[washingtonismoney]

Bill Connelly has released his stats profiles for every college football team (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e...R/pubhtml#). Connelly is an inveterate tinkerer; while I usually mean that affectionately, it usually means that as soon as I've figured out one of his stats, he's moved on to new formulae (and kind of nerfed the calculations for the old ones). Anyway, here's what jumps out to me: 

1) As you might expect, passing has been more effective than running. As judged by Connelly, passing is both more efficient and explosive than running -- so you'd think the team is really missing out, you'd think, on failing to pass more. 

2) One weird statistic, however. You'd generally expect sacks allowed to be higher on passing downs (i.e. 3rd and 10 and the like) than running downs, because the opposing defense can "pin its ears back" as the cliche goes and rush the QB. But Stanford's sack rate allowed is nearly doubled when it passes on standard downs than when it throws on passing downs. No, I don't know either. 

3) Stanford's success rate on 3rd-and-short is 83rd; its success rate on 3rd and long is 47th. Maybe Stanford should be throwing all the time on 3rd down too. 

4) Defensively, Stanford is pretty bad on 3rd and long (100th) and average-to-mediocre on 3rd and medium and short. Again, obvious places to improve.

[washingtonismoney]

Bill Connelly has released his stats profiles for every college football team (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e...R/pubhtml#). Connelly is an inveterate tinkerer; while I usually mean that affectionately, it usually means that as soon as I've figured out one of his stats, he's moved on to new formulae (and kind of nerfed the calculations for the old ones). Anyway, here's what jumps out to me: 

1) As you might expect, passing has been more effective than running. As judged by Connelly, passing is both more efficient and explosive than running -- so you'd think the team is really missing out, you'd think, on failing to pass more. 

2) One weird statistic, however. You'd generally expect sacks allowed to be higher on passing downs (i.e. 3rd and 10 and the like) than running downs, because the opposing defense can "pin its ears back" as the cliche goes and rush the QB. But Stanford's sack rate allowed is nearly doubled when it passes on standard downs than when it throws on passing downs. No, I don't know either. 

3) Stanford's success rate on 3rd-and-short is 83rd; its success rate on 3rd and long is 47th. Maybe Stanford should be throwing all the time on 3rd down too. 

4) Defensively, Stanford is pretty bad on 3rd and long (100th) and average-to-mediocre on 3rd and medium and short. Again, obvious places to improve.

[newguy]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

[newguy]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

[towen883]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

On my betting site, Stanford is a 5 1/2 point dog.  But forget the spread, on the money line (no points), a $10 bet will return $29 (that includes getting your 10 back) if Stanford wins!

[towen883]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

On my betting site, Stanford is a 5 1/2 point dog.  But forget the spread, on the money line (no points), a $10 bet will return $29 (that includes getting your 10 back) if Stanford wins!

[stupac2]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

As WiM said, he's a tinkerer and has tinkered with the overall formula in a way that makes it look really odd. Just going through his rankings is kind of wild, we're all the way down at like 26 (or at least were when I checked), and there were a bunch of other bizarre results that aren't just outliers with the AP poll, but with all the other statistical systems I'm aware of. I'm not sure what exactly he changed, but it really hates us. Everything else I've seen puts the game as being much closer, usually close to a dead heat on a neutral field.

[stupac2]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

As WiM said, he's a tinkerer and has tinkered with the overall formula in a way that makes it look really odd. Just going through his rankings is kind of wild, we're all the way down at like 26 (or at least were when I checked), and there were a bunch of other bizarre results that aren't just outliers with the AP poll, but with all the other statistical systems I'm aware of. I'm not sure what exactly he changed, but it really hates us. Everything else I've seen puts the game as being much closer, usually close to a dead heat on a neutral field.

[newguy]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

As WiM said, he's a tinkerer and has tinkered with the overall formula in a way that makes it look really odd. Just going through his rankings is kind of wild, we're all the way down at like 26 (or at least were when I checked), and there were a bunch of other bizarre results that aren't just outliers with the AP poll, but with all the other statistical systems I'm aware of. I'm not sure what exactly he changed, but it really hates us. Everything else I've seen puts the game as being much closer, usually close to a dead heat on a neutral field.

in the Stanford Notre Dame thread, OutsiderFan mentions that this is an exremely dangerous game for gamblers.

i think Notre Dame should be favored since the game is at South Bend.  but by how many points is anyone's guess.

and in the same thread, ND Irish mentions that if there is an ACC officiating crew, we could see bad calls made against both teams.

[newguy]

he also picks Notre Dame by 7.5.
hope he's wrong.

As WiM said, he's a tinkerer and has tinkered with the overall formula in a way that makes it look really odd. Just going through his rankings is kind of wild, we're all the way down at like 26 (or at least were when I checked), and there were a bunch of other bizarre results that aren't just outliers with the AP poll, but with all the other statistical systems I'm aware of. I'm not sure what exactly he changed, but it really hates us. Everything else I've seen puts the game as being much closer, usually close to a dead heat on a neutral field.

in the Stanford Notre Dame thread, OutsiderFan mentions that this is an exremely dangerous game for gamblers.

i think Notre Dame should be favored since the game is at South Bend.  but by how many points is anyone's guess.

and in the same thread, ND Irish mentions that if there is an ACC officiating crew, we could see bad calls made against both teams.

