[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217226#msg217226 date=1512520982]- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was wondering that as I was writing.

I believe that awhile back, WIM looked at season to season consistency and noted Stanford was not. 

Here are a few comparisons for down games from roughly similar offenses for this season.


Stanford, #19 in yds/play.
Bad Games = OSU 222 yds, 3.70 yds/play; WSU 198 yds, 4.21 yds/play; SDSU 254 yds, 5.91 yds/play

[SDSU actually shows some limitations of yds/play. 5.91 is alright, but we had so few plays because of so few first downs that we never "averaged out" Love's two brobdingnagian runs. We had games with worse yds/play, but no other worse offensive performances overall.]

tOSU, #9 in yds/play
Bad Games = Oklahoma 350 yds, 5.07 yds/play; Michigan 350 yds, 5.56 yds/play; Iowa 371 yds, 5.80 yds/play

UW, #20 in yds/play;
Bad Games = ASU 230 yds, 3.77 yds/play, Stanford 325 yds, 5.80 yds/play; Cal 377 yds, 4.71 yds/play

$C, #15 in yds/play
Bad Games = WSU 327 yds, 5.64 yds/play; Cal 356 yds, 4.68 yds/play; und 336 yds, 5.01 yds/play


It's not at all complete, but Stanford's stinkers stand out in that group.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217226#msg217226 date=1512520982]- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was wondering that as I was writing.

I believe that awhile back, WIM looked at season to season consistency and noted Stanford was not. 

Here are a few comparisons for down games from roughly similar offenses for this season.


Stanford, #19 in yds/play.
Bad Games = OSU 222 yds, 3.70 yds/play; WSU 198 yds, 4.21 yds/play; SDSU 254 yds, 5.91 yds/play

[SDSU actually shows some limitations of yds/play. 5.91 is alright, but we had so few plays because of so few first downs that we never "averaged out" Love's two brobdingnagian runs. We had games with worse yds/play, but no other worse offensive performances overall.]

tOSU, #9 in yds/play
Bad Games = Oklahoma 350 yds, 5.07 yds/play; Michigan 350 yds, 5.56 yds/play; Iowa 371 yds, 5.80 yds/play

UW, #20 in yds/play;
Bad Games = ASU 230 yds, 3.77 yds/play, Stanford 325 yds, 5.80 yds/play; Cal 377 yds, 4.71 yds/play

$C, #15 in yds/play
Bad Games = WSU 327 yds, 5.64 yds/play; Cal 356 yds, 4.68 yds/play; und 336 yds, 5.01 yds/play


It's not at all complete, but Stanford's stinkers stand out in that group.