Per drive stats (Cal edition) - 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: Per drive stats (Cal edition) (/thread-10774.html)
+- 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: Per drive stats (Cal edition) (/thread-10774.html)
Pages:
1
2
Per drive stats (Cal edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
I'm going to do things a bit differently in this installment. First I will go over the per-drive stats of the game gone by against the Bears. I'll then post the season-long per drive stats. Normally at this point I would put conference stats, but since our upcoming opponent is not a Pac-12 opponent, I'm going to use season long stats and include UDFG.
First, though, the Cal game stats (only meaningful drives included, so the garbage time TD that Cal got is out):
| Stanford drives |
| [table][tr][td]Qtr. | LOS | Time | Obtained | LOS | Time | Outcome | Rush | Pass | Plays | RYds | PYds | PnYds | Yds | TOP | Pts |
| 1st | 70 | 15:00 | Kickoff | 54 | 12:09 | Punt | 3 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 16 | 2:51 | 0 |
| 1st | 52 | 10:23 | Punt | 0 | 6:25 | TOUCHDOWN | 6 | 1 | 7 | 47 | 5 | 0 | 52 | 3:58 | 7 |
| 1st | 69 | 0:05 | Kickoff | 41 | 10:13 | Punt | 6 | 4 | 10 | 16 | 12 | 0 | 28 | 4:52 | 0 |
| 2nd | 80 | 6:15 | Punt | 0 | 4:12 | TOUCHDOWN | 3 | 1 | 4 | 31 | 49 | 0 | 80 | 2:03 | 7 |
| 3rd | 66 | 11:55 | Kickoff | 57 | 9:37 | Punt | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 2:18 | 0 |
| 3rd | 61 | 4:54 | Kickoff | 0 | 14:23 | TOUCHDOWN | 9 | 3 | 12 | 49 | 12 | 0 | 61 | 5:31 | 7 |
| 4th | 78 | 8:59 | Downs | 0 | 6:13 | TOUCHDOWN | 5 | 0 | 5 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 78 | 2:46 | 7 |
| Start | Rush% | Plays/dr | yds/play | yds/drive | %yds | 3 and out% | eTO% | pts/dr |
| 68.0 | 73.9% | 6.6 | 7.0 | 46.3 | 68.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 4.0 |
| [table][tr][td]Cal Drives | |||||||||||||||
| [table][tr][td]Qtr. | LOS | Time | Obtained | LOS | Time | Outcome | Rush | Pass | Plays | RYds | PYds | PnYds | Yds | TOP | Pts |
| 1st | 90 | 12:09 | Punt | 84 | 10:23 | Punt | 2 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0 | -5 | 6 | 1:46 | 0 |
| 1st | 67 | 6:25 | Kickoff | 3 | 0:05 | FIELD GOAL | 4 | 9 | 13 | 2 | 60 | 2 | 64 | 6:20 | 3 |
| 2nd | 91 | 10:13 | Punt | 55 | 6:15 | Punt | 2 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 46 | -15 | 36 | 3:58 | 0 |
| 2nd | 83 | 4:12 | Kickoff | 11 | 0:51 | FIELD GOAL | 1 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 64 | 0 | 72 | 3:21 | 3 |
| 3rd | 76 | 15:00 | Kickoff | 8 | 11:55 | FIELD GOAL | 2 | 4 | 6 | 30 | 38 | 0 | 68 | 3:05 | 3 |
| 3rd | 86 | 9:37 | Punt | 0 | 4:54 | TOUCHDOWN | 3 | 10 | 13 | 22 | 64 | 0 | 86 | 4:43 | 7 |
| 4th | 86 | 14:23 | Kickoff | 22 | 8:59 | Downs | 4 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 66 | -20 | 64 | 5:24 | 0 |
| Start | Rush% | Plays/dr | yds/play | yds/drive | %yds | 3 and out% | eTO% | pts/dr |
| 82.7 | 26.1% | 9.86 | 6.3 | 62.0 | 75.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 2.3 |
Indeed it was amazing that Cal got 75% of available yards (more than the Stanford offense) despite fewer yards per play (it helps to have a couple big plays), and yet only turned that into 2.3 points per drive. A big part of it was field position; Cal started on average at its own 17 yard line; Stanford on its own 32 (not even including the McCaffrey's return for a TD). Field goals from the 3, 8, and 11 yard lines will do that for you.
