The CardBoard
Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - 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: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura (/thread-14769.html)


Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - washingtonismoney - 11-02-2017

Bonagura has some nice long-term stats, focusing on teams' history since the conference became the Pac-12:

Of note -- Stanford has the best margin of victory in that time: https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/926183260949848065

Also the best winning percentage.

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - BostonCard - 11-02-2017

Yeah, but only the fourth best scoring offense.  Proof that Shawvitagren's offense is flawed.

BC

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - martyup - 11-02-2017

Wow, we are 5 wins ahead of Oregon.  That's a big lead.

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - Farm93 - 11-02-2017

(11-02-2017, 01:42 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Yeah, but only the fourth best scoring offense.  Proof that Shawvitagren's offense is flawed.

BC
"Proof"  Hmmmm.. maybe evidence, but not proof IMHO.

Remember since the Pac became 12 WSU, UCB and others have been happy to LOSE 49-59 if you were inclined to turn up the tempo.  Shaw's style has been much happier winning against those same teams in the 27-13 by slowing it way down. 

Is a 27-13 win over a bad team really a sign of a flawed offense?  Is 59-49 really a sign of a good offense?
FWIW, a similar argument sits on the d side of things.  Since Stanford's O slows things way down relative to other Pac-12 schools.  Is the defense really better if it allows a few points less than other squads with go go go offenses over this span (like Oregon)?

Given the divergent approaches by the teams in the conference the margin of victory is the best indicator of the three.  It has flaws too, but a 17 point lead with 4 minutes left in a game is important if the score is 27-10 or 59-42.

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - cardcrimson - 11-02-2017

(11-02-2017, 03:34 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17881.msg209825#msg209825 date=1509655329]
Yeah, but only the fourth best scoring offense.  Proof that Shawvitagren's offense is flawed.

BC
"Proof"  Hmmmm.. maybe evidence, but not proof IMHO.

Remember since the Pac became 12 WSU, UCB and others have been happy to LOSE 49-59 if you were inclined to turn up the tempo.  Shaw's style has been much happier winning against those same teams in the 27-13 by slowing it way down. 

Is a 27-13 win over a bad team really a sign of a flawed offense?  Is 59-49 really a sign of a good offense?
FWIW, a similar argument sits on the d side of things.  Since Stanford's O slows things way down relative to other Pac-12 schools.  Is the defense really better if it allows a few points less than other squads with go go go offenses over this span (like Oregon)?

Given the divergent approaches by the teams in the conference the margin of victory is the best indicator of the three.  It has flaws too, but a 17 point lead with 4 minutes left in a game is important if the score is 27-10 or 59-42.
[/quote]

Just a hunch, but I think a dash a sarcasm was added to spice up the conversation.

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - BostonCard - 11-02-2017

(11-02-2017, 03:41 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17881.msg209848#msg209848 date=1509662084]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17881.msg209825#msg209825 date=1509655329]
Yeah, but only the fourth best scoring offense.  Proof that Shawvitagren's offense is flawed.

BC
"Proof"  Hmmmm.. maybe evidence, but not proof IMHO.

Remember since the Pac became 12 WSU, UCB and others have been happy to LOSE 49-59 if you were inclined to turn up the tempo.  Shaw's style has been much happier winning against those same teams in the 27-13 by slowing it way down. 

Is a 27-13 win over a bad team really a sign of a flawed offense?  Is 59-49 really a sign of a good offense?
FWIW, a similar argument sits on the d side of things.  Since Stanford's O slows things way down relative to other Pac-12 schools.  Is the defense really better if it allows a few points less than other squads with go go go offenses over this span (like Oregon)?

Given the divergent approaches by the teams in the conference the margin of victory is the best indicator of the three.  It has flaws too, but a 17 point lead with 4 minutes left in a game is important if the score is 27-10 or 59-42.
[/quote]

Just a hunch, but I think a dash a sarcasm was added to spice up the conversation.
[/quote]

Yes, I was being sarcastic.  The offense is clearly imperfect, and has had a few really bad games.  Notwithstanding, the offense is not nearly as bad as it is frequently portrayed.

BC

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - JJJ - 11-02-2017

Wow, UCLA's points margin is only 0.51 even though their W-L record is 32-27. Close wins and blowout losses, I guess...

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - washingtonismoney - 11-02-2017

(11-02-2017, 08:35 PM)JJJ link Wrote:Wow, UCLA's points margin is only 0.51 even though their W-L record is 32-27. Close wins and blowout losses, I guess...

That doesn't seem terribly extreme. It's a .550 winning percentage, which doesn't seem that different than a .51 point margin.

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - JJJ - 11-03-2017

(11-02-2017, 09:10 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JJJ link=topic=17881.msg209879#msg209879 date=1509680133]
Wow, UCLA's points margin is only 0.51 even though their W-L record is 32-27. Close wins and blowout losses, I guess...

That doesn't seem terribly extreme. It's a .550 winning percentage, which doesn't seem that different than a .51 point margin.
[/quote]
Sure, bring logic into the discussion...  :P

Re: Nice long-term football stats from Kyle Bonagura - Mick - 11-03-2017

(11-02-2017, 04:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17881.msg209849#msg209849 date=1509662513]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17881.msg209848#msg209848 date=1509662084]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17881.msg209825#msg209825 date=1509655329]
Yeah, but only the fourth best scoring offense.  Proof that Shawvitagren's offense is flawed.

BC
"Proof"  Hmmmm.. maybe evidence, but not proof IMHO.

Remember since the Pac became 12 WSU, UCB and others have been happy to LOSE 49-59 if you were inclined to turn up the tempo.  Shaw's style has been much happier winning against those same teams in the 27-13 by slowing it way down. 

Is a 27-13 win over a bad team really a sign of a flawed offense?  Is 59-49 really a sign of a good offense?
FWIW, a similar argument sits on the d side of things.  Since Stanford's O slows things way down relative to other Pac-12 schools.  Is the defense really better if it allows a few points less than other squads with go go go offenses over this span (like Oregon)?

Given the divergent approaches by the teams in the conference the margin of victory is the best indicator of the three.  It has flaws too, but a 17 point lead with 4 minutes left in a game is important if the score is 27-10 or 59-42.
[/quote]

Just a hunch, but I think a dash a sarcasm was added to spice up the conversation.
[/quote]

Yes, I was being sarcastic.  The offense is clearly imperfect, and has had a few really bad games.  Notwithstanding, the offense is not nearly as bad as it is frequently portrayed.

BC
[/quote]

BC's correct.  Stanford is currently the #30 ranked FBS team for scoring offense -- and the #34 ranked FBS team for scoring defense, incidentally.