Butch says it takes 6 to 7 years to build a program in the SEC

[Boca Vol]

So, to make sure I understand you, Saban gets a pass when he loses games when he is favored in Vegas now because at some point you believe he didnt?

Or, in the alternative, you appear to be saying that it isn't fair to judge Saban as underperforming in relation to expectations set by objective third parties, who are really good at predicting sports outcomes, because those expectations can change and deform given continued changing circumstances and new data.

But yes, objective sports metrics are "my thing". In fact, they have been a big part of my career for several years now. Objectively, Saban has not ever performed outside of a standard deviation above predictions based on either proactive or retroactive talent analysis, in fact, he has trended below those expectation lines for his whole career. He relies, probably more than any coach in the top 10 teams, on talent to win games instead of his ability to improvise and adapt.

There are no coaches who out recruit Saban, but there are many who could out coach him given the same, or similar talent. In aggregate, this means Saban wins many games (talent matters more than coaching in most events), but that isn't to be confused with saying that Saban's coaching wins those games. In fact, Richt got fired for having a lomg career of actually being more stable in relation to his talent than Saban, but his talent levels were never as high as Saban, and his talent was slowly declining.

Wouldn't you say that's a case of when you're at the top there's only 1 place to go? It's much easier for a middle of the pack team to deviate, yes?

Merry Christmas, daj.

 

[daj2576]

Wouldn't you say that's a case of when you're at the top there's only 1 place to go? It's much easier for a middle of the pack team to deviate, yes?

Merry Christmas, daj.

Merry Christmas to you too.

It's a complicated evaluation. Yes, he can't over perform in relation to expectations. But, he could meet those expectations more consistently (there is a discernable pattern of teams that beat him, indicating flaws in his ability to adapt). Further, he hasn't been a net seasonal over performer with any consistency throughout his career (using the objective systems ive evaluated) so there is no reason to expect that as an actual option.

It's like how people over valued Pinkel. He had 4 years in his career where he over performed, and 6-7 when he performed to, or below, expectations. Yet, most view him through the 2013-14 lens than over his career that more closely resembles his 12 and 15 performances in relation to talent).

 

[Other_Guy]

When you consider how destroyed this program was, I dont even expect year 4 to be the year the program is rivaling Bama, OSU, Oklahoma, Mich St, Clemson, etc. Do I think they can have an excellent run and win the East and even beat Bama? Definitely, but UT is not going to be on the same dominate level that some of these teams are at IMO.

 

[KBVol]

When you consider how destroyed this program was, I dont even expect year 4 to be the year the program is rivaling Bama, OSU, Oklahoma, Mich St, Clemson, etc. Do I think they can have an excellent run and win the East and even beat Bama? Definitely, but UT is not going to be on the same dominate level that some of these teams are at IMO.

Even though we dominated OU for 3+ quarters and had the lead at Alabama with under 6 minutes to play? I think we were knocking on the door in 2015 and were very close to having a seat at the table. Next year should only bring better things and get us closer to becoming a dominant program

 

[NashVol11]

So, to make sure I understand you, Saban gets a pass when he loses games when he is favored in Vegas now because at some point you believe he didnt?

Or, in the alternative, you appear to be saying that it isn't fair to judge Saban as underperforming in relation to expectations set by objective third parties, who are really good at predicting sports outcomes, because those expectations can change and deform given continued changing circumstances and new data.

But yes, objective sports metrics are "my thing". In fact, they have been a big part of my career for several years now. Objectively, Saban has not ever performed outside of a standard deviation above predictions based on either proactive or retroactive talent analysis, in fact, he has trended below those expectation lines for his whole career. He relies, probably more than any coach in the top 10 teams, on talent to win games instead of his ability to improvise and adapt.

There are no coaches who out recruit Saban, but there are many who could out coach him given the same, or similar talent. In aggregate, this means Saban wins many games (talent matters more than coaching in most events), but that isn't to be confused with saying that Saban's coaching wins those games. In fact, Richt got fired for having a lomg career of actually being more stable in relation to his talent than Saban, but his talent levels were never as high as Saban, and his talent was slowly declining.

