're perfect." - Friday Night Lights

by GregJones on Apr 27, 2010 9:33 AM EDT reply actions  

Nice piece

Honestly, and this may be my wishful thinking, I feel the numbers for what our defense does can improve significantly without the play improving to the same degree. Just reducing the amount of easy TDs that the defense allows can let the offense build some sort of lead. That lead can force other teams to pass in an attempt to score quickly, which honestly none of them can do besides Miami. Basically hoping that our offense forces teams to become more one dimensional in order to make things easier for our D.

by osceolafan850 on Apr 27, 2010 9:40 AM EDT reply actions  

Can we get Myron Rolle to teach a remedial class on this?

Please remember that the last gentleman who coached our team said “Dadgum” and “Bumfuzzle” a lot so my brain is not prepared for this.

Sheriff Branford: The fact that you are a sheriff is not germane to the situation.
Buford T. Justice: The god damn Germans got nothin' to do with it!

by GonzoNole on Apr 27, 2010 9:45 AM EDT reply actions  

Haha

Good one, Gonzo.

This is great suff Granite. And I have two points to add:

1. While I think that yardage may be close to 33% better this year but still doubt it, with the combination of a remotely successful zone defense controling space inside the 30s and the opportunity to create a few more turnovers I believe the scoring defense will show a greater statiscial jump than the yardage allowed, thus giving FSU the opportunity to give up < 24 pts a game for the entire ACC season.

2. What is EJ’s WAR over Ponder :)

"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett

by The Ryno and I Know on Apr 27, 2010 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

do the clock rules affect this at all?

wasnt last year the first year with the shorter amount of time between plays? If so, that 20% increase in points by our offense is more dramatic. But so is teh decline in our defense, i guess.

by Mr. Tito Carlos on Apr 27, 2010 9:51 AM EDT reply actions  

I don't believe none a this mumbo jumbo math nerd crap!

Real men don’t do statistics, they play it out on the field, gosh darnit! Only pansy good fer nuthin losers spend time worryin bout numbers and percentages.

Yours truly

Mike Martin

by PadraicTheSeminole on Apr 27, 2010 9:58 AM EDT reply actions  

Got it!!

On 1st and goal from the 2—-you sac bunt a handoff up the middle to get in to “scoring position”

"You're either carrying a spear, or running from it"

by BigSpearDiplomacy on Apr 27, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

I wonder how many more points our offense would score if the defense just earned a few more punts?

Some games last year were like epic Tennis matches where we were looking for one team to break serve. Imagine if our defense got off the field quicker?

Of course, I do remember some opposition drives that took less than 2 minutes, so maybe it’s a wash…

by coonhound on Apr 27, 2010 10:12 AM EDT reply actions  

Expect improvement in D stops is a key metric for expected PA

I don’t think we should expect our O to score (many) more points than it did last year. Defense wins championships—just look at the PA of the top BCS teams in the charts (above). I do, however, think it’s plausible to expect 2-3 more D stops per game, where last season these 2-3 stops would result in points taken off the board. If someone has the the 09 breakdown of field goals, TDs, safeties, an average points per possession can be calculated, which can be used to calculate an expected average points per game taken off the board.

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 10:25 AM EDT reply actions  

Actually all we need is the total # of opponent possessions

to calculate the expected decrease in PA given the expected improvement in D stops.

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Opponent possessions can be reduced with decreased turnovers

The more I think about this (above) the more plausible is the decrease in PA since points are scored for multiple reasons, e.g., turnovers margin, D stops, etc.

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

3 possessions is huge.

FSU had very few turnovers so I wouldn’t expect much improvement there.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Okay, how about 2 possessions?

Re turnovers, we turned the ball over as often as we got turnovers which put us right in the middle of FBS teams in turnover margin. So there is some room for improvement esp since
A. our O is very mature and so can be expected to turn the ball over less than last year;
2. our new D staff emphasize physical play & turning the ball over—c’mon, in general, our D execution can’t get worse.
D. Aron Hernandez smoked pot in ‘09 and wasn’t suspended.
sorry “D” was added here just to complete the trinity!

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

I do not expect more turnovers forced. We were extremely lucky last year (perhaps the luckiest in the entire country). I expect to force fewer turnovers.

I do think we can reduce our offensive turnovers in conference play from 17 to 12 or 13.

Our improvement will come from better fundamental play and not from big plays.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Here's a really rough run at it

Suppose Os average 10 possessions/game. In ‘09, FSU’s ACC points allowed = 278. 10 (possessions)*8 (# of conf games) = 80. 278/80=3.475. 3.45 = average points allowed/possession.

1 more punt per game = 3.475 fewer points allowed.
2 more punts per game = 6.95 fewer points allowed.
and so on…

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

1 > punt per game is approx a 17% improvement

Don’t forget we can also cut PAs by forcing opponents to settle for field goals rather than TDs.

We were horrible on D last year, allowing (roughly) 10 more points than any season in this decade. From ‘05-’08 we allowed 21.22 on average with the same talent that we have now and a much better base D. I think cutting average PAs by 5 -7 is plausible.

Have I drunk the kool-aid?

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just not accurate
1 > punt per game is approx a 17% improvement

No, we forced 3.5 per game last year in ACC play and to add one more per game is a 29% improvement.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

i was using the ACC average, not FSU

fair enough. should have known we were worse than the conference average. What about cutting PAs by 5-7 given that 09 was 10 more than any other year in the decade?

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

2008 doesn't play in

Have to look at where we’re coming from. If I start in Tampa, drive to Miami, and need to go to Tallahassee, I don’t factor in my start from Tampa. My Miami-Tampa trip is purely the focus.

Within a similar offensive environment as the 2009 ACC, our defensive goal needs to be to get to 5.5 yards per play allowed. YPP is much more indicative than points.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

If we stay at 6.75 yards per play on offense and allow 5.5 on defense, that nets us 1.25 yards per play

Here are the teams in the last 4 years who accomplished that

Virginia Tech 6.5 4.4 2.1 2009
Clemson 5.9 4 1.9 2006
Virginia Tech 5.27 4.05 1.22 2007
Georgia Tech 5.9 4.7 1.2 2009

2 of those teams won the ACC, one finished top 8 in the polls, and the last (2006 clemson) was probably the least lucky ACC team we have seen in the last half decade, losing 4 games by a score or less (3 by less than a field goal).