Interesting symmetry; Stanford ran the ball 73.9% of the time; Cal passed it 73.9% of the time (and yet we wound up with a greater yards per play, and they wound up with a greater time of possession. Go figure).
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
Offense (Pac-12 teams plus non-conference opponents):
| [table][tr][td]Team | Conference | Start | Rush% | Plays/10 dr | yds/play | yds/drive | %yds | 3 and out% | eTO% | pts/dr |
| Stanford | Pac-12 | 65.8 | 59.2% | 63.1 | 6.4 | 40.7 | 61.8% | 11.2% | 10.2% | 3.43 |
| Washington St. | Pac-12 | 68.7 | 22.3% | 64.3 | 6.3 | 40.3 | 58.7% | 12.7% | 15.3% | 2.99 |
| Oregon | Pac-12 | 68.2 | 56.7% | 54.7 | 7.1 | 38.7 | 56.7% | 16.4% | 13.1% | 2.98 |
| UDFG | Ind. | 70.0 | 49.2% | 55.2 | 7.2 | 39.7 | 56.7% | 17.1% | 14.5% | 2.82 |
| UCLA | Pac-12 | 72.9 | 43.6% | 60.5 | 6.5 | 39.3 | 53.8% | 21.0% | 8.6% | 2.76 |
| SC | Pac-12 | 72.9 | 46.3% | 58.0 | 6.5 | 37.8 | 51.8% | 22.6% | 13.2% | 2.63 |
| Cal | Pac-12 | 72.0 | 39.8% | 59.5 | 6.7 | 40.0 | 55.5% | 14.7% | 24.8% | 2.48 |
| Arizona | Pac-12 | 70.8 | 44.5% | 57.3 | 6.1 | 35.1 | 49.6% | 18.3% | 20.9% | 2.43 |
| Utah | Pac-12 | 69.5 | 57.0% | 61.4 | 5.2 | 32.0 | 46.0% | 18.3% | 15.0% | 2.28 |
| Arizona St. | Pac-12 | 69.6 | 45.9% | 55.8 | 5.7 | 31.6 | 45.4% | 16.9% | 13.8% | 2.12 |
| Colorado | Pac-12 | 70.7 | 49.2% | 61.1 | 5.0 | 30.5 | 43.2% | 23.0% | 13.9% | 1.83 |
| Washington | Pac-12 | 70.3 | 42.7% | 52.0 | 5.6 | 29.3 | 41.7% | 24.0% | 19.2% | 1.80 |
| Northwestern | Big Ten | 71.4 | 56.9% | 54.4 | 4.6 | 25.1 | 35.2% | 30.7% | 14.9% | 1.38 |
| Oregon St. | Pac-12 | 73.4 | 52.8% | 55.6 | 5.0 | 27.7 | 37.7% | 30.0% | 15.0% | 1.23 |
| Central Florida | American | 69.7 | 42.3% | 50.5 | 4.1 | 20.5 | 29.5% | 23.7% | 28.0% | 0.97 |
| Average | 70.3 | 50.5% | 55.9 | 5.7 | 32.0 | 45.6% | 23.3% | 16.1% | 2.16 |
[/tr]
[/table]
The numbers are a little less impressive for Stanford because it now includes the game against Northwestern, where we stunk. Still, we easily lead in most per-drive offensive stats, especially points per drive (almost a half point ahead of WSU). Oregon is moving up based on its last few games. Cal is average. Central Florida is putrid, and OSU and NW not much better.
Our upcoming opponent slots itself between Oregon and UCLA, and probably compares most closely to Oregon. They have good run/pass balance, and actually lead have the best yards/play among the teams included. They are held back a bit by turnovers and e and outs, but this is a good offense we are facing. Of course, that is the offense with Prosise; without him things might be a bit different.
