The CardBoard
The Loss to TCU - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Loss to TCU (/thread-15324.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Re: The Loss to TCU - qwerty49 - 01-04-2018

I’m not sure yp/rush attempt is always the right metric.

Let’s look at the extremes:

Team A has 59 yds rushing at halftime, from 9 rushes for no gain and one rush for 59 yds. 5.9 yards per rush.

Team B has 58 rushing yards, 10 carries, all for exactly 5.8 yds each time. 5.8 yards per rush.

Is Team A rushing “better” or more efficiently than Team B? Which team’s running game would you feel better about? Suppose your #1 back gets hurt - which line gives your #2 back a better chance to succeed?




(01-04-2018, 12:52 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?


Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 01-04-2018

(01-04-2018, 03:19 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:[And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

Because our defense was terrible and never got off the field?



It really is amazing to me how much you move the goalposts on this topic. You say something, someone posts stats strongly indicating that you're wrong, and then POOF, as if by magic a different complaint appears. Maybe you're just wrong?

Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 01-04-2018

Teejers I was joking. I know your position. You’ve stated it 1,000 times over the years.  BTW - 2015 was the most run oriented offense during Shaw’s years at Stanford.



(01-04-2018, 03:19 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:BC, we will never agree on our O being a good one this year, as I think I'd take more than half of the conference offenses over Stanford's (based on limited viewing).

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

You don't have to answer that question because as noted above, we'll never agree.

P.S.  Lex, as to your question, I want an O that attacks everywhere on the field - both running and passing.  I don't believe a "run Love into a packed box and hope he springs one because he is that good" to be a particularly good strategy.  Again, Detroit Lions.  Obviously, I am in a minority here.


Re: The Loss to TCU - Mick - 01-04-2018

(01-04-2018, 12:15 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Good point Hulk on “predictability” with two very minor quibbles -

Kelly’s offense was indeed predictable IMO, it was just that no one could stop it at first, and generally speaking it was hard to stop at the college level. (Maybe that’s not a quibble, but just another way of agreeing with you)

The same scheme with different personnel produces different results. We gave the ball to Toby on 3rd and 7 pretty regularly. But that was Toby running behind Marecic and the TWU, and we were confident he would make it. I can’t remember if we ever let Bryce go between the tackles on 3rd and long with this offensive line. So the yawns about our frequently stuffed first down runs could also be compounded by comparatively weaker blocking. And instead of “weaker” maybe I should just say “unsuccessful” — most of Bryce’s big runs seemed to spring from someone getting lateral  leverage to open the hole rather than overpowering the opponent.

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220208#msg220208 date=1515077251]
My point was that Chip Kelly and Steve Frost's offenses may appear more creative, unpredictable and interesting to some Stanford fans only because they don't see Kelly and Frost teams every week of every football season.  Once you see those offense play even two games, the repetition really sets in and they're not particularly interesting or creative to watch at at all. 

This is another way of suggesting that our offense may uninteresting and predictable to some Stanford fans because those fans have seen this Stanford offense run over 10,000 plays.  It's like watching The Big Short or Pretty Woman 15 times.  What once made you look in wonder now makes you yawn.
[/quote]

The interesting thing to me about multi-option offenses is that from the offense's perspective the key is to go after the weakest defender possible.  You want that player to have to make the play, and you keep going at him until the offense switches out the player or switches up the coverage.  The team with the weakest player is the most vulnerable.  Imagine how baseball would be if you didn't have to pitch to Buster Posey at all but could pitch to the player with the weakest on base percentage -- every single time.

I think if the defense knows what our offense is likely to do, we have a significant disadvantage.  It's not such a disadvantage if Luck or Garoppolo is calling the signals, they can see the tendencies in the other defense better than a less capable QB.  So Stanford (and the Niners) should always do pretty well if they have a very strong QB.  If not, all bets are off.

Re: The Loss to TCU - teejers1 - 01-04-2018

Shtup, always gives me comfort to be on opposite side of you when it comes to evaluating Stanford football.  And I guess Husak and the multitudes of others who care about Stanford football are "just wrong" when airing concerns about Stanford's offense. 

I'll stop know.  Y'all can have the last word(s).



Re: The Loss to TCU - dabigv13 - 01-04-2018

And that Husak mention gives me a teejers bingo!

