Recruiting Forum Football Talk [RIP 9.3.2019]

Status
Not open for further replies.
#145,451
#145,451
ChismsHeadband said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
tdD1X.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13
#145,452
#145,452
volsagain said:
Sure do, check out the stock market. Crazy gas goes up stock usually goes with it.
Click to expand...
Indexes won't. If anything, there should be a negative correlation for the overall market. Though larger companies are really increasing their use of futures markets if it has a large impact on their business.

But refiners and others in the oil game - yes they could potentially.
 
#145,456
#145,456
Devo182 said:
Was thinking more about last year and why we were so unpredictable - 2 unwarranted ranked upsets, but 6 losses of 25+ points.

I think we intentionally played a style of high variance. This would be the right approach, according to game theory, for a team that had less talent in most matchups. There are basically a few ways to increase variance in football that I'm aware of:

1) Number of plays - you want fewer plays ran during a game in order to increase the variance. The better you are, the more plays you want ran overall, AOTBE, but we were the opposite. We certainly did intentionally run fewer play, with a pace ranking of 122nd nationally. On top of this, we had a run play rate that ranked 44th.

2) Boom or bust schemes - while our offensive success rate stunk in every way, we ranked 11th in explosiveness. We could rarely run for more than a couple of yards, got sacked too often, etc, so we really stood no chance unless we could make long plays downfield. It seems, for a team that wasn't very good, we at least did fairly well in accomplishing this. In fact, the longer the "play from scrimmage" we look at (10+ yard plays, 20+, 30+, etc), the better we ranked. And this is based on gross numbers, not rates. We ran the fewest plays in all of CFB last year, so our ratio of long plays would ranks us even higher.

Total long plays from scrimmage ranking
10+ Yard Plays 123rd
20+ 96th
30+ 50th
40+ 36th
50+ 39th

As percentage of total plays
10+ 85th
20+ 49th
30+ 15th
40+ 27th
50+ 27th


3) Gamble. 4th downs, onside kicks, going for TDs over FGs. All of these increase the typical amount of variance in a game.

4th downs - we only went for 11 all season, 126th in the nation. But I think this was more a function of 2 things - limited opportunities because we rarely "stayed ahead of the chains' and piss poor short yardage rushing. In fact, we rushed 4 times on 4th down and only succeeded once. It was on the very last play of the game vs WVU. The other 3 attempts netted us 0 yards...can't blame anyone for not going for it more with this bunch.

Onside kicks - we led the nation in attempts.
Click to expand...
Good stuff. Interesting and makes a lot of sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChattaTNVol and Sleegro
#145,457
#145,457
Devo182 said:
Per attempt? 7.6 YPA career to be exact, would rank about 53rd this year, top half of cfb. This year alone he was 36th out of 130+ QBs. Man he stanks.
Click to expand...

You’re stats are wrong😁 but He really does stink.i agree,you like percentages.i like wins.The “.6” you mentioned doesn’t make his stats look any better but for the record this years average was “7.8” to be exact.the 2018 season he’s 84th in total yards and tied for 86th for total touchdown downs I am not even close to impressed.
 
#145,461
#145,461
Devo182 said:
Was thinking more about last year and why we were so unpredictable - 2 unwarranted ranked upsets, but 6 losses of 25+ points.

I think we intentionally played a style of high variance. This would be the right approach, according to game theory, for a team that had less talent in most matchups. There are basically a few ways to increase variance in football that I'm aware of:

1) Number of plays - you want fewer plays ran during a game in order to increase the variance. The better you are, the more plays you want ran overall, AOTBE, but we were the opposite. We certainly did intentionally run fewer play, with a pace ranking of 122nd nationally. On top of this, we had a run play rate that ranked 44th.

2) Boom or bust schemes - while our offensive success rate stunk in every way, we ranked 11th in explosiveness. We could rarely run for more than a couple of yards, got sacked too often, etc, so we really stood no chance unless we could make long plays downfield. It seems, for a team that wasn't very good, we at least did fairly well in accomplishing this. In fact, the longer the "play from scrimmage" we look at (10+ yard plays, 20+, 30+, etc), the better we ranked. And this is based on gross numbers, not rates. We ran the fewest plays in all of CFB last year, so our ratio of long plays would ranks us even higher.

Total long plays from scrimmage ranking
10+ Yard Plays 123rd
20+ 96th
30+ 50th
40+ 36th
50+ 39th

As percentage of total plays
10+ 85th
20+ 49th
30+ 15th
40+ 27th
50+ 27th


3) Gamble. 4th downs, onside kicks, going for TDs over FGs. All of these increase the typical amount of variance in a game.

4th downs - we only went for 11 all season, 126th in the nation. But I think this was more a function of 2 things - limited opportunities because we rarely "stayed ahead of the chains' and piss poor short yardage rushing. In fact, we rushed 4 times on 4th down and only succeeded once. It was on the very last play of the game vs WVU. The other 3 attempts netted us 0 yards...can't blame anyone for not going for it more with this bunch.

Onside kicks - we led the nation in attempts.
Click to expand...
Rain man?
 
#145,463
#145,463
I think onside kicks are almost pointless unless you have to. Statistically isnt it VERY VERY unlikely to recover?
 
#145,471
#145,471
Catbone said:
8% success rate last year. You're going to give em the ball damn near the 50 yard line 92% of the time
Click to expand...
That’s why you don’t do it...92% of the time. It’s not a high percentage thing...which makes it exciting. Stats nerd!
 
#145,473
#145,473
UTSuave’ said:
You’re stats are wrong😁 but He really does stink.i agree,you like percentages.i like wins.The “.6” you mentioned doesn’t make his stats look any better but for the record this years average was “7.8” to be exact.the 2018 season he’s 84th in total yards and tied for 86th for total touchdown downs I am not even close to impressed.
Click to expand...

7.6 was his career average, as you (or someone, I don't remember) said he was "a career 7 yard passer" or something like that. I was just correcting his career number. Yes, 7.8 was for 2018.

"Total" anything is a pretty garbage statistic. They have weak correlations to winning/losing. For a qb, it ignores run/pass ratios, attempts, tempo, and how your run game is helping/hurting. JG had to deal with having the worst rushing offense in the SEC. It's not that curious why he didn't get many TD opportunities. Defense wasn't a great help either, though not a complete hindrance.

You are going to judge him on total passing yards, yet he had the fewest attempts in the league. See how little sense that makes?

YPA is at least a better starting point (higher correlation to winning). From there you can go further into QBR and advanced stats, such as S&P+, taking into account opponents and tempo. Total yard stats were left for newspaper writers and casual fans well over a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GoVolsDR and Sleegro
#145,475
#145,475
Braves doing Braves things...score 4 in top of 6th, give up 4 in bottom of 6th. Why in the world Snitker continues to use Biddle in critical situations is beyond me. Worst manager in the majors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rishvol
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top