Team Efficiency - A rational discussion

[AE 87]

No, I disagree. That's not what I said at all. I said the MOST IMPORTANT statistic of an offense is one that is shared with the TEAM. Did they win the game or not?

In the end, the only real statistic that endures from season to season...is wins vs losses.

So, I said that I was summarily rejecting the "efficient" argument and looking at the "effective" argument.

So, if someone said that Texas AnM had an efficient offense, you would reject that and say that they did not have n effective offense because they were not able to score more than the best teams they played? Even though they scored 42 on Alabama?

Like I said, I don't think you'll find many cfb fans who would have trouble saying the aggies have an efficient and effective offense,

 

[daBuzz]

So, if someone said that Texas AnM had an efficient offense, you would reject that and say that they did not have n effective offense because they were not able to score more than the best teams they played? Even though they scored 42 on Alabama?

Like I said, I don't think you'll find many cfb fans who would have trouble saying the aggies have an efficient and effective offense,

I agree. But their record is 11-2 and 8-4 over the past 2 years. If you believe, as I do, that they'll pound Duke in the bowl game, they'll be 9-4.
So, yeah a record of 20-6 over 2 years is pretty effective.

Conversely, since we will have a record of 7-7 and 7-5 currently. If we win, our record will be 14-12 over 2 years. But if we lose (and we are the underdog), we will have a record of 14-13 over 2 years.

And I think if you ask most college football fans if THAT is the measure of an effective offense, they would tell you "umm....no".

 

[AE 87]

I agree. But their record is 11-2 and 8-4 over the past 2 years. If you believe, as I do, that they'll pound Duke in the bowl game, they'll be 9-4.
So, yeah a record of 20-6 over 2 years is pretty effective.

Conversely, since we will have a record of 7-7 and 7-5 currently. If we win, our record will be 14-12 over 2 years. But if we lose (and we are the underdog), we will have a record of 14-13 over 2 years.

And I think if you ask most college football fans if THAT is the measure of an effective offense, they would tell you "umm....no".

Without assuming a game not played, why wouldn't they say that they were effective last year and not this year?

 

[daBuzz]

Without assuming a game not played, why wouldn't they say that they were effective last year and not this year?

OK, give em a loss. 19-7 over 2 years is STILL effective.

 

[daBuzz]

That doesn't jive with other comments you made.

Well, I tell you what. When we start scoring 100 points a game and losing, I'll jump onto your side of the argument. Until then, when we're losing 50% of the time, I don't care whether the offense, the defense, the special team, or the water boy is responsible.

 

[awbuzz]

No. If we scored 100 points a game and gave up 101, it would mean our TEAM sucked and that we lost a hell of a lot of games.

No... It'd mean the D stunk... That'd be a heck of an offense.

 

[AE 87]

OK, give em a loss. 19-7 over 2 years is STILL effective.

You didn't answer my question.

Why am I wrong to conclude that you are just making nonsensical the comparisons of offenses and defenses?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well, I tell you what. When we start scoring 100 points a game and losing, I'll jump onto your side of the argument. Until then, when we're losing 50% of the time, I don't care whether the offense, the defense, the special team, or the water boy is responsible.

The reason I used a hypothetical point total of 100 is because, according to you, it matters not what the offense does as long as the team loses. When it comes to evaluating the offense as a separate entity, I disagree with that notion.

 

[daBuzz]

The reason I used a hypothetical point total of 100 is because, according to you, it matters not what the offense does as long as the team loses. When it comes to evaluating the offense as a separate entity, I disagree with that notion.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. My point is simple:

I have no idea how long you've been a GT fan. But go back in your mind as far as you can regarding GT games and tell me which year's team had the best offense statistically and which had the best defense statistically. Now, tell me what year had the best record.

I'll bet that it's much easier to remember the best record. Because, as time goes by, no one really cares about efficiency of offense or defense; they just want to know what your record was that year.

 

[daBuzz]

You didn't answer my question.

Why am I wrong to conclude that you are just making nonsensical the comparisons of offenses and defenses?

I already did answer it. I think their offense was effective this year. They won 8 games and lost 4. That's pretty effective in my opinion.
It was MORE effective last year...when they won 11 games.

 

[AE 87]

I already did answer it. I think their offense was effective this year. They won 8 games and lost 4. That's pretty effective in my opinion.
It was MORE effective last year...when they won 11 games.

Okay. So your measure of an effective offense is 8 wins? We would've had an effective offense if Butker hits his fg against u[sic]ga, but because he missed, we did not. It has a certain concrete-operational logic to it.

