More Context

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
No need to go around and around on this tempo thing. But more yards and points are good no matter what. It is of course balanced out by awarding more possessions to the other team.

And not for nothing - Dino has more wins against top 25 teams and a ten win season to his credit. And that makes him an outlier *here*
Again, your position is a bizarre hill to die on, regardless of how much you want to defy common sense, which makes me think that there is in fact a need to “go around” the tempo thing that you somehow don’t understand. More yards and more points are obvious NOT always good things. That’s a mathematical fact. An offense that scores a TD every time is better than an offense that scores a TD every 3rd time it drives the ball, but has drives that eat 1/5th of the clock.

That concept really isn’t hard to grasp, nor is it controversial.

Pretending that non-pace adjusted stats are relevant in a world where many teams, especially our team, brag about moving faster than in the past breaks free the realm of credibility. Additionally, even if the obviously irrelevant numbers were not obviously irrelevant, the benchmark is meaningless, unless someone wants to claim that the 4 year periods in question had good offenses.

And your point about T25 wins is flawed because it randomly ignores the possibility that DB’s defenses are underrated, and it ignores the possibility that a high risk style of play is designed to create significant positive and negative outliers - which is odd because DB stresses (or at least used to stress) his willingness to roll dice.
 

Louie and Bouie

Starter
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,172
Like
1,948
Again, your position is a bizarre hill to die on, regardless of how much you want to defy common sense, which makes me think that there is in fact a need to “go around” the tempo thing that you somehow don’t understand. More yards and more points are obvious NOT always good things. That’s a mathematical fact. An offense that scores a TD every time is better than an offense that scores a TD every 3rd time it drives the ball, but has drives that eat 1/5th of the clock.

That concept really isn’t hard to grasp, nor is it controversial.

Pretending that non-pace adjusted stats are relevant in a world where many teams, especially our team, brag about moving faster than in the past breaks free the realm of credibility. Additionally, even if the obviously irrelevant numbers were not obviously irrelevant, the benchmark is meaningless, unless someone wants to claim that the 4 year periods in question had good offenses.

And your point about T25 wins is flawed because it randomly ignores the possibility that DB’s defenses are underrated, and it ignores the possibility that a high risk style of play is designed to create significant positive and negative outliers - which is odd because DB stresses (or at least used to stress) his willingness to roll dice.
Ive made attempts in the past to show that the antiquated stat of total offense is meaningless because it doesn't adjust for number of possessions or pace but some still hold on to that stat. Willful ignorance at this point.

Points per possession or points per drive (both offensively and defensively) is the most meaningful statistic. Outside of Dungey's senior season we have been woefully inefficient on the offensive side of the ball and Babers numbers are no better than HCSS from an efficiency standpoint.

I may post the numbers later if i have the time to back up the point.
 
Last edited:

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
Ive made attempts in the past to show that the antiquated stat of total offense is meaningless many times in the past because it doesn't adjust for number of possessions or pace but some still hold on to that stat. Willful ignorance at this point.

Points per possession or points per drive (both offensively and defensively) is the most meaningful statistic. Outside of Dungey's senior season we have been woefully inefficient on the offensive side of the ball and Babers numbers are no better than HCSS from an efficiency standpoint.

I may post the numbers later if i have the time to back up the point.
EXACTLY!

Building off your post, an offense adds value 2 ways: scoring or at least setting the defense up for success if it fails to score. To your point, DB’s offense hasn’t done a better job of scoring than SS when it’s been given the ball (with the exception of one year), and his offensive system stresses the defense (many drives and many short drives).

His offenses - at least at Syracuse - are bad, and they need to be fixed. His defenses aren’t elite by any means, but aside from the constant confusion and blown coverages in year #1, they are underrated, and are pretty decent in my eyes. (Admittedly, I don’t have hard defensive numbers, so maybe my glasses are orange.)

His teams have also been wildly inconsistent (I think due to his risk-taking), which I’m actually OK with. Teams with talent advantages want consistency because it means they’ll win and avoid upsets. Teams with talent disadvantages want big ups and downs because, for many, the blowouts that would otherwise “just” be losses are worth the big upsets.
 
Last edited:

Steelerswan

Walk On
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
198
Like
147
Lions could have have beat the Bears on Sunday too but nope, Same Old Lions. Same Old Devito, Same Old lack of ingenuity, Sat was a continuation of last year, it was like the same exact thing all over with a better defensive scheme.
Nice analogy and conversely, an example of another pro team losing with a bad oline and young qb, is the giants and jones. They lost, played a dynamic defense, BUT, they moved the ball and just had a few key mistakes. Jones is a young qb with IT, looks a rush in the eye, gets hit and gets up, is super competitive, drops back and throws to make a play every time. A coach would rather have this and teach a kid when to throw it away rather than what TD has shown lately. Jones plays with moxy and is just a few years removed from the acc.
 

Steelerswan

Walk On
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
198
Like
147
I agree with much of the OP. The questions I have are:
  • How much was the offensive game plan inhibited by the patchwork OL, vs. this being a full game plan [i.e., was it vanilla due to personnel limitations]

  • Is Tommy a difference maker or a dud? Will he perform better with better play from the guys up front -- or is this his ceiling?

