2016 By the Numbers

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So, you think we're winning the national championship in 2016? To me, that's a little overly optimistic but I do think we can make the playoffs.

We will not only win it. But it'll be easy. Expect lots of dominating performances. Especially in the playoffs when we face Big 10 or Big 12 teams.

 

[tonybologna]

We will not only win it. But it'll be easy. Expect lots of dominating performances. Especially in the playoffs when we face Big 10 or Big 12 teams.

At least I like your confidence.

 

[daj2576]

Would those #'s not have had UGA beating us last year too?
I get what you're saying but I think there's a little more to it. But it's very interesting info for sure.

Yes.

Those numbers had us losing to UGA and beating Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The overperformance against UGA washes out the Arkansas loss, leaving the entire season resulting in a one game difference from predictions. That is the best performance UT has had in relation to talent since roughly 2005.

It's key to note, that UT has had the worst performance against talent in the SEC over the past decade. Jones first two years were 2 games under predictions, last year was 1. Those are the best performances we've had in a three year span since 2005 IIRC.

 

[Smokey123]

How has James Franklin done based on these numbers? Over or under achieve?

 

[Volnukem]

Yes.

Those numbers had us losing to UGA and beating Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The overperformance against UGA washes out the Arkansas loss, leaving the entire season resulting in a one game difference from predictions. That is the best performance UT has had in relation to talent since roughly 2005.

It's key to note, that UT has had the worst performance against talent in the SEC over the past decade. Jones first two years were 2 games under predictions, last year was 1. Those are the best performances we've had in a three year span since 2005 IIRC.

Good last paragraph. I think it's useful to look at trends over several years and/or several teams the way Bartoo does. I like his coach effect stat, which is similar to what you are doing, but with the sample size so small, it unlikely that being +- 1 game is statistically significant.

This goes back to the whole Saban argument. Since by your model, Bama is predicted to win every game they play this season with a 70% probability based on talent alone, we can assume a binomial distribution. The probability that Saban would win all 12 regular season games is 1.3%. In fact, the expectation is that they would win 8.4 +/- 1.6 games. You can't say Saban has chronically underachieved when the expectation based on your stat alone is that he should win between 7-10 games within one standard deviation.

 

[Volnukem]

Just to add to the point, if we look at Saban's entire career at Bama, he has a record of 100-18. I am going to assume that he has had a talent advantage in every single game, which is not true, but makes analysis easier. Based on your 70% win probability based on talent advantage, the expected wins for an average coach with complete talent advantage is 85 +/- 5 games. Saban has won 100, which is 3 standard deviations above the average putting him in the top 0.01%.

I hate Bama as much as anyone, but Saban is a helluva coach even when you consider the talent advantage he has had.

 

[daj2576]

Good last paragraph. I think it's useful to look at trends over several years and/or several teams the way Bartoo does. I like his coach effect stat, which is similar to what you are doing, but with the sample size so small, it unlikely that being +- 1 game is statistically significant.

This goes back to the whole Saban argument. Since by your model, Bama is predicted to win every game they play this season with a 70% probability based on talent alone, we can assume a binomial distribution. The probability that Saban would win all 12 regular season games is 1.3%. In fact, the expectation is that they would win 8.4 +/- 1.6 games. You can't say Saban has chronically underachieved when the expectation based on your stat alone is that he should win between 7-10 games within one standard deviation.

Context is key in any evaluation, specifically any evaluation using stats. My conclusion about Saban is drawn from pretty comprehensive data, not just his years at Bama with the top recruiting glasses.

It is irrelevant how you try to explain Saban's performance using textbook stats, without evaluating the data set (seeing how he performs in relation to the coaching population as a whole using the very same analysis). You're making assumptions based on admitted generalities on my part(and some omissions). If you disagree with the data, feel free to test your own. I'm not infallible, I'm not a mathematician, and my hands are tied in making a more compelling case in part due to intellectual property issues. Like I said, I have to be careful what I post because I do not want to tread on intellectual property of others, specifically my employers.

Also, as I mentioned, Bartoo and I disagree on a few things but our conclusions are generally the same.

And, again, while Saban trends below average on the field, he is the most valuable coach off of it.

Ill say it again, my point is not that Saban is incompetent, or bad. Saban is *below average* historically in relation to talent. This makes his *perception* one of the most skewed in all of sports in relation to his actual performance in relation to talent, in my view.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Context is key in any evaluation, specifically any evaluation using stats. My conclusion about Saban is drawn from pretty comprehensive data, not just his years at Bama with the top recruiting glasses.

