Advanced Statistics - 2015

[Louie and Bouie]

I've seen a lot of threads on the Syracuse offense and its problems that consistently use total offense (yards per game) as an indicator that our offense is one of the worst in the country. These threads seemingly have been picked up by local media who use the same statistic. I have attempted to contest the validity (although briefly due to time constraints) of this outdated statistic as it doesn't take into account number of plays, pace of play, defensive performance, field position, score and a multitude of other factors.

In a search for a more statistically relevant analysis of offensive and defensive performance I have come across what I believe to be a better indicator of overall offensive and defensive performance to date. I thought I would share this information with the board so a more in-depth analysis could be included in the debate about offensive team performance.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

While I fully understand that no statistical analysis can be wholly accurate I do believe that their are good tools out there that are much better than the old yards per game analysis that still permeates the discussion.

Edit:

In this particular statistical measure Syracuse is rated 59th in offensive efficiency and 100th in defensive efficiency. Not where we want to be but in my opinion a much better and accurate representation than that 115 total offense number that's being tossed around pretty consistently.

 

[TheCusian]

I've seen a lot of threads on the Syracuse offense and its problems that consistently use total offense (yards per game) as an indicator that our offense is one of the worst in the country. These threads seemingly have been picked up by local media who use the same statistic. I have attempted to contest the validity (although briefly due to time constraints) of this outdated statistic as it doesn't take into account number of plays, pace of play, defensive performance, field position, score and a multitude of other factors.

In a search for a more statistically relevant analysis of offensive and defensive performance I have come across what I believe to be a better indicator of overall offensive and defensive performance to date. I thought I would share this information with the board so a more in-depth analysis could be included in the debate about offensive team performance.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

While I fully understand that no statistical analysis can be wholly accurate I do believe that their are good tools out there that are much better than the old yards per game analysis that still permeates the discussion.

I agree 100%.

Our offense is not good at this point. However, if you use total O the stats will tell you that this year is just as bad as last year, your eyes be damned.

S&P+ O / Total O

2013: #88 / #86
2014: #110 / #116
2015: #73 / #116

 

[Ozcuse]

That's pretty interesting.

Someone must have done the research before to show which offensive statistical measure correlates best to final record/ranking. That's the stat I want to look at (and maybe this one is it)

 

[Louie and Bouie]

That's pretty interesting.

Someone must have done the research before to show which offensive statistical measure correlates best to final record/ranking. That's the stat I want to look at (and maybe this one is it)

I've been looking for that correlation out of curiosity based upon all of the statistical threads in this forum and these are the best I've found to date.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's pretty interesting.

Someone must have done the research before to show which offensive statistical measure correlates best to final record/ranking. That's the stat I want to look at (and maybe this one is it)

It's touchdowns.

 

[Ottoble]

I've seen a lot of threads on the Syracuse offense and its problems that consistently use total offense (yards per game) as an indicator that our offense is one of the worst in the country. These threads seemingly have been picked up by local media who use the same statistic. I have attempted to contest the validity (although briefly due to time constraints) of this outdated statistic as it doesn't take into account number of plays, pace of play, defensive performance, field position, score and a multitude of other factors.

In a search for a more statistically relevant analysis of offensive and defensive performance I have come across what I believe to be a better indicator of overall offensive and defensive performance to date. I thought I would share this information with the board so a more in-depth analysis could be included in the debate about offensive team performance.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

While I fully understand that no statistical analysis can be wholly accurate I do believe that their are good tools out there that are much better than the old yards per game analysis that still permeates the discussion.

Edit:

In this particular statistical measure Syracuse is rated 59th in offensive efficiency and 100th in defensive efficiency. Not where we want to be but in my opinion a much better and accurate representation than that 115 total offense number that's being tossed around pretty consistently.

Agreed here is a copy of my post in the same regard

Points is what matters when the clock hits zero.

We are running our offense in a manner intended to protect the thin/young defense and limit total plays per game as much as possible which which will limit our yards per game. Since our defense is not as stout we are averaging the same total number of plays per game between us and our opponents. With 8 fewer offensive plays per game, our points per game has gone up by 12.2 points per game over last year.