  • Will the run game improve as the OL pieces return to the puzzle board to give us a reasonable rushing game, or will we struggle to run the ball all year?

  • All week we heard about how terrific the WRs were and how deep the group was. Well... Saturday's game was not an impressive performance. Who from this group [if anybody] will step up?

  • Were the TEs ignored because we needed them in tighter to help block, or are they not going to be a foundational component of the offensive attack?

The way these five questions get answered will go a long way toward explaining how the team performs this year. I tend to think that the ridiculous OL injury issue was the main root cause, and that our issues Saturday were more personnel / depth related instead of systemic problems. Time will tell.
The coaching, IMO, is a big part of our offensive problem. Let's face it fellas, dino hasn't had that same moxy about his baby, his offensive scheme the last few years. We have slowed down and just focused on execution, yet, haven't executed. The play calling is beyond vanilla and the pro system is not being manifested by TD. Also, not sure how our wrs were touted going into the year, we haven't developed this position, amazingly. Our receivers seem to not have above average speed and is the smallest wr unit in probably a decade.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
Again, your position is a bizarre hill to die on, regardless of how much you want to defy common sense, which makes me think that there is in fact a need to “go around” the tempo thing that you somehow don’t understand. More yards and more points are obvious NOT always good things. That’s a mathematical fact. An offense that scores a TD every time is better than an offense that scores a TD every 3rd time it drives the ball, but has drives that eat 1/5th of the clock.

That concept really isn’t hard to grasp, nor is it controversial.

Pretending that non-pace adjusted stats are relevant in a world where many teams, especially our team, brag about moving faster than in the past breaks free the realm of credibility. Additionally, even if the obviously irrelevant numbers were not obviously irrelevant, the benchmark is meaningless, unless someone wants to claim that the 4 year periods in question had good offenses.

And your point about T25 wins is flawed because it randomly ignores the possibility that DB’s defenses are underrated, and it ignores the possibility that a high risk style of play is designed to create significant positive and negative outliers - which is odd because DB stresses (or at least used to stress) his willingness to roll dice.
I don't know man. You love to talk down to people when you make arguments. I have that problem too, something I'm trying to correct. It's a bad look.

1. If you're looking at the stats in the OP and you don't have access to pace-adjusted stats, would you not think that DB is a better offensive coach than the others? If you then combine that info with the T25 wins and 10 win season - I think you can draw conclusions that are meaningful. If you want to make a more nuanced argument using efficiency measures and pace adjusted stats, you have room to do so in this thread or the freedom to start your own. Have at it.

2. The point the OP was making was DB is a better offensive coach (or that the offensive approach was better) than his peers here. He wasn't making a larger point about our offenses nationally, year to year. If you want to dig into that go for it. I did so last year and we're middle of the road largely over his time here. That is still better than a lot of our past coaches, most years.

3. Yeah, I think his style invites positive and negative outliers. I'll take it.
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
13,593
Like
17,164
What point do you think he makes?

If it's that we've scored more than in the past and we've gotten more yards than in the past, so the offense is good/better than the past/not entirely the problem/good enough/reason to believe, then the numbers don't support the point. They don't refute it, either. They're just irrelevant to it.
How is evaluating actual performance, regardless of efficiency, in the context of that programs historical performance irrelevant.

Given the crawl, walk, run paradigm I don't really GAF about efficiency at this point. That's more a function of talent then design. If we haven't seen with our own eyes what these guys can do your objection might be relevant.

Should the offense be more consistent and efficient, absolutely, but saying it's a failure because of stat boy metrics in a vacuum without taking into account where this program has been and the constraints it is under is absurd.

And the original point is when looking at the issues with the program, the offensive approach should be the last thing to worry about. The relative talent level across various coaches has been pretty consistent and Babers has managed to consistently generate more yards and points than his predecessors. That's a good thing and the first thing that needed to be done. It doesn't matter to me how they got it done to this point.

I can't believe anyone would argue that Baber's offense is no better than Shafer's because of efficiency reasons. Good lord.
 

Killdozer

2nd String
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
836
Like
1,213
How is evaluating actual performance, regardless of efficiency, in the context of that programs historical performance irrelevant.

Given the crawl, walk, run paradigm I don't really GAF about efficiency at this point. That's more a function of talent then design. If we haven't seen with our own eyes what these guys can do your objection might be relevant.

Should the offense be more consistent and efficient, absolutely, but saying it's a failure because of stat boy metrics in a vacuum without taking into account where this program has been and the constraints it is under is absurd.

And the original point is when looking at the issues with the program, the offensive approach should be the last thing to worry about. The relative talent level across various coaches has been pretty consistent and Babers has managed to consistently generate more yards and points than his predecessors. That's a good thing and the first thing that needed to be done. It doesn't matter to me how they got it done to this point.