Re: The Loss to TCU - BostonCard - 01-04-2018

(01-04-2018, 04:39 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:I’m not sure yp/rush attempt is always the right metric.

Let’s look at the extremes:

Team A has 59 yds rushing at halftime, from 9 rushes for no gain and one rush for 59 yds. 5.9 yards per rush.

Team B has 58 rushing yards, 10 carries, all for exactly 5.8 yds each time. 5.8 yards per rush.

Is Team A rushing “better” or more efficiently than Team B? Which team’s running game would you feel better about? Suppose your #1 back gets hurt - which line gives your #2 back a better chance to succeed?




[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220228#msg220228 date=1515095521]
We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?
[/quote]

I agree that yards per cary is not a perfect metric, and this year, in particular, we've been a bit more prone to high average yards per cary that has been skewed upwards by the big play.  Indeed, if you look at adjusted line rate here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol, you get some sense of the extent to which this is a problem (adjusted line yards isolates the yards that are "due" to the offensive line):

Quote:Adjusted Line Yards (ALY): Statistic that attempts to, even to a small extent, separate the ability of a running back from the ability of the offensive line. Adjusted Line Yards begin as a measure of average rushing yards per play by running backs only, adjusted in the following way:

0-4 yards: 100% strength
5-10 yards: 50% strength
11+ yards: not included
runs for a loss: 120% strength
Each play is also adjusted based on game situation as well as quality of opponents faced. Adjusted Line Yards can be listed as total or broken down by direction to attempt to isolate ability of specific linemen

If 100 is an average team, we  rated 99.7, ever so slightly below average.

Now, that isn't entirely fair to the run game as a whole either, since giving no credit to the long runs is probably unfair too.  Part of the reason is opponent defenses stack the line, which hurts our adjusted line yards.  But in doing so, they make themselves more prone to the big run.  It's a tradeoff that we seem to be reasonably willing to take.

There is no one stat that encompasses everything.  Football outsider's S&P is a combination of success rate and points per play that captures both efficiency and explosiveness.  Our rushing S&P+ is 109 (again, 100 is an average team against the opponent), which is better than average but ranked 46th.  Interestingly, our passing S&P was basically the same (109.8), so it suggests that our offensive mix was pretty reasonable. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff)

BC

Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-04-2018

(01-04-2018, 03:28 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18454.msg220249#msg220249 date=1515104384]
I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].
Our 2012 and 2013 Rose Bowl teams called to disagree with you.
[/quote]

How we should think about and measure our offense is a good question. I personally believe in the premise that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and thus believe we should consider measures that don't depend upon type of offensive system, tempo, etc.

Yards per game is not a good metric for comparing teams over the course of a season if the teams operate at drastically different tempos. It's not irrelevant, just not good. It's roughly equivalent to using total yards on the season for teams that play a different number of games.
Yards per game is a good metric for comparing opponents within one game - as both teams will typically have the same number of possessions (just about).

Yards per play at least takes tempo into account, but is highly style dependent.
It becomes a better measure over a large data base, but is quite poor over a single game.
[I give this years Stanford-SDSU game as an example (only an example - one game doesn't prove anything for general trends). Stanford was outgained for the game 254-353. Stanford outgained SDSU per play by 5.9 to 4.5. I'd say the former was more indicative of the flow of play, with the issue being that Stanford couldn't get first downs so didn't have many plays to average out the two big Love runs.]

Per possession measures seem the obvious best choice, but for whatever reason they are rarely reported for football. They are quite standard for basketball and some other sports.
The best site I know of for reporting per possession stats is bcftoys.com, which several people here use from time to time.
Points per drive is the most easily understood of their stats. There are also versions of yards per drive but they get a little complicated. Putting it all together gives an offensive efficiency value that they then adjust for opponent. That is probably the best way to describe the quality of an offense in one number, with the very serious caveat that one number cannot answer a complex question such as "how good is this offense".


Stanford's best offenses under Shaw were 2011 and 2015. They were also the best at yards per game, because yards per game is relevant. However, Stanford hadn't slowed down quite so much by 2011, so the per game numbers slide quite a bit for 2015 despite great per possession numbers.


So, to look at how these things compare, and Stanford's offense over the Shaw years, here are the overall Offensive Efficiency rating (OFEI), national rank, Points Per Possession, national rank, and yards per game, national rank.