The problem is Depth and experience in this years defense. That and clock management are 100% the problem with this team.

SU Offense:
Offense Points per Play:
2015 .433 #41 New OC/system
2014 .235 #122

Offense Points Per Game:
2015 29.3 #65 New OC/System
2014 17.1 #121

Offensive Efficiency (out of 100):
2015 #57 Syracuse, ACC 53.2 New OC/system
2014 #111 Syracuse, ACC 24.1

SU Defense:
Opponent points per play:
2015 .436 #87 lost 8 starters replaced by Frosh/Soph
2014 .344 #37

Opponent Points per Game :
2015 29.4 #84 lost 8 starters replaced by Frosh/Soph
2014 24.3 #83 Offense couldn't stay on the field in 2014 ... see huge points per play/D Efficiency rank differential

Defensive Efficiency (out of 100)
2015 #96 Syracuse, ACC 37.6 lost 8 starters replaced by Frosh/Soph
2014 #41 Syracuse, ACC 63.6

 

[Millhouse]

I have attempted to contest the validity (although briefly due to time constraints) of this outdated statistic as it doesn't take into account number of plays, pace of play, defensive performance, field position, score and a multitude of other factors.

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

something goofy is going on with the football outsiders stuff. if you just take all those individual mumbo jumbo components and average the ranks, it comes out to 80th

which is where the yards per play is.

i have no idea how they get to 59th based on the individual scores.

 

[NineOneSeven]

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

I was gonna say I can't wait for Millhouse to get in this but you beat me

 

[GoSU96]

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

something goofy is going on with the football outsiders stuff. if you just take all those individual mumbo jumbo components and average the ranks, it comes out to 80th

which is where the yards per play is.

i have no idea how they get to 59th based on the individual scores.

If you take per play efficiency I guess they are okay, but when you run so few plays you have to a) be hyper efficient, or b) figure out a way to run more plays, because at the end of the day, total yards is still important. Being 120th in plays run makes any gains in efficiency per play meaningless for this year.

 

[GoSU96]

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

something goofy is going on with the football outsiders stuff. if you just take all those individual mumbo jumbo components and average the ranks, it comes out to 80th

which is where the yards per play is.

i have no idea how they get to 59th based on the individual scores.

What's goofy is that 17% of their TDs, 16% of the points, are non-offense td/pts through TD returns on specials and defensive scores/safeties.

89th in offensive TD's.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

I agree 100%.

Our offense is not good at this point. However, if you use total O the stats will tell you that this year is just as bad as last year, your eyes be damned.

S&P+ O / Total O

2013: #88 / #86
2014: #110 / #116
2015: #73 / #116

I agree with Louie and Bouie.

Our offense is much more dangerous this year than it was last year...

 

[OrangeAl]

I agree with Louie and Bouie.

Our offense is much more dangerous this year than it was last year...

You don't need statistics to realize that this year's offense is better than last year's. You just need to remember the hopeless futility of last year and compare it to the hopefulness of Dungey and company this year.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

You don't need statistics to realize that this year's offense is better than last year's. You just need to remember the hopeless futility of last year and compare it to the hopefulness of Dungey and company this year.

Agreed.

Last year I hoped that each possession wouldn't be a three-and-out.

This year, I am surprised when it is a three-and-out.

 

[GoSU96]

I agree with Louie and Bouie.

Our offense is much more dangerous this year than it was last year...

Almost anything would be by default.

 

[GoSU96]

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

something goofy is going on with the football outsiders stuff. if you just take all those individual mumbo jumbo components and average the ranks, it comes out to 80th

which is where the yards per play is.

i have no idea how they get to 59th based on the individual scores.

SU is tied for 2nd in OT TD's and 3rd in Non-offensive TD's.

The Offense is generating 22 pts per game in regulation, that is in line with the total offense numbers.

 

[TheCusian]

SU is tied for 2nd in OT TD's and 3rd in Non-offensive TD's. The Offense is generating 22 pts per game in regulation, that is in line with the total offense numbers.

But not the eye test. I don't think we're as bad as last year on offense - but the total O numbers tell me they are the same.

It makes sense that a deeper dive into the numbers would match that reality.