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
Defense
| Team | Opp Start | Opp Plays/dr | Opp yds/play | Opp yds/drive | Opp %yds | 3 and out% forced | eTO% forced | pts/dr given up |
| Northwestern | 70.1 | 52.0 | 4.6 | 23.8 | 34.0% | 29.2% | 17.5% | 1.25 |
| Utah | 71.1 | 57.0 | 5.0 | 28.8 | 40.5% | 22.0% | 22.9% | 1.63 |
| UDFG | 73.5 | 52.3 | 5.4 | 28.4 | 38.6% | 31.1% | 11.8% | 1.67 |
| Washington | 70.9 | 58.6 | 5.1 | 30.1 | 42.4% | 23.1% | 19.4% | 1.71 |
| UCLA | 71.5 | 63.5 | 4.9 | 30.8 | 43.1% | 23.6% | 17.9% | 1.77 |
| Stanford | 75.3 | 59.5 | 5.6 | 33.5 | 44.5% | 29.0% | 11.8% | 1.98 |
| Arizona St. | 71.5 | 49.3 | 5.9 | 29.1 | 40.7% | 29.5% | 14.7% | 1.98 |
| Washington St. | 70.1 | 60.9 | 5.9 | 36.2 | 51.6% | 15.1% | 21.7% | 2.08 |
| SC | 69.7 | 54.4 | 5.9 | 32.0 | 45.9% | 20.4% | 15.7% | 2.15 |
| Oregon | 69.2 | 59.1 | 5.9 | 35.0 | 50.5% | 18.5% | 16.0% | 2.47 |
| Colorado | 68.8 | 57.4 | 6.2 | 35.4 | 51.5% | 16.8% | 14.4% | 2.50 |
| Cal | 69.2 | 60.7 | 6.4 | 38.7 | 56.0% | 15.9% | 19.6% | 2.51 |
| Arizona | 70.3 | 59.8 | 6.2 | 36.8 | 52.4% | 20.5% | 10.7% | 2.84 |
| Central Florida | 68.0 | 57.3 | 6.7 | 38.3 | 56.3% | 18.5% | 8.7% | 3.03 |
| Oregon St. | 68.2 | 59.0 | 7.0 | 41.4 | 60.8% | 17.0% | 10.2% | 3.48 |
| Average | 70.3 | 55.9 | 5.7 | 32.0 | 45.6% | 23.3% | 16.1% | 2.16 |
On defense, Northwestern is heads and shoulders above all others, as we found out. The scary thing is that Notre Dame will be the second best team we face, though that is with their CB, who will be out against us. We are a mediocre team, as we've sort of figured out, just barely above average. We have a very large field position advantage, as we've had all year and while we give up an above-average number of yards per drive, the field position negates that. We're also pretty good at forcing three and outs (but Notre Dame is much better), but both us and ND are bad at forcing turnovers (and both teams are good at avoiding giving them up, so watch it be a sloppy, 5 turnover game).
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CTcard - 11-24-2015
Lots of good stuff in here.
One issue that we should remember, that applies much more to comparisons to UDFG and NWU than in-conference, is that these numbers are against different competition. Northwestern plays in a conference that tends to have good defenses and questionable offense, which likely over-rates their defensive prowess and under-rates their offense. I think the broad conclusions on Northwestern still hold.
UDFG is complicated.
Their schedule: Texas (4-6), UVa (4-7), Ga Tech (3-8), UMass (2-9), Clemson (11-0), Navy (9-1), U$C (7-4), Temple (9-2), Pitt (8-3), Wake Forest (3-8), BC (3-8).
How to you think Notre Dame's schedule has been comes down to how you rate non-Power 5 Temple and Navy, I guess along with Power 5 but generally lightly regarded Pitt. There are a lot of wins among the und opponents, but concentrated on those three teams. The wins themselves make most computer models rate und's schedule highly, but at least in general there is a gap between Power 5 and non-Power 5 teams.
In many ways, their best performance was probably the loss to Clemson. Clemson is undoubtedly good and und really controlled much of the play in that game. They outgained Clemson 432-296; without any compensating big returns, etc. The deciding factor in the game was losing the TO battle 1-4; and of course missing on a two point conversion.
The other candidate for best performance is probably the beating they put on Navy the very next week. So, how do you rate Navy?
Both those games were a long time ago. Lately und has been winning rather unimpressively, but winning.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - winflop - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 01:18 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:We are a mediocre team, as we've sort of figured out, just barely above average.
BC
I don't know of too many "mediocre" or "barely above average" teams that have a chance to win their conference and a shot at the four-team Natty playoff.
This is another example of one of my favorite books "How to Lie With Statistics"
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - stupac2 - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 12:12 PM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know of too many "mediocre" or "barely above average" teams that have a chance to win their conference and a shot at the four-team Natty playoff.
This is another example of one of my favorite books "How to Lie With Statistics"
He meant on defense. We're a mediocre defense, paired with a great offense, which yields a pretty good team.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CTcard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 12:19 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=13740.msg143501#msg143501 date=1448392344]I don't know of too many "mediocre" or "barely above average" teams that have a chance to win their conference and a shot at the four-team Natty playoff.
