The CardBoard
Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - 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: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet (/thread-13477.html)

Pages: 1 2

Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - CardinalSagehen - 02-08-2017

Here's some new data - we've seen this before but it's all been updated through 2017 now.

5-Year Recruiting Rankings (we are 16th): http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/2/2/14483388/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2017-multiple-years

Wins in the Shaw era - 2011-present (we are 5th): https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/win_trends/?range=yearly_since_2011

We now have a significant sample size of 81 games under Coach Shaw, and the results have been unequivocally, overwhelmingly positive.  The teams ahead of us in wins are easy to guess - 'Bama, Clemson, FSU and Ohio State.  All of these teams are icons of CFB with less stringent academic standards, and every one of them outranks us in recruiting, too.  I know recruiting rankings aren't a perfect science, but the gaps aren't close, with the possible exception of Clemson.  Just look at how many 4* and 5* recruits committed to 'Bama's 2017 class - 24! 

Put differently, there's isn't a single team in CFB with lower-ranked talent and a better record than Stanford.  Not one.  That makes us an outlier, in the best possible way.  And we're also an outlier with respect to the mediocre history of our own program, which only further proves the point.  I don't have specific offensive stats handy to share, but taken on the whole, I know that we've performed reasonably well and we've been near the very top of CFB in some seasons (e.g., 2011, 2015). 

Meanwhile, I've seen some nit-pickers on this board and amongst my friends that bemoan Coach Shaw's (or "Shawgren's") play-calling... overly conservative, too rigid when Power isn't working, no ability to pick up the pace when behind, too complex for new QBs, etc.  We've heard it all before, and frankly, I've been there, too, in some of our darker offensive moments.

But I do NOT believe that it's possible to be such a positive outlier in performance while also being crappy at play-calling.  You simply can't chalk up all of our success to some combination of recruiting, defense and player development, without good play-calling, too.   

I say to the "Shaw-gren" epithet-slingers, including myself at certain times, Enough Already! You can't have it both ways!  You can't enjoy our consistently over-performing, top-5 CFB team while also throwing any kind of shade at our coaches.  The overall stats and results don't back you up, either.  Debate a call, sure, but drop the epithets!  Save those for the 59ers, UDFG, and Spoiled Children!  Be thankful and remember that Stanford Football has never had it this good!  Not even close!


Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - North Woods - 02-08-2017

Nice summary and I agree we are in excellent hands and the results are incredible especially relative to school history.

At the same time, we are aiming for CFP levels. The margin for error is extremely small, more so if our talent is a hair behind the programs we are chasing. A couple of times we've just missed. You can be very good and yet not top 4.

So looking for areas to nitpick is part of aiming even higher. Isn't that what fans do, even as they love their team and coaches? I hope the team is doing the same.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - BobK - 02-08-2017

Excellent post sagehen. 

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - rastaman85 - 02-08-2017

Chirp-chirp! Really nice post.

And for those of you who don't get the reference, the lyrics to the Pomona-Pitzer fight song below:

When Cecil Sagehen Chirps
He's gonna fracture the foes of Pomona's might,
When Cecil Sagehen Chirps
He's gonna wail on their bods for the blue and white!
Our foes are filled with dread
Whenever Cecil Sagehen flies overhead,
We're gonna C
We're gonna H
We're gonna I-R-P
When Cecil chirps his way to victory
CHIRP!

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - CardinalSagehen - 02-09-2017

(02-08-2017, 06:49 PM)North Woods link Wrote:So looking for areas to nitpick is part of aiming even higher. Isn't that what fans do, even as they love their team and coaches? I hope the team is doing the same.

Fair points, North Woods. I agree. It's normal for fans to nitpick and debate calls.  That's part of the fun. When the criticism turns from the plays to the play-callers and negatively labels two coaches that have absolutely crushed it, imho, I just think people have to take a step back and remember the big picture.  Sometimes it strikes me that we might be undervaluing so many of the common mistakes that Shaw's conservative, disciplined approach avoids for us - such as the Falcons' passing in the 4th quarter, or Mike Leach making Quentin Meeks' pick possible in Pullman a couple years ago when he simply needed to kill the clock a bit more. 

But at another level, I was just stirring the pot a bit, and I'm all for verbiage that provokes some discussion!

@rastaman - thanks!  Chirp-chirp!


Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - Cap Heresy - 02-09-2017

I have been quite critical of the play-calling, and probably will continue to be. Also I've seen several instances of getting a delay penalty AFTER A TIMEOUT. The only thing more embarrassing was 2014 when 0-11 SMU was trying to close out UConn and drew two consecutive penalties trying to line up in the victory formation. But I'm critical with love, or something like that.

