The CardBoard
Week 3 Net YPP - 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: Week 3 Net YPP (/thread-12668.html)


Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-19-2016

TeamO yppD yppNet
Washington7.093.623.47
Oregon7.684.992.69
Colorado6.153.782.37
Utah6.034.191.84
KSU5.724.241.48
Arizona6.675.511.16
Stanford6.095.130.96
UCLA5.524.740.78
OSU5.074.430.64
ND6.115.990.12
California6.626.520.1
ASU6.526.50.02
WSU6.256.58-0.33
USC4.645.91-1.27

I added KSU this week, and I like that they're above us despite us giving them a negative average two weeks ago. Maybe they're actually pretty good!

Washington continues to look good, but guess what, so does Arizona! I have had a sneaking suspicion that Arizona could pull the upset this week, and when I found out that the game is a 7:30 kick in Tucson that settled it in my mind. Late kickoff, road trip, high elevation (not Utah high but half a mile ain't nothin'), before a short week against the biggest game of the year, against a team that was pretty weak last year. It just screams trap game. We'll see!

Otherwise this mostly looks like last week. The next couple weeks we'll start to learn a lot more, of course with @UCLA and @Washington on the docket we'll be learning a lot regardless of these numbers.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - CTcard - 09-19-2016

[Yikes, my long post just disappeared from the screen. Here is try #2.]

A problem with YPP at this point in the season is that it is heavily dominated by strength of opponent. In addition, to factor out style issues, I prefer yds per possession, though that is a hard stat to find.

The point of FEI is supposed to be roughly that - an opponent adjusted, per drive efficiency. However, it is too early in the season for the opponent adjustments to be accurate.

I don't see it up yet for this week on it's usual home at Football Outsiders, but it is up at BCfTOYS.

So, the list by FEI is,

Stanford  0.275  #2
Oregon    0.201    #8
UCLA      0.147    #20
und        0.141    #21
UW          0.119    #25
U$C        0.082    #34
KSU        0.068    #43
WSU        0.029    #56
c.a.l.        0.008    #63
UA        -0.019    #71
OSU      -0.032    #75
Colo      -0.055    #83
Rice        0.174    #114


Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-19-2016

Yeah, I know it's way too early for these to be super meaningful, but I wanted to do one every week just to get a sense of how things are shaking out. Unfortunately for us the meat out our schedule is early, so it's hard to know just how good any given opponent.

One thing that I do think is meaningful and is quite interesting is how mediocre ND is. FEI likes them (I suspect that's because pre-season expectations are still ~half of the value), but they've played decent teams and have not looked good, even at home. I'm a lot less afraid of that road trip than I was pre-season.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - fullmetal - 09-19-2016

Esp given their recent attrition.  But bad teams with potential tend to get better over the course of the season as coaches start figuring out what they do or don't have on their roster.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-19-2016

I've mentioned that S&P+ hates us while FEI loves us and I don't get it, but it turns out that Washington has an even bigger discrepancy. They're #25, as stated above, in FEI but they're #4 in S&P+. Do these guys answer fanmail? I'd really love to know what the hell is going on there.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - washingtonismoney - 09-19-2016

(09-19-2016, 05:45 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I've mentioned that S&P+ hates us while FEI loves us and I don't get it, but it turns out that Washington has an even bigger discrepancy. They're #25, as stated above, in FEI but they're #4 in S&P+. Do these guys answer fanmail? I'd really love to know what the hell is going on there.

I don't know about email -- I'm sure it's googleable somewhere -- but Connelly is often responsive on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SBN_BillC

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - CTcard - 09-19-2016

(09-19-2016, 05:45 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I've mentioned that S&P+ hates us while FEI loves us and I don't get it, but it turns out that Washington has an even bigger discrepancy. They're #25, as stated above, in FEI but they're #4 in S&P+. Do these guys answer fanmail? I'd really love to know what the hell is going on there.

Well, here is one thing that might contribute (though I am going on memory and just might get this backwards).

FEI is based upon drives. So, the numbers that go in are yards per drive (really available yards per drive), points per drive, etc.

S&P is based upon plays - yards per play, etc.

Over the past few years, Stanford has specialized in grinding out drives - at our best doing this efficiently. So, Oregon will hit big plays - and thus have big yards per play, but have lots of drives stall out. Stanford will run 20 play drives so that each play doesn't get so much, but the drive itself is productive.

-----
Despite that, my memory is that there have been years when this trend was reversed, S&P liked Stanford more than FEI, but I don't quite remember and don't have time to look it up right now and it's entirely possible my memory is faulty here.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - washingtonismoney - 09-19-2016

In 2015: FEI (3) > S&P+ (10)
2014: S&P (15) > FEI (21)
2013: FEI (2) > S&P (4)
2012: FEI (7) > S&P (9)
2011: FEI (8) > S&P (9)
2010: FEI (2) > S&P (6)
2009: FEI (20) > S&P (30)

By and large FEI probably does like Stanford slightly more, but I'm not sure the differences are, in most cases, terribly meaningful. My suspicion, actually, is that the differences are currently driven by projections and past history: because FEI thinks Stanford was better in 2015, it therefore thinks Stanford's better in 2016.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-19-2016

That could be, I'm probably just remembering the differential at the end of last year, but since pre-season expectations are pretty large currently that could be a lot of the difference. I'd still be interested in seeing if there's some definitive reason for it. (But I don't have twitter so someone else would need to pursue that avenue.)

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - CTcard - 09-19-2016

(09-19-2016, 06:31 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:My suspicion, actually, is that the differences are currently driven by projections and past history: because FEI thinks Stanford was better in 2015, it therefore thinks Stanford's better in 2016.

But that is really the same question isn't it - why did FEI like Stanford better in 2015 than did S&P.

By the way, while the ordinal ranking in the two systems aren't that far apart, the FEI preference for Stanford over S&P is consistent covering six of seven years. I still believe that by style, the recent incarnation of Stanford football does better on a per drive basis than a per play basis.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-20-2016

I just sent Fremeau an e-mail via FO's contact form, we'll see if he responds. If anyone else wants to poke either of them via twitter, knock yourselves out.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-23-2016

I heard back!

Quote:Thanks for the message, Stuart. I'm not sure I'll have the opportunity to do a multi-year look at this in season, but it's food for thought and something I might be able to take a look at in the weeks ahead. I will say that the preseason ratings and the different ways Bill and I do opponent adjustments are probably driving any discrepancies between teams for now this year more than play vs drive factors.

So not a lot of detail, but it sounds like it's probably just early-season uncertainty being handled differently, though that doesn't explain the large divergence last year.

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-28-2016

Turns out that we're hardly the biggest outlier here, and apparently I wasn't the only person to poke Fremeau about it. This week's article notes some of the reasons the two can diverge: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fei-ratings/2016/fei-week-4

Re: Week 3 Net YPP - stupac2 - 09-28-2016

Turns out that we're hardly the biggest outlier here, and apparently I wasn't the only person to poke Fremeau about it. This week's article notes some of the reasons the two can diverge: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fei-ratings/2016/fei-week-4