Today in Analytics...

slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,423
DiffusedAcorn said:
https://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2...ball-advanced-stats-review-part-3-the-defense

Interesting article here on the defensive struggles we had last season. Freshest insight that I have seen on the biggest coaching issue I think we had last year on defense (Playing the old guys who struggled a ton).

"The defensive coaches were afraid to turn the page from the established returners in the 2021 secondary, and they paid the price for it."
Click to expand...
That's a decent combination of pulling together "eye test" qualitative information (PFF scores) and game metrics.

One other poster said that the defensive coaching turnover means that we thought it was a coaching issue more than a player issue, but this looks like both. It also looks like a situation where you sit veteran players in favor of young players, but the coaches didn't want to play the young players.
 
DiffusedAcorn

DiffusedAcorn

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
130
slugboy said:
That's a decent combination of pulling together "eye test" qualitative information (PFF scores) and game metrics.

One other poster said that the defensive coaching turnover means that we thought it was a coaching issue more than a player issue, but this looks like both. It also looks like a situation where you sit veteran players in favor of young players, but the coaches didn't want to play the young players.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more, I guess I'd call it a coaching issue because I thought that given how bad our veteran defensive backs were we needed to play the younger guys. The refusal to play those guys, especially after it was evident the older guys had no more to give, was what turned me against Thacker to end the year.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,467
I said just a few days ago that I can’t imagine a coach at this level sitting a kid, regardless of age, if they can produce. I have / had my doubts that older guys are playing ONLY because they are older guys..
That said, the one constant and consistent thing we have heard from this staff is the “culture” they are pushing. CGC caught a lot of backlash for his comment about the culture is in place and now we can focus on football (completely paraphrased, exact words irrelevant to this post). So, I am stopping for a minute to consider:
What if part of the culture he’s talking about is respect for the school and the history of the program and the guys who have come before? What if there was a conscious effort to keep guys who were invested in the program before he got here and reward them for hard work? What if some of the disparaging things we thought we heard about the transition and the talent level were offset by an internal commitment to the older guys and respect for the effort and leadership they had? Is that the worst thing? I don’t think you can sustain that forever, and I have no real knowledge if that was actually done, but what if?
We all agree that an ideal is developing and sustaining talent. We all agree that experience and “get old, stay old” is extremely valuable. I am pretty sure most of us have longed for the time that we could amass redshirt talent. What if this article is correct and we have equal or perhaps better younger players in waiting? Even better, what if that was by design?
I guess we get to find out this year. Hopefully we will see this culture that has been emphasized so much prove to be instrumental in the sustained talent next year and beyond. Reading this in print and giving it a second thought… I am now really wanting this to be a function of loyalty, culture and long term thinking…
 

cthenrys

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
942
Location
Highland Village, TX
slugboy said:
That's a decent combination of pulling together "eye test" qualitative information (PFF scores) and game metrics.

One other poster said that the defensive coaching turnover means that we thought it was a coaching issue more than a player issue, but this looks like both. It also looks like a situation where you sit veteran players in favor of young players, but the coaches didn't want to play the young players.
Click to expand...
All of their articles of this type have done this very well. Sadly, they all come to the same conclusion. Talent Eval, Player Development, and In Game coaching were a complete dumpster fire all year. We weren’t competitive. We weren‘t close and needing a few points here and there. We were what we were - marginally a top 100 program. That’s sad. A change is needed - either from this staff or of this staff.
 
