NU and Football Outsiders FEI Ratings

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

I hear a lot of mention regarding rote statistics, but what the football outsiders guys do is massage the rote statistics to put out efficiency ratings. Baylor and their fast paced offense is going to create a higher YPG produced on offense and allowed on defense. That may not mean their offense or defense is better or worse than others. I like it when "efficiency" measures are done, because the stats are normalized, and made into an apples to apples comparison.

 

Massage sounds a lot like manipulate. Anyway I get how you are really into that stat end of the game. Lots of people really like the stuff. In baseball I get the stat end of it because it is a 162 game season. But to me a 12 game season is a little short to draw huge statitical information. Do you play fantacy football, or do you gamble on games? People that do a lot of that tend to look at statistic a lot more than some do. I do neither. Instead of looking at stats I watch a lot of games, because I love the game of football.

 

Yes, a 12 game season is a small sample size, but each game has 60-100 offensive snaps from each team. The number of snaps creates a large enough sample size to analyze the data efficiently.

 

I do play fantasy football, but am not super into it. I don't do Draft Kings or Fan Duel. I used to gamble in college, but not anymore. I am into the stat trends because I like math. I also watch games on Saturday. I like having statistical information as another tool to analyze information.

 

One of the complaints of the CFB Playoff committee is that they are too old, and prefer old-school football, so teams in the Big 12 get penalized. The non-statistical minds may think that certain teams play better defense just because they give up a fewer points per game. In fact, defenses may be "stronger" in a certain conference just because the pace of play is slower. For example, a team like Oklahoma is ranked 25th in scoring defense by PPG, but football outsiders rank their defensive efficiency #1. On the other hand, Wisconsin is #1 in scoring defense in PPG allowed, but #14 in defensive efficiency. Yes, Wisconsin's D is good, but their PPG benefits from style of play from their offense, and the poor offenses that Wisconsin plays in the Big Ten.

 

 

Ok, I understand the statistical end of the game, but in the end it is just one small thing to look at in a game. Statistiaclly speaking there is no reason why OSU should not have been able to run or pass against an MSU defense that Nebraska almost put 500 yard on. Yet they had less than 150. Statistically speaking Purdue should not have had the kind of game they did against Nebraska, yet they did.

 

Football is an emotional game that has players playing better " in the moment" than they should be able to statistically. It happens all the time. That is why I guess I don't like too many statistics in football, it takes the emotion out of the game. For someone like you that is exactly why you like the statistic part. Just different opinions I guess.

 

Except you are partially incorrect. Nebraska has a more efficient offense than Ohio State according to the linked efficiency rankings. Plus, MSU wasn't doing much with their offense, so Ohio State was content on being super conservative, as long as they were in the lead or tied. NU was behind for the 2nd half of the MSU game, so NU had to be more aggressive on offense. Throw in the fact that the weather conditions were much worse in the Ohio State game, it's not a huge surprise that NU would have more success than Ohio State against Michigan State's defense. Yes, the amount of difference is surprising, but again I chalk that up to the weather and overall game conditions.

[Joe_5700]

You see I am the complete opposite, I look very little at statistics when determining how good the season has gone. The Illinois game was a poor offensive game plan that was poorly executed. The defense played well enough to gain a victory.

 

The Purdue game was the low point of the season. NU went into the game expecting to win and played poorly. The turnovers are the big story of the game, but defensively they didn't play well at all.

 

Those are two games that NU should have won because they were clearly the more talented team. Those were truly poor effort gaems. BYU was a fluke win by them. Wisconsin and Miami were toss up games.

 

The NW game and games like are a big reason why I don't look at stats too closely. If you look at only the statistics in the game and not the final score you would probably determine that NU should have won, but they didn't. Statistics rarely tell the whole story.

Miami was absolutely embarrassing us for most of the game. It wasn't until complacency and bone headed penalties that let us back into the game. It was much like the Michigan State comeback last season.

