[lex24]

Has Husak ever coached?  At any level?  I think he’s a terrific analyst. And he could be a terrific coach. But I’m not starting someone at the OC level. I’d need to know if he can teach etc.

Nice post, Phogge.

Perhaps the youth of today don't have the same understanding of what a journalist in main media is . . . and who can blame them, given the way most Americans get their news today?

P.S.  Husak as OC would be an intriguing/exciting selection.  Have no idea if Shaw has the moxie to do that, or just promote from within.

[lex24]

Has Husak ever coached?  At any level?  I think he’s a terrific analyst. And he could be a terrific coach. But I’m not starting someone at the OC level. I’d need to know if he can teach etc.

Nice post, Phogge.

Perhaps the youth of today don't have the same understanding of what a journalist in main media is . . . and who can blame them, given the way most Americans get their news today?

P.S.  Husak as OC would be an intriguing/exciting selection.  Have no idea if Shaw has the moxie to do that, or just promote from within.

[lex24]

+1. Great stuff.

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.

[lex24]

+1. Great stuff.

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.

[teejers1]

Husak was the QB on one of the best offenses under Willingham/Diedrick (the Seattle Bowl team was a tick above, IIRC).  He is articulate and communicates well, per broadcasts.  And of course he was one of the smartest QBs to play on The Farm (his sack totals were low, due to knowledge of when to throw it away).

I would roll the dice on a guy with those attributes.  Indeed, over-performing (to God-given talent) QBs are precisely the kind of players I expect would be good OCs.

Of course, I suspect the chances of Coach Shaw rolling those dice to be infinitesimally small.

[teejers1]

Husak was the QB on one of the best offenses under Willingham/Diedrick (the Seattle Bowl team was a tick above, IIRC).  He is articulate and communicates well, per broadcasts.  And of course he was one of the smartest QBs to play on The Farm (his sack totals were low, due to knowledge of when to throw it away).

I would roll the dice on a guy with those attributes.  Indeed, over-performing (to God-given talent) QBs are precisely the kind of players I expect would be good OCs.

Of course, I suspect the chances of Coach Shaw rolling those dice to be infinitesimally small.

[qwerty49]

Husak was the QB on one of the best offenses under Willingham/Diedrick (the Seattle Bowl team was a tick above, IIRC).  He is articulate and communicates well, per broadcasts.  And of course he was one of the smartest QBs to play on The Farm (his sack totals were low, due to knowledge of when to throw it away).

I would roll the dice on a guy with those attributes.  Indeed, over-performing (to God-given talent) QBs are precisely the kind of players I expect would be good OCs.

Of course, I suspect the chances of Coach Shaw rolling those dice to be infinitesimally small.

IIRC Husak beat out two more highly-rated guys, Fasani and Borchard, to start. Intangibles like that mean a lot. Does it translate to being a good coach or OC? May be a moot point if he’s happy and successful in his day job.

[qwerty49]

Husak was the QB on one of the best offenses under Willingham/Diedrick (the Seattle Bowl team was a tick above, IIRC).  He is articulate and communicates well, per broadcasts.  And of course he was one of the smartest QBs to play on The Farm (his sack totals were low, due to knowledge of when to throw it away).

I would roll the dice on a guy with those attributes.  Indeed, over-performing (to God-given talent) QBs are precisely the kind of players I expect would be good OCs.

Of course, I suspect the chances of Coach Shaw rolling those dice to be infinitesimally small.

IIRC Husak beat out two more highly-rated guys, Fasani and Borchard, to start. Intangibles like that mean a lot. Does it translate to being a good coach or OC? May be a moot point if he’s happy and successful in his day job.

[qwerty49]

Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

[qwerty49]

Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

[82lsju]

Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

but we don't play Rice in 2018......

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/1...eiled.aspx

[82lsju]

Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

but we don't play Rice in 2018......

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/1...eiled.aspx

[qwerty49]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18293.msg217282#msg217282 date=1512577496]
Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

but we don't play Rice in 2018......