I can't believe anyone would argue that Baber's offense is no better than Shafer's because of efficiency reasons. Good lord.
Baber's offense may be better then FHSS however, after last weeks offensive performance I'm not so sure his play calling is any better. I saw a lot of "between the tackles" running plays with FHSS also.
 
Last edited:

HRE Otto IV

Starter
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
1,716
Like
2,156
How is evaluating actual performance, regardless of efficiency, in the context of that programs historical performance irrelevant.

Given the crawl, walk, run paradigm I don't really GAF about efficiency at this point. That's more a function of talent then design. If we haven't seen with our own eyes what these guys can do your objection might be relevant.

Should the offense be more consistent and efficient, absolutely, but saying it's a failure because of stat boy metrics in a vacuum without taking into account where this program has been and the constraints it is under is absurd.

And the original point is when looking at the issues with the program, the offensive approach should be the last thing to worry about. The relative talent level across various coaches has been pretty consistent and Babers has managed to consistently generate more yards and points than his predecessors. That's a good thing and the first thing that needed to be done. It doesn't matter to me how they got it done to this point.

I can't believe anyone would argue that Baber's offense is no better than Shafer's because of efficiency reasons. Good lord.
Comparing eras is faulty as it is apples to oranges. The national average during Babers' time here is a better indicator of where we stand on O, not our past. Our past 50 games the national average in points per game is over 30. That wasn't the case 10 years ago let alone 20. It would be better to use SU's national ranking in points, yards, etc and then compare the eras as that is closer to apples to apples.
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
How is evaluating actual performance, regardless of efficiency, in the context of that programs historical performance irrelevant.

Given the crawl, walk, run paradigm I don't really GAF about efficiency at this point. That's more a function of talent then design. If we haven't seen with our own eyes what these guys can do your objection might be relevant.

Should the offense be more consistent and efficient, absolutely, but saying it's a failure because of stat boy metrics in a vacuum without taking into account where this program has been and the constraints it is under is absurd.

And the original point is when looking at the issues with the program, the offensive approach should be the last thing to worry about. The relative talent level across various coaches has been pretty consistent and Babers has managed to consistently generate more yards and points than his predecessors. That's a good thing and the first thing that needed to be done. It doesn't matter to me how they got it done to this point.

I can't believe anyone would argue that Baber's offense is no better than Shafer's because of efficiency reasons. Good lord.
Pace

You don’t account for pace. Throwing up raw numbers is stupid. (And, I’m being kind by not using stronger, more accurate words.) An offense that scores 2 TD’s on 1,000 drives isn’t better than an offense that scores 1 TD on 1 drive, even though it has 2x the points.

The above is an extreme example to illustrate a point. But the game has gotten much quicker in the last 20 years. Many of our opponents move faster, and we absolutely move faster. Failing to take that into account will cause recent results to be overstated.

If you “don’t give a about efficiency,“ then you fundamentally don’t understand math, analysis, or football. That’s like saying you don’t give an about knowing whether what you’re saying is right. Your numbers are at best irrelevant, and at worst misleading and actively deceptive.

And to be clear, style matters because it dictates pace. Pace determines plays. Getting mildly more yards and points on significantly more tries isn’t a good thing. More yards/points isn’t necessarily a good thing. That concept isn’t hard to understand. I cannot fathom how you fail to grasp the 3rd grade math necessary to get it.

Lastly, to anyone who has working eyes and a basic understanding of math, football, or how life works in general, Babers’ offenses, save for one year, aren’t better, and they’re probably worse. Look at the numbers. We aren’t scoring more when we have the ball, and we’re stressing the defense more. How is that a good thing? Seriously, give it actual thought and try to answer that question.
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
13,593
Like
17,164
Comparing eras is faulty as it is apples to oranges. The national average during Babers' time here is a better indicator of where we stand on O, not our past. Our past 50 games the national average in points per game is over 30. That wasn't the case 10 years ago let alone 20. It would be better to use SU's national ranking in points, yards, etc and then compare the eras as that is closer to apples to apples.
Totally agree that in evaluating performance relative to the rest of the sport. My original point was that of all the issues with this program the offensive approach that is generating more absolute yards and point is towards, if not at the bottom, of the list.

I thought Marrone's approach of complementary football was great, and if I had a choice that would be my preference. It was self limiting in terms of excitement but it was a completely valid approach to mitigating talent differences. Raised the floor but probably imposed a ceiling at times.

Baber's approach right now is uncomplimentary because of the readily apparent efficiency problems and defensive weaknesses, if they don't get a lead and get the other team in chase mode it sets up the 4th quarter defensive meltdowns that have been a constant theme. It raises the ceiling if things go well, but it also lowers the floor. I think the offensive design is fine though.
 
Last edited:

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
Pace

You don’t account for pace. Throwing up raw numbers is stupid. (And, I’m being kind by not using stronger, more accurate words.) An offense that scores 2 TD’s on 1,000 drives isn’t better than an offense that scores 1 TD on 1 drive, even though it has 2x the points.

The above is an extreme example to illustrate a point. But the game has gotten much quicker in the last 20 years. Many of our opponents move faster, and we absolutely move faster. Failing to take that into account will cause recent results to be overstated.