Year      OFEI      Rank        PPP    Rank      ypg      Rank
2017      3.01*      17          2.78    17        389        79 
2016    -0.21        79          2.22      62        367      103
2015      1.45          2          3.58        2        436        40
2014      0.20        50          2.30      50        389        77
2013      0.60        27          2.67      30        406        69
2012      0.15        54          2.08      71        374        86
2011      1.16          6          3.56      2        489        8

*  the numerical formula for OFEI obviously changed in 2017, so the raw number isn't comparable to other years.

I would stipulate that the first two categories are far better measures of the quality of Stanford's offense, and everybody's offense, than the third category. Still, yards per game is related enough that it goes up for good offenses and down for bad.

Re: The Loss to TCU - qwerty49 - 01-04-2018

Yeah, we’re in danger of stat-geeking this discussion to death. My sense is that if we could see a histogram of all our rushing plays against yards per carry that the distribution this year would have been discernibly different from years past. It just feels like this year had a broader standard deviation, if only because Bryce had 13 50+ TD runs.

I submit that some of us (Teejers and myself included) tend to rely on a subjective sense of what has been going on, while others are more into a data-driven aproach. I think there’s room for both the analog and digital perspectives. This year had great variation in rushes — big runs to the house, and quite a few stuffs, but the average rush looked good statistically.

I also submit there’s some frustration with this season, and for a couple of different reasons - 1) we at times we did a lot better than initially expected; (how many folks here predicted Bryce would have a 2000 yd Bridesman year?) and 2) we had several shoulda/coulda/woulda games where just a play or two might have flipped the outcome. Personally I was ready to write this season off after the SDSU loss; then next thing I knew we had a shot at the Cotton Bowl. So my personal frustration is amplified by a big retrospective sigh as to what could have been. Had we merely gone 6-6 into the Vegas Bowl I probably wouldn’t have cared that much.




(01-04-2018, 05:37 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18454.msg220256#msg220256 date=1515109174]
I’m not sure yp/rush attempt is always the right metric.

Let’s look at the extremes:

Team A has 59 yds rushing at halftime, from 9 rushes for no gain and one rush for 59 yds. 5.9 yards per rush.

Team B has 58 rushing yards, 10 carries, all for exactly 5.8 yds each time. 5.8 yards per rush.

Is Team A rushing “better” or more efficiently than Team B? Which team’s running game would you feel better about? Suppose your #1 back gets hurt - which line gives your #2 back a better chance to succeed?




[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220228#msg220228 date=1515095521]
We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?
[/quote]

I agree that yards per cary is not a perfect metric, and this year, in particular, we've been a bit more prone to high average yards per cary that has been skewed upwards by the big play.  Indeed, if you look at adjusted line rate here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol, you get some sense of the extent to which this is a problem (adjusted line yards isolates the yards that are "due" to the offensive line):

Quote:Adjusted Line Yards (ALY): Statistic that attempts to, even to a small extent, separate the ability of a running back from the ability of the offensive line. Adjusted Line Yards begin as a measure of average rushing yards per play by running backs only, adjusted in the following way:

0-4 yards: 100% strength
5-10 yards: 50% strength
11+ yards: not included
runs for a loss: 120% strength
Each play is also adjusted based on game situation as well as quality of opponents faced. Adjusted Line Yards can be listed as total or broken down by direction to attempt to isolate ability of specific linemen

If 100 is an average team, we  rated 99.7, ever so slightly below average.

Now, that isn't entirely fair to the run game as a whole either, since giving no credit to the long runs is probably unfair too.  Part of the reason is opponent defenses stack the line, which hurts our adjusted line yards.  But in doing so, they make themselves more prone to the big run.  It's a tradeoff that we seem to be reasonably willing to take.

There is no one stat that encompasses everything.  Football outsider's S&P is a combination of success rate and points per play that captures both efficiency and explosiveness.  Our rushing S&P+ is 109 (again, 100 is an average team against the opponent), which is better than average but ranked 46th.  Interestingly, our passing S&P was basically the same (109.8), so it suggests that our offensive mix was pretty reasonable. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff)

BC
[/quote]

Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-05-2018

(01-04-2018, 11:50 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:I also submit there’s some frustration with this season, and for a couple of different reasons - 1) we at times we did a lot better than initially expected; (how many folks here predicted Bryce would have a 2000 yd Bridesman year?) and 2) we had several shoulda/coulda/woulda games where just a play or two might have flipped the outcome. Personally I was ready to write this season off after the SDSU loss; then next thing I knew we had a shot at the Cotton Bowl. So my personal frustration is amplified by a big retrospective sigh as to what could have been. Had we merely gone 6-6 into the Vegas Bowl I probably wouldn’t have cared that much.