Here's some irony. In the MSU Rose Bowl, there was obviously a lot of criticism for the 4th down FB dive, but I was totally fine with it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't called the entire game. Sparty just out-executed us.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - Cap Heresy - 02-09-2017

As for recruiting rankings, I use them every year in my model. I usually get a Pearson correlation of 60-70% per Sagarin rankings. But I always keep in mind that JJ Watt was a 2-star.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - OutsiderFan - 02-09-2017

I think the recruiting rankings are a bit misleading, however. Stanford's well-documented lower attrition rate is widely acknowledged by college football observers, but it is never factored in as any kind of adjuster to the Stanford recruiting rankings.  So while I concur Shaw has outperformed recruiting rankings on the same measures as other programs, those recruiting rankings themselves don't measure Stanford's classes accurately.

Recruiting class rankings are measured by total points accumulated.  When you have smaller classes annually, by definition you will accumulate fewer points.  The best way to adjust to account for Stanford's smaller classes, is to simply measure average recruit ranking. This is sometimes done on a per class analysis basis, like it was this year, when stories were written about Stanford having the 3rd or 4th best class by avg. recruit ranking.  But it's rarely done in these year-over-year numbers.

My point is that yes, Shaw has done a great job, but let's not pretend Stanford hasn't had Top 10 talent.  I'm assuming that if you looked at the Top 10 avg. over the Shaw era, and looked at the avg. ranking per recruit for all such teams over that period, Stanford would be at a similar avg. ranking number as the top 7-12 programs over the same period.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - 2006alum - 02-09-2017

(02-09-2017, 06:44 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I'm assuming that if you looked at the Top 10 avg. over the Shaw era, and looked at the avg. ranking per recruit for all such teams over that period, Stanford would be at a similar avg. ranking number as the top 7-12 programs over the same period.

To my surprise, our average quality really isn't as different from our overall composite ranking as I would have thought. I don't have the time to calculate for every recruit and average it all out across multiple years, but just doing a brute force calculation of ranking per year, we had two years with a big difference: 2017 and 2013. Otherwise, they were pretty comparable. This end, here's our rankings based on average quality and overall composite according to 247sports:

2017: 4th in average quality; 14th in overall composite
2016: 23rd in average quality; 16th in overall composite
2015: 24th in average quality; 24th in overall composite
2014: 8th in average quality; 13th in overall composite
2013: 21st in average quality; 51st in overall composite
2012: 9th in average quality; 7th in overall composite

So, if we say the 2012 class was the first class Shaw was fully responsible for, his averages are:
~15th in average quality, ~21st in overall composite. Either way, our year-to-year performance has outperformed either.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - winflop - 02-09-2017

(02-09-2017, 01:53 AM)Cap Heresy link Wrote:I'm critical with love, or something like that.

Same here, but I guess I am a bit more critical of Coach Bloomgren.  Two of the last three seasons the OL simply hasn't been good enough despite having massive amounts of highly recruited talent.  He is the position coach there and that is squarely on him.  He is also the offensive coordinator and although we don't exactly know who does what play calling when, he's clearly part of that brain trust and at some critical times it has been questionable while at other times it has been brilliant.

As stated above, Stanford wants to be a CFP team.  I see consistency as the biggest challenge to getting there, and I do wonder if Coach Bloomgren can develop greater consistency both as a position coach and as part of the playcalling brain trust.  I think the program is THAT close to getting over the hump and into the CFP and I can't wait to see it happen!

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - OutsiderFan - 02-09-2017

Well, the difference may not be great; 15th based on avg. recruit rating vs. 21st per average class ranking, but it is a difference, and...

Dave Bartoo of the College Football Matrix has data that shows you must be in the Top I think it is 18 recruiting classes to have a real shot at playing for a national championship.  Obviously he bases his analysis on class ranking, not recruit rankings, but also obviously, #15 is within the Top 18 needed to have a realistic shot at a national title.  It seems reasonable to believe avg. recruit rating is a proxy for class quality, and since avg. recruit rating accounts for Stanford's lower attrition rate, it also seems reasonable to assume Shaw isn't outperforming his recruiting classes by an amount that makes him some coaching savant.  He is a very good coach, maybe hitting the low end of great, but I don't think he's out performing Saban, Meyer, Stoops, or Swinney. 