If you “don’t give a about efficiency,“ then you fundamentally don’t understand math, analysis, or football. That’s like saying you don’t give an about knowing whether what you’re saying is right. Your numbers are at best irrelevant, and at worst misleading and actively deceptive.

And to be clear, style matters because it dictates pace. Pace determines plays. Getting mildly more yards and points on significantly more tries isn’t a good thing. More yards/points isn’t necessarily a good thing. That concept isn’t hard to understand. I cannot fathom how you fail to grasp the 3rd grade math necessary to get it.

Lastly, to anyone who has working eyes and a basic understanding of math, football, or how life works in general, Babers’ offenses, save for one year, aren’t better, and they’re probably worse. Look at the numbers. We aren’t scoring more when we have the ball, and we’re stressing the defense more. How is that a good thing? Seriously, give it actual thought and try to answer that question.
love when stat guys say probably, make assumptions, and call people out for giving it a thought when they haven’t done their homework
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
13,593
Like
17,164
Comparing eras is faulty as it is apples to oranges. The national average during Babers' time here is a better indicator of where we stand on O, not our past. Our past 50 games the national average in points per game is over 30. That wasn't the case 10 years ago let alone 20. It would be better to use SU's national ranking in points, yards, etc and then compare the eras as that is closer to apples to apples.
Offensive Profile
Ave
2019​
2018​
2017​
2016​
Ave
2015​
2014​
2013​
Ave
2012​
2011​
2010​
2009​
Ave
2008​
2007​
2006​
2005​
RO
73.0​
71​
36​
70​
115​
68.3​
77​
90​
38​
74.5​
40​
95​
76​
87​
93.8​
55​
118​
97​
105​
PO
30.0​
60​
31​
18​
11​
107.0​
116​
103​
102​
65.8​
29​
65​
91​
78​
94.0​
113​
55​
103​
105​
TO
38.8​
71​
19​
23​
42​
105.3​
118​
113​
85​
74.8​
18​
90​
97​
94​
113.3​
114​
114​
110​
115​
SO
61.3​
69​
11​
75​
90​
97.7​
77​
118​
98​
82.8​
55​
84​
93​
99​
110.0​
108​
116​
102​
114​
Peff
73.0​
63​
76​
103​
50​
108.3​
94​
124​
107​
57.0​
37​
57​
78​
56​
96.5​
113​
72​
86​
115​
 

Louie and Bouie

Starter
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,172
Like
1,948
Ok. I have a little down time so I will post the numbers I referred to above. The Total Offense/Total Points argument fails to account for the increased possessions created by playing "fast". Playing fast creates more opportunity for yards and points while simultaneously creating more opportunities for the opponent on offense due to increased possessions. Its a failed statistical metric for meatheads (sorry, couldn't resist).

Below is Offensive Points per Drive (each time we have the ball) and Defensive Points per Drive (each time the opponent has the ball). These are pace adjusted numbers as they take into account the number of possessions in a game (playing "fast" creates more possessions on both sides of the ball). I.E. 7 points on 1 drive is better than 14 points on three drives. It takes all of your and your opponents points and divides out by the number of times each possessed the ball and internally takes care of turnovers which create more possessions. Efficiency matters no matter at what pace you play.

Anyhow, I have 2007 - 2019 statistics which show the points per possession (versus FBS opponents) on both sides of the ball and where that ranked nationally (for non-garbage time possessions). Outside of two years (2012 and 2018) its been pretty abysmal on the offensive side no matter who the coach or the style we played. Its a ongoing and continuing problem that absent 2018 has not been fixed for the last 15 years.

Year / Offensive Points per Drive (Rank) / Defensive Points per Drive (Rank)

  • 2007 1.27 (114) 2.87 (108)
  • 2008 1.35 (106) 2.84 (106)
  • 2009 1.52 (98) 2.21 (73)
  • 2010 1.66 (94) 1.74 (29)
  • 2011 1.90 (69) 2.43 (85)
  • 2012 2.42 (41) 2.02 (52)
  • 2013 1.58 (100) 2.00 (53)
  • 2014 0.98 (125) 1.84 (37)
  • 2015 1.84 (89) 2.64 (104)
  • 2016 1.81 (97) 2.86 (108)
  • 2017 1.81 (96) 2.53 (95)
  • 2018 2.70 (22) 1.83 (35)
  • 2019 1.88 (93) 2.46 (81)


Edit: The chart was formatted much better (prettier) when I posted it. My lack of technological skills continues to haunt me.
 
Last edited:

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
I don't know man. You love to talk down to people when you make arguments. I have that problem too, something I'm trying to correct. It's a bad look.

1. If you're looking at the stats in the OP and you don't have access to pace-adjusted stats, would you not think that DB is a better offensive coach than the others? If you then combine that info with the T25 wins and 10 win season - I think you can draw conclusions that are meaningful. If you want to make a more nuanced argument using efficiency measures and pace adjusted stats, you have room to do so in this thread or the freedom to start your own. Have at it.

