[washingtonismoney]

You'll notice Stanford on one of the charts...: http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2016/10/2...-than-help

[washingtonismoney]

You'll notice Stanford on one of the charts...: http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2016/10/2...-than-help

[BostonCard]

Interesting... For those who are arguing that we should change our offense...

Which is to say: they don't correlate. At all. There are fast-paced teams with great offenses, there are fast-paced teams with horrible offenses. There are slow teams with excellent offenses, there are slow teams with godawful offenses. The performance trendline actually goes down as pace goes up but the correlation itself is so weak that calling it "insignificant" is giving it too much credit. You might make a case that, if you squint, better offenses are more evenly distributed across the range of pace while crappy offenses tend to cluster a little closer around the average. Otherwise, this is almost a textbook example of what statistical independence looks like.

And of course, teams getting faster sacrifice defensive efficiency (this is efficiency, not overall stats, so the increased number of plays only becomes an issue in that the defense can get more tired)

This is what a real correlation of first derivatives looks like: teams that don't change much tend to cluster around the middle, but teams that speed up a lot tend to lose defensive efficiency while teams that slow down a lot tend to gain it. Of special note: teams that hurry up their average play by 4 seconds or more in a single season almost all lose defensive efficiency.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... For those who are arguing that we should change our offense...

Which is to say: they don't correlate. At all. There are fast-paced teams with great offenses, there are fast-paced teams with horrible offenses. There are slow teams with excellent offenses, there are slow teams with godawful offenses. The performance trendline actually goes down as pace goes up but the correlation itself is so weak that calling it "insignificant" is giving it too much credit. You might make a case that, if you squint, better offenses are more evenly distributed across the range of pace while crappy offenses tend to cluster a little closer around the average. Otherwise, this is almost a textbook example of what statistical independence looks like.

And of course, teams getting faster sacrifice defensive efficiency (this is efficiency, not overall stats, so the increased number of plays only becomes an issue in that the defense can get more tired)

This is what a real correlation of first derivatives looks like: teams that don't change much tend to cluster around the middle, but teams that speed up a lot tend to lose defensive efficiency while teams that slow down a lot tend to gain it. Of special note: teams that hurry up their average play by 4 seconds or more in a single season almost all lose defensive efficiency.

BC

[CTcard]

Thanks for the link WIM.

I headed over to read it prepared to be quite disdainful. However, it was pretty good. Didn't overreach, didn't promote wild solutions, raised some points very worth thinking about.

[CTcard]

Thanks for the link WIM.

I headed over to read it prepared to be quite disdainful. However, it was pretty good. Didn't overreach, didn't promote wild solutions, raised some points very worth thinking about.

[Mick]

Great article.  Might could explain why the 49ers are giving up the most points in the NFL.  Except that they're #12 in number of plays per game.  Last year, they had the fourth fewest plays per game.

[Mick]

Great article.  Might could explain why the 49ers are giving up the most points in the NFL.  Except that they're #12 in number of plays per game.  Last year, they had the fourth fewest plays per game.

[martyup]

I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

[martyup]

I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

[JJJ]

I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

I count down the play clock out loud so they can hear me. (I, too, watch on tv, just to be clear.)

[JJJ]

I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

I count down the play clock out loud so they can hear me. (I, too, watch on tv, just to be clear.)

[Farm93]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=15996.msg177363#msg177363 date=1477665971]
I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

I count down the play clock out loud so they can hear me. (I, too, watch on tv, just to be clear.)
[/quote]
At home games there is someone behind me that is always worried about that too.  After a while you'd think it would be clear that our team is trying to snap the ball with one or two seconds on the play clock.  It is all I can do to avoid saying, "Relax!  And you realize they can't hear you right?"

On pace, that poor UCB defense probably can tell you all about the perils on moving quickly on O.  Not only are their D players more likely to be tired, tired players are more likely to get injured.  If there is an established injury rate per snap, then UCBs massive snap count on O and D has got to have an impact.  Lucky for Stanford that UCB is towards the end of the season when that attrition rate has the greatest impact.

[Farm93]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=15996.msg177363#msg177363 date=1477665971]
I'm surprised that the Chip Kelly's Ducks aren't in the top 25 fastest offenses going back to 2008.

It doesn't suprise me that we are the slowest.  Watching our games, I'm constantly on the edge of my seat watching the play clock and yelling at the TV "hurry!"

I count down the play clock out loud so they can hear me. (I, too, watch on tv, just to be clear.)
[/quote]
At home games there is someone behind me that is always worried about that too.  After a while you'd think it would be clear that our team is trying to snap the ball with one or two seconds on the play clock.  It is all I can do to avoid saying, "Relax!  And you realize they can't hear you right?"

On pace, that poor UCB defense probably can tell you all about the perils on moving quickly on O.  Not only are their D players more likely to be tired, tired players are more likely to get injured.  If there is an established injury rate per snap, then UCBs massive snap count on O and D has got to have an impact.  Lucky for Stanford that UCB is towards the end of the season when that attrition rate has the greatest impact.

[BostonCard]

I saw a stat on twitter (so it must be true) that Cal has a bottom 5 defense for the third time in four years.

BC

[BostonCard]

I saw a stat on twitter (so it must be true) that Cal has a bottom 5 defense for the third time in four years.

BC