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/1...eiled.aspx
[/quote]

[qwerty49]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18293.msg217282#msg217282 date=1512577496]
Well, Bloomgren has 9 months to communicate to his DC all the ins and outs and vulnerabilities of our offense. I hope Scarlett gets used to the sight of those edge rushers.

Maybe we’ll counter with the single wing!

but we don't play Rice in 2018......

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/1...eiled.aspx
[/quote]

[CTcard]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

As far as I know, Stanford has no future games scheduled with Rice.

Would seem likely they would schedule them at some point.

[CTcard]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

As far as I know, Stanford has no future games scheduled with Rice.

Would seem likely they would schedule them at some point.

[stupac2]

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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):

Rank	Team	Average Efficiency	Standard Deviation
1	Temple	-1.09	17.75
2	New Mexico	-6.44	17.04
3	West Virginia	8.08	17
4	Missouri	8.08	16.69
5	Louisiana Lafayette	3.39	16.5
6	Arkansas	1.29	15.96
7	Boston College	-0.64	15.67
8	Notre Dame	9	15.55
9	Oregon	4.85	15.37
10	Colorado	3.02	15.32
11	Wake Forest	4.76	15.18
12	Air Force	5.74	15.02
13	Mississippi	3.52	15.01
14	Colorado State	10.61	14.94
15	Iowa	0.91	14.84
16	Texas Tech	5.14	14.3
17	Memphis	15.91	14.23
18	Nevada	4.03	14.2
19	Bowling Green	-2.35	14.08
20	Eastern Michigan	-1.13	13.96
21	Virginia Tech	0.46	13.93
22	North Carolina	-5.93	13.91
23	Tulsa	4.87	13.86
24	Texas A&M	1.05	13.85
25	Appalachian State	3.35	13.84
26	Utah State	-1.22	13.8
27	Washington State	0.06	13.78
28	Duke	-1.42	13.77
29	Southern Mississippi	2.45	13.67
30	Baylor	-4.97	13.66
31	Minnesota	-2.13	13.64
32	South Florida	10.22	13.64
33	BYU	-5.75	13.48
34	Central Michigan	-0.37	13.45
35	Florida	-4.38	13.43
36	Arizona	14.58	13.39
37	Arkansas State	6.54	13.39
38	Georgia State	-1.74	13.38
39	TCU	6.76	13.31
40	Rice	-5.63	13.26
41	Tulane	4.65	13.24
42	Kansas State	1.33	13.22
43	Louisiana Monroe	8.5	13.21
44	Virginia	-3.66	13.17
45	Massachusetts	1.05	13.16
46	Navy	9.19	13.03
47	USC	9.38	12.98
48	Auburn	8.05	12.97
49	Florida Atlantic	13.99	12.92
50	Oklahoma State	19.16	12.87
51	Troy	3.81	12.84
52	Utah	0.25	12.71
53	East Carolina	0.99	12.62
54	Western Michigan	0.32	12.62
55	Ohio State	14.24	12.59
56	Middle Tennessee	0.35	12.57
57	Michigan	-0.31	12.55
58	Georgia Southern	-4.06	12.51
59	Texas	-3.77	12.33
60	Miami	2.29	12.3
61	Maryland	-4.97	12.21
62	San Diego State	5.54	12.18
63	Mississippi State	3.35	12.12
64	Louisiana Tech	2.85	12.05
65	Toledo	11.85	11.96
66	Georgia Tech	3.8	11.93
67	Boise State	5.76	11.79
68	Northwestern	0.77	11.71
69	Ohio	7.2	11.68
70	Ball State	-6.22	11.63
71	Houston	5.2	11.44
72	Florida International	4.78	11.4
73	Iowa State	5.04	11.4
74	California	0.6	11.39
75	Purdue	1.1	11.39
76	Vanderbilt	2.25	11.28
77	Cincinnati	-1.03	11.23
78	Louisville	12.15	11.22
79	Buffalo	5.96	11.09
80	Stanford	8.56	11.09

Anyway, per this metric we're not really all that inconsistent, compared to all other teams, in the top half in consistency. It would be nice to be higher. If anyone cares I can do this again through years, vlookup is MAGIC!