Of course by this logic, Vad's high school defense his senior year was more effective than Bama's defense because their team didn't lose a game. Again, I'm not sure that many people compare defenses or offenses this way, but there you go.

 

[cyptomcat]

Okay. So your measure of an effective offense is 8 wins? We would've had an effective offense if Butker hits his fg against u[sic]ga, but because he missed, we did not. It has a certain concrete-operational logic to it.

VT has 8 wins, so does Iowa. By this logic they have better offenses than us. MSU won a lot of games with a putrid offense. I hope dabuzz doesn't really believe what he is saying.

I suppose there are no stats to show that GT offense is not efficient/good if those who don't like the GT offense can't come up with anything for a rational discussion.

 

[Mack]

Lmbo! Oh dear Lord. Here we go again.

Seven and five loss to ga is all the stats orexplanation I can offer.Not getting into Stat battle since that can be misleading.

 

[AE 87]

Seven and five loss to ga is all the stats orexplanation I can offer.Not getting into Stat battle since that can be misleading.

Don't use stats, if you don't want to. Why would these records be an indictment of our offense and not our team? What makes you conclude that the offense rather than defense or special teams has been problem at the heart of the team's problem?

 

[daBuzz]

VT has 8 wins, so does Iowa. By this logic they have better offenses than us. MSU won a lot of games with a putrid offense. I hope dabuzz doesn't really believe what he is saying.

I suppose there are no stats to show that GT offense is not efficient/good if those who don't like the GT offense can't come up with anything for a rational discussion.

LOL. We played Virginia Tech.
Our offense: 273 yards and 10 points scored
Their offense: 276 yards and 17 points scored

YES. I do believe the statistics show that Virginia Tech has a better offense than ours.

Now you can play the "rational discussion" card all you want, but in the most effective measurement of stats, which is head-to-head, they beat us. That's called being more effective and the stats back it up.

 

[Boomergump]

Wanting the offense to improve, as I do, doesn't mean they haven't been efficient. It almost sounds like two different discussions going on. One about whether they are efficient or not and another about whether they are good enough.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

LOL. We played Virginia Tech.
Our offense: 273 yards and 10 points scored
Their offense: 276 yards and 17 points scored

YES. I do believe the statistics show that Virginia Tech has a better offense than ours.

Now you can play the "rational discussion" card all you want, but in the most effective measurement of stats, which is head-to-head, they beat us. That's called being more effective and the stats back it up.

The offenses don't play against each other. Their O plays against our D and vice versa. A more accurate comparison would be how the O's performed vs the same defenses in the league.

 

[Mack]

Don't use stats, if you don't want to. Why would these records be an indictment of our offense and not our team? What makes you conclude that the offense rather than defense or special teams has been problem at the heart of the team's problem?

Simple how many times have we come from behind to win when we had the ball...how many times have we messes up with a fumble pass intercept or not making it on fourth down...how many top players have we got in past yrs to really run this offense...seven and five tell me we are barely adaquatee st win loss. Will agree its a extension of the team but letsbr real......would you as a h's running back want to come to tech and run dives all day long ...if you answer yes....come to tech...if no bet you go to a spread offense.

 

[daBuzz]

The offenses don't play against each other. Their O plays against our D and vice versa. A more accurate comparison would be how the O's performed vs the same defenses in the league.

LOL, so now some statistical analysis of common opponents is more effective than comparing head-to-head? Well, hell someone should call the BCS and let them know that. I think Alabama beat the other teams in the SEC worse than Auburn did, so Alabama now gets to play in the national championship!

You guys go ahead and run your linear regressions and convince yourself that "our offense kicks ***" while we continue to win 50% of our games.

 

[CuseJacket]

LOL, so now some statistical analysis of common opponents is more effective than comparing head-to-head? Well, hell someone should call the BCS and let them know that. I think Alabama beat the other teams in the SEC worse than Auburn did, so Alabama now gets to play in the national championship!

You guys go ahead and run your linear regressions and convince yourself that "our offense kicks ***" while we continue to win 50% of our games.

If we had VT's defense I believe we would have won more games. With that alone would that have meant our offense was more efficient? In that scenario I would say our offense performed the same.

I don't see anyone disagreeing that W's and L's are the most important statistic. Teams lose and teams win; everyone seems to get that. This thread is trying to parse out to what degree our offense is responsible for the results vs. other elements (D and ST).