This is another example of one of my favorite books "How to Lie With Statistics"
He meant on defense. We're a mediocre defense, paired with a great offense, which yields a pretty good team.
[/quote]
What he (stupac) said.
And just to pile on, one can certainly lie with statistics, which is basically no different than simply lying.
Statistics themselves are no more lies than are any other [i]facts[/i].
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
Sorry, my internet went down before I could post this... Here are the net stats.
Net stats:
| Team | Field position diff | Plays/10dr diff | yds/play diff | yds/drive diff | 3 and out% diff | eTO% diff | pts/dr diff |
| Stanford | -9.5 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 7.1 | -17.8% | -1.6% | 1.45 |
| UDFG | -3.5 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 11.3 | -14.0% | 2.8% | 1.15 |
| UCLA | 1.5 | -3.0 | 1.6 | 8.4 | -2.6% | -9.4% | 0.99 |
| Washington St. | -1.3 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 4.2 | -2.4% | -6.4% | 0.91 |
| Utah | -1.6 | 4.4 | 0.2 | 3.2 | -3.7% | -7.9% | 0.65 |
| Oregon | -1.0 | -4.4 | 1.2 | 3.7 | -2.1% | -2.9% | 0.50 |
| SC | 3.2 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 5.7 | 2.3% | -2.5% | 0.48 |
| Arizona St. | -1.8 | 6.5 | -0.2 | 2.5 | -12.5% | -0.9% | 0.14 |
| Northwestern | 1.3 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.5% | -2.6% | 0.13 |
| Washington | -0.6 | -6.6 | 0.5 | -0.7 | 0.9% | -0.2% | 0.09 |
| Cal | 2.8 | -1.2 | 0.3 | 1.2 | -1.2% | 5.1% | -0.04 |
| Arizona | 0.6 | -2.4 | 0.0 | -1.7 | -2.2% | 10.2% | -0.41 |
| Colorado | 1.8 | 3.7 | -1.2 | -4.9 | 6.2% | -0.5% | -0.67 |
| Central Florida | 1.6 | -6.7 | -2.6 | -17.7 | 5.2% | 19.3% | -2.06 |
| Oregon St. | 5.2 | -3.4 | -2.0 | -13.8 | 13.0% | 4.8% | -2.25 |
So ND will be our toughest opponent, which is not a surprise given that they are a 1 loss team. We are actually pretty similar to Notre Dame. WE have about a 6 yard net field position advantage compared to them, but they have almost a 1 yard net yard/play differential advantage compared to us. This produces a 4 net yard per drive advantage for the domers. Both teams are really head and shoulders above everyone else in net three and out percentage (that is, forcing opponents into three and outs and not going three and out yourself), but they have a positive turnover differential while we are negative. Overall, we have a 0.3 net point per game advantage over ND, which, over the course of 10 or so drives would translate to a 3 point differential.
Clearly they are the best team we will play this season. By these stats, we are the second best Power 5 team they will play (I checked Clemson; they have a 1.69 point per drive advantage over their opponents, a 15.9 yards per drive advantage, a 2 yard per play advantage(!), but a 2.5 starting field position disadvantage). The most remarkable stat is that they run 10.1 more plays per 10 drives more than their opponents.
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - fullmetal - 11-24-2015
They might be the team with the best stats that we'll play this season, but I'm hoping that Oregon will have been the best team we've played this season...
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CTcard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 04:12 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:They might be the team with the best stats that we'll play this season, but I'm hoping that Oregon will have been the best team we've played this season...
Well, I am sort of hoping that we play somebody like Alabama later on, and I am at least pretty sure they are better than Oregon.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - stupac2 - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 04:14 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13740.msg143573#msg143573 date=1448406763]
They might be the team with the best stats that we'll play this season, but I'm hoping that Oregon will have been the best team we've played this season...
Well, I am sort of hoping that we play somebody like Alabama later on, and I am at least pretty sure they are better than Oregon.
[/quote]
That was my thought too. Alabama or Iowa/MSU/Michigan/OSU (really hard to predict a Rose Bowl opponent right now). Though Oregon might actually be better than anyone in the Big 10 at this point. (I realize MSU beat them, but I think on a neutral field with a fully healthy Adams Oregon is better, plus who knows if MSU gets Cook back.)
