Comments on: Stats are for losers http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/ Texas Longhorns and sports Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:44:35 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: LonghornScott http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23586 LonghornScott Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:20:39 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23586 f that. I want 3 and outs. I will not be denied! f that. I want 3 and outs. I will not be denied!

]]> By: Scipio Tex http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23573 Scipio Tex Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:10:06 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23573 4th downs, not 3 and outs. 4th downs, not 3 and outs.

]]> By: LonghornScott http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23570 LonghornScott Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:37:08 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23570 The staff often refers to a 3 and out as a turnover and I basically agree. It would be interesting to see how the turnovers stack up if 3 and outs are factored in... but that would take time to prove something I already know: Texas is playing the best defense in the conference. The staff often refers to a 3 and out as a turnover and I basically agree. It would be interesting to see how the turnovers stack up if 3 and outs are factored in… but that would take time to prove something I already know: Texas is playing the best defense in the conference.

]]> By: Bob in Houston http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23567 Bob in Houston Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:12:15 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23567 B12 quarterbacks have sagged a bit this week... nine are ranked in the top 22 in passing efficiency. Texas will face six of them. B12 quarterbacks have sagged a bit this week… nine are ranked in the top 22 in passing efficiency. Texas will face six of them.

]]> By: TaylorTRoom http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23554 TaylorTRoom Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:06:33 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23554 Yards per pass attempt- if you count sacks as unsuccessful pass attempts, we have had 306 passes attempted by our opponents and given up 1726 yards for 5.6 ypa. Yards per pass attempt- if you count sacks as unsuccessful pass attempts, we have had 306 passes attempted by our opponents and given up 1726 yards for 5.6 ypa.

]]> By: AustinYankee http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23542 AustinYankee Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:14:25 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23542 Ross, That giant sucking sound you've spoken of is due to OU. Ross,

That giant sucking sound you’ve spoken of is due to OU.

]]> By: Parlin Hall http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23535 Parlin Hall Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:14:02 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23535 H. Ross is right about the small picture that midseason stats present. But there's something worth noticing about the relationship between turnovers gained and time of possession--especially since some of the better Big 12 teams have forced fewer turnovers than those with poorer records. The top six Big 12 teams in time of possession (UT, OSU, NU, KU, OU and CU, in that order) average approx. 11 forced turnovers a game. The bottom six (ISU, TT, TAMU, KSU, MU, and Baylor) average approx. 12 a game. ISU's early windfall helps make them an outlier with 20 (which exceeds by 5 the second place--both OSU and TT). Given its advantage in time of possession, NU is seriously underperforming with 8, and UT is also below the average with 10. OSU is pretty remarkable in this category--almost exactly the time of possession average as UT, but five more turnovers gained on the season. H. Ross is right about the small picture that midseason stats present. But there’s something worth noticing about the relationship between turnovers gained and time of possession–especially since some of the better Big 12 teams have forced fewer turnovers than those with poorer records.

The top six Big 12 teams in time of possession (UT, OSU, NU, KU, OU and CU, in that order) average approx. 11 forced turnovers a game. The bottom six (ISU, TT, TAMU, KSU, MU, and Baylor) average approx. 12 a game.

ISU’s early windfall helps make them an outlier with 20 (which exceeds by 5 the second place–both OSU and TT). Given its advantage in time of possession, NU is seriously underperforming with 8, and UT is also below the average with 10.

OSU is pretty remarkable in this category–almost exactly the time of possession average as UT, but five more turnovers gained on the season.

]]> By: H Ross Perot http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23501 H Ross Perot Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:33:16 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23501 I think an important part of football statistics that most people forget is that they only show a ver small part of the whole and in college they are subject to a very high variance in schedule strength (as opposed to the NFL) If Offense is 1/3, defense is 1/3, and special teams is 1/3 (or approximate), then you are trying to extract truth from stats of 33% of a football game that is greatly effected by what goes on in the other 67% of the game. While I think you can look back and find some truths from stats regarding a season after all 12-14 games have been played, it is very hard to use them predictively in the middle of the season with the variation in schedule and small sample sizes (both in games played and the phase of the game) I think an important part of football statistics that most people forget is that they only show a ver small part of the whole and in college they are subject to a very high variance in schedule strength (as opposed to the NFL)

If Offense is 1/3, defense is 1/3, and special teams is 1/3 (or approximate), then you are trying to extract truth from stats of 33% of a football game that is greatly effected by what goes on in the other 67% of the game.

While I think you can look back and find some truths from stats regarding a season after all 12-14 games have been played, it is very hard to use them predictively in the middle of the season with the variation in schedule and small sample sizes (both in games played and the phase of the game)

]]> By: lowery http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23478 lowery Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:48:02 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23478 That is certainly part of it T1. Mizzou had 20 yards of offense until I'd had enough beer to forget I was tracking it. That is certainly part of it T1. Mizzou had 20 yards of offense until I’d had enough beer to forget I was tracking it.

]]> By: Ojnab Bob http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2008/10/20/stats-are-for-losers/comment-page-1/#comment-23449 Ojnab Bob Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:34:09 +0000 http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/braggonut/stats-are-for-losers#comment-23449 Parlin, I think it's explained simply by small sample size - 1-AA S Dakota State's QB was miserable in the opener, and I think SDSU had 6-7 turnovers in that game. Take that data point away and ISU's turnover numbers become a lot more normal. Parlin, I think it’s explained simply by small sample size – 1-AA S Dakota State’s QB was miserable in the opener, and I think SDSU had 6-7 turnovers in that game. Take that data point away and ISU’s turnover numbers become a lot more normal.

]]>