2. The point the OP was making was DB is a better offensive coach (or that the offensive approach was better) than his peers here. He wasn't making a larger point about our offenses nationally, year to year. If you want to dig into that go for it. I did so last year and we're middle of the road largely over his time here. That is still better than a lot of our past coaches, most years.

3. Yeah, I think his style invites positive and negative outliers. I'll take it.
I don’t talk down to people. I‘m just honest. If you feel that I’m talking down to you, make better posts

1. I would say we don’t have enough information to make a definitive statement either way. If I look at the later-provided pace adjusted stats, I would say that the offense isn’t better, save for one year, and I would feel like my first statement was validated. How about you? What do the more relevant pace adjusted states tell you?

2. He fails to show that DB is better than SU coaches (see point #1), and he fails to show why that’s an appropriate benchmark. Why is that the standard? If we’ve been bad at offense for 20 years, then wouldn’t you assume that any coach/new coach would be better? My working assumption (until proven otherwise) is that any coach is average, and average > bad.

3. Aligned on #3.
love when stat guys say probably, make assumptions, and call people out for giving it a thought when they haven’t done their homework
It’s better than than posting close to illiterate, incoherent BS.

As an aside, at the risk of giving away the surprise ending to the star book that I guess you didn’t read, probabilities are kind of a big thing in statistics, and it’s kind of hard to discuss probabilities without saying “probably.”
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
Ok. I have a little down time so I will post the numbers I referred to above. The Total Offense/Total Points argument fails to account for the increased possessions created by playing "fast". Playing fast creates more opportunity for yards and points while simultaneously creating more opportunities for the opponent on offense due to increased possessions. Its a failed statistical metric for meatheads (sorry, couldn't resist).

Below is Offensive Points per Drive (each time we have the ball) and Defensive Points per Drive (each time the opponent has the ball). These are pace adjusted numbers as they take into account the number of possessions in a game (playing "fast" creates more possessions on both sides of the ball). I.E. 7 points on 1 drive is better than 14 points on three drives. It takes all of your and your opponents points and divides out by the number of times each possessed the ball and internally takes care of turnovers which create more possessions. Efficiency matters no matter at what pace you play.

Anyhow, I have 2007 - 2019 statistics which show the points per possession (versus FBS opponents) on both sides of the ball and where that ranked nationally (for non-garbage time possessions). Outside of two years (2012 and 2018) its been pretty abysmal on the offensive side no matter who the coach or the style we played. Its a ongoing and continuing problem that absent 2018 has not been fixed for the last 15 years.

Year / Offensive Points per Drive (Rank) / Defensive Points per Drive (Rank)

  • 2007 1.27 (114) 2.87 (108)
  • 2008 1.35 (106) 2.84 (106)
  • 2009 1.52 (98) 2.21 (73)
  • 2010 1.66 (94) 1.74 (29)
  • 2011 1.90 (69) 2.43 (85)
  • 2012 2.42 (41) 2.02 (52)
  • 2013 1.58 (100) 2.00 (53)
  • 2014 0.98 (125) 1.84 (37)
  • 2015 1.84 (89) 2.64 (104)
  • 2016 1.81 (97) 2.86 (108)
  • 2017 1.81 (96) 2.53 (95)
  • 2018 2.70 (22) 1.83 (35)
  • 2019 1.88 (93) 2.46 (81)


Edit: The chart was formatted much better (prettier) when I posted it. My lack of technological skills continues to haunt me.
Good work. I think to really nail it (and it's a really tough thing to get at without help from someone who does this and posts it to the world) you need opponent adjusted numbers too. Not every schedule is 2011. And 2018 is a better achievement that 2012 due to schedule str if I remember correctly.
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
Ok. I have a little down time so I will post the numbers I referred to above. The Total Offense/Total Points argument fails to account for the increased possessions created by playing "fast". Playing fast creates more opportunity for yards and points while simultaneously creating more opportunities for the opponent on offense due to increased possessions. Its a failed statistical metric for meatheads (sorry, couldn't resist).

Below is Offensive Points per Drive (each time we have the ball) and Defensive Points per Drive (each time the opponent has the ball). These are pace adjusted numbers as they take into account the number of possessions in a game (playing "fast" creates more possessions on both sides of the ball). I.E. 7 points on 1 drive is better than 14 points on three drives. It takes all of your and your opponents points and divides out by the number of times each possessed the ball and internally takes care of turnovers which create more possessions. Efficiency matters no matter at what pace you play.

Anyhow, I have 2007 - 2019 statistics which show the points per possession (versus FBS opponents) on both sides of the ball and where that ranked nationally (for non-garbage time possessions). Outside of two years (2012 and 2018) its been pretty abysmal on the offensive side no matter who the coach or the style we played. Its a ongoing and continuing problem that absent 2018 has not been fixed for the last 15 years.

