Statistics tell the story II

[daj2576]

So, I had a little spare time today and decided to try to exit from the mass hysteria that is Volnation. I wanted to take an objective look at the team over the last few years to determine if there are any positive trends in key indices over the years. What I did was look at the common SEC opponents since 2009 and looked at UT's offensive production in the rushing/passing game as well as total yards allowed per game.

In these key areas, we are the best and worst team that we have had since 2009. I know this is overstating the obvious, but sometimes it helps to look at these things without the passion and emotion involved with a bad season. Take a look at this, what are your thoughts on where we stand vs. where we have been.

It is an interesting thought to have to say that IF we win out and win a bowl game (IF, IF, IF, that is 3 BIG IFs), we will have the best season that UT has had since 2007 and the third best season since 2005. That should be a bigger deal than we are giving it credit for.

Before you post, this is NOT a hire Gruden/Fire Dooley type of thread. My intent is just to take a breath and look at things from above to see if everyone still feels the same way.

I can't get the PDF to attach in a visible way, so download it and take a look.

 

[GahLee]

Regardless of yards gained or allowed or the final score. 2-6 in the SEC his first year, 1-7 in his second year and now 0-5 in year three. That's not progress no matter how you slice it.

 

[jp1]

Regardless of yards gained or allowed or the final score. 2-6 in the SEC his first year, 1-7 in his second year and now 0-5 in year three. That's not progress no matter how you slice it.

Like the OP said that the next 3 are "ifs" but you can't have records for 3 years when 3 years havent been completed. I get it that 0-5 supports your agenda, but that may or may not be the way it turns out.

 

[PACKERVOL]

Regardless of yards gained or allowed or the final score. 2-6 in the SEC his first year, 1-7 in his second year and now 0-5 in year three. That's not progress no matter how you slice it.

What's sad is his 2010 SEC record is actually 3 - 5. Beat Ole Miss, Vandy, and Ky to end the year. So we're in even more of a downward spirial.

 

[daj2576]

Regardless of yards gained or allowed or the final score. 0-5 in the SEC his first year, his second year and now year three. That's not progress no matter how you slice it.

That is a hard number to defend, but like many simple stats it fails to be indicative of anything but fan wrath.

So, let's take a look at the first five SEC games for each team in the SEC over the past three years.:

in 2012 UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 SEC games were against 5 ranked opponents. in 2011 UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 conference games were against 4 or more ranked opponents (the un-ranked opponent ended up winning the SEC east). In 2010, UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 conference games were against 4 or more ranked opponents.

In fact, of the first 15 SEC games over the past 3 seasons, UT played a total of 13 ranked teams. Kentucky was the only other team to be in double digits, with 10 over that same time; LSU and Vandy both played 9; Ole Miss played 8; MSU/UF/Auburn played 7; Bama played 6; Arky and SCAR played 5; and UGA played 4. So just to run some further numbers, that means that Kentucky played 77% as many ranked SEC conference opponents as we did, and UGA played 30%. Seems like a stark contrast to me.

When viewed that way, at least to me, that stat has a totally different flavor, and in fact is inconsequential as the numbers seem to be more of a testimony to how difficult our schedule has been for the first five games of the season over the past three years.

But whatever, draw your own conclusions, I am not trying to push you to hold one viewpoint over another.

 

[LA Vol]

Even with our offensive production, I can't make a single argument to keep Dooley (or Sunseri, for that matter). Something isn't working. Whether it's a lack of skills, a lack of experience, a lack of leadership or a lack of chemistry-- or all four-- our HC has a losing record and a consistently poor showing in the SEC. His ability to recruit has been bolstered by hope of turning a once-fine program around, but many are no longer buying the hope or the glib talk and I think it will show in recruiting this year.