It is irrelevant how you try to explain Saban's performance using textbook stats, without evaluating the data set (seeing how he performs in relation to the coaching population as a whole using the very same analysis). You're making assumptions based on admitted generalities on my part(and some omissions). If you disagree with the data, feel free to test your own. I'm not infallible, I'm not a mathematician, and my hands are tied in making a more compelling case in part due to intellectual property issues. Like I said, I have to be careful what I post because I do not want to tread on intellectual property of others, specifically my employers.

Also, as I mentioned, Bartoo and I disagree on a few things but our conclusions are generally the same.

And, again, while Saban trends below average on the field, he is the most valuable coach off of it.

Ill say it again, my point is not that Saban is incompetent, or bad. Saban is *below average* historically in relation to talent. This makes his *perception* one of the most skewed in all of sports in relation to his actual performance in relation to talent, in my view.

I know you hate they shut those BCS computers down. Got to be tough trying to make sense of the football world when so many have gone back to the eye test.

 

[Volnukem]

Context is key in any evaluation, specifically any evaluation using stats. My conclusion about Saban is drawn from pretty comprehensive data, not just his years at Bama with the top recruiting glasses.

It is irrelevant how you try to explain Saban's performance using textbook stats, without evaluating the data set (seeing how he performs in relation to the coaching population as a whole using the very same analysis). You're making assumptions based on admitted generalities on my part(and some omissions). If you disagree with the data, feel free to test your own. I'm not infallible, I'm not a mathematician, and my hands are tied in making a more compelling case in part due to intellectual property issues. Like I said, I have to be careful what I post because I do not want to tread on intellectual property of others, specifically my employers.

Also, as I mentioned, Bartoo and I disagree on a few things but our conclusions are generally the same.

And, again, while Saban trends below average on the field, he is the most valuable coach off of it.

Ill say it again, my point is not that Saban is incompetent, or bad. Saban is *below average* historically in relation to talent. This makes his *perception* one of the most skewed in all of sports in relation to his actual performance in relation to talent, in my view.

I don't like this answer mostly because now I'm curious what more advanced metrics can say, but it's fair. My analysis is solid based on the info you gave, but I agree that it is lacking with respect to the entirety of the coaching population. Interesting stuff. Keep posting.

 

[VonVol]

I just looked up Saban and Jones' record after 115 games, which is how many games Jones has been a head coach for. Saban was 74-40-1. Jones is 71-44. Not a big difference there. The difference came when Saban began coaching an already powerful program that managed to also have 10 win seasons with Mike Dubose, Mike Shula, and Dennis Franchione at the helm.

Saban is the standard when it comes to leading a program. Anyone who says they wouldn't want him at this point is lying or delusional. But he does clearly have more to work with than anyone in the country not named Urban Meyer. I think the underachieving thing is taken the wrong way. Noone is saying that his accomplishments don't stand on their own. It's just a fact that he has more talent in almost every game. And I know he won an NC at LSU too. But so did Les Miles. Another recruiting hot bed in Louisiana and so close to Texas.

 

[daj2576]

I don't like this answer mostly because now I'm curious what more advanced metrics can say, but it's fair. My analysis is solid based on the info you gave, but I agree that it is lacking with respect to the entirety of the coaching population. Interesting stuff. Keep posting.

I totally get how its a BS response to say something to the effect of "I know more, but I can't say." If I read that online, I would totally disregard the person suggesting such things.

The thing is, I generally like my job, and I have had access to much more complicated evaluations, and the conclusions/opinions derived from the same or similar. As I said in another thread, I personally built a matrix with roughly 250,000 cells of discrete football data to do a de-facto regression analysis of, looking at particular traits of teams and situations as to how those predicate score differentials, home field advantage, win totals, and about anything else you can look for. As such, I don't want to share anything that might tread on that evaluation as it was rather expensive for my employer to pay me to develop (I think it took about 1000 hours to build and initially test).

What I have found is that driving out the last 30% of uncertainty has a cost curve that goes almost vertical. Each increasing percentage point is seemingly exponentially more expensive than the last. At some point, and that is up to the person footing the bill to decide, the cost is not worth the benefit.

The general foundation is the information I have given here. Is it incomplete? Yes. Does it fall short of coming close to perfection? Yes. That said, understanding this is the fundamental block in evaluating anything related to football, at least in my view.

 

[KBVol]

I just looked up Saban and Jones' record after 115 games, which is how many games Jones has been a head coach for. Saban was 74-40-1. Jones is 71-44. Not a big difference there. The difference came when Saban began coaching an already powerful program that managed to also have 10 win seasons with Mike Dubose, Mike Shula, and Dennis Franchione at the helm.