If we net 1.25 yards per play, we’re winning the damn Atlantic.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think 1.25 is do-able

over the entire season since we’ll improve over time. But playing OCGs against OU and UF is going to make it tougher than it should be….

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

1.25 is referencing only the ACC

I don’t expect to be in the positive against those two.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gotcha

Accountabilty is back in Tallahassee....

by TLHWG on Apr 27, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I dont know that I would consider myself a numbers guy, but I still found this

to be an excellent piece.

I have to admit, I loved that Bud allowed himself a bit of optimism, while at the same time, not having it be homerism. You looked at the numbers, and the schedule, and you thought of a plausible scenario that was great for the Noles. I would hope we can reduce at least one TD per game this year. And I dont think the difference between GT and UVA can be overstated.

One minor nitpick in editing:

35 points per conference game last year, (or 5 touchdowns per game). That’s an astounding 5 touchdowns per game.

I found the parenthesis to be redundant. I think the separate sentence says the same, with emphasis. Again, obviously nitpicking.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis— a true Nole! -FiestaNole

by Miaminole on Apr 27, 2010 10:26 AM EDT reply actions  

One side question

As editors have pointed out, we got some lucky scores on D last year. Do they get lumped in with some scores that would be considered “unlucky”, in that even as bad as our D was, it shouldnt have happened? Or do they get lumped in with unlucky TOs on offense, or plays that might have gotten called back (that kickass USF gif for example), or none of the above? Hopefully that makes sense, I dont know how to make it look more organized lol.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis— a true Nole! -FiestaNole

by Miaminole on Apr 27, 2010 10:30 AM EDT reply actions  

Great Article. One point of contention...

This equation minimizes the use of absolute numbers.
This might be an exagerration but lets say you take two teams that are each favored to win by a touchdown in all 8 conference games. One is favored to win each game 14-7 due to great defense and average offense. The other is favored to win each game 28-21 due to good offense and below average defense.
EPW of team 1 = 0.8
EPW of team 2 = 0.64

If you take these spreads and use them in the calculations used in previous prediction threads based on vegas lines/point spreads these two teams would be expected to have equal records.

Basically what I’m saying is the EPW equation favors good defensive teams, which may be accurate as we all know to well how important D is.

by BenDNole on Apr 27, 2010 10:34 AM EDT reply actions  

I see what you're saying

But in a low run (or point) environment with scores being tougher to come by, a 7 point lead is more valuable than in a high run environment.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

While true

Lets add a proverbial team 3 to the example
Team 3 is favored to win each conference game 28-14.
Team 3 EWP = 0.8, equal to team 1, despite being favored by an extra touchdown on each game.
Everyone would expect team 3 to have a better season than team 1 based on point spread, while this equation would have them being equal.
BTW, I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with the results, just that at least I have hope we can overperform since we have a very good offense.

by BenDNole on Apr 27, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

He's definitely right.

It depends on the variance of each strategy though. It could be argued by some that defense-first teams have a lower variability of points for and points against than offense-first teams.

If only I had ever finished that 4 part series last summer.

by MattDNole on Apr 27, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it comes down

to the fact that this seems to be a decent statistical model when looking at previous seasons.
Not sure how much predictive strength this model has.
Furthermore, I would think that FSU’s team next year will be outside the normal range of data gathered, further reducing this model’s predictive power.

Does any ACC team in the past 3 years compare closely with the quality of our O combined with the poorness of our D?

by BenDNole on Apr 27, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

The EWP from one year to the next is not predictive

So you’re right, just because a team had a high EWP one year does not mean that they will the next. So its not predictive that way. And in college football – with approx. 1/4 of your roster turning over every year it would be difficult to make accurate predictions. How many teams that are in the Top 25 in September fall out by mid October?

The EWP is actually a way to look back at the previous season and see who outperformed and who underperformed and to show a relationship between EWP and actual wins/losses. Because wins and losses are discrete events – you either win or lose – you don’t 67% of a win – there will be differences between the EWP and actual W-L. And with only 8 conference games/team we’re dealing with lots of variance.

But, I think what is predictive is the cumulative season analysis – teams that go 7-1 in conference average out to about a .750 EWP. 6-2 teams average to about .700 etc. So we can say that to have a reasonable chance at 7-1 or better – we need to be scoring points relative to giving them up (using the formula) at a clip of about .750. It could happen that a team goes 7-1 with a .500 EWP – but its unlikely.

So in that sense I think this method can help us understand how much improvement is required to get there.

But its not perfect by any means for all the reasons that have been suggested. We could imagine a team for example winning 7 ACC games by a score of 7-6 each week and then losing one by a score of 58-0. That would put them at 49 PF and 100 PA and they would have a .194 EWP and project to 1.5 wins. Again, unlikely.

However those imbalances tend to gravitate toward the mean IMO with increased sample size. Admittedly 8 games is low so we should expect some inaccuracy in our EWP.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 27, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm glad you agree

that EWP is not a great pedictive model… just seems like that’s what you were trying to do especially with the title of the post.

I guess to add to what I was trying to say about absolute numbers is that according to your calculations, for FSU to get to a 6-2 season (assuming 20% increase on offense) we’d have to hold opponents to 206 points. That would mean an absolute value of +116 points.

Even if we assume that we lose two ACC games by only one point each, that means we’ll have to win those 6 games by an average of 19.7 points.

Alabama went undefeated with an absolute value of +123 points.
I would be extremely disappointed if we outscored our ACC opponents by 116 points and still lost 2 games.

by BenDNole on Apr 27, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seems to me what this is doing is putting perspective onto what it would take to actually have a 7-1 season given a historical perspective, not trying to predict what would happen.

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 28, 2010 7:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

Right

What I’m saying is that if our EWP is at or near .750 at the end of next season, we’ll be at or near 7-1 in the ACC. The implication of that being – if our offense performs at about the level that we expect – say 10-15% better than in 2009 – then I think we’ll find that our defense will have held teams to under 200 points – probably in the neighborhood of 170-185.

In other words, to get to 7-1 – we’re going to need to improve our points allowed on defense by about 33% (278-185)/278.

Or, said slightly differently – if our offense performs as expected and our defense gives up say 220 points in the ACC (about a 20% improvement) – it is unlikely that we can win 7 games in conference. We’d be more in the range of 5.5 wins in conference.