Dooley is a fine lawyer, and he negotiated a kick ass legal contract, so if we retain him, that will be why. I, personally, think that would be incredibly short-sighted and would intensify the longer-term damage to the Program, but that may well be the way UT officials decide to go. If so, I think they're underestimating the fan and donor backlash, and the domino effect it will cause. JMO.

 

[OrangeByBirth]

Fulmer was recognized for always (well, almost always) winning all November games. The schedule was much less daunting in October. FL usually came in mid-September and there was a game or so before 'Bama on the 3rd Sat in October. The month ended with a win over South Carolina and November set up for a run at a bowl game. It is a much different league today. 'Bama, FL, and SC are all on a peak. UGa is playing almost to their hype level. UT faces all 4 every year. It isn't an excuse. It is a fact. The team must be better in all phases to have a chance to win those games. Improving isn't going to be enough to run that table. It is going to take a herculean effort, some luck, and a down cycle among those teams somewhere to win a NC again.

 

[daj2576]

Even with our offensive production, I can't make a single argument to keep Dooley (or Sunseri, for that matter). Something isn't working. Whether it's a lack of skills, a lack of experience, a lack of leadership or a lack of chemistry-- or all four-- our HC has a losing record and a consistently poor showing in the SEC. His ability to recruit has been bolstered by hope of turning a once-fine program around, but many are no longer buying the hope or the glib talk and I think it will show in recruiting this year.

Dooley is a fine lawyer, and he negotiated a kick ass legal contract, so if we retain him, that will be why. I, personally, think that would be incredibly short-sighted and would intensify the longer-term damage to the Program, but that may well be the way UT officials decide to go. If so, I think they're underestimating the fan and donor backlash, and the domino effect it will cause. JMO.

I guess it is impossible to disentangle the idea of looking at these numbers without wanting to debate who to fire?

 

[OrangeByBirth]

I guess it is impossible to disentangle the idea of looking at these numbers without wanting to debate who to fire?

It is impossible to use logic and rational thought with those consumed by emotion.

 

[LA Vol]

It is impossible to use logic and rational thought with those consumed by emotion.

And there was emotion in my post... where?

 

[LA Vol]

I guess it is impossible to disentangle the idea of looking at these numbers without wanting to debate who to fire?

If I had wanted to start a debate, I would have started one. My apologies for posting.

 

[daj2576]

If I had wanted to start a debate, I would have started one. My apologies for posting.

Nah man, it's totally fine. I just didn't want this thread to go exactly like every other thread on here where there is really only one subject discussed: Fire Dooley/ Hire Gruden.

There are plenty of other places to discuss that sort of thing, and maybe these two topics really are very intertwined. I just wanted some reasonable/rational discussion. Feel free to participate.

 

[tm3]

daj i appreciate your analysis and threads.

while we have played strong teams, that does not tell the whole story.

we just gave up over 700 yards and 48 points to a sun belt conference team. a team that other sun belt conference teams had held to 14 points. the defense is regressing. sunsucki is an absolute disaster, which kills us in games and will kill our recruiting.

kensucky loss last year was inexcusable, regardless of other factors.

so while i agree with you that if we go 8-5 it is good in a relative sense, it still positively sucks in an absolute sense.

 

[DERELICK_MY_VOLS]

Regardless of yards gained or allowed or the final score. 2-6 in the SEC his first year, 1-7 in his second year and now 0-5 in year three. That's not progress no matter how you slice it.

 

[daj2576]

daj i appreciate your analysis and threads.

while we have played strong teams, that does not tell the whole story.

we just gave up over 700 yards and 48 points to a sun belt conference team. a team that other sun belt conference teams had held to 14 points. the defense is regressing. sunsucki is an absolute disaster, which kills us in games and will kill our recruiting.

kensucky loss last year was inexcusable, regardless of other factors.

so while i agree with you that if we go 8-5 it is good in a relative sense, it still positively sucks in an absolute sense.

I get you.