DiffusedAcorn

DiffusedAcorn

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
130
CEB said:
I said just a few days ago that I can’t imagine a coach at this level sitting a kid, regardless of age, if they can produce. I have / had my doubts that older guys are playing ONLY because they are older guys..
That said, the one constant and consistent thing we have heard from this staff is the “culture” they are pushing. CGC caught a lot of backlash for his comment about the culture is in place and now we can focus on football (completely paraphrased, exact words irrelevant to this post). So, I am stopping for a minute to consider:
What if part of the culture he’s talking about is respect for the school and the history of the program and the guys who have come before? What if there was a conscious effort to keep guys who were invested in the program before he got here and reward them for hard work? What if some of the disparaging things we thought we heard about the transition and the talent level were offset by an internal commitment to the older guys and respect for the effort and leadership they had? Is that the worst thing? I don’t think you can sustain that forever, and I have no real knowledge if that was actually done, but what if?
We all agree that an ideal is developing and sustaining talent. We all agree that experience and “get old, stay old” is extremely valuable. I am pretty sure most of us have longed for the time that we could amass redshirt talent. What if this article is correct and we have equal or perhaps better younger players in waiting? Even better, what if that was by design?
I guess we get to find out this year. Hopefully we will see this culture that has been emphasized so much prove to be instrumental in the sustained talent next year and beyond. Reading this in print and giving it a second thought… I am now really wanting this to be a function of loyalty, culture and long term thinking…
Click to expand...
An interesting hypothetical, if it is true though it doesn't exactly make me happy. This isn't really a debate for this thread, but I'd say that you have to play your best talent no matter what (Obviously there are exceptions for total cancers, but in general). So if that is true, it almost just makes my frustration greater that we threw away three years just cus we thought these guys deserved it.

Either way it's all a hypothetical so I guess it doesn't much matter.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
DiffusedAcorn said:
An interesting hypothetical, if it is true though it doesn't exactly make me happy. This isn't really a debate for this thread, but I'd say that you have to play your best talent no matter what (Obviously there are exceptions for total cancers, but in general). So if that is true, it almost just makes my frustration greater that we threw away three years just cus we thought these guys deserved it.

Either way it's all a hypothetical so I guess it doesn't much matter.
Click to expand...
idk if i entirely buy into this cause we saw a lot of regular offensive players get new roles or moved out almost asap in favor of young guys. i don’t see why we’d suddenly treat the defense so differently at the same time.
 
wrmathis

wrmathis

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
921
Location
Bonaire GA
JacketFan137 said:
idk if i entirely buy into this cause we saw a lot of regular offensive players get new roles or moved out almost asap in favor of young guys. i don’t see why we’d suddenly treat the defense so differently at the same time.
Click to expand...
especially with the competition is king and effort based defense and whatever else the above the line crap that was said
 
jacket_fan

jacket_fan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
758
Location
Milton, Georgia
Interesting hypothesis but I believe the coaches play the athletes that prove themselves in practice and in the games. I favor the idea that they are more likely to play the younger guys they recruited if they were the better player. Which has me wondering about the young talent in the defensive backfield. Swilling looked like he may have been hurt late in the season, yet remained the starter. If the number one is hurt and number two is less qualified even with number on hurt. It does not bode well.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,853
Coaches tend to be conservative and an experienced player should be less likely to make a big mistake. Can never predict it until a DB gets burned. Those guys are the ones on an island where big plays are more obvious. Our guys being out of position several times for big plays makes one question the coaching they were receiving. Our DB's were experienced starters.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,423
Back to Analytics-> hmm 🧐 what if the Hawks played defense too?

Young is one of the best players offensively—he’s all pro there—but defense is another story.

BTW, if you can’t find the Hawks logo, it’s because their defense is so bad that it’s literally off the bottom of the chart.

Recent trades may make this better

 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,423
Sagarin has the ACC down this season

College Basketball Ratings Page

sagarin.com

[pre]
The WIN50% is the rating required to win 50% of the games if playing an
infinite number of round-robins in the given group at a neutral location.

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%

1 BIG 12 = 84.93 85.33 ( 1) 10 85.24 ( 1)
2 BIG TEN = 84.10 83.87 ( 2) 14 83.93 ( 2)
3 SOUTHEASTERN = 82.77 82.46 ( 3) 14 82.58 ( 3)
4 BIG EAST = 82.58 82.32 ( 4) 11 82.41 ( 4)
5 PAC-12 = 80.38 80.96 ( 5) 12 80.74 ( 5)
6 ATLANTIC COAST = 80.14 80.15 ( 6) 15 80.13 ( 6)
7 AMER. ATHLETIC = 77.98 78.26 ( 7) 11 78.08 ( 7)
8 MOUNTAIN WEST = 77.59 76.94 ( 9) 11 77.20 ( 8)


[/pre]

I think we’re looking at 5-6 ACC teams in the tournament. Tech isn’t close to the bubble.

