Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jellyman, post: 383136, member: 2631"] Though I am a Rutgers fan, I though this was a very interesting analysis, with a lot to chew on fro any football fan. HOWEVER, the analysis DOES have a couple of analytical flaws, all of which could fixed, with a little more thought. For example ... there is no weighting of "plays. A missed extra point is given the same weight as a missed FG. So in the Syracuse kicking game, just looking at extra points and FG's, Syracuse gets a score of 2 winning plays, while RU gets 2 winning plays, due to 2 good extra points for Syracuse (their winning plays) versus a missed FG by Syracuse, PLUS a blocked FG for TD (RU's 2 winning plays). And a NON-touchdown play is given the same weight as a touchdown play. BUT ... this analysis makes several VERY interesting points, without giving enough credence to those points. Such as ... you gives RU credit for an additional 160 yards in "field position" for its 4 turnovers. And specifically says that is NOT including the blocked FG returned 75 yards for a TD. Let us say you is accurate with that 160 yard figure. NOW you are talking about adding 235 yards (160 plus 75 for the blocked kick return), in essense, to RU's NET yards, while Syracuse had ZERO yards from creating turnovers. When you do THAT, then RU has the equivalent of 470 yards, to Syracuse's 425 yards ... looks a little different, eh? And that is how Bill Parcells always looked at things: Not ONLY at offensive yards, but adding in certain types of return yards, and field position. PLUS ... perhaps the single most important statistic in both correlation, and causation, for football wins or losses IS turnover margin. Turnovers HAVE to be weighted MUCH more than other plays. If I HAD to make just 1 simple adjustment, the first adjustment is: I would give a MADE FG THREE (3) times the weight of a normal play, and a TD play SIX (6) times the weight of a normal play, while a missed FG would also get THREE (3) times the weight of a normal lost play. I say this without making the adjustments in advance. So ... let us do that ... We start with Syracuse having won 93 plays to RU having won 73 plays. Now ...ADD FOUR "plays" to RU's total, for the 2 missed/blocked FG by Syracuse (those plays should be 6 poimts combined for RU, but RU was only fiven 2 points, so to speakl). Now it is 93 to 77. Now ADD TWO "plays" to RU's total for making ONE FG ... Score is now 93-78. Now ADD TEN "plays" to Syracuse's total, for its TWO TD's (they got credit for 2 "plays, but should get credit for 12 "plays"). Score is now 103 to 78. Now ADD FIFTEEN "plays" to RU's total, for their 3 TD's. Score is now 103-93. So, that weighting halves the spread. BUT ... turnovers are NOT weighted at all either - in fact each turnover is treated as just another play ... 1 turnover equals 1 play "won" in this analysis. That is certainly not right. I am not sure of the weighting, but surely 4 turnovers for Syrause versus ZERO for RU, easily closes the gap of 103 to 93 "winning" plays - and then some. Also, I would weight BIG plays (plays over 30 yards) as more significant than less big plays ... with turnovers like big plays. Syracuse had 2 big plays (by yards) and zero big plays by creating turnovers. RU had 2 big plays by yards (pass to Coleman plus the blocked FG return), plus 4 big plays by creating turnovers. And I close by returning to your analysis of the "yards" equivalent he says RU gained via the turnover, plus the blocked kick rerturn ... RU had 470+ equivalent yards to Syracuse's 425 equivalent yards. Which at least IN PART explains RU's victory, no? [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?