Been meaning to add a thanks to BC for putting this up. I have been meaning to get around to looking at the drive stats.
If you are trying to ask a question as broad as "How good is a football team", every metric is flawed. The major, and obvious, issue with yards per play is that it vastly favors a 3 play 70 yard TD drive over a 12 play 70 yard TD drive. I see no reason to do that for questions associated with "how good is a team/offense/etc." .
And yeah, I know you more or less mention this.
Have to say I haven't thought a lot about average starting position. Maybe I should. Though I do note that the best to the worst starting positions (for the offense) only varies by 5 yards. Not a ton.
Even here the best to the worst don't vary by as much as I would have guessed. 12.5 yards on offense, 9.0 yards on defense. I guess that's a reminder of the fine line between failure and success.
Strictly speaking, for the purposes of this stat, don't we have the disadvantage of field position?
Even a TD drive, on average, can only cover 68 yards, whereas $C's can cover almost 75.
The site is quite specific about what they consider a drive. I couldn't see such details on points. Do they count defensive scores in these numbers?
Interesting.
An aspect of Utah's success I had not noticed.
First - I hope so.
Second - Will be interesting to see if $C still wants to play hard.
Third - One way or another, that was clear. This says something as to why/how.
Fourth - Yeah ...
Fifith - ... well nothing really to add here.
(10-13-2015, 04:25 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The discrepancy between Utah's yards per play and their wins/losses made me wonder if there is something about that metric that was flawed,
If you are trying to ask a question as broad as "How good is a football team", every metric is flawed. The major, and obvious, issue with yards per play is that it vastly favors a 3 play 70 yard TD drive over a 12 play 70 yard TD drive. I see no reason to do that for questions associated with "how good is a team/offense/etc." .
And yeah, I know you more or less mention this.
Quote:Average drive starting position, expressed in yards to go until the goal line (first offense, then defense, then the difference):
Code:Â Â Â LOS LOS LOS advantage
Stanford 68.2 75.4 7.2
UCLA Â Â Â Â 68.3 73.0 4.7
ASU Â Â Â Â 69.2 72.4 3.2
Oregon   66.6 69.6 3.0
Washington 68.0 70.8 2.8
WSU Â Â Â Â 68.2 69.7 1.5
Utah     70.4 71.0 0.6
Low APR U 68.8 68.4 -0.4
Arizona   70.9 69.3 -1.6
$CÂ Â Â 74.6 71.2 -3.4
Colorado 70.6 65.6 -5.0
OSU Â Â Â Â 73.4 65.2 -8.2
Have to say I haven't thought a lot about average starting position. Maybe I should. Though I do note that the best to the worst starting positions (for the offense) only varies by 5 yards. Not a ton.
Quote:Next is yards per drive (offense, defense, and difference):
Code:Â Â Â YPD YPD YPD net
$CÂ Â Â 41.0 30.5 10.5
Stanford 40.8 30.3 10.5
UCLA Â Â Â Â 35.7 27.8 7.9
Utah     36.6 28.9 7.7
Low APR U 37.5 31.7 5.8
ASU Â Â Â Â 30.0 27.0 3.0
Oregon   34.4 32.2 2.2
Arizona   37.7 36.0 1.7
WSU Â Â Â Â 36.7 35.1 1.6
Colorado 28.4 31.3 -2.9
Washington 25.2 29.6 -4.4
OSU Â Â Â Â 28.5 34.4 -5.9
Even here the best to the worst don't vary by as much as I would have guessed. 12.5 yards on offense, 9.0 yards on defense. I guess that's a reminder of the fine line between failure and success.
Quote:Stanford and Under Stanford Control are tied atop the conference in net yards per drive, but, of course, we have the advantage in starting position.Â
Strictly speaking, for the purposes of this stat, don't we have the disadvantage of field position?
Even a TD drive, on average, can only cover 68 yards, whereas $C's can cover almost 75.
Quote:Finally, points per drive (offense, defense, and net):
Code:Â Â Â Â PPD PPD PPD net
Stanford 3.11 1.76 1.4
$CÂ Â Â Â Â Â 2.95 1.61 1.3
Utah     2.67 1.38 1.3
UCLA Â Â Â Â 2.84 1.60 1.2
WSU Â Â Â Â 2.61 2.00 0.6
ASU Â Â Â Â 2.16 1.68 0.5
Low APR U 2.42 2.02 0.4
Washington 1.58 1.46 0.1
Oregon   2.52 2.51 0.0
Arizona   2.8 3.0 -0.3
Colorado 1.95 2.33 -0.4
OSU Â Â Â Â 1.78 3.02 -1.2
The site is quite specific about what they consider a drive. I couldn't see such details on points. Do they count defensive scores in these numbers?
Quote: for Utah, it is because they are the best team in the conference at preventing their opponents from getting points from each drive (they are third in the conference in defensive yards per drive), so it is fair to say that they epitomize the idea of "bend but don't break".
Interesting.
An aspect of Utah's success I had not noticed.
Quote:I draw a few conclusions from the analysis.Â
First, we really are quite good, and arguably the best team in the conference.Â
Second, Under Stanford Control is dangerous,...Â
Third, Utah is probably better than it's per play statistics indicate.Â
Fourth, as I suspected, Low APR U is a pretty average team;
Fifth, Oregon really is as mediocre as its record has indicated.Â
First - I hope so.
Second - Will be interesting to see if $C still wants to play hard.
Third - One way or another, that was clear. This says something as to why/how.
Fourth - Yeah ...
Fifith - ... well nothing really to add here.