I was frustrated because initially I expected this team to be very good.

Last year we ended with 10 wins. We lost very few people going into this season, though the losses included our clear two best players.

The defense in particular looked primed to approach the glory years again. There were stars in the making in the backfield (remember all the articles that this would be our best ever secondary?), a large solid corps of LBers, and worries on the DL but one star and some younger guys who should be coming along. The only full-time starters lost were Thomas and Lloyd, with Hoffpaiur a part time starter.

The offense at least seemed it should be better. Losing McCaffrey was of course tough, but Love was obviously a talented back with 100 yard games every time he started. QB seemed it had to get better. The OL returned 4 of 5. WR had some issues, but we had some big guys at least. Starters lost were McCaffrey, Rector, Caspers, and Owusu was a part-time starter. Still pretty light losses as college teams go.

So, I expected a good year hoping for a dominant defense and an improved offense.
We kind of got the latter, with a few nasty sputters, and eventually found a path forward at QB.
We never really got the former, though the performance against und was very good.

We went 3-4 in one score games (W=Utah,OSU,cal; L=SDSU,WSU,$C#2,TCU).
In retrospect that seems not far off par for the course, at the time the Ls seemed to hurt more than than Ws salved.

Re: The Loss to TCU - JohnR34231 - 01-05-2018

My source of disappointment and frustration this year was all the times in the 4th quarter the game was on the line and we just didn't seem to have the right stuff.
SDSU, Wazzu, U$C in the CC game, TCU. All very winnable games, but the opposition made the plays and we didn't.

P.S. The same thing might have happened in the Washington game except for a fortuitous penalty that took the momentum out of a Husky drive that might have tied the score.

Re: The Loss to TCU - slide - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 08:07 AM)JPRI link Wrote:My source of disappointment and frustration this year was all the times in the 4th quarter the game was on the line and we just didn't seem to have the right stuff.
SDSU, Wazzu, U$C in the CC game, TCU. All very winnable games, but the opposition made the plays and we didn't.

P.S. The same thing might have happened in the Washington game except for a fortuitous penalty that took the momentum out of a Husky drive that might have tied the score.

add Oregon State to the mix too. 

Re: The Loss to TCU - JohnR34231 - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 08:49 AM)slide link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg220323#msg220323 date=1515164866]
My source of disappointment and frustration this year was all the times in the 4th quarter the game was on the line and we just didn't seem to have the right stuff.
SDSU, Wazzu, U$C in the CC game, TCU. All very winnable games, but the opposition made the plays and we didn't.

P.S. The same thing might have happened in the Washington game except for a fortuitous penalty that took the momentum out of a Husky drive that might have tied the score.

add Oregon State to the mix too.
[/quote]

Yeah, I didn't include OSU because the defense made a play in recovering the fumble, and the offense responded by driving for the winning TD.

Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 01-05-2018

(01-04-2018, 05:11 PM)dabigv link Wrote:And that Husak mention gives me a teejers bingo!

At this point I'm honestly getting a Poe's Law vibe from him.

Re: The Loss to TCU - Duck Tears - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 07:56 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18454.msg220310#msg220310 date=1515135058]
The defense in particular looked primed to approach the glory years again. There were stars in the making in the backfield (remember all the articles that this would be our best ever secondary?), a large solid corps of LBers, and worries on the DL but one star and some younger guys who should be coming along.
[/quote]

You measure great players by their impact on the field -- and the void they leave when they're gone (in Solomon Thomas' case, with two years eligibility left).

Is it fair to ask how many potential 2017 wins -- Alamo Bowl included -- went with him?


Re: The Loss to TCU - SamuelMcF - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 10:32 AM)Duck Tears link Wrote:You measure great players by their impact on the field -- and the void they leave when they're gone (in Solomon Thomas' case, with two years eligibility left).

Is it fair to ask how many potential 2017 wins -- Alamo Bowl included -- went with him?

I'll bite. How about all the losses by 3 or fewer points?

That makes...4. We'd be 12-1.