[stupac2]

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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):

Rank	Team	Average Efficiency	Standard Deviation
1	Temple	-1.09	17.75
2	New Mexico	-6.44	17.04
3	West Virginia	8.08	17
4	Missouri	8.08	16.69
5	Louisiana Lafayette	3.39	16.5
6	Arkansas	1.29	15.96
7	Boston College	-0.64	15.67
8	Notre Dame	9	15.55
9	Oregon	4.85	15.37
10	Colorado	3.02	15.32
11	Wake Forest	4.76	15.18
12	Air Force	5.74	15.02
13	Mississippi	3.52	15.01
14	Colorado State	10.61	14.94
15	Iowa	0.91	14.84
16	Texas Tech	5.14	14.3
17	Memphis	15.91	14.23
18	Nevada	4.03	14.2
19	Bowling Green	-2.35	14.08
20	Eastern Michigan	-1.13	13.96
21	Virginia Tech	0.46	13.93
22	North Carolina	-5.93	13.91
23	Tulsa	4.87	13.86
24	Texas A&M	1.05	13.85
25	Appalachian State	3.35	13.84
26	Utah State	-1.22	13.8
27	Washington State	0.06	13.78
28	Duke	-1.42	13.77
29	Southern Mississippi	2.45	13.67
30	Baylor	-4.97	13.66
31	Minnesota	-2.13	13.64
32	South Florida	10.22	13.64
33	BYU	-5.75	13.48
34	Central Michigan	-0.37	13.45
35	Florida	-4.38	13.43
36	Arizona	14.58	13.39
37	Arkansas State	6.54	13.39
38	Georgia State	-1.74	13.38
39	TCU	6.76	13.31
40	Rice	-5.63	13.26
41	Tulane	4.65	13.24
42	Kansas State	1.33	13.22
43	Louisiana Monroe	8.5	13.21
44	Virginia	-3.66	13.17
45	Massachusetts	1.05	13.16
46	Navy	9.19	13.03
47	USC	9.38	12.98
48	Auburn	8.05	12.97
49	Florida Atlantic	13.99	12.92
50	Oklahoma State	19.16	12.87
51	Troy	3.81	12.84
52	Utah	0.25	12.71
53	East Carolina	0.99	12.62
54	Western Michigan	0.32	12.62
55	Ohio State	14.24	12.59
56	Middle Tennessee	0.35	12.57
57	Michigan	-0.31	12.55
58	Georgia Southern	-4.06	12.51
59	Texas	-3.77	12.33
60	Miami	2.29	12.3
61	Maryland	-4.97	12.21
62	San Diego State	5.54	12.18
63	Mississippi State	3.35	12.12
64	Louisiana Tech	2.85	12.05
65	Toledo	11.85	11.96
66	Georgia Tech	3.8	11.93
67	Boise State	5.76	11.79
68	Northwestern	0.77	11.71
69	Ohio	7.2	11.68
70	Ball State	-6.22	11.63
71	Houston	5.2	11.44
72	Florida International	4.78	11.4
73	Iowa State	5.04	11.4
74	California	0.6	11.39
75	Purdue	1.1	11.39
76	Vanderbilt	2.25	11.28
77	Cincinnati	-1.03	11.23
78	Louisville	12.15	11.22
79	Buffalo	5.96	11.09
80	Stanford	8.56	11.09

Anyway, per this metric we're not really all that inconsistent, compared to all other teams, in the top half in consistency. It would be nice to be higher. If anyone cares I can do this again through years, vlookup is MAGIC!

