Statistics tell the story II

[daj2576]

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

So what you are trying to insinuate, against actual factual analysis, is that every team in the SEC has a schedule that is the same difficulty?

Because that is absolutely untrue.

Over the past three years, UT has had to play 14 ranked teams, same as Arky, Auburn and LSU.

Bama and Ole Miss play 13

MSU/KY/UF = 12

SCAR/Vandy = 9

UGA = 8

So what it comes down to is that not only is UT down talent wise, depth wise, and some would say coaching wise, we also have the most difficult schedule in the SEC over the past 3 years (tied with LSU, Arky and Auburn).

 

[daj2576]

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

You are very sensitive. Sorry your feelings got hurt

Apology accepted. Come kiss the tears away from my cheeks.

 

[daj2576]

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.

Under your analysis, I wouldn't want Peyton if we were playing UF or Nebraska or Memphis.

 

[daj2576]

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.

This logic is baffling to me. It is like saying that all that matters is a win against UF/UGA/SCAR or Bama and that you don't get a loss against KY/Vandy, etc.

In other words, you are judging a 12 game season on 4 must wins and 8 can't lose games. It is an argument that totally downplays the reality of the SEC. A few years ago, SCAR was counted in the "expected to beat" category, but times have changed and they are a legit program, wouldn't you agree?

 

[winsec]

Under your analysis, I wouldn't want Peyton if we were playing UF or Nebraska or Memphis.

what a clown answer. didn't see memphis or nebraska on the schedule this year clueless. you would take bray over who? any of the 4 i mentioned lose to kentucky? keep coming up with your silly stats. wins or loses are all that counts in the big picture.

 

[daj2576]

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.

True!

Few are giving the O-line (who so many people said were horrible in the offseason) any credit. So few people are giving our RB's (who so many people said were horrible in the offseason) any credit. The list goes on and on.

Yes the defense is terrible. I get that.

 

[daj2576]

what a clown answer. didn't see memphis or nebraska on the schedule this year clueless. you would take bray over who? any of the 4 i mentioned lose to kentucky? keep coming up with your silly stats. wins or loses are all that counts in the big picture.

I didn't see Manning on our roster either...but you brought him up, didnt you?

And the truth is, when Manning was here Bama was down, UGA was down, LSU was down, etc. There were really only two teams in the SEC, he played for one and couldn't beat the other...ever.

Manning lost to Memphis State...with a vastly superior team and that hurts much worse than losing to KY who has actually beat us some time in the past. But if wins and losses against good teams are all that matters, then you can't count Manning's wins against almost anyone but UF.

Don't think that I am bashing Manning. You simply asked who I would want in some hypothetical ball game, and I said that hypothetically if we were playing UF/Memphis/Nebraska that I probably wouldn't pick Manning because we know how those games turned out already.

Manning as a starter only played 15 ranked teams (10-5 record). That was over 3.5 seasons, right? That is almost as many ranked teams as Bray has faced in 2.5 (granted, he didn't start for all of them, but I don't feel like breaking that number down right now). Another interesting stat, when UT was ranked with Manning as a starter, UT NEVER beat a team that was ranked higher than us. That is 37 consecutive weeks of being ranked, and never beating a team that is ranked higher. In fact, he lost to a lower rated UF team once and an unranked Memphis team once. I will also point out, that an unranked UT team Manning's freshman year beat two ranked teams, so maybe it washes out.

 

[SamRebel35]

What does your statistical analysis say about a coach's willingness to hold his staff and players accountable? Is there a factor that accounts for overall talent yielded from potential talent? What does your analysis say about overall team discipline, execution, and intrinsic drive? If those issues were factored in, I think your analysis would show that Dooley is one of the worst coaches in the history of the SEC. But, by all means, continue carrying the water for the only non Vanderbilt coach to start 0-5 3 years in a row in the SEC.

 

[Tarkus]

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.

I do see improvement in our offense. I don't understand the hatred for Chaney. It seems irrational to me to complain about our team scoring too quickly or finding one or two play calls in an eighty play game to gripe about. We have put up enough points against most of our opponents to expect a win. On the other hand, our defense is the most atrocious we've ever had. It goes beyond bad. While our offense has improved, our margin of defeat has remained about the same against our sec opponents, so I really don't see overall improvement. I have no idea if Dooley will be back next year or not. I'm not a donor or a season ticket holder, I'm just a fan, but after comparing offense and defense and margin of defeat, I just don't see improvement in the program as a whole.