So, again, its not so much predictive as it is a modeling tool that helps us answer the question – how much ground do we need to make up in scoring offense/defense to reasonably achieve a particular win total.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

That's a good argument

And I agree that it is unlikely based on the 3 years historical data you used.
I guess since I’m drinking the kool-aid, I would like to believe that FSU falls outside of the historical data set used, since we have/will have a more potent offense than seen in ACC in the last 3 years

by BenDNole on Apr 28, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wonder if PA is more statiscally reliable than PS.

For instance, a team with a good offense and a good defense could simply decide to run the clock out rather than seeking to score more points on clearly inferior opponents. Alternatively, that team could routinely choose to run up the score on inferior opponents. In contrast, good defensive teams generally do not allow inferior teams to score a lot of points.

by nolesontop on Apr 27, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think this could be tested

maybe I will look into it after session

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you're right...

Though there are also scores that occur due to defensive indifference where one team is more concerned with keeping the clock running than keeping a score off the scoreboard.

That’s why I think Brian Fremeau’s FEI is so useful – he excludes all of that garbage time stuff.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

This an interesting.

 In 2008, both Bama and Florida had relatively low points scored and relatively low points against. Based on your observation of the formula, one would think it would harder to outperform your expected result in such a situation. Yet, they both outperformed their expected wins. I wonder if it is luck or that the difference between a good team and average team is that the good teams find ways to win close games.

Interestingly, in 2008, both Florida and USC had high-scoring offenses and low PAs, and yet underperformed. This suggests that they did not know how to win close games.

by nolesontop on Apr 27, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

spoken like a true pesismist! : ) I think you CAN point to strategy in close games.

Coaches don’t have a huge impact on the numbers, but I believe that if you can objectivley eval coaches over time in these “close games” you could give team x a slight bump over team y in said contest.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree with you on luck

this world is much more random than our brains would like us to think.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good Stuff Granite

This again is a good way to show why it is reasonable to expect it to take 3 years to regain our form as a dominant defense. Honestly, anything in the 60~50 range would be yoeman’s work.

Cedat Fortuna Peritis

by spear72 on Apr 27, 2010 10:45 AM EDT reply actions  

Thanks for this elightening article.

I think the most interesting part may be the expected win percentage of the elite teams in 2009. They all outperformed their expected wins. What would be interesting to know is how much of that was luck and how much could be chalked up to something else. 2008 actually had the opposite, where the elite teams underperformed their expected wins. The 2008 UF team would not have been able to win the NC in 2009 with that one loss. Luck definitely factors into it.

by nolesontop on Apr 27, 2010 10:49 AM EDT reply actions  

In baseball, Bill James has said that the variances should even out over time

What was interesting is that BC has outperformed each of the 3 years I looked at.

I think elite teams tend to outperform in part because they aren’t hellbent to run up the score the way that they’re capable of in the 4th quarter when they already have a big lead. At least not normally. So they are “leaving points on the table on offense”. On defense they’re also allowing late scores due to defensive indifference. And they’re playing backups, etc.

Were elite teams to play with the same level of drive and enthusiasm throughout the game – we might see less their EWP more in line with their actual win totals.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 27, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Process > Results right?

How does the same formula work when substituting yards for points?

"If lessons were learned in defeat, our team is getting a great education." -Murray Warmath

by NaGaNole on Apr 27, 2010 10:49 AM EDT reply actions  

My 2 cents

I don’t think a formula transfers neatly over.

Results are more quantitative, process is more qualitative. That’s how I view them. Results like PPG, after controlling for variables like fumble recoveries, injuries, etc. are directly linked to the underlying processes.

Is there enough of a change in the processes which will likely yield one fewer touchdown per game, for example? With GT off the schedule, and based on what I’ve seen so far, I think that is realistic (although it is on the optimistic side of the realism/fantasy dichotomy).

by fsu44 on Apr 27, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

I used to think I was a numbers guy...

until I started reading this site….man there are some hard core numbers crunchers here.

by noles55 on Apr 27, 2010 10:50 AM EDT reply actions  

If the defense is able to get 3 more stops during a game

Then with our offense I’d expect at least a FG from the 3 possessions. Since our defense gave up nothing but TD’s last year. Then the defensive stops could result in a 10 point swing not just 7. Therefore take 80 to 140 points swing in that total by scoring once more on offense and once less on defense. That would be within the range shown by you to produce a 7 win season. Its not unreasonable to get at least 1-2 more stops instead of td’s and if we only score on half of the saved possesion then still that would result in between 68 points and 84 points swing. Crudely, If we produce a 84 point swing in the number of points score versus current then we are sitting at .633 EWP. That EWP would put us within range of being able to exceed our EWP such like BC and GT did which would put us within range of a 7-1 but more realistically a 6-2. I feel like 6-2 can get it done if 1 of our losses isn’t to BC.

Team GOLD

by fsugrizz on Apr 27, 2010 11:11 AM EDT reply actions  

yes...the 3 stops a game is what most everyone agrees on

Miami, BC, and USF would have been wins with 3 stops.

"You're either carrying a spear, or running from it"

by BigSpearDiplomacy on Apr 27, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

And an 84 point swing

is asking the defense to get 1 more spot per game instead of giving up a TD and asking our offense to convert 50% of those stopped possessions into TDs. Is that a bit high yes but 68 point swing is expecting the same thing only get FG’s instead of TD’s. That would give us a EWP of .602 looking at a 6 win ACC season. Still good enough to get it done IMO.

Team GOLD

by fsugrizz on Apr 27, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, dadgum

Bunch of play station all americans on here.

All you’ve proved above is that Jeffy wasn’t the problem, and we’re still just one player away.

-BB

by PBD on Apr 27, 2010 11:45 AM EDT reply actions  

Can we pick the one player?

I nominate 6-4 337lb All-Pro Haloti Nagata to shore up the run.

"You're either carrying a spear, or running from it"

by BigSpearDiplomacy on Apr 27, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

The other thing the basball cross-over doesn't acount for is the "snowball" effect

which Bud is basically illuding to in his bonus #2. Defense effects offensive scoring more directly than it does in baseball due to feild position and posetions/attempts increasing exponentially with each defensive stop.

I think Bud’s senario at the end IS pretty reasonable.