[pre]
6 ATLANTIC COAST = 80.14 80.15 ( 6) TEAMS= 15 80.13 ( 6)
College Basketball 2021-2022 Div I games only through games of 2022 January 20 Thursday
RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 25 | VS top 50 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.84] [ 2.83] [ 2.85] [ 2.83]
11 Duke = 89.38 14 3 73.30( 133) 2 1 | 3 2 | 89.31 12 | 89.68 8 | 87.76 12 ATLANTIC COAST
33 North Carolina = 84.28 12 5 76.40( 44) 0 3 | 1 3 | 84.46 33 | 84.29 33 | 80.77 67 ATLANTIC COAST
35 Virginia Tech = 83.93 10 7 76.45( 43) 0 2 | 0 2 | 84.67 30 | 82.38 47 | 81.07 65 ATLANTIC COAST
43 Florida State = 82.90 12 5 76.73( 38) 1 1 | 1 2 | 82.52 45 | 83.80 41 | 83.33 44 ATLANTIC COAST
53 Wake Forest = 81.44 15 4 74.23( 100) 0 2 | 2 2 | 80.99 61 | 82.21 48 | 84.28 37 ATLANTIC COAST
61 Virginia = 80.76 11 7 75.62( 61) 0 2 | 2 3 | 80.61 64 | 81.21 59 | 79.35 75 ATLANTIC COAST
66 Syracuse = 80.51 9 9 77.71( 23) 1 2 | 2 3 | 80.94 62 | 79.59 79 | 77.64 97 ATLANTIC COAST
69 Notre Dame = 80.24 10 6 76.94( 35) 1 2 | 2 4 | 80.08 69 | 80.41 64 | 80.57 69 ATLANTIC COAST
74 Miami-Florida = 80.05 14 4 76.29( 48) 1 1 | 2 2 | 79.34 84 | 81.45 55 | 85.63 26 ATLANTIC COAST
78 Clemson = 79.77 10 8 76.29( 47) 0 0 | 0 1 | 80.05 70 | 79.85 75 | 74.26 141 ATLANTIC COAST
87 Louisville = 79.01 11 7 75.48( 65) 0 1 | 1 2 | 79.19 86 | 79.39 83 | 73.18 160 ATLANTIC COAST
102 NC State = 77.45 9 10 76.22( 49) 0 2 | 1 5 | 77.45 103 | 77.44 99 | 76.07 113 ATLANTIC COAST
125 Georgia Tech = 75.12 7 10 75.52( 63) 0 4 | 0 6 | 75.06 123 | 75.40 120 | 72.98 165 ATLANTIC COAST
142 Boston College = 73.77 7 9 73.76( 115) 0 0 | 0 1 | 74.12 136 | 73.20 149 | 69.42 223 ATLANTIC COAST
143 Pittsburgh = 73.71 7 11 74.88( 82) 0 0 | 0 1 | 73.98 138 | 72.86 159 | 72.34 173 ATLANTIC COAST

[/pre]
 
iceeater1969

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,570
DiffusedAcorn said:
https://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2...ball-advanced-stats-review-part-3-the-defense

Interesting article here on the defensive struggles we had last season. Freshest insight that I have seen on the biggest coaching issue I think we had last year on defense (Playing the old guys who struggled a ton).

"The defensive coaches were afraid to turn the page from the established returners in the 2021 secondary, and they paid the price for it."
Click to expand...
Cgc was recruiting Thomas s little brother.
Heck he even brought in thomas s older brother to return punts

Not going to bench thomas.
Fire the position coaches who failed to develop
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,423
We had a few people ask about some of the QB rating stats. There’s an interesting composite score over at https://cfbnumbers.substack.com/p/evaluating-cfb-qbs-2021-qb-composite. They list the top 25.

There's another good one over at .

Yates and Sims don't make either cutoff. At the bottom is a chart showing that we're a long way off in that department.

There are some really sharp things that some people are doing with analytics.

DE3E91BE-9A21-408D-8DFB-065DE637E729.png

D3436777-A338-4AD9-BFB0-247C65AACCE6.png
 
Top