 

[daj2576]

What does your statistical analysis say about a coach's willingness to hold his staff and players accountable? Is there a factor that accounts for overall talent yielded from potential talent? What does your analysis say about overall team discipline, execution, and intrinsic drive? If those issues were factored in, I think your analysis would show that Dooley is one of the worst coaches in the history of the SEC. But, by all means, continue carrying the water for the only non Vanderbilt coach to start 0-5 3 years in a row in the SEC.

How do you numerically quantify anything that you just suggested? If you have the ability, I would like to see how you reduce it to numbers for a comparative analysis.

I can't put your feelings in a graph, the closest I can come to putting any of what you just said in a visual format is this: :cray:

 

[daj2576]

I do see improvement in our offense. I don't understand the hatred for Chaney. It seems irrational to me to complain about our team scoring too quickly or finding one or two play calls in an eighty play game to gripe about. We have put up enough points against most of our opponents to expect a win. On the other hand, our defense is the most atrocious we've ever had. It goes beyond bad. While our offense has improved, our margin of defeat has remained about the same against our sec opponents, so I really don't see overall improvement. I have no idea if Dooley will be back next year or not. I'm not a donor or a season ticket holder, I'm just a fan, but after comparing offense and defense and margin of defeat, I just don't see improvement in the program as a whole.

I actually tend to agree with you. I think overall there are signs that could be spun to show that things are very slowly improving (passing/running/margin of defeat) BUT I just don't know if it is enough to actually matter.

 

[SamRebel35]

How do you numerically quantify anything that you just suggested? If you have the ability, I would like to see how you reduce it to numbers for a comparative analysis.

I can't put your feelings in a graph, the closest I can come to putting any of what you just said in a visual format is this: :cray:

That's kind of the point. You can't quantify what makes a good coach. Certainly wins vs. losses, margin of loss/victory, strength of opponent etc. can be a good indicator, but they don't tell the whole story. The bottom line is, Dooley is a horrible coach no matter what ridiculous statistical analysis you try to use. Quit trying to spin the collapse of UT football as we know it as progress.

 

[daj2576]

That's kind of the point. You can't quantify what makes a good coach. Certainly wins vs. losses, margin of loss/victory, strength of opponent etc. can be a good indicator, but they don't tell the whole story. The bottom line is, Dooley is a horrible coach no matter what ridiculous statistical analysis you try to use. Quit trying to spin the collapse of UT football as we know it as progress.

It is posts like this that make me totally wonder if anyone ever reads anything or if they just open up a thread and post whatever is upsetting them that day.

From the start of this conversation, I said that this thread is not about evaluating Dooley or trying to decide who to replace him with. The point of my original post was simply to ask if when numbers are viewed objectively do things appear differently.

 

[SamRebel35]

It is posts like this that make me totally wonder if anyone ever reads anything or if they just open up a thread and post whatever is upsetting them that day.

From the start of this conversation, I said that this thread is not about evaluating Dooley or trying to decide who to replace him with. The point of my original post was simply to ask if when numbers are viewed objectively do things appear differently.

Except that these numbers are completely meaningless. So, no, they don't change anything.

 

[daj2576]

Except that these numbers are completely meaningless. So, no, they don't change anything.

So facts are meaningless and only perception and feelings matter?

These numbers are total facts, they aren't being spun to try to prove a point. I just wanted some objective conversation.

If I understand what you are saying it is that you hate Dooley. Got it. That was totally not the point of anything in this thread, but thanks for contributing!

 

[daj2576]

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.

Potentially we could be in stasis, I guess. Assuming we win the last 3, he would have matched our SEC record from two years ago.

Either way, sad state of affairs.

 

[SamRebel35]

So facts are meaningless and only perception and feelings matter?

These numbers are total facts, they aren't being spun to try to prove a point. I just wanted some objective conversation.

If I understand what you are saying it is that you hate Dooley. Got it. That was totally not the point of anything in this thread, but thanks for contributing!