The end result is that Saban is probably the most valuable coach in football because recruiting will make him favorites in every game he plays, and thus he will win most games he stands on the sidelines, not because he is performing to any sort of objective trend analysis. Jones, on the other hand, is performing at a similar trend line at UT (above it if one aggregates his career), but is seen as underperforming.

He's pulling #1 classes. Kind of hard to overachieve when you're starting at #1, no? He's in a position now where every loss is a disappointment from a talent standpoint, so trying to construct a narrative from that is fruitless. Drawing conclusions about "ability to improvise and adapt" from statistical talent analysis and not from actual demonstrated adaptations isn't much better. Your metrics don't tell you as much as you think they do, which is true for most sports, if not all.

Since it's your career (and if that's true, I'm not sure why I had to explain to you what an outlier is), I'd love to see your list of coaches that you actually think would outcoach Saban given the same talent. I'm going to assume Richt was a joke, because that's patently absurd.

 

[NashVol11]

Merry Christmas to you too.

It's a complicated evaluation. Yes, he can't over perform in relation to expectations. But, he could meet those expectations more consistently (there is a discernable pattern of teams that beat him, indicating flaws in his ability to adapt). Further, he hasn't been a net seasonal over performer with any consistency throughout his career (using the objective systems ive evaluated) so there is no reason to expect that as an actual option.

It's like how people over valued Pinkel. He had 4 years in his career where he over performed, and 6-7 when he performed to, or below, expectations. Yet, most view him through the 2013-14 lens than over his career that more closely resembles his 12 and 15 performances in relation to talent).

Again, on talent, those expectations are generally 12-0. Saying 11-1 is underachieving, and using that to say that Richt's 9-3 is "more stable" and therefore makes him more likely to go 12-0 with Alabama's talent, is a very dubious inference that should lead you to question the evaluations said stats are bringing you.

 

[Other_Guy]

Even though we dominated OU for 3+ quarters and had the lead at Alabama with under 6 minutes to play? I think we were knocking on the door in 2015 and were very close to having a seat at the table. Next year should only bring better things and get us closer to becoming a dominant program

You just agreed with my point with the last sentence. Next year will bring us "closer" to dominance, not be the year the program is exactly where we want it.
And I'm sorry, but I don't believe we were "knocking on the door" with 4 losses. Iowa was knocking on the door, OSU was knocking on the door, even Stanford and ND was. UT may be in playoff contention jext year, but the depth of talent at every position likened to the elite programs are still a year away.

 

[daj2576]

He's pulling #1 classes. Kind of hard to overachieve when you're starting at #1, no? He's in a position now where every loss is a disappointment from a talent standpoint, so trying to construct a narrative from that is fruitless. Drawing conclusions about "ability to improvise and adapt" from statistical talent analysis and not from actual demonstrated adaptations isn't much better. Your metrics don't tell you as much as you think they do, which is true for most sports, if not all.

Since it's your career (and if that's true, I'm not sure why I had to explain to you what an outlier is), I'd love to see your list of coaches that you actually think would outcoach Saban given the same talent. I'm going to assume Richt was a joke, because that's patently absurd.

It is true, and you didn't explain anything to me. It's one thing to apply mathematical terms in an academically correct way, it's another to apply those findings in a way that is applicable in the real world. In the instant case, ignoring two of the most successfull coaches in a pool of maybe a dozen because they would statistically be considered outliers, is like trying to disavow evolution because scientifically it's a "theory".

Further, I try to not get too bogged down, on a message board, with being technically precise in my wording as that is actually confusing for most readers. In fact, I try to use most terms as they are commonly understood (which isn't usually technically precise).

I've addressed the issue of why you can, in fact, judge Saban, even if he can't over-achieve currently. In fact I've done that many times.

And yes, in relation to talent, Richt was one of the most stable performers. He, like many, is a victim of a system supported by people, and a media, who are completely averse to actually understanding well settled and studied rhythms and predictability. Instead we rely on evaluations that use phrases like "he's the X factor".

