Points Forced & Points Allowed

[Hoosker]

 

Here's a little graph I put together based on the average points forced/allowed per game. It's interesting to look at what both the offense and defense have done since Pelini took the reigns back in 2008.

 

 

2008

-QB: Joe Ganz (Sr.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

 

2009

-QB: Zac Lee (Jr.) / Cody Green (Fr.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

 

2010

-QB: Taylor Martinez (Fr.) / Cody Green (So.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

 

2011

-QB: Taylor Martinez (So.)

-OC: Tim Beck

-DC: Carl Pelini

 

2012

-QB: Taylor Martinez (Jr.)

-OC: Tim Beck

-DC: John Papuchis

 

 

Discuss

[KJ.]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

[Count 'Bility]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+2.5)

 

Not a good sign.

X/0

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

 

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

 

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

[KJ.]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

 

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

 

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

Nope, you have it correct. I don't think the correlation with scoring vs not scoring has much to it, but the recent trend of overachieving is definitely a red flag. And if there is a casual effect between points scored and differential, that's an even bigger red flag for how our team will be set up this year.

[lo country]

I am an idiot. What you have posted looks good. What the heck does it mean in laymen's terms? Thanks!

[Count 'Bility]

I am an idiot. What you have posted looks good. What the heck does it mean in laymen's terms? Thanks!

That simply in 2008, 11, and 12, the offense was good enough to win 9-10 despite the defense being bad enough to lose 4 whilst in 2009 and 10, the defense was good enough to win 10 games despite the offense being bad enough to lose 4.

 

Or basically the stuff everyone already knows.

[mrandyk]

What it means is that the years we had games where the players gave up and resulted in a blowout, some mathematical formula says we shouldn't have won many games.

[Count 'Bility]

What it means is that the years we had games where the players gave up and resulted in a blowout, some mathematical formula says we shouldn't have won many games.

I wont say they gave up. The guys play hard. The Pelini era has just contained some sort of mental block that once a few things go against us, things seem to spiral out of control. If anything, the 2012 season should be more than enough evidence to debunk any kind of "quit" or "give up" theory. Those ideas are just a copout way of trying to explain what happened instead of trying to identify the real issues.

[KJ.]

What it means is that the years we had games where the players gave up and resulted in a blowout, some mathematical formula says we shouldn't have won many games.

Are you referring to the Ohio State and Wisconsin games, where we were outscored by an average of 7 points in the 2nd half? Given that we were outscored by an average of 21.5 points in the first half, I'd say they were the ones who gave up.

[lo country]

Thanks for the mathematical statistical analysis. O sucked until last year and D carried the victories. O rocked last year and D sucked. All years we were lucky to win what we won.

 

I hope that the D can be remotely better than last year. Sell out on the run until some team decides to throw. After our run D last year, can't imagine too many teams that won't try to ram it down our throats.

 

Statistically speaking, what level would our D need to be to not "cost us" games this year. If the O limits TO's, would that be enough to negate the D and their possible lack of performance on par with 2012?

[Mavric]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

 

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

 

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

Nope, you have it correct. I don't think the correlation with scoring vs not scoring has much to it, but the recent trend of overachieving is definitely a red flag. And if there is a casual effect between points scored and differential, that's an even bigger red flag for how our team will be set up this year.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

 

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

 

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

Nope, you have it correct. I don't think the correlation with scoring vs not scoring has much to it, but the recent trend of overachieving is definitely a red flag. And if there is a casual effect between points scored and differential, that's an even bigger red flag for how our team will be set up this year.

 

This confuses me, too

[desertshox]

What it means is that the years we had games where the players gave up and resulted in a blowout, some mathematical formula says we shouldn't have won many games.

I wont say they gave up. The guys play hard. The Pelini era has just contained some sort of mental block that once a few things go against us, things seem to spiral out of control. If anything, the 2012 season should be more than enough evidence to debunk any kind of "quit" or "give up" theory. Those ideas are just a copout way of trying to explain what happened instead of trying to identify the real issues.

 

the spiraling out of control could be from the players trying to do too much and not playing within themselves.

[KJ.]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

 

Not a good sign.

 

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

 

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

 

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

Nope, you have it correct. I don't think the correlation with scoring vs not scoring has much to it, but the recent trend of overachieving is definitely a red flag. And if there is a casual effect between points scored and differential, that's an even bigger red flag for how our team will be set up this year.

 

This confuses me, too

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

 

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.