[stupac2]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217258#msg217258 date=1512533847]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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):[/quote]

Here's the second half:

Rank	Team	Average Efficiency	Standard Deviation
81	UAB	4.39	11.03
82	Army	12.5	11.02
83	North Carolina State	6.54	10.91
84	Kent State	-14.15	10.9
85	Wyoming	-4.15	10.87
86	Western Kentucky	2.94	10.86
87	Kansas	-9.72	10.84
88	Georgia	11.36	10.82
89	UNLV	5.45	10.8
90	New Mexico State	3	10.76
91	North Texas	7.3	10.76
92	Alabama	10.9	10.74
93	LSU	6.1	10.69
94	Connecticut	-1.25	10.52
95	Kentucky	0.87	10.48
96	Indiana	-2.32	10.33
97	Penn State	11.94	10.29
98	Tennessee	-5.85	10.02
99	Wisconsin	4.83	10.01
100	Nebraska	-1.57	9.99
101	Charlotte	-9.96	9.98
102	Clemson	8.62	9.78
103	SMU	13.52	9.78
104	Coastal Carolina	2.28	9.55
105	Pittsburgh	0.23	9.27
106	South Carolina	1.11	9.25
107	Arizona State	7.61	9.18
108	Rutgers	-7.85	9.14
109	Oregon State	-3.58	9.12
110	UCLA	8.37	9.06
111	Florida State	-2.88	9.01
112	Hawaii	-0.45	8.96
113	Northern Illinois	-1.47	8.94
114	Old Dominion	-4.66	8.92
115	Idaho	-3.49	8.77
116	Oklahoma	21.58	8.55
117	Washington	11.99	8.53
118	UTEP	-8.59	8.51
119	South Alabama	-7.89	8.5
120	Akron	-2.93	8.42
121	Syracuse	-1.33	8.4
122	UTSA	-0.45	8.37
123	San Jose State	-13.76	8.32
124	Texas State	-5.6	8.26
125	Fresno State	1.68	8.24
126	Michigan State	-2.18	7.82
127	Central Florida	17.25	7.28
128	Miami (OH)	1.01	6.47
129	Marshall	1.12	6.14
130	Illinois	-10.42	5.62

[stupac2]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217258#msg217258 date=1512533847]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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):[/quote]

Here's the second half:

Rank	Team	Average Efficiency	Standard Deviation
81	UAB	4.39	11.03
82	Army	12.5	11.02
83	North Carolina State	6.54	10.91
84	Kent State	-14.15	10.9
85	Wyoming	-4.15	10.87
86	Western Kentucky	2.94	10.86
87	Kansas	-9.72	10.84
88	Georgia	11.36	10.82
89	UNLV	5.45	10.8
90	New Mexico State	3	10.76
91	North Texas	7.3	10.76
92	Alabama	10.9	10.74
93	LSU	6.1	10.69
94	Connecticut	-1.25	10.52
95	Kentucky	0.87	10.48
96	Indiana	-2.32	10.33
97	Penn State	11.94	10.29
98	Tennessee	-5.85	10.02
99	Wisconsin	4.83	10.01
100	Nebraska	-1.57	9.99
101	Charlotte	-9.96	9.98
102	Clemson	8.62	9.78
103	SMU	13.52	9.78
104	Coastal Carolina	2.28	9.55
105	Pittsburgh	0.23	9.27
106	South Carolina	1.11	9.25
107	Arizona State	7.61	9.18
108	Rutgers	-7.85	9.14
109	Oregon State	-3.58	9.12
110	UCLA	8.37	9.06
111	Florida State	-2.88	9.01
112	Hawaii	-0.45	8.96
113	Northern Illinois	-1.47	8.94
114	Old Dominion	-4.66	8.92
115	Idaho	-3.49	8.77
116	Oklahoma	21.58	8.55
117	Washington	11.99	8.53
118	UTEP	-8.59	8.51
119	South Alabama	-7.89	8.5
120	Akron	-2.93	8.42
121	Syracuse	-1.33	8.4
122	UTSA	-0.45	8.37
123	San Jose State	-13.76	8.32
124	Texas State	-5.6	8.26
125	Fresno State	1.68	8.24
126	Michigan State	-2.18	7.82
127	Central Florida	17.25	7.28
128	Miami (OH)	1.01	6.47
129	Marshall	1.12	6.14
130	Illinois	-10.42	5.62

[Spiny_Norman]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

2019 is a trip to Orlando for Central Florida!  Who knows if Josh Heupel will still be there coach at that time.