(I'm not saying by any metric we are good, just trying to deal with the gap between what last year and this year look like)

 

[Millhouse]

If you take per play efficiency I guess they are okay, but when you run so few plays you have to a) be hyper efficient, or b) figure out a way to run more plays, because at the end of the day, total yards is still important. Being 120th in plays run makes any gains in efficiency per play meaningless for this year.

yep. you can't run one play gain 8 yards and say, our work is done!

we might be breaking the usefulness of yards per play. protecting the defense to this extent is going too far.

when you're 126th in plays per game, you need to speed it up and stop shrugging and saying derp the defense can't get off the field. the defense plays the 70th most plays per game.

 

[Millhouse]

SU is tied for 2nd in OT TD's and 3rd in Non-offensive TD's.

The Offense is generating 22 pts per game in regulation, that is in line with the total offense numbers.

i agree with that, but i don't think that's where football outsiders is going astray. a lot of these advanced stat guys are just lazy about transparency. confused, check the glossary? ok it's not in the glossary.

 

[GoSU96]

But not the eye test. I don't think we're as bad as last year on offense - but the total O numbers tell me they are the same.

It makes sense that a deeper dive into the numbers would match that reality.

(I'm not saying by any metric we are good, just trying to deal with the gap between what last year and this year look like)

Yeah, they look better with low production. The improved efficiency numbers are good news, it's a leading indicator.

 

[Millhouse]

Almost anything would be by default.

would mcdonald still be our offensive coordinator if dungey were a year older (and hunt went down)?

he'd still be terrible, i'm not saying he got a raw deal at all. but dungey might've saved him. although he probably would've hunkered down and thrown a million passes sideways like Hunt Clemson in 13.

 

[TheCusian]

would mcdonald still be our offensive coordinator if dungey were a year older (and hunt went down)? he'd still be terrible, i'm not saying he got a raw deal at all. but dungey might've saved him. although he probably would've hunkered down and thrown a million passes sideways like Hunt Clemson in 13.

I'd take a plan, efficiency, low penalties, a snap count, passes down field, organization, etc over McBubbles all day every day.

His issues were freezing making calls, management (i.e. Didn't get along with the rest of the staff), and lastly system/production.

I think your short changing a lot of things - but Lester's ability to get Dungey ready is way under rated around here.

He's getting better at things like reads - so it's not "Dungey is such a talent he's doing well despite Lester"

 

[Millhouse]

I'd take a plan, efficiency, low penalties, a snap count, passes down field, organization, etc over McBubbles all day every day.

His issues were freezing making calls, management (i.e. Didn't get along with the rest of the staff), and lastly system/production.

I think your short changing a lot of things - but Lester's ability to get Dungey ready is way under rated around here.

He's getting better at things like reads - so it's not "Dungey is such a talent he's doing well despite Lester"

i wasn't saying i'd take mcdonald over anybody - i was asking a different question. i said he'd still be terrible

 

[Louie and Bouie]

yards per play works just fine, it's transparent, and it isn't mucked up by all those other factors

something goofy is going on with the football outsiders stuff. if you just take all those individual mumbo jumbo components and average the ranks, it comes out to 80th

which is where the yards per play is.

i have no idea how they get to 59th based on the individual scores.

I agree on the yards per play being a decent one-tool indicator. I just got tired with fans and now local news outlets using the Total Offense (ypg) number for the shock value of it and to perpetuate the narrative that our offense isn't better this year and is only better than 1 or 2 P5 teams. Its false and the reporters don't even take the time to dig deeper. Baffling.

 

[OrangeAl]

I'd take a plan, efficiency, low penalties, a snap count, passes down field, organization, etc over McBubbles all day every day.

His issues were freezing making calls, management (i.e. Didn't get along with the rest of the staff), and lastly system/production.

I think your short changing a lot of things - but Lester's ability to get Dungey ready is way under rated around here.

He's getting better at things like reads - so it's not "Dungey is such a talent he's doing well despite Lester"

Agreed. Lester in 2015 is better than Lester in 2014. The difference? His own offense and his development of a true freshman to run it. I'm really shocked that there's no proof to be found in the stats.