Saban is the standard when it comes to leading a program. Anyone who says they wouldn't want him at this point is lying or delusional. But he does clearly have more to work with than anyone in the country not named Urban Meyer. I think the underachieving thing is taken the wrong way. Noone is saying that his accomplishments don't stand on their own. It's just a fact that he has more talent in almost every game. And I know he won an NC at LSU too. But so did Les Miles. Another recruiting hot bed in Louisiana and so close to Texas.

Get what you're saying Von. However, Volukem pointed out that, based on Daj's numbers/model, Saban should be expected to win, at best, 70% of his games due to talent advantages at Bama. Yet, he's won 85% of his games there, meaning he's done anything but "underachieve".

What I would also add is that a huge component of being a successful collegiate head football coach is assembling the talent to win, and nobody else does it as well as Saban. Furthermore, of the coaches that do consistently recruit within earshot of Saban on an annual basis, only 1 guy, Urban Meyer, is even sniffing anything close to 5 titles in 11 years...it's unprecedented. So, to me, at the end of the day, trying to throw shade at Nick Saban and the job he's done at Alabama (and LSU for that much) is both wrong-headed and misguided. We should all just give the man his due IMHO.

Btw Von, this post was not directed at you or anybody else really....just took the occasion of your post to throw out a thought or two on Saban based on the numbers and some points made by other posters as well.

 

[Vol8188]

Get what you're saying Von. However, Volukem pointed out that, based on Daj's numbers/model, Saban should be expected to win, at best, 70% of his games due to talent advantages at Bama. Yet, he's won 85% of his games there, meaning he's done anything but "underachieve".

What I would also add is that a huge component of being a successful collegiate head football coach is assembling the talent to win, and nobody else does it as well as Saban. Furthermore, of the coaches that do consistently recruit within earshot of Saban on an annual basis, only 1 guy, Urban Meyer, is even sniffing anything close to 5 titles in 11 years...it's unprecedented. So, to me, at the end of the day, trying to throw shade at Nick Saban and the job he's done at Alabama (and LSU for that much) is both wrong-headed and misguided. We should all just give the man his due IMHO.

Btw Von, this post was not directed at you or anybody else really....just took the occasion of your post to throw out a thought or two on Saban based on the numbers and some points made by other posters as well.

70% of his games? I feel like you guys are looking at this data wrong.

 

[KBVol]

70% of his games? I feel like you guys are looking at this data wrong.

I don't believe so. Volnukem pointed this out earlier in the thread .....



"This goes back to the whole Saban argument. Since by your model, Bama is predicted to win every game they play this season with a 70% probability based on talent alone, we can assume a binomial distribution. The probability that Saban would win all 12 regular season games is 1.3%. In fact, the expectation is that they would win 8.4 +/- 1.6 games. You can't say Saban has chronically underachieved when the expectation based on your stat alone is that he should win between 7-10 games within one standard deviation."

 

[ReaderVol]

Cannot argue with Saban's results.
But I'd like someone to point to the last game he coached where he had less talent on the field?
Just curious.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Alabama + Nick Saban = Rolling Stones

Meaning, nothing statistically in Saban's coaching past would have predicted this overwhelming success at Bama. Not at recruiting rich LSU or time at Michigan State.

You can call it the perfect storm or the stars aligning, but it definitely is the right coach, at the right school, at the right time.

Yeah, perfect storm, that's it.

 

[KBVol]

Alabama + Nick Saban = Rolling Stones

Meaning, nothing statistically in Saban's coaching past would have predicted this overwhelming success at Bama. Not at recruiting rich LSU or time at Michigan State.

You can call it the perfect storm or the stars aligning, but it definitely is the right coach, at the right school, at the right time.

Yeah, perfect storm, that's it.

He was 48-16 with a Natty after turning around what had been a dreadful LSU program for awhile prior to his arrival there. Looks like maybe he's conjured up the "perfect storm" at each of his last two collegiate stops.

 

[TUSKtimes]

He was 48-16 with a Natty after turning around what had been a dreadful LSU program for awhile prior to his arrival there. Looks like maybe he's conjured up the "perfect storm" at each of his last two collegiate stops.

Same would have to be said for Bama's program in 2006. His record stands at 100-18. (Not included is 5 vacated wins in 2007)

Almost identical in losses in 9 tough SEC years vs a 5 year span at LSU. That is incredible in itself, as you say, given the success he enjoyed on the Bayou.