I'm curious to know where Chris Peterson ranks on these measures because it seems he has outperformed his recruiting measurable more than maybe anyone.  In any case, it's hard to argue the best coaches in college football don't include Saban, Meyer, Swinney, Stoops, Fisher, Shaw, Peterson, and probably Harbaugh in some order.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - martyup - 02-09-2017

(02-08-2017, 11:49 PM)rastaman85 link Wrote:Chirp-chirp! Really nice post.

And for those of you who don't get the reference, the lyrics to the Pomona-Pitzer fight song below:

When Cecil Sagehen Chirps
He's gonna fracture the foes of Pomona's might,
When Cecil Sagehen Chirps
He's gonna wail on their bods for the blue and white!
Our foes are filled with dread
Whenever Cecil Sagehen flies overhead,
We're gonna C
We're gonna H
We're gonna I-R-P
When Cecil chirps his way to victory
CHIRP!

That is the weakest fight song I've ever seen.  It must make opponents chirp in their Pants?  ::)

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - CTcard - 02-09-2017

(02-09-2017, 07:31 AM)winflop link Wrote:  Two of the last three seasons the OL simply hasn't been good enough despite having massive amounts of highly recruited talent.

That's an interesting assertion. I think it should be looked at.

2014
In 2014 we had the class of 2012 OL.
It was Peat, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Murphy.
On balance, very highly rated recruits. From 247:
Murphy = 0.9933, #2 OT, #11 overall
Peat = 0.9848, #4 OT, #30 overall
Garnett = 0.9817, #2 OG, #38 overall
Shuler = 0.9057, #14 OG, #268 overall
Caspers = 0.8382, #60 OG, not rated overall

However, four of those were first time starters.
The OL held together and was essentially the same all year.
The OL had serious pass protection issues early, was quite good by the end of the year.

2015
Mostly the same OL as 2014
Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker
Tucker = 0.9617, #7 OT, #82 overall (class of 2014)
Others as above.

A really excellent line, and one of the best Stanford offenses ever. Lombardi has taken to stating that it had the highest points per possession in the country. bcftoys seems to say Stanford was #2 behind Western Kentucky - but a small difference.

2016
The OL was constantly evolving due to injuries and indadequate play. Seems best to go with the line as it ended up, i.e. the Sun Bowl.
Hall, Herbig, Burkett, Caspers, Bright
Hall = 0.8625, #54 OT, #571 overall  (class of 2014)
Burkett = 0.8535, #40 OG, #726 overall (class of 2014)
Herbig = 0.8462, #45 OG, #933 overall (class of 2016)
Bright = 0.8432, #69 OT, #897 overall (class of 2013)
Caspers as above.

In the end, that was four new starters.
This OL was actually pretty good at run blocking. The RB yds/carry was the highest in many years. However, they were horrendous at pass blocking, leading to all sorts of debillitating problems for the offense.Stanford allowed the second most sacks in the conference despite the fewest passing attempts.


So, my summary of all that is ...
One might think the 2014-15 OL should have come together sooner. On the other hand it did come together and eventually became elite. That was a highly recruited and talented line.
The 2016 OL was not comprised of highly recruited kids, and overall it was not a good enough line. I would note that not having highly recruited guys isn't any out - Bloomgren/Shaw are responsible for recruiting the guys on the OL as well as teaching them once they show up.

Broadly speaking, the OL has been a strength of the Stanford team under Bloomegren and his immediate predecessors. But it is also a team that is built upon the necessity of having a very good OL - so the onus remains high going forward.



Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - stupac2 - 02-09-2017

(02-09-2017, 06:44 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I think the recruiting rankings are a bit misleading, however. Stanford's well-documented lower attrition rate is widely acknowledged by college football observers, but it is never factored in as any kind of adjuster to the Stanford recruiting rankings.  So while I concur Shaw has outperformed recruiting rankings on the same measures as other programs, those recruiting rankings themselves don't measure Stanford's classes accurately.

Recruiting class rankings are measured by total points accumulated.  When you have smaller classes annually, by definition you will accumulate fewer points.  The best way to adjust to account for Stanford's smaller classes, is to simply measure average recruit ranking. This is sometimes done on a per class analysis basis, like it was this year, when stories were written about Stanford having the 3rd or 4th best class by avg. recruit ranking.  But it's rarely done in these year-over-year numbers.

My point is that yes, Shaw has done a great job, but let's not pretend Stanford hasn't had Top 10 talent.  I'm assuming that if you looked at the Top 10 avg. over the Shaw era, and looked at the avg. ranking per recruit for all such teams over that period, Stanford would be at a similar avg. ranking number as the top 7-12 programs over the same period.

