Today in Analytics...

a5ehren

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
402
You have the old S&P numbers and F+ hasn't updated yet.

We fell 23 spots in S&P to #46. UVA is #60.

The Clemson game cost us a lot of offensive efficiency points as we scored about 7 less points than the system expected going in to the game.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,982
Thanks--didn't catch the update date, and I should have. I guess we don't factor in torrential downpours, but they should affect both teams.
 

a5ehren

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
402
Yeah, it looks like the Advanced Stat Profile pages are updating as we speak. And the box score for GT-Clemson is...not great.

1028_Clem_-_Geo_Tech.0.jpeg
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,982
Thread resurrection. We’ve had a bunch of these threads over the years.

We moved up a ton in the Kelley Ford metrics this weekend:
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,982
Sagarin has us in at #68 in the Predictor (the score that actually works), and Clemson in at #5, after last night’s game. Which means that last night’s game was a heckuva anomaly for them, but not enough to really dent the model:


1DC684D1-721C-4F84-858D-52220B65F44A.jpeg


FEI hasn’t updated yet, but we’re going to be in about the same place. Priors have a lot to do with SP+, FEI, and other ratings, and it’s gonna take a heckuva streak to change the perceptions of how good we are, even among our own fans.
 

Fatmike91

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,121
, and it’s gonna take a heckuva streak to change the perceptions of how good we are, even among our own fans.

We’re in there with UAB, Liberty, Marshall, UTSA and directional Dakota State. That’s about the perception I have as a fan and aligns with the analytics.

BYW - I don’t even know what UTSA is without looking it up.

/
 

LongforDodd

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,072
Sagarin has us in at #68 in the Predictor (the score that actually works), and Clemson in at #5, after last night’s game. Which means that last night’s game was a heckuva anomaly for them, but not enough to really dent the model:


View attachment 11209

FEI hasn’t updated yet, but we’re going to be in about the same place. Priors have a lot to do with SP+, FEI, and other ratings, and it’s gonna take a heckuva streak to change the perceptions of how good we are, even among our own fans.
I like to follow sagarin but I don’t think his stats reset until maybe Tuesday? I may be wrong though.
They/he had us less than a 2point dog to NI.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,426
As someone used to say, “it’s never as good or as bad as it seems.” NIU we punched below our class and Clemson we probably punched above. Clemson isn’t as good as their ranking, as their offense is a train wreck.

I think Saturday will be a good measuring stick. We come out and shut down UNC and win then I’ll feel better, but I suspect we are truly somewhere in between those two performances with poor time management as an absolute characteristic.
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,994

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
3,014
This is ESPN's version, and....it strike me as pretty reasonable, actually, given what I've seen this season: http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi/_/id/59

If the season played out this way (wins over Pitt and BC, and squeaking one out of UVA/VT/MIA, how would you guys feel?)
Tough question and a double edged sword. The loss to NIU was a difficult pill to swallow and reduced CGC's margin of error. Then the performance yesterday may have raised expectations going forward...after all, we did go toe to toe against one of the top 2-3 programs in college FB at their place (yes they are in a rebuild but....). These things are difficult to quantify but only getting 4 wins this year will be very disconcerting to me and I have been patient and supportive. The only caveat is if we continue to show the same progression in growth as we did yesterday and all of our losses, including Uga, are ones that go into the 4th quarter AND we don't shoot ourselves in the foot as we so often have (see NIU).
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,982
Do you know what week he stops using last year’s data?
I don’t, and he keeps most of the internals secret. He starts with his initial rankings (“week 0”), and those are the basis of the SOS. He says that “after the graph is well-connected” that the pre-season bias is out of the metric. That’s basically when you could play “seven degrees of Kevin Bacon” between any two teams based mutual opponents and their opponents and so on.
I’ve heard week 5 is enough. However, with conference play becoming a bigger and bigger deal, I’m not sure that’s enough. In basketball, I’d trust the numbers more just because there are more games and more crossover games.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,982
SP+ is updated, and we're still down at #62. UNC is 18 and Pitt makes it in at 25.

It's gonna take a lot of winning to change our "rating", so hopefully, we make it look bad for a while. It's a "known design consideration":

In ESPN's "FPI" (which I almost never look at), we're up 23 points to #33. It's somewhat resume-based, so the last couple of games help:
 
Top