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - Rally - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 04:22 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=13740.msg143575#msg143575 date=1448406893]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13740.msg143573#msg143573 date=1448406763]
They might be the team with the best stats that we'll play this season, but I'm hoping that Oregon will have been the best team we've played this season...
Well, I am sort of hoping that we play somebody like Alabama later on, and I am at least pretty sure they are better than Oregon.
[/quote]
That was my thought too. Alabama or Iowa/MSU/Michigan/OSU (really hard to predict a Rose Bowl opponent right now). Though Oregon might actually be better than anyone in the Big 10 at this point. (I realize MSU beat them, but I think on a neutral field with a fully healthy Adams Oregon is better, plus who knows if MSU gets Cook back.)
[/quote]
You guys can hope for playoffs all you want. I want to see Michigan in the Rose Bowl and save the pre-game handshake, post game handshake, and pressers forevermore.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 04:46 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13740.msg143577#msg143577 date=1448407325]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=13740.msg143575#msg143575 date=1448406893]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13740.msg143573#msg143573 date=1448406763]
They might be the team with the best stats that we'll play this season, but I'm hoping that Oregon will have been the best team we've played this season...
Well, I am sort of hoping that we play somebody like Alabama later on, and I am at least pretty sure they are better than Oregon.
[/quote]
That was my thought too. Alabama or Iowa/MSU/Michigan/OSU (really hard to predict a Rose Bowl opponent right now). Though Oregon might actually be better than anyone in the Big 10 at this point. (I realize MSU beat them, but I think on a neutral field with a fully healthy Adams Oregon is better, plus who knows if MSU gets Cook back.)
[/quote]
You guys can hope for playoffs all you want. I want to see Michigan in the Rose Bowl and save the pre-game handshake, post game handshake, and pressers forevermore.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what scenario would place a Michigan - Stanford Rose bowl. The Stanford in the rose bowl part is easy; win the Pac-12 championship. But how does Michigan get there? If they win the conference (because MSU loses, and they beat tOSU and Iowa), then they will probably go to the CFB playoff (and if not, it's because Stanford goes). If they don't win the BigTen, then it seems hard to believe that the Rose Bowl picks a three loss team from the BigTen (because Michigan loses to either tOSU or Iowa). If Michigan has two losses, but doesn't win the championship, it can only mean that Michigan State beat Penn State and plays Iowa in the championship. I would guess the Rose Bowl goes with the loser between 11-1 Michigan State and 12-0 Iowa (unless Iowa blows it this week). Which I guess is the only way Michigan goes to the Rose Bowl: Michigan beats tOSU; Michigan State beats Penn State; Iowa loses to both Nebraska and Michigan State so Michigan State goes to the CFB Playoff and Michigan goes to the Rose Bowl. Is that your deal?
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 08:13 AM)CTcard link Wrote:One issue that we should remember, that applies much more to comparisons to UDFG and NWU than in-conference, is that these numbers are against different competition. Northwestern plays in a conference that tends to have good defenses and questionable offense, which likely over-rates their defensive prowess and under-rates their offense. I think the broad conclusions on Northwestern still hold.
UDFG is complicated....
Alright, I set up a comparison of the Stanford opponents and UDFG opponents.