I was trying to avoid the comparison of OOC teams as they are always tough to quantify. The performance of the defense Saturday was awful, but when you compare that to our performance against far superior teams (BAMA/SCAR/UGA/UF) our defense actually performed BETTER against the more difficult opponents.

That means that trying to make a judgment from the standpoint of the dismal Troy performance is an outlier and doesn't really hold any bearing on a conversation about consistent teams/styles that we play.

I don't like anything I see with this defense. Don't think I am trying to defend it. What I do see that is hopeful is that we are basically averaging 2x as many rushing yards as last year, and our pass game is actually pretty strong even against our best competition. If our defense could just hold opponents to 20% less yardage, we could literally have 2-3 more wins.

 

[daj2576]

So if we win the last three and the bowl game is that progress? Or is there some other way to slice that?

I see offensive progress, that is quantifiable in these numbers: Last year we lost to our ranked SEC opponents by an average of 27 points a game. This year, the average loss against ranked opponents is 13 and that is with the defense giving away about 2x as many yards as they did last year.

Yes, it still sucks to lose but it says that even with a miserable defense we are progressing overall. Is it enough to suggest that we are going in the right direction or that we have progressed enough to suggest we are closer to the end result than to the beginning? I do not personally feel so, but that is what this whole exercise is about.

 

[Spawn]

Idiotic to say it's ok that we lose because we play ranked opponents. We are in the sec and our opponents are always ranked.

Get a coach who can compete with the sec.

 

[Spawn]

That is a hard number to defend, but like many simple stats it fails to be indicative of anything but fan wrath.

So, let's take a look at the first five SEC games for each team in the SEC over the past three years.:

in 2012 UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 SEC games were against 5 ranked opponents. in 2011 UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 conference games were against 4 or more ranked opponents (the un-ranked opponent ended up winning the SEC east). In 2010, UT was the only SEC school whose first 5 conference games were against 4 or more ranked opponents.

In fact, of the first 15 SEC games over the past 3 seasons, UT played a total of 13 ranked teams. Kentucky was the only other team to be in double digits, with 10 over that same time; LSU and Vandy both played 9; Ole Miss played 8; MSU/UF/Auburn played 7; Bama played 6; Arky and SCAR played 5; and UGA played 4. So just to run some further numbers, that means that Kentucky played 77% as many ranked SEC conference opponents as we did, and UGA played 30%. Seems like a stark contrast to me.

When viewed that way, at least to me, that stat has a totally different flavor, and in fact is inconsequential as the numbers seem to be more of a testimony to how difficult our schedule has been for the first five games of the season over the past three years.

But whatever, draw your own conclusions, I am not trying to push you to hold one viewpoint over another.

Duh. We are in the sec. they well always be ranked.

 

[rjd970]

Our best defensive year and most balanced offensive attack was Kiffin. With less talent than we have today.

That is what I get out of that analysis.

 

[daj2576]

Idiotic to say it's ok that we lose because we play ranked opponents. We are in the sec and our opponents are always ranked.

Get a coach who can compete with the sec.

First off, I didn't say it is or was okay. But if name calling is your cup of tea when you don't agree with someone, so be it.

Second off, when someone says we are only the second team in history to start three years 0-5 in conference play (Vandy being the other), it might also bear at least a footnote that says that we are the only team in that same period (if not in history) to play 13 ranked SEC teams in that same 15 game span.

Context isn't an excuse, it is everything. Without understanding context it would be like calling your doctor to tell him you are bleeding, but you fail to mention that it was from a gunshot wound and not a paper cut. There is a big difference in treatment for the two wounds, but the description of "I am bleeding" would be the same symptom. See what I mean?

 

[BigOrangeTailgate]

So if we win the last three and the bowl game is that progress? Or is there some other way to slice that?

I see offensive progress, that is quantifiable in these numbers: Last year we lost to our ranked SEC opponents by an average of 27 points a game. This year, the average loss against ranked opponents is 13 and that is with the defense giving away about 2x as many yards as they did last year.

