beorach Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'm not bothering with SOS this time but just sharing the evaluations for nine categories below (per the usual, basic method I've explained previously): Passing Defense Wisconsin 0.89 Michigan 0.89 Iowa 0.86 Ohio State 0.86 Penn State 0.86 Northwestern 0.79 Minnesota 0.71 Illinois 0.61 Maryland 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Purdue 0.39 Nebraska 0.29 Indiana 0.21 Rutgers 0.14 Passing Offense Michigan State 0.64 Ohio State 0.61 Nebraska 0.57 Indiana 0.54 Iowa 0.54 Wisconsin 0.54 Penn State 0.54 Michigan 0.54 Minnesota 0.50 Rutgers 0.43 Illinois 0.32 Purdue 0.29 Maryland 0.14 Northwestern 0.11 Rushing Defense Michigan 1.00 Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.92 Nebraska 0.75 Michigan State 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Northwestern 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Maryland 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Indiana 0.42 Rutgers 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rushing Offense Ohio State 1.00 Iowa 0.83 Michigan 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Nebraska 0.58 Indiana 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Northwestern 0.42 Penn State 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Maryland 0.33 Minnesota 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Defense Wisconsin 1.00 Ohio State 1.00 Penn State 0.92 Iowa 0.83 Northwestern 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Michigan State 0.67 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Maryland 0.42 Nebraska 0.33 Indiana 0.25 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Offense Nebraska 0.92 Michigan 0.75 Iowa 0.67 Michigan State 0.67 Indiana 0.58 Wisconsin 0.58 Ohio State 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Northwestern 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Maryland 0.08 Total Defense Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.83 Penn State 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Northwestern 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Maryland 0.50 Purdue 0.33 Nebraska 0.33 Rutgers 0.25 Indiana 0.08 Total Offense Ohio State 0.83 Nebraska 0.83 Indiana 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Iowa 0.50 Michigan 0.50 Penn State 0.42 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Northwestern 0.17 Maryland 0.17 Turnover Margin Michigan State 0.93 Iowa 0.86 Illinois 0.71 Indiana 0.71 Penn State 0.71 Wisconsin 0.61 Northwestern 0.50 Minnesota 0.46 Ohio State 0.43 Purdue 0.39 Rutgers 0.32 Maryland 0.32 Michigan 0.32 Nebraska 0.21 2 Quote Link to comment
soup Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 do you have a link that explains this? Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 do you have a link that explains this? Sure, look here for some basics: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77274-statistical-rankings-of-performances-to-date-in-the-fbs/&do=findComment&comment=1621624 I'm taking all the individual stats I can make sense of within each category I listed, without being redundant, and finding what range they fall in along the bell curve for those statistic before assigning a numerical figure to represent an evaluation of them. I don't know how confusing that was but here's an example: For rushing offense, I'd consider a high number of yards per game to be a positive. If a team's posted stat, only against other FBS teams, is within the range set by the mean +/- one half of a standard deviation (calculated after having pasted in all the data from 128 FBS teams in games only against other FBS teams into a spreadsheet before using STDEV for that stat's range), I'd use a 0.5 to represent that the team's posted stat is average. If the value is greater than the average + half a standard deviation but less than the average plus a whole standard deviation, I'd assign a value of 0.75 to represent that the posted stat is above average. If the value is greater than the average plus a whole standard deviation, I'd assign a 1 to indicate the stat is well above average, a positive outlier. If I consider the other half of the bell curve, I choose 0.25 and 0. If this was rushing defense, I'd just switch the 1 to correspond to values lower than the average minus one full deviation. Once I've got evaluation values for individual stats, I just take the average of all of them to come up with a composite ranking value. Some categories have more stats in them than others, of course, such that a single poor ranking can mean a drastically different cumulative ranking value. p.s. - What I'm doing would be easier to show than explain and I hope I didn't confuse anyone above. All I do is copy and paste data from cfbstats.com into spreadsheets every week. Those spreadsheets already have conditional statements in them such that I just have to copy, paste, and sort my way to looking a little deeper at statistical performances than the average sports page quickly allows. 