Year / Offensive Points per Drive (Rank) / Defensive Points per Drive (Rank)

  • 2007 1.27 (114) 2.87 (108)
  • 2008 1.35 (106) 2.84 (106)
  • 2009 1.52 (98) 2.21 (73)
  • 2010 1.66 (94) 1.74 (29)
  • 2011 1.90 (69) 2.43 (85)
  • 2012 2.42 (41) 2.02 (52)
  • 2013 1.58 (100) 2.00 (53)
  • 2014 0.98 (125) 1.84 (37)
  • 2015 1.84 (89) 2.64 (104)
  • 2016 1.81 (97) 2.86 (108)
  • 2017 1.81 (96) 2.53 (95)
  • 2018 2.70 (22) 1.83 (35)
  • 2019 1.88 (93) 2.46 (81)


Edit: The chart was formatted much better (prettier) when I posted it. My lack of technological skills continues to haunt me.
This is great and tells the story.

You can see the SS defenses (as DC and then HC), and you can see where his wheels came off. You can also see the years where we’ve had legitimately formidable offenses.

Now we can ask “why questions” and discuss if it was a schedule issue, a talent issue, or a play calling/scheme issue.
 

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
I don’t talk down to people. I‘m just honest. If you feel that I’m talking down to you, make better posts

1. I would say we don’t have enough information to make a definitive statement either way. If I look at the later-provided pace adjusted stats, I would say that the offense isn’t better, save for one year, and I would feel like my first statement was validated. How about you? What do the more relevant pace adjusted states tell you?

2. He fails to show that DB is better than SU coaches (see point #1), and he fails to show why that’s an appropriate benchmark. Why is that the standard? If we’ve been bad at offense for 20 years, then wouldn’t you assume that any coach/new coach would be better? My working assumption (until proven otherwise) is that any coach is average, and average > bad.

3. Aligned on #3.

It’s better than than posting close to illiterate, incoherent BS.

As an aside, at the risk of giving away the surprise ending to the star book that I guess you didn’t read, probabilities are kind of a big thing in statistics, and it’s kind of hard to discuss probabilities without saying “probably.”
Naw. There's a way to be both honest and non-douchey.

1. Anyways, as Louie and Bouie's numbers suggest, we've been largely mediocre to bad on offense most of the time. Though to be really concrete, you'd need to adjust for SoS (opponent adjusted). Which really wasn't the point the OP was making. The two times we were good we had SR QB's and the best offensive minded coaches in the last 20 years which does kind of speak to the OP's point.

2. I think it all actually illustrates something else: it's really hard to be successful here in CFB. I think it has to do with recruiting and the dearth of local talent, overscheduling, and probably some bad defensive-minded hires in SS and Robinson.

No, not really.
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
Naw. There's a way to be both honest and non-douchey.

1. Anyways, as Louie and Bouie's numbers suggest, we've been largely mediocre to bad on offense most of the time. Though to be really concrete, you'd need to adjust for SoS (opponent adjusted). Which really wasn't the point the OP was making. The two times we were good we had SR QB's and the best offensive minded coaches in the last 20 years which does kind of speak to the OP's point.

2. I think it all actually illustrates something else: it's really hard to be successful here in CFB. I think it has to do with recruiting and the dearth of local talent, overscheduling, and probably some bad defensive-minded hires in SS and Robinson.

No, not really.
Don’t pin your dumb posts on me. Talk to your mother if you want someone to tell you you’re a snowflake. I promise I’m not her, nor do I want to be.

1. You’d have a point if there were massive fluctuations in SOS every 4 years, but we’ve been somewhat stable in the scheduling. We’ve been in 2 conferences since 1991(?). I’ll call it 3, given the ‘03 raid materially changed the BIG EAST, but from 2003-2020, there’s been one shift in 7-8 of the games. Ups and downs, sure, but it’s rare for a single team to under-perform/over-perform enough to move a needle of an entire season. (The same concept is why portfolios are more steady than individual stocks in investing.) OOC philosophies have changed over time, too. We’ve softened with time (albeit way too late). But again, I think it would be hard to argue that our OOC is harder now than then, and I think it would be hard to argue that the YoY variance is enough to move a needle for an entire season - let alone a 4 year span. I guess to sum up, you’re not wrong that controlling for SoS would be great. It’s just very hard to do, and the benefit would likely be marginal. Controlling for pace is easy and has a dramatic upside. (Notice how different the 2 sets of numbers look.)

As for your point about offensive/defensive coaches, keep in mind that we’ve had 4 coaches. The sample size is tiny, and those offensive coaches have had a combined 2 good seasons in the last 13 years. (I’ll comment more on this point below.)

The OP’s first sentence was “of all the things to worry about, our offensive approach is the last.” That statement isn’t backed up by relevant numbers. Our offense has been bad for 11/13 years, and 3/4 of Baber’s years (+ last week). Sorry. It’s a large gap, and we need to improve.

To show that I’m not cherry picking, he also rhetorically asked “how is the offensive approach the problem” because he looked at meaningless numbers and drew a premature conclusion. To answer his question, our offense is a problem because they can’t consistently end drives with points. We’re ranked 97, 96, and 93 in the country in that measure over 3 of the last 4 years. And to make matters worse, that subpar performance places as added stress on the defense, meaning the offense is failing on both sides of the ball.