A. even if our offense is only AS good as it was last year and the defense gets x amount of more stops per game that increases the “at bats” of the offense. In other words offensive scoring could go up at the same rate Defensive scoring goes down in football.

2. The offense will almost certainly get better, though I don’t think 20-30% better.

D. If the defense scores a few time in conference play more than before, etc. Little improvements can have a HUGE affect on both the offense and defense scoring numbers in football versus baseball because they feed one another.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 12:07 PM EDT reply actions  

A. even if our offense is only AS good as it was last year and the defense gets x amount of more stops per game that increases the "at bats" of the offense. In other words offensive scoring could go up at the same rate Defensive scoring goes down in football.

Or instead of more at bats, we could also think of it as “hitting in a better count” or with runners on base (trying to analogize better field position).

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah I think the general idea is good, but like he said the variation in scoring, feild position, stops/attempts, defensive scoring...

all make it so that you are in the ball park, but with big swings… these factors might explain the “anomolies” (sp) like BC and GT. I still think 7 wins in ACC is very doable, while 6 might be expected.

BC and Clem are the must wins besides the obvious like wake,virg, NcState.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Damn...

what happened to just scoring more points than the other team? ;)

Made my head hurt but it was a good read!

by KnoxNole on Apr 27, 2010 12:10 PM EDT reply actions  

not necessarily

I’ll come up with a statistical analysis showing that even though you can score more points than the other team every game, you can still lose if you don’t execute well or if the other team tries harder than you. ;-)

by freshcollegeboy on Apr 27, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Outstanding! Way to explain it Granite.

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 27, 2010 1:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Why is Bonus # 3 unlikely?

Getting GT off the schedule and getting a less offensively talented clemson team and a pedestrian offensive BC team both at home, I don’t see why we can’t hold teams to an average of a touchdown less a game. I honestly don’t think it unreasonable for our ACC PA total to go down by 11 a game, (to 24) and that would implicitly help our offense score another few points a game. I guess I’m optimistically yet realistically see a season where we improve our PS v PA by 14 a game.

by NationWideNole on Apr 27, 2010 1:24 PM EDT reply actions  

It's unlikely because you're assuming

BC doesn’t improve a lot on offense, NC State doesn’t improve on defense, UNC doesn’t improve tremendously on defense.

We already racked up 6.7 yards per ACC play. That is probably not going to go up.

And finally, TIME. The defensive coaches will need a full year before this stuff really gets rolling.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Miami's change over the years listed in the tables is intesting.

Their offense appears to have started its improvement with the previous coordinator before whipple2007-2008. Their defense stayed the same despite the an improved offense and new coaches. Does that indicate that their D has been getting worse since RS took over, despite his defensive background?

by revival on Apr 27, 2010 1:26 PM EDT reply actions  

Great write up!

interesting concept… I was surprised to see how accurate this metric is. After reading this, I have to agree with NationWideNole’s comment above. I don’t think Bonus #3 is entirely unlikely. At the same time, I have tempered hopes. Expect the worst and hope for the best I guess. Great job!

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 1:38 PM EDT reply actions  

This analysis isn't very useful without...

…knowing your points-per-game and points-against-per-game variance and what type of distribution (i.e. normal, lognormal, etc.) your points-per-game follows.

As is, the analysis doesn’t seem super useful to me. Mispredicting 2 out of 12 teams by 1.5 games is HUGE in statistical terms.

Knowing your per game variances and distributions is so important because huge per game standard deviations suggest more losses. Scoring 70 one week and 10 the next week tells you that this team is averaging 40 points a game, and should be pretty damn good. But the variance tells you they are really inconsistent.

Knowing your distribution tells you where your tails are and where you can expect outliers in outcomes.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 1:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Disagree TuckNole

Mispredicting 2 out of 12 teams by 1.5 games is not HUGE by statistical terms, especially considering the amount of variation there is in this game. I’d say by and large this metric is pretty dang accurate.

The part where I see that it falls down is that the season has to be over before it takes on any accuracy. At this point, it is all speculation when we wonder how many points we will score and allow. The fun part is the sensitivity analysis, if you will, of determining how sensitive ACC wins is to these variables (PS and PA). This is exactly what the authors have done here, by varying PS and PA and seeing what effect that has on ACC wins. From that perspective, this metric is VERY useful.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're looking at it the wrong way.

In both of those cases, the teams overperformed, so the prediction was off by ~1.5, not 3. The largest delta was MD who underperformed by ~1.7 games. The deltas are actual wins minus predicted wins.

The deltas follow a normal distribution with a mean of 0.02417 and a standard deviation of 0.89718. Using the cumulative density function of this distribution, I calculated that 57% of the deltas are between -0.5 and 0.5. This means that the metric is predicting over half of the team’s wins accurately within 1 win. It is predicting 73.5% of the teams’ wins accurately within 2 wins. It is predicting 90.53 % of the teams’ wins accurately within 3 wins.

Like I said, this metric is pretty accurate. However, making these predictions requires information from the end of the season. So the metric isn’t useful for predicting number of wins straight up. It is useful for predicting number of wins across several scenarios, allowing the user to glean information based on which scenarios he/she feels are likely.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

You just said the same thing with math and verbage 90.53% are only within 3 games accuracy...

that’s great in baseball with plus 100 games, but 2-3 wins is the difference between the MNC game and not even in a BCS bowl.

It’s a useful tool to glean like you said. You have to have some other way to determine the difference between teams that are within 1.5 games of each other.

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

One more thought...

When I said 90.53% are WITHIN 3 games accuracy, that means 3 wins or LESS. Only ~ 10% of the predictions have deltas >+/1.5 or predictions, meaning that only 10% of the predictions are off by more than 3 games.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

I actually think I am mistaken in the comment above.

In the said normal distribution I modelled, only 10% of the deltas fall greater than 1.5 or less than -1.5. So 90.53% of the predictions have deltas that are in the interval -1.5 to 1.5.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can't possibly call that accurate

But I admit I could be nitpicky. When 1/4th of your sample (3 teams) I in your model is off by ~1.5 games in an 8 game season then I don’t think the model is very useful. Remember the ACC division champs are often decided by 1 game or less.

I agree that this is mainly an issue of small sample size and it works much better for baseball due to the large number of data points. Working with only 8 games means that outliers can skew the whole thing. GT out played their prediction because a quarter of their PA came against one team (FSU), which means they were much better in the rest of their games than the aggregates suggest. If this were done over a bigger sample size, the model would have more power.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you are still misintepretting.