1 Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Ok, I'm posting once more ITT to share the details on turnover margin. Nebraska's figures are as follows: 4 fumbles gained 8 interceptions gained 12 total turnovers gained 5 fumbles lost 17 interceptions lost 22 total turnovers lost -10 turnover margin overall -0.91 turnover margin per game For fumbles gained, I assigned a value of 0.25 because the range is as follows: 0 to (average minus one standard deviation = ) 3.93 for a 0, 3.93 to (average minus half a standard deviation = ) 5.05 for a 0.25, 5.05 to (average plus half a standard deviation = ) 7.29 for a 0.5, 7.29 to (average plus one standard deviation = ) 8.41 for a 0.75, and anything greater than 8.41 gets a 1 rating. Nebraska's interceptions gained number (8) is in the average range. The total turnovers gained number is below average (another 0.25). The number posted for fumbles lost is, again, just in the average range. The numbers for interceptions lost, total turnovers lost, and turnover margin per game are all so low that they qualify for ratings of 0, however. I actually found a typo for that last category and will update turnover margin now for the listing up above now. 1 Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I don't understand why you're assigning discrete numbers to these things. If I'm understanding right, 2 teams can get a 0.25 in the same category even if they have different numbers for that category. It makes more sense to me to use their ranking in each and divide by the total number of teams. For example if Nebraska is 25th in pass defense then their number would be 25/118 (or however many teams there are) Quote Link to comment
FrankWheeler Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I agree, why even go through all of the trouble to calculate the standard deviations if you are just assigning a random .25? Wouldn't the actual standard deviation be a better representation? Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 We're talking about fractions of yards, in some cases, that are the difference between two teams for a particular statistic. I'm using the standard deviation to apply the concept of statistical significance. The range set by the mean +/- one standard deviation should contain 68% of the data. The worst thing I'm missing on is when a figure is very close but does not exceed a value but, when I'm trying to quickly evaluate 128 teams, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. In case there's still confusion, two teams with the same ranking for one stat within one category just posted figures that fall in the same range. The difference between the numbers they posted is not great enough to be statistically significant. I certainly am not claiming to have come up with the greatest way to evaluate teams. I've just tried to do more than USA Today. Suggestions are always welcome. I'd love to come up with something simpler that might help me pick more games correctly in particular. Quote Link to comment
husker B-rent Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Headache. Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'm not bothering with SOS this time but just sharing the evaluations for nine categories below (per the usual, basic method I've explained previously): Passing Defense Wisconsin 0.89 Michigan 0.89 Iowa 0.86 Ohio State 0.86 Penn State 0.86 Northwestern 0.79 Minnesota 0.71 Illinois 0.61 Maryland 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Purdue 0.39 Nebraska 0.29 Indiana 0.21 Rutgers 0.14 Passing Offense Michigan State 0.64 Ohio State 0.61 Nebraska 0.57 Indiana 0.54 Iowa 0.54 Wisconsin 0.54 Penn State 0.54 Michigan 0.54 Minnesota 0.50 Rutgers 0.43 Illinois 0.32 Purdue 0.29 Maryland 0.14 Northwestern 0.11 Rushing Defense Michigan 1.00 Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.92 Nebraska 0.75 Michigan State 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Northwestern 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Maryland 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Indiana 0.42 Rutgers 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rushing Offense Ohio State 1.00 Iowa 0.83 Michigan 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Nebraska 0.58 Indiana 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Northwestern 0.42 Penn State 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Maryland 0.33 Minnesota 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Defense Wisconsin 1.00 Ohio State 1.00 Penn State 0.92 Iowa 0.83 Northwestern 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Michigan State 0.67 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Maryland 0.42 Nebraska 0.33 Indiana 0.25 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Offense