He also said that “this offense has been the best of any in the last 20 years“ and that “the consistent issue has been the defense.” I’ll give you I was over-optimistic about our defense (although, I think that they’re better than the numbers suggest because the O gives them little to work with), but implying that the last 4 years of offense have been tangibly better than all of the other year periods doesn’t seem to be correct. Furthermore, pinning the team’s misfortunes on the defense is flat wrong. They may be a contributor, sure, but the offense is just as guilty (if not more guilty).

2. I’ll give you talent/recruiting and probably a harder BIG EAST OOC than necessary. I’ll also give you GRob being terrible. The jury is out on SS. There’s too much noise to definitively say. And seeing the world through an offense/defense lens is challenging. I think you can make a clear judgement on 2 coaches (GRob was obviously terrible, and DM was obviously good), but that sample size is tiny. Even throwing in SS and DB only brings the sample size to 4, and both adds are dubious. SS has obvious huge disadvantages and DB has been good 25% of the time.

————

Well, at least I can go to bed tonight without feeling bad about spoiling the story of statistics for you. Open your book, and you’ll be in for a wild ride.
 
Last edited:

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
Don’t pin your dumb posts on me. Talk to your mother if you want someone to tell you you’re a snowflake. I promise I’m not her, nor do I want to be.

1. You’d have a point if there were massive fluctuations in SOS every 4 years, but we’ve been somewhat stable in the scheduling. We’ve been in 2 conferences since 1991(?). I’ll call it 3, given the ‘03 raid materially changed the BIG EAST, but from 2003-2020, there’s been one shift in 7-8 of the games. Ups and downs, sure, but it’s rare for a single team to under-perform/over-perform enough to move a needle of an entire season. (The same concept is why portfolios are more steady than individual stocks in investing.) OOC philosophies have changed over time, too. We’ve softened with time (albeit way too late). But again, I think it would be hard to argue that our OOC is harder now than then, and I think it would be hard to argue that the YoY variance is enough to move a needle for an entire season - let alone a 4 year span. I guess to sum up, you’re not wrong that controlling for SoS would be great. It’s just very hard to do, and the benefit would likely be marginal. Controlling for pace is easy and has a dramatic upside. (Notice how different the 2 sets of numbers look.)

As for your point about offensive/defensive coaches, keep in mind that we’ve had 4 coaches. The sample size is tiny, and those offensive coaches have had a combined 2 good seasons in the last 13 years.

The OP’s first sentence was “of all the things to worry about, our offensive approach is the last.” That statement isn’t backed up by relevant numbers. Our offense has been bad for 11/13 years, and 3/4 of Baber’s years (+ last week). Sorry. It’s a large gap, and we need to improve.

To show that I’m not cherry picking, he also rhetorically asked “how is the offensive approach the problem” because he looked at meaningless numbers and drew a premature conclusion. To answer his question, our offense is a problem because they can’t consistently end drives with points. We’re ranked 97, 96, and 93 in the country in that measure. And to make matters worse, that subpar performance places as added stress on the defense, meaning the offense is failing on both sides of the ball.

He also said that “this offense has been the best of any in the last 20 years“ and that “the consistent issue has been the defense.” I’ll give you I was over-optimistic about our defense (although, I think that they’re better than the numbers suggest because the O gives them little to work with), but implying that the last 4 years of offense have been tangibly better than all of the other year periods doesn’t seem to be correct. Furthermore, pinning the team’s misfortunes on the defense is flat wrong. They may be a contributor, sure, but the offense is just as guilty (if not more guilty).

2. I’ll give you talent/recruiting and probably a harder BIG EAST OOC than necessary. I’ll also give you GRob being terrible. The jury is out on SS. There’s too much noise to definitively say. And seeing the world through an offense/defense lens is challenging. I think you can make a clear judgement on 2 coaches (GRob was obviously terrible, and DM was obviously good), but that sample size is tiny. Even throwing in SS and DB only brings the sample size to 4, and both adds are dubious. SS has obvious huge disadvantages and DB has been good 25% of the time.

Well, at least I can go to bed tonight without feeling bad about spoiling the story of statistics for you. Open your book, and you’ll be in for a wild ride.
To your credit, you’re consistent in your douchey-ness.

There are wide fluctuations in SoS, especially in the late days of the BE compared to the early. Even teams in the ACC vary more than you think. The difference between UCONN and Notre Dame (OCC) can be massive. There are a few really good stat guys that try to control for both pace and opponent. Strange that you’re an expert and unaware.

DM was not obviously good. Controlling for opponent will show that he had one good year too.
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
3,038
Like
3,612
To your credit, you’re consistent in your douchey-ness.

There are wide fluctuations in SoS, especially in the late days of the BE compared to the early. Even teams in the ACC vary more than you think. The difference between UCONN and Notre Dame (OCC) can be massive. There are a few really good stat guys that try to control for both pace and opponent. Strange that you’re an expert and unaware.