[Spiny_Norman]

LOL my bad. Is it 2019? Make that 21 months and Speights then!

2019 is a trip to Orlando for Central Florida!  Who knows if Josh Heupel will still be there coach at that time.

[BostonCard]

I like what you did, but I have a hard time believing that Stanford's standard deviation in FEI is that low, given that we have had some monster games (Rice, ASU, UCLA, and Oregon) and some real stinkers (SDSU, OSU, maybe WSU).

I would expect a much higher degree of variance.

BC

[BostonCard]

I like what you did, but I have a hard time believing that Stanford's standard deviation in FEI is that low, given that we have had some monster games (Rice, ASU, UCLA, and Oregon) and some real stinkers (SDSU, OSU, maybe WSU).

I would expect a much higher degree of variance.

BC

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217258#msg217258 date=1512533847]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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.


I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.
One issue that comes to mind is whether standard deviation is a good measure of the kind of occasional face-plants I am trying to analyze; particularly if the underlying sample doesn't follow a normal distribution and in the presence of very small samples.
So, how does a bimodal distribution with two small spreads show up versus a single broad distribution?
Not sure if that is significant or not.


Glancing at the BCFtoys chart, I see Stanford with an OFEI average of 3.01 had one game with a negative OFEI - which seems very rare among better offenses. (In fact, Stanford's -0.16 vs OSU was the third worst OFEI I saw in the chart of all BCS games this year). On the other hand, Stanford's next worst games were 1.75 and 2.49, which don't seem so out of the ordinary.


[And off topic but interesting - by OFEI, Stanford's offensive performances in the two $C games were identical and both just over our average. Didn't feel that way to me watching.]

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217258#msg217258 date=1512533847]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.

I don't believe WiM compared us to other programs, which is really what you want to do. Anyway, giant table incoming, here's every programs' average offensive game efficiency (per BCF Toys, so you have to accept that their method is capturing game efficiency reasonably) and the standard deviation between games. I bolded Stanford so we'd stand out (also I'm going to break this up into two posts, since it exceeded the character limit...):
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.


I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.
One issue that comes to mind is whether standard deviation is a good measure of the kind of occasional face-plants I am trying to analyze; particularly if the underlying sample doesn't follow a normal distribution and in the presence of very small samples.
So, how does a bimodal distribution with two small spreads show up versus a single broad distribution?
Not sure if that is significant or not.


Glancing at the BCFtoys chart, I see Stanford with an OFEI average of 3.01 had one game with a negative OFEI - which seems very rare among better offenses. (In fact, Stanford's -0.16 vs OSU was the third worst OFEI I saw in the chart of all BCS games this year). On the other hand, Stanford's next worst games were 1.75 and 2.49, which don't seem so out of the ordinary.


[And off topic but interesting - by OFEI, Stanford's offensive performances in the two $C games were identical and both just over our average. Didn't feel that way to me watching.]

[washingtonismoney]

performances in the two $C games were identical and both just over our average. Didn't feel that way to me watching.]

I suspect the difference is in the Bryce Love performances. Love was pretty subdued the second time around, which made the overall performance pretty impressive. The first go-around Love, unhobbled, was superhuman -- and that "feels" like a worse offensive performance, since it's just one guy's genius propelling the train.

[washingtonismoney]

performances in the two $C games were identical and both just over our average. Didn't feel that way to me watching.]