That said, I do agree that small sample size is an issue, and the in depth examination of variance would be interesting. I urge you to take a look at it and show your results.

I disagree that the metric is not useful without that analysis. Let me better illustrate my point. As I said, I fit a normal distribution to the delta values (mean = 0.0247, standard deviation = 0.897). With that model, I calculated the cdf and found that 4.46% of the deltas are less than -1.5.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I also found that 5% of the deltas are greater than 1.5.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Sum these probabilities and subtract that sum from 100%, and you’ll see that roughly 90% of the deltas are between -1.5 and 1.5. 90% of the time, the metric is within 1.5 wins of reality.

This may not be acceptable to you still, but at least hopefully now you understand my point. The metric closely resembles reality, and it is useful for sensitivity analysis to see how the team will fair under a number of different scenarios next season. While it’s not useful for accurately predicting ACC wins, it is still useful.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

MKE

I see what you did there, but I’m still not sure what you are getting at, which could be entirely my fault.

Maybe I’m interpreting this wrong, but it sounds like you are saying, the statistics around the deltas match the statistics around he deltas.

You aren’t regressing them against “reality” at all. That would be the only way to figure out the “predictive” power of this model.

Anyway, to prove that I have no problem being wrong, I regressed expected wins vs. actual wins and it turns out this model is both significant and fairly predictive. I was wrong.. The model is better than I expected it to be. My results:

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe I’m interpreting this wrong, but it sounds like you are saying, the statistics around the deltas match the statistics around he deltas.

I was saying that the statistics around the deltas suggest that the fitted number of wins closely resembles the actual number of wins.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry,

I don’t know how to end a quote. Anyways, what I showing was that the deltas were close to zero on average, the probability of very large or very small deltas was small, and that the fitted number of wins closely resembles the actual number of wins.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

When you only play 12 games 1.5 games either way (3 games total) IS HUGE.

It’s even worse than that. The model is mispredicting 1.5 games in ACC play ONLY (8 games), not the full 12 game season.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

The metric is not useful for accurately predicting (or forecasting) wins...

I don’t disagree with you there, but it is useful for modeling past seasons (see my analysis above). It is also useful for seeing how the team MIGHT fair next season in ACC play under several situations.

by MKE Nole on Apr 27, 2010 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

See my post above.

Some might groan that a .78 R squared isn’t very good, but I think it is okay, and it is bigger than I expected when I eyeballed the data (I was thinking around .65)

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

useful, even without detailed examination of variance

Well, yeah. Bill James’ Pythagorean theorem holds up pretty well for baseball, given the variance in baseball scores, and the length of season.

GSN has done a systematic examination of how well it fits ACC play (pretty well it seems) and what it implies would be necessary to achieve 6 or 7 ACC wins.

by madridbend on Apr 27, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not really mispredicting

First – I’m many years removed from my last Stats class – so I will defer to those of you for whom it is all still fresh to calculate appropriate distribution, confidence factors, standard deviations, etc.

Secondly, I would call it modeling rather than predicting – because MKE is right – we’re looking backwards not forwards and we’re looking on, admittedly, a small sample size – particularly in comparison to baseball.

I don’t think that this method has much inherent predictive value. If I tell you a team had a .500 EWP last year – what does that mean for this year? Don’t know. If I said that they had a .750 EWP what does that mean for this year? Well, probably that they’ll be above .500 EWP – but who knows really. I’m sure there’s a correlation. Maybe another exercise for another day.

The question that I was hoping to answer is this: I believe/expect/know that our defense will be better in 2010, but I don’t know by how much – none of us do. It is fun to speculate however. But the question is this – what if our defense improved in PPG by 30% – how would that translate to our expected W-L record?

I think by grouping the EWP of all 7-1 ACC teams, then all 6-2 teams, etc. we can get an idea. I’ll leave it to the statisticians among us to improve on the method if they find it useful. And it would probably be wise to gather more than 3 seasons worth of data to get a better read on things. Maybe if I can find time I’ll do that or look at other similar leagues (12 team leagues like the SEC or Big12) to see if .750 EWP is an approximate truism for all 7-1 teams.

I think in that sense – we aren’t using the tool to predict the performance but instead using the model to predict what the performance needs to be to get the outcome we seek.

Another analysis that we could do (and Ray did a bit of already) is to see over several past seasons – how often does a team improve substantially in DFEI? In a quick run of numbers from 2008 to 2009 (see earlier post that I made), it appeared that about 15% of teams improved 75% or more in terms of DFEI (standardized to the max/min of the season in question). To me that’s very encouraging because I think its unlikely that our talent is only 90th best in the country, so our 2009 performance IMO was an anomaly. With new coaches, a new scheme, better fundamentals, and an attitude of starting the best players regardless of seniority – we have a good chance to be one of those 15% of teams who have that kind of improvement it would seem.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 27, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Net yards per play, which I believe is more accurate than points because points are often fluky

2007
Name Yards/Play Yards/Play Net YPP
Virginia Tech 5.27 4.05 1.22
Boston College 5.71 4.71235 0.99765

Clemson 5 4.1 0.9
Georgia Tech 5.2 4.9 0.3
Florida State 5.2 5 0.2
North Carolina 5 4.9 0.1
Virginia 4.8 4.8 0
Maryland 5.2 5.3 -0.1
Wake Forest 4.6 4.9 -0.3
Miami (Florida) 4.6 5.3 -0.7
North Carolina State 4.5 5.4 -0.9
Duke 3.9 5.7 -1.8

2008
Name Yards/Play Yards/Play Net YPP
Georgia Tech 5.9 4.7 1.2
Clemson 5 4.3 0.7
North Carolina 5.1 4.7 0.4
Virginia 4.7 4.5 0.2
Florida State 5.1 4.9 0.2
Miami (Florida) 5.3 5.3 0
Boston College 4.44 4.52 -0.08
Maryland 4.9 5.1 -0.2
North Carolina State 5.5 5.7 -0.2
Virginia Tech 4.5 4.7 -0.2
Wake Forest 4.2 4.6 -0.4
Duke 4.2 5.4 -1.2

2009
Name Yards/Play Yards/Play Net YPP
Virginia Tech 6.5 4.4 2.1
Clemson 5.68 4.58 1.1
Miami (Florida) 6 5.4 0.6
Georgia Tech 6.12 5.72 0.4
North Carolina 4.7 4.6 0.1
Florida State 6.7 6.8 -0.1
Wake Forest 5.8 6 -0.2
Boston College 4.6 5.1 -0.5
Duke 5.3 5.8 -0.5
North Carolina State 5.6 6.4 -0.8
Maryland 4.5 5.7 -1.2
Virginia 3.9 5.3 -1.4

I bolded the ACC Champ participants.