[stupac2]

and in the same thread, ND Irish mentions that if there is an ACC officiating crew, we could see bad calls made against both teams.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that, fans of every conference complain about their refs.

One thing that's interesting to me is that the ACC refs (at least according to people on /r/cfb) are also calling holding/PI pretty tight this year. I had noticed that we were seeing very few flags in our games despite plenty of borderline (or even typically over the line) play, and if that's happening across the board in CFB it makes me wonder if the conferences decided to dial penalties back because they annoy fans and slow down the game. Would be interesting, since the NFL is going far in the other direction...

[stupac2]

and in the same thread, ND Irish mentions that if there is an ACC officiating crew, we could see bad calls made against both teams.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that, fans of every conference complain about their refs.

One thing that's interesting to me is that the ACC refs (at least according to people on /r/cfb) are also calling holding/PI pretty tight this year. I had noticed that we were seeing very few flags in our games despite plenty of borderline (or even typically over the line) play, and if that's happening across the board in CFB it makes me wonder if the conferences decided to dial penalties back because they annoy fans and slow down the game. Would be interesting, since the NFL is going far in the other direction...

[CTcard]

One thing that's interesting to me is that the ACC refs (at least according to people on /r/cfb) are also calling holding/PI pretty tight this year. I had noticed that we were seeing very few flags in our games despite plenty of borderline (or even typically over the line) play, and if that's happening across the board in CFB it makes me wonder if the conferences decided to dial penalties back because they annoy fans and slow down the game. Would be interesting, since the NFL is going far in the other direction...

I have noticed a greater "let them play" approach with regards to PI in Stanford games so far this year. I like that generally, since I have always been of the opinion that you have to let people paly defense (though I may wince a bit when the refs let our opponents play defense). 

I haven't noticed it so much on holding. I have thought I noticed that Stanford seems to be getting more holding penalties on run plays than pass plays, which would seem to fit into the general theme that the OL is currently better at pass blocking.

[CTcard]

One thing that's interesting to me is that the ACC refs (at least according to people on /r/cfb) are also calling holding/PI pretty tight this year. I had noticed that we were seeing very few flags in our games despite plenty of borderline (or even typically over the line) play, and if that's happening across the board in CFB it makes me wonder if the conferences decided to dial penalties back because they annoy fans and slow down the game. Would be interesting, since the NFL is going far in the other direction...

I have noticed a greater "let them play" approach with regards to PI in Stanford games so far this year. I like that generally, since I have always been of the opinion that you have to let people paly defense (though I may wince a bit when the refs let our opponents play defense). 

I haven't noticed it so much on holding. I have thought I noticed that Stanford seems to be getting more holding penalties on run plays than pass plays, which would seem to fit into the general theme that the OL is currently better at pass blocking.

[BostonCard]

Two potential PI's stick out in my mind.

1) Against USC, when JJ Arcega-Whiteside was literally tackled out of bounds.  This one was rather blatant and I can't believe it went uncalled, and I would be saying that even if it were one of our guys tackling one of theirs.

2) Adebo against Oregon, on the first down throw to the end zone.  That was one of those that could have legitimately have gone both ways.  I thought the non-call was the right call (despite the announcers saying that he didn't turn his head, he clearly did), but if I were to be honest with myself and the shoe had been on the other foot and it was an Oregon DB trying to defend Arcega-Whiteside, I would probably have felt it should have been called. (in other words, I think it could have legitimately gone either way)

BC

[BostonCard]

Two potential PI's stick out in my mind.

1) Against USC, when JJ Arcega-Whiteside was literally tackled out of bounds.  This one was rather blatant and I can't believe it went uncalled, and I would be saying that even if it were one of our guys tackling one of theirs.

2) Adebo against Oregon, on the first down throw to the end zone.  That was one of those that could have legitimately have gone both ways.  I thought the non-call was the right call (despite the announcers saying that he didn't turn his head, he clearly did), but if I were to be honest with myself and the shoe had been on the other foot and it was an Oregon DB trying to defend Arcega-Whiteside, I would probably have felt it should have been called. (in other words, I think it could have legitimately gone either way)

BC

[CTcard]

1) As you might expect, passing has been more effective than running. As judged by Connelly, passing is both more efficient and explosive than running -- so you'd think the team is really missing out, you'd think, on failing to pass more. 

I guess that comes from the "marginal efficiency" and "marginal explosiveness" categories - these marginal stats are part of this year's tinkering and I have not fully digested them yet. There is a benefit to using simple stats with intuitive meaning - which of course is on the way to being completely lost with Mr. Connelly. 

But it doesn't matter here; broadly speaking it's pretty clear the passing game has been more effective overall than the run game, the stats just quantify that a bit. 

So, this is not 2014 where Stanford tried to institute a downfield, pass-heavy offensive attack for half the year which was clearly a mistake as we were better by most measures running that ball that year. 