 

[daj2576]

Again, on talent, those expectations are generally 12-0. Saying 11-1 is underachieving, and using that to say that Richt's 9-3 is "more stable" and therefore makes him more likely to go 12-0 with Alabama's talent, is a very dubious inference that should lead you to question the evaluations said stats are bringing you.

Look, you can read through my post history read the many times I've explained what predicts wins, and how to evaluate coaches in relation to those predictors. The information is there, should you want it. In reality, we're arguing about the size, shape, and color of satellites we see, but we're standing on different planets. There is no common ground, and frankly I don't have the energy to continue explaining these things (when so much is already published) to the next person who stands up and says "nuh uh" and then lays out the same incorrect reasoning.

But, you don't have to take my word for it. If you really seek information, not affirmation, you can also read about similar systems and findings elsewhere:

Cfbmatrix.com

Find and read the books
1)"Stumbling on Wins", 2)"Mathletics", and
3)"Scorecasting."

You can get used copies extremely cheaply from Amazon.

I also suggest reading "Freakonomics" as well as "Blindside" and "Moneyball." Watching the movies doesn't count as the discussions about the numerical analysis (specifically how bad sports has been at understanding what actually drives wins and losses) is lost in translation.

 

[NashVol11]

Look, you can read through my post history read the many times I've explained what predicts wins, and how to evaluate coaches in relation to those predictors. The information is there, should you want it. In reality, we're arguing about the size, shape, and color of satellites we see, but we're standing on different planets. There is no common ground, and frankly I don't have the energy to continue explaining these things (when so much is already published) to the next person who stands up and says "nuh uh" and then lays out the same incorrect reasoning.

But, you don't have to take my word for it. If you really seek information, not affirmation, you can also read about similar systems and findings elsewhere:

Cfbmatrix.com

Find and read the books
1)"Stumbling on Wins", 2)"Mathletics", and
3)"Scorecasting."

You can get used copies extremely cheaply from Amazon.

I also suggest reading "Freakonomics" as well as "Blindside" and "Moneyball." Watching the movies doesn't count as the discussions about the numerical analysis (specifically how bad sports has been at understanding what actually drives wins and losses) is lost in translation.

You should meet Huff. You guys can get together and talk about how win shares mean Kevin Love is better than Allen Iverson, and how people who don't treat advanced stats as the gospel don't know as much about sports as numbers do.

 

[daj2576]

You should meet Huff. You guys can get together and talk about how win shares mean Kevin Love is better than Allen Iverson, and how people who don't treat advanced stats as the gospel don't know as much about sports as numbers do.

Happy New Year and Go Vols.

 

[NashVol11]

I've read a number of those books, by the way. Advanced stats can be a useful tool, but the problem is that many of its proponents see it not as a tool but as something that can legitimately explain everything that happens in sports. They see what the numbers spit out not as one perspective, but as THE FACTUALLY CORRECT perspective.

 

[NashVol11]

Also, this conversation started with the question of which games we've won that we shouldn't have won in Butch's tenure, which--still--no one has answered.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Also, this conversation started with the question of which games we've won that we shouldn't have won in Butch's tenure, which--still--no one has answered.

Only because it has been answered several times in the past, most persuasively by DAJ comparing talent levels. 2013 South Carolina we significantly over-achieved, iirc, and this year's UGa game the Dawgs had a slight talent advantage over us (even before factoring in all our injuries). So those games come to mind first.

Now, feel free to argue those all you want...but the question has been answered. Several times, in several threads.

 

[NashVol11]

Only because it has been answered several times in the past, most persuasively by DAJ comparing talent levels. 2013 South Carolina we significantly over-achieved, iirc, and this year's UGa game the Dawgs had a slight talent advantage over us (even before factoring in all our injuries). So those games come to mind first.

Now, feel free to argue those all you want...but the question has been answered. Several times, in several threads.