Stanford's opponents offense:
| [table][tr][td]Team | Start | yds/play | yds/dr | %yds | pts/dr |
| Central Florida | 69.7 | 4.1 | 20.5 | 29.5% | 0.97 |
| Northwestern | 71.4 | 4.6 | 25.1 | 35.2% | 1.38 |
| Arizona | 70.8 | 6.1 | 35.1 | 49.6% | 2.43 |
| Cal | 72.0 | 6.7 | 40.0 | 55.5% | 2.48 |
| Colorado | 70.7 | 5.0 | 30.5 | 43.2% | 1.83 |
| Oregon | 68.2 | 7.1 | 38.7 | 56.7% | 2.98 |
| Oregon St. | 73.4 | 5.0 | 27.7 | 37.7% | 1.23 |
| UCLA | 72.9 | 6.5 | 39.3 | 53.8% | 2.76 |
| USC | 72.9 | 6.5 | 37.8 | 51.8% | 2.63 |
| Washington | 70.3 | 5.6 | 29.3 | 41.7% | 1.80 |
| Washington St. | 68.7 | 6.3 | 40.3 | 58.7% | 2.99 |
[/tr]
[/table]
UDFG's opponent's offense:
| [table][tr][td]Team | Start | yds/play | yds/dr | %yds | pts/dr |
| Boston College | 71.9 | 3.8 | 17.0 | 23.6% | 0.53 |
| Clemson | 72.3 | 6.8 | 37.8 | 52.3% | 2.91 |
| Georgia Tech | 71.2 | 5.4 | 30.0 | 42.1% | 1.89 |
| Pitt | 70.5 | 5.5 | 35.0 | 49.6% | 2.33 |
| Virginia | 72.2 | 5.6 | 33.3 | 46.1% | 2.19 |
| Wake Forest | 72.6 | 4.2 | 22.6 | 31.2% | 1.08 |
| Navy | 67.1 | 6.2 | 44.1 | 65.8% | 3.92 |
| Temple | 66.4 | 5.7 | 29.8 | 44.9% | 2.38 |
| Texas | 71.0 | 5.8 | 29.1 | 41.0% | 1.95 |
| Massachusetts | 72.7 | 5.4 | 29.7 | 40.9% | 1.64 |
| USC | 72.9 | 6.5 | 37.8 | 51.8% | 2.63 |
[/tr]
[/table]
| [table][tr][td]Team | Start | yds/play | yds/dr | %yds | pts/dr |
| Stanford opponents averages | 71.0 | 5.8 | 33.1 | 0.5 | 2.1 |
| UDFG's opponents averages | 71.0 | 5.5 | 31.5 | 0.4 | 2.1 |
[/tr]
[/table]
Short version; Stanford has played marginally better offenses, at least in terms of yards per play and yards per drive, but basically the same in terms of points per drive. Against similar quality offenses, Notre Dame has done better.
* Caveat * This does not factor in the defenses these opponents faced, and we would expect that Navy, Temple, and UMass did not face especially good defenses, so their offensive stats may be slightly inflated.
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
Stanford's opponents defense:
| Team | Start | yds/play | yds/dr | %yds | pts/dr |
| Central Florida | 68.0 | 6.7 | 38.3 | 56.3% | 3.03 |
| Northwestern | 70.1 | 4.6 | 23.8 | 34.0% | 1.25 |
| Arizona | 70.3 | 6.2 | 36.8 | 52.4% | 2.84 |
| Cal | 69.2 | 6.4 | 38.7 | 56.0% | 2.51 |
| Colorado | 68.8 | 6.2 | 35.4 | 51.5% | 2.50 |
| Oregon | 69.2 | 5.9 | 35.0 | 50.5% | 2.47 |
| Oregon St. | 68.2 | 7.0 | 41.4 | 60.8% | 3.48 |
| UCLA | 71.5 | 4.9 | 30.8 | 43.1% | 1.77 |
| USC | 69.7 | 5.9 | 32.0 | 45.9% | 2.15 |
| Washington | 70.9 | 5.1 | 30.1 | 42.4% | 1.71 |
| Washington St. | 70.1 | 5.9 | 36.2 | 51.6% | 2.08 |
Notre Dame's opponents' defense:
| Boston College | 70.1 | 4.7 | 23.7 | 33.7% | 1.13 |
| Clemson | 69.8 | 4.8 | 21.9 | 31.3% | 1.22 |
| Georgia Tech | 66.4 | 6.1 | 33.0 | 49.7% | 2.54 |
| Pitt | 75.2 | 5.8 | 31.3 | 41.6% | 2.05 |
| Virginia | 68.7 | 6.6 | 36.1 | 52.6% | 2.58 |
| Wake Forest | 71.8 | 6.2 | 32.0 | 44.6% | 2.14 |
| Navy | 71.1 | 5.4 | 32.7 | 46.0% | 1.60 |
| Temple | 70.9 | 5.1 | 26.7 | 37.7% | 1.53 |
| Texas | 68.6 | 5.5 | 32.2 | 46.8% | 2.26 |
| Massachusetts | 68.8 | 5.5 | 33.9 | 49.3% | 2.36 |
| USC | 69.7 | 5.9 | 32.0 | 45.9% | 2.15 |
Averages:
| Team | Start | yds/play | yds/dr | %yds | pts/dr |
| Stanford's opponents average | 69.6 | 5.9 | 34.4 | 0.5 | 2.3 |
| UDFG's opponents average | 70.1 | 5.6 | 30.5 | 0.4 | 2.0 |
Here, it is clear that Stanford has faced better offenses than Notre Dame; our opponents get about 1/3 of a yard per play more, 4 yards per drive more, and 0.3 points per drive more than Notre Dame's. Same caveats about the opponents of the opponents.