Nebraska 0.92 Michigan 0.75 Iowa 0.67 Michigan State 0.67 Indiana 0.58 Wisconsin 0.58 Ohio State 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Northwestern 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Maryland 0.08 Total Defense Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.83 Penn State 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Northwestern 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Maryland 0.50 Purdue 0.33 Nebraska 0.33 Rutgers 0.25 Indiana 0.08 Total Offense Ohio State 0.83 Nebraska 0.83 Indiana 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Iowa 0.50 Michigan 0.50 Penn State 0.42 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Northwestern 0.17 Maryland 0.17 Turnover Margin Michigan State 0.93 Iowa 0.86 Illinois 0.71 Indiana 0.71 Penn State 0.71 Wisconsin 0.61 Northwestern 0.50 Minnesota 0.46 Ohio State 0.43 Purdue 0.39 Rutgers 0.32 Maryland 0.32 Michigan 0.32 Nebraska 0.21 It's a great way to compare NU to others within the B1G. It lets us gauge our strengths and weaknesses against the conference. : Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 I'm not bothering with SOS this time but just sharing the evaluations for nine categories below (per the usual, basic method I've explained previously): Passing Defense Wisconsin 0.89 Michigan 0.89 Iowa 0.86 Ohio State 0.86 Penn State 0.86 Northwestern 0.79 Minnesota 0.71 Illinois 0.61 Maryland 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Purdue 0.39 Nebraska 0.29 Indiana 0.21 Rutgers 0.14 Passing Offense Michigan State 0.64 Ohio State 0.61 Nebraska 0.57 Indiana 0.54 Iowa 0.54 Wisconsin 0.54 Penn State 0.54 Michigan 0.54 Minnesota 0.50 Rutgers 0.43 Illinois 0.32 Purdue 0.29 Maryland 0.14 Northwestern 0.11 Rushing Defense Michigan 1.00 Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.92 Nebraska 0.75 Michigan State 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Northwestern 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Maryland 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Indiana 0.42 Rutgers 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rushing Offense Ohio State 1.00 Iowa 0.83 Michigan 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Nebraska 0.58 Indiana 0.50 Michigan State 0.50 Northwestern 0.42 Penn State 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Maryland 0.33 Minnesota 0.25 Purdue 0.17 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Defense Wisconsin 1.00 Ohio State 1.00 Penn State 0.92 Iowa 0.83 Northwestern 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Michigan State 0.67 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.50 Maryland 0.42 Nebraska 0.33 Indiana 0.25 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.17 Scoring Offense Nebraska 0.92 Michigan 0.75 Iowa 0.67 Michigan State 0.67 Indiana 0.58 Wisconsin 0.58 Ohio State 0.58 Penn State 0.58 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Northwestern 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Maryland 0.08 Total Defense Iowa 0.92 Wisconsin 0.92 Ohio State 0.83 Penn State 0.83 Michigan 0.83 Northwestern 0.75 Illinois 0.58 Minnesota 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Maryland 0.50 Purdue 0.33 Nebraska 0.33 Rutgers 0.25 Indiana 0.08 Total Offense Ohio State 0.83 Nebraska 0.83 Indiana 0.67 Wisconsin 0.58 Michigan State 0.58 Iowa 0.50 Michigan 0.50 Penn State 0.42 Minnesota 0.42 Illinois 0.33 Purdue 0.25 Rutgers 0.25 Northwestern 0.17 Maryland 0.17 Turnover Margin Michigan State 0.93 Iowa 0.86 Illinois 0.71 Indiana 0.71 Penn State 0.71 Wisconsin 0.61 Northwestern 0.50 Minnesota 0.46 Ohio State 0.43 Purdue 0.39 Rutgers 0.32 Maryland 0.32 Michigan 0.32 Nebraska 0.21 It's a great way to compare NU to others within the B1G. It lets us gauge our strengths and weaknesses against the conference. : Thanks. I like that we can see that even the defending national champion has warts, too. When people are calling for our current coaches' heads and implying that <insert name of potential wonder coach here> will fix everything overnight, I wonder how many of them just watch Nebraska and the NFL. There aren't many complete teams out there who never have to work for W's against what I'll simply call average programs. Texas Tech is a good example because, while they aren't very stout defensively (to put it mildly), they put up almost 170 points against the undefeated and one-loss teams of the Big XII. Does anyone know the story there? Does Kliff Kingsbury just need a DC? The game has gotten crazier over the years is all I'm getting at and thinking a good defense can hold any team below 20 every week is seemingly unreasonable. Quote Link to comment
