One point I'd like to make - 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: One point I'd like to make (/thread-6520.html)
+- 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: One point I'd like to make (/thread-6520.html)
One point I'd like to make - stupac2 - 01-02-2014
Most of the time, saying "something either happens or it doesn't, so the odds are 50-50" is moronic. But in football it appears to hold true with at least two things, fumble recovery and close games.
This year we played in 7 close games and won 4, better than average! Last year we played in 10 and won an astonishing 8. That kind of luck just doesn't keep up. When you play a lot of close games you're going to lose a lot of them.
Given this I'm not particularly surprised by yesterday's result. It was a close game throughout and we couldn't pull it out. We got some breaks, we didn't get others, and ultimately came up short. It happens. Let's look forward to a new team in 2014, and hopefully a more potent offense with fewer close games!
Re: One point I'd like to make - washingtonismoney - 01-02-2014
On the "luck" debate, a few other factors to consider:
Stanford recovered 44% of fumbles this year (counting Rose Bowl), which makes the team slightly unlucky in the fumble department.
According to Football Outsiders' special teams statistics, Stanford ranked 117th in field goal defense, which is super unlucky.
Re: One point I'd like to make - Langdude - 01-02-2014
My guess for the low field goal defense rating is that there were a number of field goals against us from close-in because our defense is stout in the red zone. But that is just a guess.
-m.
Re: One point I'd like to make - fullmetal - 01-02-2014
I agree with Langdude.
Problem with characterizing yesterday as a "close game" is that teams that don't rely on singular events to win are teams that can execute and sustain drives. You're not likely to win if you can't consistently earn first downs. The way Stanford's offense stalled out in the 1H, I do not think we had enough offensive consistency to overcome any breaks. We could have earned turnovers on defense a couple times more, and given the performance of the team, all that would have done is waste about two minutes of game time and set MSU's offense back about 20-30 yds.
Re: One point I'd like to make - washingtonismoney - 01-02-2014
(01-02-2014, 12:47 PM)Langdude link Wrote:My guess for the low field goal defense rating is that there were a number of field goals against us from close-in because our defense is stout in the red zone. But that is just a guess.
Theoretically they adjust for where the field goal was taken.