I suspect the difference is in the Bryce Love performances. Love was pretty subdued the second time around, which made the overall performance pretty impressive. The first go-around Love, unhobbled, was superhuman -- and that "feels" like a worse offensive performance, since it's just one guy's genius propelling the train.

[BostonCard]

Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both USC games or that both of those were just above our average?

Also, "OFEI is offensive efficiency adjusted for the strength of opponent defenses faced."  A lot of our really good offensive outputs (Rice, UCLA) were against bad defenses.

BC

[BostonCard]

Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both USC games or that both of those were just above our average?

Also, "OFEI is offensive efficiency adjusted for the strength of opponent defenses faced."  A lot of our really good offensive outputs (Rice, UCLA) were against bad defenses.

BC

[CTcard]

Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both U$C games or that both of those were just above our average?

The surprise to me was that the two were the same.
WIM pointed out one possible reason why. Perhaps another was that the first game was very early on when I still had preseason-fantasy hopes for the team.

[CTcard]

Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both U$C games or that both of those were just above our average?

The surprise to me was that the two were the same.
WIM pointed out one possible reason why. Perhaps another was that the first game was very early on when I still had preseason-fantasy hopes for the team.

[stupac2]

I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.
One issue that comes to mind is whether standard deviation is a good measure of the kind of occasional face-plants I am trying to analyze; particularly if the underlying sample doesn't follow a normal distribution and in the presence of very small samples.
So, how does a bimodal distribution with two small spreads show up versus a single broad distribution?
Not sure if that is significant or not.

Yeah, that's reasonable. I would expect that a bimodal distribution would significantly increase stdev compared to a normal gaussian, but it obviously all depends on the parameters. I suppose you could also ask "how many games were worse than N deviations from mean?", I think I can run that in excel but at some point might want to bust out an actual scripting language on this. And, of course, you're right that these numbers are adjusted for opponent while our feelings aren't, so some of the games that feel like total clunkers really weren't.

Also, my plan to look at previous years was scuttled by the pre-2017 data not actually breaking out offensive and defensive efficiencies per game. Rats.

At any rate, if analyses like this are interesting to people I can try to [have my friend who knows how to do this stuff] scrape cfbstats or something.

[stupac2]

I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.
One issue that comes to mind is whether standard deviation is a good measure of the kind of occasional face-plants I am trying to analyze; particularly if the underlying sample doesn't follow a normal distribution and in the presence of very small samples.
So, how does a bimodal distribution with two small spreads show up versus a single broad distribution?
Not sure if that is significant or not.

Yeah, that's reasonable. I would expect that a bimodal distribution would significantly increase stdev compared to a normal gaussian, but it obviously all depends on the parameters. I suppose you could also ask "how many games were worse than N deviations from mean?", I think I can run that in excel but at some point might want to bust out an actual scripting language on this. And, of course, you're right that these numbers are adjusted for opponent while our feelings aren't, so some of the games that feel like total clunkers really weren't.

Also, my plan to look at previous years was scuttled by the pre-2017 data not actually breaking out offensive and defensive efficiencies per game. Rats.

At any rate, if analyses like this are interesting to people I can try to [have my friend who knows how to do this stuff] scrape cfbstats or something.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18293.msg217294#msg217294 date=1512582011]
Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both U$C games or that both of those were just above our average?

The surprise to me was that the two were the same.
WIM pointed out one possible reason why. Perhaps another was that the first game was very early on when I still had preseason-fantasy hopes for the team.
[/quote]

I assume you are thinking the first game seemed to be worse than the second.  Part of that is likely because we seemed to be dominated at the line of scrimmage by USC's defensive line, at a time when we thought our offensive line was good (it wound up being pretty good, but it took some position switching to get us there).  So, we probably had a larger proportion of plays that failed, interrupted by a couple of brobdingnagian Love runs.  Also, I think because the defense was so overmatched in that game, the game was out of reach early.  In the championship, the game overall was closer, even though the offensive scoring, and yardage were about the same (28 vs. 24 points, 343 vs. 342 total yards, 5.7 vs. 6.3 yards per play).  But, the offensive line, while it wasn't perfect, did perform better against USC's defense, and we were able to sustain more drives, plus the outcome was in doubt longer.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18293.msg217294#msg217294 date=1512582011]
Was the surprise related to Stanford's offensive efficiency being the same in both U$C games or that both of those were just above our average?