FrankWheeler Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Why not just use the z-score? Why assign random rates? Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Why not just use the z-score? Why assign random rates? I didn't consider using the z-score. I might just do that in the future instead - thanks! Your use of "random rates" is indicating there's a misunderstanding between us on this topic. I'm just tagging stats for where they fall on a bell curve in such a way that allows me to quickly make sense of them. I'm not using random numbers nor is there any rate calculated within this simple exercise I've described. Quote Link to comment
Sargon Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Thanks for the op. I also vote for z score method. It's simpler and better. Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yeah, I can see the point being made. For anyone confused, that's just the number of standard deviations (or fraction of one) difference from the mean. I don't even think I remember that from the one stats class I took forever ago or it would have saved me the trouble of figuring out the conditional syntax I've been using. I appreciate the feedback. This is a great board! Quote Link to comment
beorach Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 Due to popular demand (and it making sense), here are the rankings by the z-score method, calculated in the same way otherwise as before: Passing Offense Michigan State 0.44 Ohio State 0.26 Michigan 0.23 Indiana 0.22 Nebraska 0.15 Iowa 0.09 Wisconsin 0.07 Penn State 0.02 Minnesota -0.03 Illinois -0.40 Rutgers -0.42 Purdue -0.62 Northwestern -1.13 Maryland -1.74 Passing Defense Michigan 1.47 Wisconsin 1.32 Ohio State 1.29 Penn State 1.12 Iowa 0.94 Northwestern 0.92 Minnesota 0.60 Illinois 0.34 Michigan State 0.03 Maryland -0.07 Purdue -0.21 Nebraska -0.85 Rutgers -1.09 Indiana -1.17 Rushing Offense Ohio State 1.91 Iowa 1.20 Michigan 0.58 Nebraska 0.47 Wisconsin 0.27 Indiana 0.04 Michigan State 0.00 Penn State -0.15 Purdue -0.43 Minnesota -0.50 Illinois -0.51 Maryland -0.51 Northwestern -0.59 Rutgers -0.84 Rushing Defense Michigan 1.40 Ohio State 1.25 Iowa 1.19 Wisconsin 1.16 Michigan State 0.64 Penn State 0.51 Nebraska 0.49 Illinois 0.47 Northwestern 0.32 Maryland 0.12 Minnesota 0.00 Indiana -0.55 Rutgers -1.03 Purdue -1.07 Total Offense Indiana 0.78 Nebraska 0.36 Ohio State 0.36 Iowa 0.15 Michigan State 0.03 Wisconsin -0.03 Michigan -0.19 Illinois -0.31 Minnesota -0.42 Purdue -0.50 Northwestern -0.63 Rutgers -0.72 Penn State -0.84 Maryland -0.99 Total Defense Wisconsin 1.79 Michigan 1.67 Ohio State 1.15 Penn State 1.03 Iowa 0.97 Minnesota 0.62 Northwestern 0.59 Michigan State 0.58 Illinois 0.16 Nebraska -0.11 Maryland -0.26 Purdue -0.61 Rutgers -0.65 Indiana -1.04 Scoring Offense Nebraska 1.51 Michigan 0.75 Indiana 0.52 Wisconsin 0.52 Iowa 0.45 Ohio State 0.26 Penn State 0.20 Michigan State 0.16 Minnesota 0.05 Northwestern -0.36 Illinois -0.56 Rutgers -0.65 Maryland -1.13 Purdue -1.33 Scoring Defense Wisconsin 1.64 Ohio State 1.39 Penn State 0.98 Northwestern 0.71 Michigan State 0.64 Michigan 0.63 Iowa 0.48 Maryland 0.11 Illinois 0.09 Indiana -0.14 Minnesota -0.15 Rutgers -0.41 Purdue -0.64 Nebraska -1.04 Turnover Margin Michigan State 1.20 Iowa 1.02 Penn State 0.62 Illinois 0.59 Indiana 0.35 Wisconsin 0.34 Northwestern 0.00 Ohio State -0.13 Purdue -0.19 Minnesota -0.22 Rutgers -0.42 Michigan -0.48 Nebraska -0.82 Maryland -1.31 Strength of Schedule Maryland 0.510 Illinois 0.267 Purdue 0.261 Indiana 0.255 Rutgers 0.212 Northwestern 0.155 Minnesota 0.140 Nebraska -0.016 Michigan State -0.017 Penn State -0.026 Iowa -0.121 Ohio State -0.140 Michigan -0.169 Wisconsin -0.264 p.s. - I thought I should explain that, w/r/t total offense, I've included the total number of plays as a measurable considered. In light of Nebraska's having played more games than most the nation, that has a lot to do with their rating. The NFL stats keep track of time of possession but the site I like to use only has the number of plays to correlate to this important statistic. UPDATE: I just made another field and divided the plays by the number of games instead so that levels the playing field for both total offense and total defense now. I suppose I should do the same for some other stats - I think I'm done tinkering for this week, though. p.p.s. - For s/g, here's the Top 25 by this method (w/o SOS): Oklahoma 1.025 Baylor 0.968 Houston 0.923 Clemson 0.903 Ohio State 0.860 Alabama 0.811 Boise State 0.790 Wisconsin 0.766 North Carolina 0.757 Iowa 0.708 Michigan 0.665 Florida State 0.621 Western Kentucky 0.603 Notre Dame 0.593 Florida 0.592 Air Force 0.591 TCU 0.590 Bowling Green 0.587 Navy 0.572 Appalachian State 0.571 Oklahoma State 0.559 San Diego State 0.549 LSU 0.523 Marshall 0.508 USC 0.508 Nebraska came in at 62. When I take the average of the composite rankings for the nine categories, the number for our Cornhuskers is 0.021 (meaning their average measurable is better than the national average by that fraction of a standard deviation). Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.