Very interesting stuff.

I have not yet done 2006.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that the conference was very, very bad at offense for a long time and because of that turnovers and their resulting effect on field position were magnified in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:21 PM EDT reply actions  

Very interesting

but it still doesn’t get around the variance issue. Think about your article on zone-blocking. The idea isn’t to have some plays go for 13 yards, and some for 0 yards and then look at the average and go “wow, we’re averaging 13 yards per play”. You are going to have a lot of punts if you have that kind of standard deviation. You’d really love to have some plays go for 7 yards and some plays go for 6 yards to achieve that kind of average.

In finance, CFO’s go to great lengths to smooth cash flows over time. If you have wildly volatile cash flows you are likely to be in big trouble some of the time.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Certainly you would like to have that.

I think it does get around the variance issue in part because of the larger sample size (500 plays)

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here is 2006

Name Yards/Play Yards/Play Net YPP
Clemson 5.9 4 1.9
Virginia Tech 4.6 3.9 0.7
Florida State 5.1 4.4 0.7
Georgia Tech 5.09 4.74 0.35
Miami (Florida) 4.5 4.2 0.3
Boston College 5 4.8 0.2
Virginia 4.4 4.6 -0.2
Wake Forest 5.12 5.34 -0.22
North Carolina State 4.9 5.2 -0.3
Maryland 5.3 5.8 -0.5
North Carolina 4.5 5.4 -0.9
Duke 4.3 6.2 -1.9

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

er, that should read

“wow we’re averaging 6.5 yards per play”

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

It has been shown that how you to get your average yards per play has a relaitively small effect on how many points you score. Certainly there is some effect, and taking losses should be minimalized but never at the cost of explosive plays as well. The ability to gain large chunks of yardage at a time helps the team score drastically.

I just read something on this, and I cant remember where for the life of me right now.

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

t has been shown that how you to get your average yards per play has a relaitively small effect on how many points you score.

I don’t believe that at all. Maybe its because I’m a finance guy and variance is everything to me, but that is the most counter-intuitive thing said in this thread to me.

Think about it this way, if your plays are normally distributed with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 5, you are going to have times where you will have strings of plays that never equal a first down. You will have several punts in the game. If your plays are normally distributed with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 it is statistically probable that you will never punt in a game.

I could easily run that simulation right now and count the number of times in a 500 play season there are strings of 3-4 plays that don’t equal 10 yards. In each scenario. This is very simplified and doesn’t account for penalties or turnovers, but other than that, I don’t see any way that lowering the variance, ceterus paribus, wouldn’t dramatically increase your scoring offense.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's actually true. TC had something on it a while back.

S&P+ is a combination of success rate and explosion. Lots of good offenses do it in different ways.

For instance, Clemson in 2008 was 81st in success rate and 48th in explosion, good for the 60th best offense overall. Meanwhile Memphis was 44th in success rate and 85th in explosion, good for 66th best offense overall.

FSU’s 33rd ranked S&P+ offense in 2008 was 19th in success rate and 44th in explosion. I do like how we do it. Better for the

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Strength of Schedule

Ok, so I had to stop reading all of these posts, as every single one of them has been extremely long and quite honestly, too full of mind numbingly awesome data! I just don’t have the time, however, couldn’t a lot of the PA and PS projeections, including margins, be skewed by the talent of our opponents? I only mean in the case of projecting the’Noles record. It would be cool to see each SBNation board do this for their own team, with projected defense/offense improvements, no? I guess I just feel with a little help from Virginia and even BC we can improve the numbers.

by HeedNole on Apr 27, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

A. The numbers above are opponent adjusted.
2. It wouldn’t work on other boards. Unfortunately, most of the other sites are not on our level with understanding how to adjust for opponent quality when measuring performance.
D. The best way to control for opponent is to talk about conference games, because we ll play a similar schedule.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bud,

I don’t disagree that there was something you read about it, but I am completely skeptical of the methodology if that is the conclusion they came to. I’m not saying it isn’t true I’m just saying that I’m a skeptic of some people’s statistical conclusions by my nature, and even more so if it is the opposite of what logical inference would dictate.

Also, if what you say is true (variance doesn’t matter) then that undermines your whole article on our zone blocking scheme. The idea of “no negative yards” is exactly the strategy of lowering the variance of your plays.

So, in my boredom, I just ran two simulations of 500 plays (133 first downs, 133 second downs, 133 third downs) each in Crystal Ball (a statistical simulation software). In one, the mean play was 5 yards, with a 5 yard standard deviation. In the other the mean play was 5 yards, but with only a 0.5 yard standard deviation. I know these are extremes, but they’ll help illustrate the point. I can run them again with more realistic st. dev. if you would like.

In each simulation I counted how many times these 3 plays together that did not add up to 10 yards. I assumed that a team would punt (or kick a FG) if this was the case. In the first case (high variance) 24% of the time, the team did not get a first down. In the second scenario (low variance), 0% of the time the team did not get a first down. That’s right with low variance, they never had to punt.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ok

1. You stated the first problem, you are still playing to extremes. I said “it doesn’t matter how you get to your YPP”, I should have said “within reason” because the swings in variance that you are talking about are extremely improbable.

2. Low variance is always better when talking about gaining yards. However, explosion can make up for the variance because it is a timed game and if you punt 3 more times, but get 4 more possions you can score more in the game.

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, if what you say is true (variance doesn’t matter) then that undermines your whole article on our zone blocking scheme. The idea of "no negative yards" is exactly the strategy of lowering the variance of your plays.

I disagree. More than one way to skin a cat. It’s just what we want to do.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 27, 2010 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Please do. You will find that the added benefit of scoring quickly and adding possessions counteracts the punts.

Also, nobody is capable of a SD of .5

95% of plays within 4-6 yards? talk about statistically improbable.

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

That actually makes sense

about added possessions. I hadn’t thought about adding in time constraints to the model. Good point.