I don't think it's necessarily misleading, because as WiM loves to point out, recruiting is a crapshoot. To some extent we actually handicap ourselves by having a lower attrition rate. Sure, it's great that we keep our guys around and get them an education even when they don't pan out, because that's the damn point of the school, but from a football perspective it means that those guys are taking up a scholarship that could (potentially) be used for a better, younger player. Or at least another lottery ticket. I'm sure we can all name seniors who we were really excited about but never panned out, and they graduate from Stanford, but they transfer (or "retire") out of Alabama. That gives them an advantage over us on the gridiron, even if it makes them sleazy pieces of garbage.


On OP's topic, of all the things we have autocorrects for, I wish we'd add "Shawgren". I don't think it ever adds anything to a topic and just reads as whiny to me.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - CardinalSagehen - 02-09-2017

(02-09-2017, 08:50 AM)martyup link Wrote:That is the weakest fight song I've ever seen.  It must make opponents chirp in their Pants?  ::)

Not picking a fight with the Cardinal, as I'm a lifelong Bay Area Stanford fan since hearing The Play on my transistor radio at age 8.  But I always got Cecil's back!!  ;)

The Sagehen, if you must know, is a FIERCE desert grouse!  My freshman year, the guy that wore the Cecil suit at basketball games lived upstairs, and in my 44 years I have seen nothing as foreboding as Cecil up-close, walking down the halls of the 'Borg, a maze-like dorm that inspired its namesake on Star Trek NG. 

Last I checked, nobody has ever been attacked by a color, and trees can only fall on you.  Axes are pretty scary, though!


Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - Row80Critic - 02-09-2017

No doubt we are currently experiencing the good old days.  If I could pick just one thing for Shaw to change, I'd have him get a special coach whose sole job during the game is to watch the game clock and call time out when if falls to 1. For such a well-coached and disciplined team, it's baffling to me why the clock is allowed to run out so often. Penalties kill drives, and Shaw hates penalties. Yet this is a recurring one that is, ironically, maybe the only one you can virtually eliminate with a system.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - teejers1 - 02-09-2017

1.  You can recruit well and still underperform to talent;

2.  You can win a lot of games and still should have won more;

3.  You can have a sound offensive philosophy and still make AYFKM play calls that are indefensible; and

4.  Perhaps most disturbingly, you can win a lot of games and still preside over a fragile program (based on attendance, anyway).  There are many reasons for this disturbing point - some unrelated to what happens on the gridiron - but one factor is style of play.

In sum, you can be a great coach - appreciated by all die-hard Stanford fans - and still have room for improvement.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - CTcard - 02-09-2017

All these things are inherently true of course, but ...


(02-09-2017, 12:02 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:1.  You can recruit well and still underperform to talent;

Yes, but the theme of the thread, or at least the OP, is that Stanford has overperformed to talent.

I know you think that is wrong. You should make the case not just the assumption.


Quote:2.  You can win a lot of games and still should have won more;

Absolutely true.
It appears Alabama fans feel this about Saban.


Quote:3.  You can have a sound offensive philosophy and still make AYFKM play calls that are indefensible; and

Not only true, but given what one sees around the greater football world, it would appear that in fact one cannot avoid at least the occasional AYFKM plays.

I personally am much more concerned about issues in offensive philosophy that could be better tuned - at least better tuned for the low-experience years.
That seems a more interesting and productive conversation, though obviously that is a matter of taste.


Quote:4.  Perhaps most disturbingly, you can win a lot of games and still preside over a fragile program (based on attendance, anyway).  There are many reasons for this disturbing point - some unrelated to what happens on the gridiron - but one factor is style of play.

...
No real issue with this, except I am not so sure that style of play is very closely tied to our attendance issues; and if it were I am not sure that by itself would be a good reason to change.


Quote:In sum, you can be a great coach - appreciated by all die-hard Stanford fans - and still have room for improvement.

Axiomatically true.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - fullmetal - 02-09-2017

I think North Woods and teejers are saying the same thing, no?  I'm all for optimizing the last 5% that will get Stanford to the NCG.  Can't be content with averaging top 10 performances, though we certainly should be appreciative of where Stanford is given where Stanford has been before...

Also, I think we should start evaluating recruiting classes based on NFL talent delivered.  The whole recruiting industry (as evidenced by B/R's video production of Wedlington's commit video) is ridiculous.

Re: Some data and a referendum on the "Shaw-gren" Epithet - Leftcoast - 02-09-2017

I need a link to this Sagehen song.  Google is failing me ...