The CardBoard
Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - 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: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... (/thread-14390.html)


Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2017

There's a pretty big variation in the way computers assess Stanford:

ESPN's FPI: #9 (and the best! team in the Pac-12!)
Sagarin: #18
Bill Connelly's S&P+: #16 (#32 if preseason projections are filtered out)
Ed Feng's The Power Rank: #13
'
Ok, maybe less variation than I thought when I began the post. But still somewhat interesting.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - stupac2 - 09-25-2017

I'm really surprised we're that high by FPI. Less surprised by us being in the mid-teens elsewhere.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - Bruce Wang - 09-25-2017

A toaster doesn't know how to calculate the KJ Costello Factor.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - CTcard - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 11:35 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm really surprised we're that high by FPI. Less surprised by us being in the mid-teens elsewhere.

I cannot be surprised by FPI since I don't know what goes into it.

It's like being surprised by the ranking of the guy driving me in the Uber car: he might actually be an expert, he might be best friends with the crazy guy who spends all day sitting on the bench in front of my neighbor's house. Hard to tell as I don't know him.

Of course I do not believe that right now Stanford is the ninth best team in the country.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - ChicagoCard - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 11:36 AM)Publius link Wrote:A toaster doesn't know how to calculate the KJ Costello Factor.

For a second I thought this was a reference to the ESPN sideline reporter's stunt with a piece of toast in the first half... held up a piece of toast and said the loser of this game would be just that.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - pefloresjr - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 12:44 PM)ChicagoTree link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=17498.msg202790#msg202790 date=1506364561]
A toaster doesn't know how to calculate the KJ Costello Factor.

For a second I thought this was a reference to the ESPN sideline reporter's stunt with a piece of toast in the first half... held up a piece of toast and said the loser of this game would be just that.
[/quote]

That was strange.  It made me wonder how long he had been carrying around that toast.  Did he pick it up at breakfast and keep it in his suit pocket all day or is there some poor intern who is in charge of stupid food props?  "Hey Mom, did you see that toast held up by the sideline reporter? I made the toast!" 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2017

Speaking of the computers, Bill Connelly keeps a stat page that's loaded with interesting stats about the team's play: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-stanford-advanced-statistical-profile

To go straight to the point of my thread -- which is that Stanford so far this year has been very hard to figure out, for computers and people alike -- Connelly's "percentile performances" stat is useful. Stanford had 95+% performances on offense against Rice and UCLA ... a decent-ish 51% percentile performance against SC ... and a poor 32% against SDSU.

Meanwhile, at least by the rating system's lights, the defense has been more confounding and inconsistent. Very poor against SC and UCLA (sub-20%), but pretty good against SDSU and Rice. What precisely explains these swings is tough to figure out. High-quality quarterbacks? If so, games against ASU, Oregon, WSU, and UW might well turn into shootouts. Something else? Well...who knows.

One other interesting note: the running game. Per Connelly's stats, it's explosive -- the most explosive running game in the country -- but not consistent. Furthermore, Stanford doesn't run all that much, or at least less than you'd think. In "standard" downs (i.e. not 2nd-and-long, 3rd-and-long etc), Stanford runs 60.3 percent of the time (versus 59.4 as the national average). In passing downs, Stanford runs 36 percent of the time versus 34 percent as a national average.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - stupac2 - 09-25-2017

Interestingly Connelly rate's USC's performance against us as only 78%. Even the offense was only 87%. I certainly thought it would be higher than that, given that it took them over a quarter to have an unsuccessful play. I wonder if his formula docks them for not being all that explosive.

And we're definitely a weird team this year, but it's interesting that advanced stats love our offense but are meh on our defense, I think most fans would say the defense is better currently.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - CTcard - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 05:56 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:And we're definitely a weird team this year, but it's interesting that advanced stats love our offense but are meh on our defense, I think most fans would say the defense is better currently.

It seems to me that a lot of fans hardly notice when the defense plays poorly, but are quite fixated on the offense.

As of this moment, I am much more optimistic about the offense. Though in my case that could be strongly affected by my expectations that the defense would be very good this year but that the offense might have trouble getting beyond average. Thus I am disappointed in the defense, but buoyed by the recent signs of life on offense.



Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - Cadwallon - 09-25-2017

If I was in the lab and had data like we have on our defense from the first four games, I would immediately set up some more experiments.  If you plot opponent offensive capability on the horizontal scale (1 to 10), it would seem that you have three data points between 8.5 and 10.  Then you have a data point (Rice) at something less than 1.0.  I can fit almost any curve to that data.  This is especially so given that defense depends on other team parameters (like ball control).  ASU's offense should provide us with a useful data point since they are likely between the extremes on offense and may fill in some of the great blank space in the middle. 

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 06:33 PM)CTcard link Wrote:It seems to me that a lot of fans hardly notice when the defense plays poorly, but are quite fixated on the offense.

As of this moment, I am much more optimistic about the offense. Though in my case that could be strongly affected by my expectations that the defense would be very good this year but that the offense might have trouble getting beyond average. Thus I am disappointed in the defense, but buoyed by the recent signs of life on offense.

1) Well I think you know precisely why fans are much more wroth by bad offense than bad defense -- they're certain David Shaw is a Bad Offensive Coach.

2) I agree with the relative optimism about the offense. A few reasons -- that are a bit related to 1). While in the past fans have been perhaps overly critical with Shaw's Bad Offensive Coaching, I think the criticism of the offensive coaching against SDSU was valid. But that, in turn, suggests reasons for optimism: the personnel issues appear tractable. Costello *looks* like a better QB than Chryst; and we'll see on the offensive line. On the other hand, defensively ... nothing's fixing that line, absent a late-season surge from the redshirt freshmen Swann and Williams. I suppose the odd underperformance of the linebackers and defensive backs might remedy themselves, but it's hard for me to figure out.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - stupac2 - 09-26-2017

I think the "Shaw Bad" meme is only partly responsible, because you see this everywhere at all levels. If you were go through /r/cfb and look at complaints about coordinators, I'd bet the vast majority are about OC's. Unless their offense is top 10 people think they should fire the bums, and they often say that even if it is top 10. I see it in the NFL too, though less often (perhaps because in the NFL more teams care about defense?).

I'm honestly not sure why this is. I keep coming back to offense being easier to think you understand, since "we're going to do this" is more intuitive than "we need to stop them from doing what they want to do but we don't know what it is". But I don't find that totally convincing.

No matter what, though, this isn't a tic that's unique to Stanford's fanbase, it's very pervasive.

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - teejers1 - 09-26-2017

Is Stanford really that hard to figure out?

1.  The O has looked good against 2 atrocious defenses. 
2.  Love is a singular talent that can make lemonade out of lemons.
3.  The D has been disappointing, but that's what happens when you get little to no backfield disruption from the DL.
4.  Costello looks more promising than either Chryst or Burns, but none is upper half of conference.

Stanford may be able to beat ASU at home with Costello at the helm.  But really, the optimism seen in these parts will not be justified unless Stanford wins at Utah . . . which I doubt will happen.  I mean, superior Stanford teams lost to Utah in 2013 and 2014 (last two times they've played). 

Re: Who can figure Stanford out? Not the computers... - CowboyIndian - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 08:57 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:  But really, the optimism seen in these parts will not be justified unless Stanford wins at Utah . . . which I doubt will happen.

Shocking!