Well, you said it first: Context is everything. Your facts ignore the underlying conditions in which they exist. Your statistics are meaningless if the goal is to gauge actual improvement of a football team, which is what I thought this exercise was all about. I don't care what your graphs and numbers say, this team is not a better team than they were 3 years ago. Even if we beast out and beat the vaunted SEC teams remaining, this team is a mess all over the place.

 

[daj2576]

Well, you said it first: Context is everything. Your facts ignore the underlying conditions in which they exist. Your statistics are meaningless if the goal is to gauge actual improvement of a football team, which is what I thought this exercise was all about. I don't care what your graphs and numbers say, this team is not a better team than they were 3 years ago. Even if we beast out and beat the vaunted SEC teams remaining, this team is a mess all over the place.

So what you are saying is that the numbers don't show any offensive improvement? And if there is improvement, even with the underlying issues that you are insinuating, then isn't that improvement even more impressive because it is almost in spite of (not because of) the problems you keep describing?

 

[SamRebel35]

So what you are saying is that the numbers don't show any offensive improvement? And if there is improvement, even with the underlying issues that you are insinuating, then isn't that improvement even more impressive because it is almost in spite of (not because of) the problems you keep describing?

Yes, there is improvement on offense looking at the numbers. That is obvious, and I've never argued that. What I am saying is that there is more to improvement than black and white stats about yardage and points. My contention is that the improvement is not adequate compared to the weapons we have at our disposal. Our talent is utilized as inefficiently as any team that I've ever seen. That is the underlying context. Improvement: yes, but that improvement does not prove adequate coaching.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

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.

That's a little misleading because all those teams played us and we were unranked. If we happened to be ranked that would be 1 more ranked team for our opponents. Obviously UGA, UF, etc. can't play themselves so they're always going to play at least 1 less ranked opponent than we will. We control our destiny in being ranked not pollsters and we haven't gotten it done. There no positive way or convicing excuses to defend what's happened over the last three years.

 

[daj2576]

That's a little misleading because all those teams played us and we were unranked. If we happened to be ranked that would be 1 more ranked team for our opponents. Obviously UGA, UF, etc. can't play themselves so they're always going to play at least 1 less ranked opponent than we will. We control our destiny in being ranked not pollsters and we haven't gotten it done. There no positive way or convicing excuses to defend what's happened over the last three years.

I thought about that, but the truth is that could be said about every team that isn't ranked, but that doesn't matter because we weren't, and other's weren't either.

To extrapolate this point out though, think of how many ranked opponents we would play if Vandy and Kentucky were ranked. They weren't, so it doesn't matter.

I get your point, but when you see how many ranked teams UGA plays (for instance), and how many ranked teams we play, there is a substantial difference in SoS.

 

[daj2576]

Yes, there is improvement on offense looking at the numbers. That is obvious, and I've never argued that. What I am saying is that there is more to improvement than black and white stats about yardage and points. My contention is that the improvement is not adequate compared to the weapons we have at our disposal. Our talent is utilized as inefficiently as any team that I've ever seen. That is the underlying context. Improvement: yes, but that improvement does not prove adequate coaching.

Totally agree...

 

[jp1]

Yes, there is improvement on offense looking at the numbers. That is obvious, and I've never argued that. What I am saying is that there is more to improvement than black and white stats about yardage and points. My contention is that the improvement is not adequate compared to the weapons we have at our disposal. Our talent is utilized as inefficiently as any team that I've ever seen. That is the underlying context. Improvement: yes, but that improvement does not prove adequate coaching.

So if the defense can make comparable progress next year ( offense was pretty bad last year) then what would you say?

 

[McDad]

Hey daj. As someone who got a lot out of your stats I thread, i give you an A for effort on this one. Unfortunately, we aren't a very receptive audience right now.
The offense is improved. Personally i think the O line is doing a fantastic job. I'm also pleased that graham has coached up our backs compared to last year. Your analysis shows improvement in many facets of our game.
At this point, it is so hard to be happy about those improved facets when the total picture is unimproved.

 

[tm3]

Sometimes performance can be hard to analyze because of all the variables ie chicken or the egg.

Our running game IMO is a perfect example of the influence of coaching. We have essentially the same line and the same backs as last year but have VASTLY improved because of the new OL and RB coaches.

Ohhhhhh, if only we had new DC and HC ......