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CTcard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 05:29 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Stanford's opponents defense:
Here, it is clear that Stanford has faced better offenses than the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends; our opponents get about 1/3 of a yard per play more, 4 yards per drive more, and 0.3 points per drive more than the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's. Same caveats about the opponents of the opponents.
You're working too fast.
"Here it is clear that Stanford has faced worse defenses than Notre Dame"
... except the not multiply-connected part really matters when talking about non-Power 5 teams.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - stupac2 - 11-24-2015
Isn't what you're trying to do basically a poor man's FEI? Why not just use FEI?
Also, about Michigan, I just listed them because they're one of the 4 best teams in the B1G. I'm not going to pretend to know how that all plays out, but yeah, they're probably the least likely B1G team to be in the Rose Bowl. My guess of likelihood is something like Iowa > OSU > MSU > Michigan, with Iowa being by far the most likely, since whoever makes it out of the east is going to clown them.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CTcard - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 07:12 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Isn't what you're trying to do basically a poor man's FEI? Why not just use FEI?
Well, BC should answer for his own reasons, but here are why I like the write up he does.
While FEI is basically margin of victory divided by number of possessions in a game, the issues beyond "basically" are not described in mathematical detail as far as I know. Those details matter. I know exactly what the per drive stats are to the level that I can reproduce them on my own. Not so with FEI.
Next, if a team scores 3.5 points per drive, I have a very good intuitive feel for what that means (a TD every second drive). If a team has an offensive FEI of 0.877 I don't have much of a feel for what that means.
Third, there is a lot of information in the per drive stats. Points per drive, yards per drive, starting field position per drive, etc. All of these can tell us something about how a team has played in addition to how well a team has played. That's a lot more information than simply having an OFEI of 0.877.
For those interested who haven't seen it, here is the most detailed explanation I know of on the web for FEI:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fei-ratings/2006/introducing-fremeau-efficiency-index
There's a few other useful pages kicking around the FootballOutsiders site.
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - BostonCard - 11-24-2015
Because I have know idea what "drive efficiency" means in the context of FEI. Is it scoring efficiency? Is it ability to move the ball? How FEI arrives at its statistics is a black box, so if something doesn't make sense, there's no way to investigate it further. Earlier in the year, there was a large disparity between how computers viewed USC and how they actually performed. Going through the per drive statistics showed that USC was merely above average, but not a top 10 team. One of the factors that worked in its favor is that it beat up on its early non-conference opponents. A second factor is that it gained a lot of yards. However, if you look at the per-drive stats, it had awful field position (SC's offense starts, on average 7 yards behind ours on every possession), and though it did well on a per play basis, it had trouble sustaining drives (in part, likely because of penalties, and in part because although it was explosive, it wasn't consistent). Being able to see the raw data helped me understand the discrepancy in a way that just repeating the FEI wouldn't have allowed me to do.
If you find FEI more helpful, by all means feel free to read their models. As pointed out, using gross per drive stats, while easier to understand, does not control for opponent quality, which FEI does (at least once there is enough data out there). I consider all these statistical systems tools to help me understand what is going on; they are not the be all and end all of football.
And yeah, any way you cut it, the data suggests that Notre Dame will be our toughest opponent, and we will be Notre Dame's second toughest opponent.
BC
Re: Per drive stats (Low APR U edition) - CompSci87 - 11-24-2015
(11-24-2015, 12:57 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13740.msg143505#msg143505 date=1448392742]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=13740.msg143501#msg143501 date=1448392344]I don't know of too many "mediocre" or "barely above average" teams that have a chance to win their conference and a shot at the four-team Natty playoff.
This is another example of one of my favorite books "How to Lie With Statistics"
He meant on defense. We're a mediocre defense, paired with a great offense, which yields a pretty good team.
[/quote]
What he (stupac) said.
And just to pile on, one can certainly lie with statistics, which is basically no different than simply lying.
Statistics themselves are no more lies than are any other [i]facts[/i].
[/quote]
The book "How to Lie with Statistics" is a fun read. It's basically about how factual statistics are often used in a variety of misleading ways, to argue for points that are invalid or that at least are not really supported by the statistical evidence. The word "lie" was used a bit jokingly in the book's title, and the same way, I'm sure, by winflop.