What do we have in comparison? Twice the wins with almost identical losses.

Next?

 

[norrislakevol]

I totally get how its a BS response to say something to the effect of "I know more, but I can't say." If I read that online, I would totally disregard the person suggesting such things.

The thing is, I generally like my job, and I have had access to much more complicated evaluations, and the conclusions/opinions derived from the same or similar. As I said in another thread, I personally built a matrix with roughly 250,000 cells of discrete football data to do a de-facto regression analysis of, looking at particular traits of teams and situations as to how those predicate score differentials, home field advantage, win totals, and about anything else you can look for. As such, I don't want to share anything that might tread on that evaluation as it was rather expensive for my employer to pay me to develop (I think it took about 1000 hours to build and initially test).

What I have found is that driving out the last 30% of uncertainty has a cost curve that goes almost vertical. Each increasing percentage point is seemingly exponentially more expensive than the last. At some point, and that is up to the person footing the bill to decide, the cost is not worth the benefit.

The general foundation is the information I have given here. Is it incomplete? Yes. Does it fall short of coming close to perfection? Yes. That said, understanding this is the fundamental block in evaluating anything related to football, at least in my view.

Question; and it may be buried somewhere in this thread: Do you take into account early NFL departures and/or transfers?

 

[KBVol]

Same would have to be said for Bama's program in 2006. His record stands at 100-18. (Not included is 5 vacated wins in 2007)

Almost identical in losses in 9 tough SEC years vs a 5 year span at LSU. That is incredible in itself, as you say, given the success he enjoyed on the Bayou.

What do we have in comparison? Twice the wins with almost identical losses.

Next?

I just believe in being fair in giving guys their due, even if they are hated rivals. It's one thing for guys to debate the careers of Bielema or even guys like Miles and Freeze and Mullen. But to try and even suggest that Nick Saban isn't "that good" or is an outright underachiever as Alabama's football coach? Just makes no sense to me.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I just believe in being fair in giving guys their due, even if they are hated rivals. It's one thing for guys to debate the careers of Bielema or even guys like Miles and Freeze and Mullen. But to try and even suggest that Nick Saban isn't "that good" or is an outright underachiever as Alabama's football coach? Just makes no sense to me.

You're missing my point. And being called an "underachiever" is someone else's slide rule math on this thread.

Coach Saban went from being a very good coach to what you are witnessing now at Alabama. I would say that 105 wins and 18 losses with the Crimson Tide, 4 NCs, and 4 SEC titles, in a 9-year cycle, has put him in superstar mode. He just wasn't at these heights until he arrived at the Capstone.

 

[KBVol]

You're missing my point. And being called an "underachiever" is someone else's slide rule math on this thread.

Coach Saban went from being a very good coach to what you are witnessing now at Alabama. I would say that 105 wins and 18 losses with the Crimson Tide, 4 NCs, and 4 SEC titles, in a 9-year cycle, has put him in superstar mode. He just wasn't at these heights until he arrived at the Capstone.

If I missed your point it was only one small piece of it. He was outstanding while turning an LSU program around from a .500 program in the decade proceeding him to a national champion in 4 short years.

We agree that he's hit all-time heights at Alabama, no doubt about it. What he's done in Tuscaloosa with a program that's shown it will struggle without the right man in charge, is phenomenal. But I believe the genesis of his legendary, HOF, all-time great college coaching career was at LSU.

 

[TUSKtimes]

If I missed your point it was only one small piece of it. He was outstanding while turning an LSU program around from a .500 program in the decade proceeding him to a national champion in 4 short years.

We agree that he's hit all-time heights at Alabama, no doubt about it. What he's done in Tuscaloosa with a program that's shown it will struggle without the right man in charge, is phenomenal. But I believe the genesis of his legendary, HOF, all-time great college coaching career was at LSU.

Enough left-handed compliments in that commentary to get through the Talladega 500.

Not sure what program thrives without the right man. As you are painfully aware.

Let's just say Bama saw his potential.

 

[BeecherVol]

Enough left-handed compliments in that commentary to get through the Talladega 500.

Not sure what program thrives without the right man. As you are painfully aware.

Let's just say Bama saw his potential.

Was that before or after RR?

 

[KBVol]

Enough left-handed compliments in that commentary to get through the Talladega 500.

Not sure what program thrives without the right man. As you are painfully aware.

Let's just say Bama saw his potential.

Haha. 😁 That was a small shot just to keep you honest...just for good measure. Look, I think we both agree that Saban has a legitimate claim for being the greatest collegiate football coach in history based on his work at Alabama. Let's just leave it that.