Still, you have to look at my response in the context of your post. You said that “[i]t has been shown that how you to get your average yards per play has a relaitively small effect on how many points you score” which you must admit isn’t quite true (and have admitted so in your last post, so I’m not harping on it). There is an optimal risk-return trade off (risk purely meaning variance here). As I’ve said all along, ceterus paribus, you’d like to minimize variance. Now you are agreeing with me so I’m not sure why you posted disagreement in the first place. Probably just a message board communication mix up.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, you would like to minimize variance, but not at the expense of explosion was my point. So “how” you get them in the realms of reality does really have a relatively small effect when accounting for everything.

I should have initially included the possessions argument.

I don’t mean to be argumentative, just I don’t think that my stance has really changed

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like I said

probably just a message board mix up, but your response that “it doesn’t matter…” was to this post:

The idea isn’t to have some plays go for 13 yards, and some for 0 yards and then look at the average and go "wow, we’re averaging 13 [note: should read 6.5] yards per play". You are going to have a lot of punts if you have that kind of standard deviation. You’d really love to have some plays go for 7 yards and some plays go for 6 yards to achieve that kind of average.

I was implying that under the same YPP, the lower variance is better. Either way, we’re on the same page now.

by TuckNole on Apr 27, 2010 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

ahh yes, I was addressing the idea in general and ignoring the extremes with which you used.

btw, haven’t seen you post before so, Welcome!

365 days, until I change my ways.

by SWFLNole. on Apr 27, 2010 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Took a stab at using YPP in the model instead of PS and PA

Interestingly, IMO, the variance was higher. Perhaps because YPP data needs to have garbage time yards excluded in the same way that Brian Fremeau does for this FEI calculations?

Here’s 2007 data using YPP info.

Team PS PA EWP Wins Exp Wins Delta
UVA 4.8 4.8 0.500 2 4.00 -2.00
Duke 3.9 5.7 0.319 3 2.55 0.45
UNC 5 4.9 0.510 4 4.08 -0.08
MIA 4.6 5.3 0.430 5 3.44 1.56
VT 5.3 4.1 0.629 6 5.03 0.97
GT 5.2 4.9 0.530 7 4.24 2.76
CLEM 5 4.1 0.598 6 4.78 1.22
BC 5.7 4.7 0.595 5 4.76 0.24
FSU 5.2 5 0.520 4 4.16 -0.16
WF 4.6 4.9 0.468 3 3.75 -0.75
NCST 4.5 5.4 0.410 2 3.28 -1.28
MD 5.2 5.3 0.490 1 3.92 -2.92

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, at the very least we need to remove kneeldowns

Also, we should use a -45 yard adjustment for interceptions, (+45 on defense), to further the effect.

YPP, to me, is much better because it is a much larger sample set, provided we remove garbage time and understand that field position will vary.

by Bud Elliott on Apr 28, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Interesting stuff GSN. However the one flaw I find with your projected 2010 EWP's is that you forgot to incorporate our players 2010 vs 2009 increase in

                                                .
.

SWAGGER.

>-----:----:------>Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999

by FrankDNole on Apr 27, 2010 3:26 PM EDT reply actions  

Oh man. How did nobody notice that?

The swagger factor…

back to the drawing board.

"Bring back Fred Rouse--a true Nole"

by Randall W. Spetman on Apr 27, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

No one on the corner has swagga like us

>>>-----------;;;-->CP7 for Heisman>>>-----------;;;-->

by RollNole5 on Apr 27, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

SWAGGER

The high point of swagger was the pre1988 rap video followed by the 0-31 massacre in the opening game.
From Sports illustrated Sept. 12, 1988:
this year’s Florida State football team did make one of the above-mentioned bits of video garbage, proclaiming itself No. 1 in a noxious dirge entitled The Seminole Rap, which debuted on a Tallahassee TV station last week. While fans in northern Florida were still learning the words so they could rap along with their heroes, the Noles traveled to the Orange Bowl, where the University of Miami thrashed them 31-0.

by madridbend on Apr 27, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nole for life

What i mean is, I love FSU, and swagger made us look like fools. Playing football made us look like champions.

Keep the swagger, bring back the wins.

by madridbend on Apr 27, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Every post here about swagger is sarcastic

Unless someone is new. Swagger is not a tangible quality, just like “clutchness.”

>>---l>

by DKfromVA on Apr 27, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

clutchness

is a very important quality, just ask Mike Martin.

I think touchdownness is also very important in recruiting, along with wantowiniosity, which we know all champions have.

by freshcollegeboy on Apr 27, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly wantowiniosity is obviously why the Bronc's drafted Tebow.

When you look at it that way it makes all the sense in the world! ; )

Team Gold

by truecolors on Apr 27, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

or fan expectations,

or a measurement of confidence.. or optomism..

spring game attendance.. maybe

by Mr. Seminole on Apr 28, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

If I recall

Some fairly knowledgeable people were saying based on the spring game the FSU defense already looked 50 ish. I wasn’t there, can’t say.

I don’t there are too many teams that are going to have more talent and better coaches on defense than FSU especially in the ACC. Now it would be easier to predict results if we had seen a year under these coaches. So all we can go on is instinct.

College football has seen some amazing turn arounds however. Stoops went to Oklahoma and won an NC his first year. It has been demonstrated over and over that good coaches can go in when the talent is there, put in a new scheme and produce wonders. Nobody is saying FSU is going to win the national championship bur a defense inside the top 30 even is not outside the realm of possibility here.

FSU fans are simply conditioned to negativity and failure at this point. I understand that. They expect the worst case scenario and discount the best case scenario.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis
Ann say hello to the grand kids

by DocHoliday2 on Apr 27, 2010 9:17 PM EDT reply actions  

aint that the truth
FSU fans are simply conditioned to negativity and failure at this point. I understand that. They expect the worst case scenario and discount the best case scenario.

by Mr. Seminole on Apr 28, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Oh and

Swagger means absolutely nothing, it is hellaswag that will earn another two wins.

Bring back Peter Tom Willis
Ann say hello to the grand kids

by DocHoliday2 on Apr 27, 2010 9:27 PM EDT reply actions  

question

What if the offense digressed 10% ? How much would the defense need to improve in that case in order to get 7 ACC wins.

by Mr. Seminole on Apr 28, 2010 9:45 AM EDT reply actions  

If FSU offense regressed 10%

Our PS would be 241. To be at .750 EWP (about the threshhold needed to be on track for 7 wins) – we’d need to hold opponents to 139 pts (about 17.4 ppg).