The surprise to me was that the two were the same.
WIM pointed out one possible reason why. Perhaps another was that the first game was very early on when I still had preseason-fantasy hopes for the team.
[/quote]

I assume you are thinking the first game seemed to be worse than the second.  Part of that is likely because we seemed to be dominated at the line of scrimmage by USC's defensive line, at a time when we thought our offensive line was good (it wound up being pretty good, but it took some position switching to get us there).  So, we probably had a larger proportion of plays that failed, interrupted by a couple of brobdingnagian Love runs.  Also, I think because the defense was so overmatched in that game, the game was out of reach early.  In the championship, the game overall was closer, even though the offensive scoring, and yardage were about the same (28 vs. 24 points, 343 vs. 342 total yards, 5.7 vs. 6.3 yards per play).  But, the offensive line, while it wasn't perfect, did perform better against USC's defense, and we were able to sustain more drives, plus the outcome was in doubt longer.

BC

[ADPATERSON]

How would Troy Walters weigh the OC job at Stanford vs Head Coach at Oregon (don't know if he is in mix). 
Normally, that is a no brainer -- take the HC job. 
But a chance to go back to your alma mater... maybe get a nice step up.  BIG recruiting platform.

[ADPATERSON]

How would Troy Walters weigh the OC job at Stanford vs Head Coach at Oregon (don't know if he is in mix). 
Normally, that is a no brainer -- take the HC job. 
But a chance to go back to your alma mater... maybe get a nice step up.  BIG recruiting platform.

[jacketree]

I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.

Not sure if that is significant or not.

I'm not sure either.  What is significant is: who is good?  Say top-4 good.  Clemson, Georgia, and Oklahoma all have good offenses when I watch them.  Alabama less so, but let's pretend.  So their rankings are respectively 102, 88, 116 and 92.  Which end (Temple or Illinois) is better?  Least variance? (Illinois).  Illinois? Good teams with a good season are all over the map, but the absolute best is clustered between 88 and 116.  The median value of this is 102. That's the absolute best! (Clemson).  But on their shoulder are Nebraska (sucks), Charlotte (basketball school), SMU (kinda okay), and Coastal Carolina (basketball school with killer mascot).  So what are we supposed to do with this information?

Appreciate Supac's effort, but not sure these numbers tell us much. Context is everything.

Feels like hashing through rainfall data, knowing an outcome I want it to support; and italicizing something like absolute best with an exclamation point; when that just randomly fell out of the data without correlating to anything meaningful.

[jacketree]

I'll have to think a bit about what I think these numbers really mean.

Not sure if that is significant or not.

I'm not sure either.  What is significant is: who is good?  Say top-4 good.  Clemson, Georgia, and Oklahoma all have good offenses when I watch them.  Alabama less so, but let's pretend.  So their rankings are respectively 102, 88, 116 and 92.  Which end (Temple or Illinois) is better?  Least variance? (Illinois).  Illinois? Good teams with a good season are all over the map, but the absolute best is clustered between 88 and 116.  The median value of this is 102. That's the absolute best! (Clemson).  But on their shoulder are Nebraska (sucks), Charlotte (basketball school), SMU (kinda okay), and Coastal Carolina (basketball school with killer mascot).  So what are we supposed to do with this information?

Appreciate Supac's effort, but not sure these numbers tell us much. Context is everything.

Feels like hashing through rainfall data, knowing an outcome I want it to support; and italicizing something like absolute best with an exclamation point; when that just randomly fell out of the data without correlating to anything meaningful.