Those are the answers I gave myself, though Georgia is questionable. ReaderVol seems to think my statement that we lose games we shouldn't more often than we win games we shouldn't is a biased and untrue statement, so since we've lost to inferior teams more than twice, I'm trying to find the other wins.

 

[ReaderVol]

Also, this conversation started with the question of which games we've won that we shouldn't have won in Butch's tenure, which--still--no one has answered.

He's had at least 1 every year. USC first 2 years and UGA this season.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Those are the answers I gave myself, though Georgia is questionable. ReaderVol seems to think my statement that we lose games we shouldn't more often than we win games we shouldn't is a biased and untrue statement, so since we've lost to inferior teams more than twice, I'm trying to find the other wins.

The only team we lost to in 2015 that we shouldn't have was Arkansas (using the same yard stick, DAJ's, as we used before). OK was a wash, statistically even talent, iirc. Which makes sense given that we tied in regulation. So 2015 seems balanced.

I don't remember how DAJ scored the team out in 2014 and 2013.

 

[NashVol11]

He's had at least 1 every year. USC first 2 years and UGA this season.

The 2014 South Carolina team that had just lost to Kentucky? Hmmm. If you're going to reach this much to refute my point, you can't turn around and say that I'M being biased.

 

[KBVol]

You just agreed with my point with the last sentence. Next year will bring us "closer" to dominance, not be the year the program is exactly where we want it.
And I'm sorry, but I don't believe we were "knocking on the door" with 4 losses. Iowa was knocking on the door, OSU was knocking on the door, even Stanford and ND was. UT may be in playoff contention jext year, but the depth of talent at every position likened to the elite programs are still a year away.

You mentioned OU and Alabama as being at "dominant levels". Was just pointing out that if that's the case, and I think it is, that we were 2 defensive stops from beating both of them.....same thing for 10 win, East Division champs Florida, though I'm certain neither of us put them in the same class as OU and Alabama. That's where my "knocking on the door" comment came from....literally three plays away from 11-1, a shot at Bama in the SECCG and a possible final 4 appearance.

 

[checkerboards09]

You mentioned OU and Alabama as being at "dominant levels". Was just pointing out that if that's the case, and I think it is, that we were 2 defensive stops from beating both of them.....same thing for 10 win, East Division champs Florida, though I'm certain neither of us put them in the same class as OU and Alabama. That's where my "knocking on the door" comment came from....literally three plays away from 11-1, a shot at Bama in the SECCG and a possible final 4 appearance.

Makes me wanna throw up.

 

[butchna]

Only because it has been answered several times in the past, most persuasively by DAJ comparing talent levels. 2013 South Carolina we significantly over-achieved, iirc, and this year's UGa game the Dawgs had a slight talent advantage over us (even before factoring in all our injuries). So those games come to mind first.

Now, feel free to argue those all you want...but the question has been answered. Several times, in several threads.

Over several years! Haynesworth hadn't even impregnated Brittany yet! hmy:

 

[ReaderVol]

The 2014 South Carolina team that had just lost to Kentucky? Hmmm. If you're going to reach this much to refute my point, you can't turn around and say that I'M being biased.

I didn't say they were great but iirc they were favored. And going into the season they were picked to throttle us.

 

[butchna]

The 2014 South Carolina team that had just lost to Kentucky? Hmmm. If you're going to reach this much to refute my point, you can't turn around and say that I'M being biased.

Keep skipping that 2013 team that finished #4 huh?

 

[NashVol11]

Keep skipping that 2013 team that finished #4 huh?

No, that's the obvious one. I'm not saying we've never won a game we shouldn't. I'm asking how many others there are, or more accurately, what makes my statement as unfair as Reader is portraying it to be.

 

[ReaderVol]

No, that's the obvious one. I'm not saying we've never won a game we shouldn't. I'm asking how many others there are, or more accurately, what makes my statement as unfair as Reader is portraying it to be.

I stated that in rebuilds, teams lose some they shouldn't and win some they're not supposed to. I mention one each year. You (as usual) tried to make it more than it is just to be negative about the program.