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'd like to see UF 2005 vs. UF 2006 on that metric (reduction in ppg).

Their defense went from certifiably porous (not saying it was FSU’09 bad, but sub-par in the SEC) to carrying their team to a championship the next season. Played a lot of young’uns and then reaped the benefits in the successive year.

by arrdub on Apr 28, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

UF for the past 6 years

Here you go…

Year Team PS PA WP Wins Exp Wins Delta
2004 UF 251 187 0.643 4 5.14 -1.14
2005 UF 205 178 0.570 5 4.56 0.44
2006 UF 178 126 0.666 7 5.33 1.67
2007 UF 305 224 0.650 5 5.20 -0.20
2008 UF 359 100 0.928 7 7.42 -0.42
2009 UF 221 96 0.841 8 6.73 1.27

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Look how dominate that 2008 UF team was.

359 points scored to 100 points against? Goodness gracious.

by PadraicTheSeminole on Apr 28, 2010 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Can we officially name the delta the "swagger effect"?

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 28, 2010 11:53 AM EDT reply actions  

or lack thereof, and hellaswag as a delta greater than 2?

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 28, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Done.

Now we just need a name for negative Deltas.

My suggestions would be for less than 2: the Allen effect.

 For more than 2 – the Amato effect.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 28, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I would support that. And any consistent delta below .5 for 10 years in a row is the Bobby effect - of the "1 players away dadgummit effect"

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 28, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

negative .5 delta I mean

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 28, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ran the numbers going back to 2005 for ACC, SEC, and Big12

Ran through the numbers for 5 seasons for the ACC, SEC, and Big12. Why those 3? Each conference has a similar configuration – two conferences of 6 teams playing an 8 game conference schedule.

So that gave me a lot more data points to figure out relative performance for an 8 win season, a 7 win season, etc.

Basically with 5 years of data for 3 conferences of 12 teams – that gave me 180 team-seasons’ worth of data.

Here’s what the numbers worked up to:

The average 8 win team had an EWP of .855
The average 7 win team had an EWP of .772
The average 6 win team had an EWP of .669
The average 5 win team had an EWP of .594
The average 4 win team had an EWP of .491
The average 3 win team had an EWP of .427
The average 2 win team had an EWP of .310
The average 1 win team had an EWP of .230
The average 0 win team had an EWP of .147

So, revising some numbers for FSU.

Assuming that FSU’s offense held constant at 268 conference pts:

8 wins: PA = 110 or 13.77 ppg – 60% better than in 2009
7 wins: PA = 146 or 18.19 ppg – 48% better
6 wins: PA = 188 or 23.87 ppg – 32% better
5 wins: PA = 221 or 27.68 ppg – 20% better
4 wins: PA = 272 or 34.08 ppg – 2% better

If our offense grew by say 15% to 308 pts in conference

8 wins: PA = 127 or 15.83 ppg – 55% better
7 wins: PA = 167 or 20.90 ppg – 40% better
6 wins: PA = 217 or 27.09 ppg – 22% better
5 wins: PA = 255 or 31.81 ppg – 9% better

With more data, it now looks like 6 wins is more doable – especially if the offense can improve by 15% which, if there really is improvement in the defense, could very easily occur based on better field position, forcing more punts, forcing more turnovers. Not to mention better performance from the offense due to having CP for a full season (hopefully) and a more experienced OL with a Gran-led group of RBs.

We might still need some breaks (i.e. few significant injuries, ball bouncing our way) to get beyond 6 wins, but 7 isn’t out of the question. A 30% improvement in PA by our defense would put us at around 6.5 wins – just on the cusp of having a reasonable expectation at 7 wins.

by GraniteStateNoles on Apr 29, 2010 2:21 PM EDT reply actions  

not only forcing punts and getting better field position in the more traditional sense of not allowing the other team to get upfield, but just them kicking it to Greg Reid would amplify the benefits.

Grace I call Your name, Oh won’t Your smile fall over me, I’m cracked and dry on hands and knees, Oh sweet grace rain down on me I need You grace
-Phil Wickham

by FSUvaFan on Apr 29, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We talk FSU

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Eddiegoldman_small
2013 Recruiting Discussion Thread #2
Noleccav2_small
An All Inclusive Spring Weekend?
Small
One Guy's 2012-2013 FSU Football Roster & Recruiting Analysis
Images_small
The Process, The Personnel & The Plan: A peek behind curtain of BCS Recruiting
Fsu1_small
Ongoing/Off-Topic Discussion Thread #70

Recent FanPosts

Small
The 2013 Recruiting Targets...from a fan
Small
ACC Offensive Line Game 1 Starters- A Statistical Breakdown
Osceola_unconquered_small
Consider the Big 12...
Small
2013 coaching staff vis-à-vis recruiting
Small
Very Early Thoughts and Questions on 2012 Starters
Small
Reiteration of Domination: Tale of the (Blue) Chips, Part Deux
Eddiegoldman_small
2013 Recruiting Discussion Thread #1 [CLOSED]

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SHOP THE TOMAHAWK NATION STORE

Florida State Seminoles Apparel


Chiefs

Recruiting_image_small Bud Elliott

Editors

Miller_small basaltrock

Img_4552_small TrueCubbie

Winston_small nolesblogger

Small Fsued

Doak_1968_small pbysh

Vacation_013_small MattDNole

Rolle_small DKfromVA

Nattylite3_small Nattylite

Peter_ernie_small The K-Man

Fsu1_small FrankDNole

Robbowtiedrink_small ricobert1

Florida-county-map_small SWFLNole.

Highlife_small fsu44

Seminoleswag_small NoleLaw

41297_568178558869_41806189_33516186_4798385_n_small BenDNole

Photo-2_small Dr.KennethNoisewater

Avatar_2_small SheenaLouise

Go-fsu-seminoles-red_small Michael@TN

Macho-man-randy-savage-7_small ScottCrumbly

Screenhunter_02_oct Michael Rogner

Authors

Db_small Chris Gadsden

1209_large_small FSUvaFan

Westcott1_small NoleThruandThru

Second_to_fsu_small Jamil Dawson