But Stanford is already passing the ball rather often this year: officially (sacks and scrambles as run plays) we have passed on 51% of our plays this year. That's generally rather high for college ball, if not crazy high; and if it hold for a season it will be the lowest percentage of run plays since we first figured out how to run the ball under Harbs. 
How much further can we go leaning towards passing without collapsing the whole edifice?

On the one hand, one might think not very much further. We don't have a scheme like WSU's where pass plays are really long hand offs. [Even if we wanted to emulate that system - which I emphatically do not - it would take several seasons to properly install.] A downfield passing game is going to have some limits to consistency. And once teams realize we've abandoned a serious run game, a deep field pass game with slowly developing plays is quite susceptible to pressure and other counter measures. 

On the other hand, Stanford is currently operating on over a decade of both crushing opponents with our ground game and often complementing that ground game with a terrible pass game. It's deeply ingrained in our opponents to STOP THE RUN, load the box, and take your chances that our receivers can be single covered and our QBs might miss. In general, it's gonna take more than actual evidence of their own eyes to abandon defensive focus on the run game on first and second downs against us. Just maybe that will keep us in single coverage more than is reasonable even against a higher pass rate. 

My current instinct is that the run pass mix itself is about right, which couples to my hope that a healthier OL is going to get back to making plausible holes for our RBs.

---

2) Adebo against Oregon, on the first down throw to the end zone.  That was one of those that could have legitimately have gone both ways.  I thought the non-call was the right call (despite the announcers saying that he didn't turn his head, he clearly did), but if I were to be honest with myself and the shoe had been on the other foot and it was an Oregon DB trying to defend Arcega-Whiteside, I would probably have felt it should have been called. (in other words, I think it could have legitimately gone either way)

I believe that Adebo had an almost identical pass break up versus $C (not in end zone) that was also not called PI. 
Watching it live I thought we got away with one. 
Watching the tape I am less sure - and as noted I like the doubt going to a non-call. 

By the way there was a notable non-PI for Oregon on JJAW that had a chance for being a game changer. On the … second play (?) of the tying FG drive. There wasn't good coverage on the telecast, though it looked like a significant early hit on JJ, and both Shaw and JJ were insistent after the play that it should have drawn a flag.

[CTcard]

1) As you might expect, passing has been more effective than running. As judged by Connelly, passing is both more efficient and explosive than running -- so you'd think the team is really missing out, you'd think, on failing to pass more. 

I guess that comes from the "marginal efficiency" and "marginal explosiveness" categories - these marginal stats are part of this year's tinkering and I have not fully digested them yet. There is a benefit to using simple stats with intuitive meaning - which of course is on the way to being completely lost with Mr. Connelly. 

But it doesn't matter here; broadly speaking it's pretty clear the passing game has been more effective overall than the run game, the stats just quantify that a bit. 

So, this is not 2014 where Stanford tried to institute a downfield, pass-heavy offensive attack for half the year which was clearly a mistake as we were better by most measures running that ball that year. 

But Stanford is already passing the ball rather often this year: officially (sacks and scrambles as run plays) we have passed on 51% of our plays this year. That's generally rather high for college ball, if not crazy high; and if it hold for a season it will be the lowest percentage of run plays since we first figured out how to run the ball under Harbs. 
How much further can we go leaning towards passing without collapsing the whole edifice?

On the one hand, one might think not very much further. We don't have a scheme like WSU's where pass plays are really long hand offs. [Even if we wanted to emulate that system - which I emphatically do not - it would take several seasons to properly install.] A downfield passing game is going to have some limits to consistency. And once teams realize we've abandoned a serious run game, a deep field pass game with slowly developing plays is quite susceptible to pressure and other counter measures. 

On the other hand, Stanford is currently operating on over a decade of both crushing opponents with our ground game and often complementing that ground game with a terrible pass game. It's deeply ingrained in our opponents to STOP THE RUN, load the box, and take your chances that our receivers can be single covered and our QBs might miss. In general, it's gonna take more than actual evidence of their own eyes to abandon defensive focus on the run game on first and second downs against us. Just maybe that will keep us in single coverage more than is reasonable even against a higher pass rate. 

My current instinct is that the run pass mix itself is about right, which couples to my hope that a healthier OL is going to get back to making plausible holes for our RBs.

---

2) Adebo against Oregon, on the first down throw to the end zone.  That was one of those that could have legitimately have gone both ways.  I thought the non-call was the right call (despite the announcers saying that he didn't turn his head, he clearly did), but if I were to be honest with myself and the shoe had been on the other foot and it was an Oregon DB trying to defend Arcega-Whiteside, I would probably have felt it should have been called. (in other words, I think it could have legitimately gone either way)

I believe that Adebo had an almost identical pass break up versus $C (not in end zone) that was also not called PI. 
Watching it live I thought we got away with one. 
Watching the tape I am less sure - and as noted I like the doubt going to a non-call. 

By the way there was a notable non-PI for Oregon on JJAW that had a chance for being a game changer. On the … second play (?) of the tying FG drive. There wasn't good coverage on the telecast, though it looked like a significant early hit on JJ, and both Shaw and JJ were insistent after the play that it should have drawn a flag.