[ColoradoHusk]

I think the main point of these efficiency rankings is that it gives an idea of actually "how good" the team is. I have seen countless posts about how NU is the best 5-6 team in the country. These efficiency rankings kind of show that. According to how efficient the team has been throughout the season, the expected wins is 8.5. One could argue that the reason NU isn't at 8 or 9 wins is a few lucky plays or bad decisions at the end of some games. NU is basically the same team as Northwestern and Wisconsin, but those 2 teams have been able to win the majority of the close games, rather than losing them like NU has.

 

Where we should want NU to get to the point is that NU is in the top 10-15 of statistical efficiency, so that the games against Big Ten West opponents aren't coming down to the final possession of the game, and NU would be able to regularly compete with Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State from the Big Ten East.

[NUinID]

 

 

 

 

I hear a lot of mention regarding rote statistics, but what the football outsiders guys do is massage the rote statistics to put out efficiency ratings. Baylor and their fast paced offense is going to create a higher YPG produced on offense and allowed on defense. That may not mean their offense or defense is better or worse than others. I like it when "efficiency" measures are done, because the stats are normalized, and made into an apples to apples comparison.

 

Massage sounds a lot like manipulate. Anyway I get how you are really into that stat end of the game. Lots of people really like the stuff. In baseball I get the stat end of it because it is a 162 game season. But to me a 12 game season is a little short to draw huge statitical information. Do you play fantacy football, or do you gamble on games? People that do a lot of that tend to look at statistic a lot more than some do. I do neither. Instead of looking at stats I watch a lot of games, because I love the game of football.

 

Yes, a 12 game season is a small sample size, but each game has 60-100 offensive snaps from each team. The number of snaps creates a large enough sample size to analyze the data efficiently.

 

I do play fantasy football, but am not super into it. I don't do Draft Kings or Fan Duel. I used to gamble in college, but not anymore. I am into the stat trends because I like math. I also watch games on Saturday. I like having statistical information as another tool to analyze information.

 

One of the complaints of the CFB Playoff committee is that they are too old, and prefer old-school football, so teams in the Big 12 get penalized. The non-statistical minds may think that certain teams play better defense just because they give up a fewer points per game. In fact, defenses may be "stronger" in a certain conference just because the pace of play is slower. For example, a team like Oklahoma is ranked 25th in scoring defense by PPG, but football outsiders rank their defensive efficiency #1. On the other hand, Wisconsin is #1 in scoring defense in PPG allowed, but #14 in defensive efficiency. Yes, Wisconsin's D is good, but their PPG benefits from style of play from their offense, and the poor offenses that Wisconsin plays in the Big Ten.

 

 

Ok, I understand the statistical end of the game, but in the end it is just one small thing to look at in a game. Statistiaclly speaking there is no reason why OSU should not have been able to run or pass against an MSU defense that Nebraska almost put 500 yard on. Yet they had less than 150. Statistically speaking Purdue should not have had the kind of game they did against Nebraska, yet they did.

 

Football is an emotional game that has players playing better " in the moment" than they should be able to statistically. It happens all the time. That is why I guess I don't like too many statistics in football, it takes the emotion out of the game. For someone like you that is exactly why you like the statistic part. Just different opinions I guess.

 

Except you are partially incorrect. Nebraska has a more efficient offense than Ohio State according to the linked efficiency rankings. Plus, MSU wasn't doing much with their offense, so Ohio State was content on being super conservative, as long as they were in the lead or tied. NU was behind for the 2nd half of the MSU game, so NU had to be more aggressive on offense. Throw in the fact that the weather conditions were much worse in the Ohio State game, it's not a huge surprise that NU would have more success than Ohio State against Michigan State's defense. Yes, the amount of difference is surprising, but again I chalk that up to the weather and overall game conditions.

 

 

How do you statistically factor in weahter conditions? Your throwing something in there that is unquantifiable. You can't put numbers on weather conditions. Your also messing up your thinking with an assumption about OSU being content with leading or being tied.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Not surprising and I think typical for what can happen during a coaching change.

I am not sure what you mean by "what can happen during a coaching change"? Are you saying it's typical for teams to lose a bunch of close games during coaching changes?

 

What I'm saying is that the unexpected can happen due to not everyone being 100% up to speed with everything or comfortable with everything yet.

 

I said "for what can happen". And, that is especially early in the season.