Yes, it still sucks to lose but it says that even with a miserable defense we are progressing overall. Is it enough to suggest that we are going in the right direction or that we have progressed enough to suggest we are closer to the end result than to the beginning? I do not personally feel so, but that is what this whole exercise is about.

No. I think of those games as nothing to gain and everything to lose type games. Winning them means little because those are the teams Tennessee is supposed to beat year in and year out with no trouble. OTOH, lose to one of them and it's lights out. Beating the perennial bottom feeders and then some how trying to argue progress sounds a lot like Vandy to me.

ETA: We have enough evidence by which to judge our current staff. Letting it play out until the end of the year serves no purpose since it can't help CDD's cause it can only hurt it based on my opinion above.

 

[winsec]

reading posts throwing stats around like they actually mean something are getting tiresome. there is only one stat and that is did you deliver the baby or not. did you win or did you lose. just like reading brays gaudy stats...would you take him in an sec game on the road/home or would you take peyton, andy kelly, shuler or casey clausen. no question. those 4 actually beat good/great sec teams on the road. bray has not. all brays fault. no..but his coach told him 2 games ago shape up or sit. so all his gaudy stats mean nothing till he beats the same teams we play every year. bama, florida, georgia, usc. same with dooleys offense or defense. don't care about stats except the one blinking on the scoreboard at the end of the game. this last game was lousy...we sucked in many areas. but come monday morning it sure felt good to come to work with us winning a freaking game. now just keep working hard and long on putting some cool stats together that actually mean zip. flame on.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

First off, I didn't say it is or was okay. But if name calling is your cup of tea when you don't agree with someone, so be it.

Second off, when someone says we are only the second team in history to start three years 0-5 in conference play (Vandy being the other), it might also bear at least a footnote that says that we are the only team in that same period (if not in history) to play 13 ranked SEC teams in that same 15 game span.

Context isn't an excuse, it is everything. Without understanding context it would be like calling your doctor to tell him you are bleeding, but you fail to mention that it was from a gunshot wound and not a paper cut. There is a big difference in treatment for the two wounds, but the description of "I am bleeding" would be the same symptom. See what I mean?

Critically important points. Our schedule has been front-loaded with top opponents almost from time immemmorial. Our traditional late-season rivals just happen to be historically bad programs. With the exception of an occasional Notre Dame or Miami, we rarely play a strong opponent in November, so the agenda-driven critics and media simply sieze upon the 0-5 mantra.

 

[Spawn]

First off, I didn't say it is or was okay. But if name calling is your cup of tea when you don't agree with someone, so be it.

Second off, when someone says we are only the second team in history to start three years 0-5 in conference play (Vandy being the other), it might also bear at least a footnote that says that we are the only team in that same period (if not in history) to play 13 ranked SEC teams in that same 15 game span.

Context isn't an excuse, it is everything. Without understanding context it would be like calling your doctor to tell him you are bleeding, but you fail to mention that it was from a gunshot wound and not a paper cut. There is a big difference in treatment for the two wounds, but the description of "I am bleeding" would be the same symptom. See what I mean?

Hmmm. Saying idiotic about playimg ranked teams is calling you a name?

You are very sensitive. Sorry your feelings got hurt

 

[tm3]

I
What I do see that is hopeful is that we are basically averaging 2x as many rushing yards as last year, and our pass game is actually pretty strong even against our best competition. If our defense could just hold opponents to 20% less yardage, we could literally have 2-3 more wins.

O is much better, no doubt.

what hurts is, the O is good enough for us to be competitive.

we are averaging over 35 ppg. in our 90's heydays under cut we averaged about 31 ppg, iirc. we scored 35 on a very good SCAR D.

if not for the imbecilic hire of sunsucki, and the imbecilic decision to try to implement the 3-4 without the "right" players, we would be 7-2 or 8-1.