DM was not obviously good. Controlling for opponent will show that he had one good year too.
I’m sorry I hurt your sensitive feelings for pointing out your excessively stupid comments. I’ll buy you a sticker if I ever see you, because everyone is a winner, including you, no matter how obviously wrong you are. You are a special snowflake, and it’s on society to do your mother’s job. Feel better?

Now that the feeling part of the post is out of the way, let’s start the football part. The problem with your first point is that getting shutout for a game (playing ND) vs playing and average team doesn’t wildly sway per drive stats because it’s balanced out by the other 11+ games in the season. And, stick with me here, 4 year spans have 48 games in them because 4*12=48. Again, that balancing mechanism is why portfolios are more stable. Positive outliers tend to be balanced out by negative outliers in large groups.

Also, this is where reading is important. Those really good stat guys *try* to control for opponents. The problem is they aren’t very good at it because it’s really hard. That’s why so many upsets happen, it’s why Vegas has such a robust gambling scene, and it’s why there have historically been (and still are) a multitude of ranking systems.

So, to touch on what I said earlier, it would be great to control for opponents. That part of what you said is absolutely true. The part that you’re struggling with is that it’s really hard to do that, and the improvement is marginal. Life isn’t a video game where Team A has an offensive rating of 87, whereas Team B has one of 93. The real world is much murkier. Fortunately though, as long as schedules are reasonably stable, the numbers are pretty comparable.

Controlling for drives is really easy. All you do is divide the points by the number of drives. Both numbers are exact, objective, and available. (Number of drives might take a little digging, but I’m sure it exists somewhere.)

And if you don’t think DM was good, then I think you’re an outlier. I don’t know what to tell you on that front. But I find it odd that you now seem to be arguing with yourself. Your prior post said “the only times we were good ... we had the best offensively minded coach in the last 20 years” and that the poor offensive numbers “had to do with ... some bad defensive-minded hires in SS and Robinson.” In fairness to you, those statements don’t explicitly state DM was good, but I have a hard time not interpreting you as implying it.

Maybe I’m reading too far between the lines, which would be on me. If you don’t think he was good, then maybe we have different definitions of good. If you think the sample size is too small to make broad-brushed judgements as to what kind of coach will win are Syracuse, then I agree.
 
Last edited:

TheCusian

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
18,688
Like
24,422
I’m sorry I hurt your sensitive feelings for pointing out your excessively stupid comments. I’ll buy you a sticker if I ever see you, because everyone is a winner, including you, no matter how obviously wrong you are. You are a special snowflake, and it’s on society to do your mother’s job. Feel better?

Now that the feeling part of the post is out of the way, let’s start the football part. The problem with your first point is that getting shutout for a game (playing ND) vs playing and average team doesn’t wildly sway per drive stats because it’s balanced out by the other 11+ games in the season. And, stick with me here, 4 year spans have 48 games in them because 4*12=48. Again, that balancing mechanism is why portfolios are more stable. Positive outliers tend to be balanced out by negative outliers in large groups.

Also, this is where reading is important. Those really good stat guys *try* to control for opponents. The problem is they aren’t very good at it because it’s really hard. That’s why so many upsets happen, it’s why Vegas has such a robust gambling scene, and it’s why there have historically been (and still are) a multitude of ranking systems.

So, to touch on what I said earlier, it would be great to control for opponents. That part of what you said is absolutely true. The part that you’re struggling with is that it’s really hard to do that, and the improvement is marginal. Life isn’t a video game where Team A has an offensive rating of 87, whereas Team B has one of 93. The real world is much murkier. Fortunately though, as long as schedules are reasonably stable, the numbers are pretty comparable.

Controlling for drives is really easy. All you do is divide the points by the number of drives. Both numbers are exact, objective, and available. (Number of drives might take a little digging, but I’m sure it exists somewhere.)

And if you don’t think DM was good, then I think you’re an outlier. I don’t know what to tell you on that front. But I find it odd that you now seem to be arguing with yourself. Your prior post said “the only times we were good ... we had the best offensively minded coach in the last 20 years” and that the poor offensive numbers “had to do with ... some bad defensive-minded hires in SS and Robinson.” In fairness to you, those statements don’t explicitly state DM was good, but I have a hard time not interpreting you as implying it.

Maybe I’m reading too far between the lines, which would be on me. If you don’t think he was good, then maybe we have different definitions of good. If you think the sample size is too small to make broad-brushed judgements as to what kind of coach will win are Syracuse, then I agree.
Ain't no ones feelings hurt lol. You new here? I was just checking to see how far you'd go and you proved my inclination right.

I didn't say DM wasn't good. I said he wasn't "obviously" good. He coached in a weaker conference, 2010 it was the easiest schedule in 20 years and had an average offense, 2012 he had a very good offense but somehow underperformed record-wise historically. Dino has had a harder schedule year over year than any other Syracuse HC. The 10 win year was the easiest.

I think if you don't control for opponent, you're at a huge disadvantage in quantifying what we've been trying to quantify. It's not as stable as you suggest.
 

Online statistics

Members online
38
Guests online
516
Total visitors
554

Top Bottom