Re: The Loss to TCU - JohnR34231 - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 10:32 AM)Duck Tears link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18454.msg220321#msg220321 date=1515164190]
[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18454.msg220310#msg220310 date=1515135058]
The defense in particular looked primed to approach the glory years again. There were stars in the making in the backfield (remember all the articles that this would be our best ever secondary?), a large solid corps of LBers, and worries on the DL but one star and some younger guys who should be coming along.
[/quote]

You measure great players by their impact on the field -- and the void they leave when they're gone (in Solomon Thomas' case, with two years eligibility left).

Is it fair to ask how many potential 2017 wins -- Alamo Bowl included -- went with him?
[/quote]

Well, it is conceivable that with him in there we could have stopped the fourth quarter drives by SDSU, Wazzu, and U$C in the CCG, winning the conference and ending the regular season with a 12-1 record. Would that have put us in the playoffs? Doubtful, but you never know.

Re: The Loss to TCU - washingtonismoney - 01-05-2018

Playing along with this game, yes,  I think Stanford would’ve gone to the playoffs over ‘Bama had it gone 12-1. It would’ve had, what, three top 10 wins. I think Alabama had one top-25 win. Of course Alabama would’ve been the better team but that doesn’t necessarily mean a ton in playoff land.

That said, the season would’ve unfolded much differently. With a better win-loss record early on I doubt Shaw switches to Costello — which means, perversely, that Stanford would’ve probably lost to UW and ND. So, ironically, I think Thomas ends up making zero difference in the W-L. 

Re: The Loss to TCU - JustAnotherFan - 01-05-2018

(01-03-2018, 02:38 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:If you are an inside linebacker and know the play is coming off center and shoot the A gap, but are met with a pulling guard (or fullback) who effectively blocks you and springs the running back, it doesn't matter a lick that you knew the play was coming.  And if you (as a defense) sell out completely, you are vulnerable to the rare trick play where the offense totally goes against its alignment (see, for example, touchdowns thrown to our tight end out of the jumbo package).

BC

I believe/hope that Stanford coaches and players are smart enough to recognize that they can pull guards out of the same personnel/formations that can also have a tight end cross, or QB option, or a variety of other plays that do not run off the center's butt.

As I originally said, "if an inside linebacker knows the play is coming off center he can shoot the A gap. But if he has to worry about a tight end release or a slot cross ..."

Even if we believe that the guard or fullback can effectively block the person who knows where the play is being run (because every competent defensive coordinator is going to make sure that their players know the surefire tendencies) there is still a benefit to having the linebacker delay to make proper reads.

It almost seems to me like there is a sense of pride in knowing that the defense knows the play you are about to run, and still beating them on that play. That's brutality, but not intellectual brutality. It works for Arizona State and Oregon State (not this year though), but it does not work quite as well with USC or TCU.

I'm all for using formation/personnel to gain an advantage over the defense, but I'm also for not making half of our plays so predictable that it gives the defense an advantage over us. That's all I'm saying. I said it about three different ways so I'll spare everyone with my saying it a fourth way. 


Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-05-2018

(01-05-2018, 08:49 AM)slide link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18454.msg220323#msg220323 date=1515164866]
My source of disappointment and frustration this year was all the times in the 4th quarter the game was on the line and we just didn't seem to have the right stuff.
SDSU, Wazzu, U$C in the CC game, TCU. All very winnable games, but the opposition made the plays and we didn't.

add Oregon State to the mix too.
[/quote]

Wasn't Oregon State the exact opposite?
In that game we were outplayed (a very winnable game for OSU), but did make a couple of plays towards the end to pull out the victory.


The OSU game was frustrating for a different reason, and at least for me a reason that lingers longer.

The close - coulda, woulda, shoulda - games I find sting in the moment (if we had just done X, we would have won, and there are usually about 10 choices for X). But over a longer haul, I find overall poor performances more disappointing. I was disappointed that we could not play a competitive game against $C in week #2, I was disappointed that we let a bad OSU team outplay us for most of the game, I was disappointed we could never put together a quality performance on the road.


(01-05-2018, 10:32 AM)Duck Tears link Wrote:You measure great players by their impact on the field -- and the void they leave when they're gone (in Solomon Thomas' case, with two years eligibility left).

I think the void they leave is more complicated, as it depends upon the next guy as well.
McCaffrey was a great player by most any measure, but the void he left was not as big as the one left by Thomas because Love was in the wings.