Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NevadaFan

Returning starter impact

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NevadaFan said:

well I guess you wont have to worry about the Bulldogs anymore, since they are in last place on the articles list of returning production.  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SBBulldog85 said:

well I guess you wont have to worry about the Bulldogs anymore, since they are in last place on the articles list of returning production.  LOL

It’s just an article and at the end of the day means nothing.

I do think the point about returning OL production and DB production is interesting. It basically says of all the groups OL is the least important... that’s counterintuitive to most articles I’ve read over the years. I also liked the point about DB coverage production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NevadaFan said:

It’s just an article and at the end of the day means nothing.

I do think the point about returning OL production and DB production is interesting. It basically says of all the groups OL is the least important... that’s counterintuitive to most articles I’ve read over the years. I also liked the point about DB coverage production. 

An article written 8 months ago which also made it highly speculative regarding who would even make it to practice, along with the assumption that true frosh and transfers don't start and even excel.  Just fun with statistics.  That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Headbutt said:

An article written 8 months ago which also made it highly speculative regarding who would even make it to practice, along with the assumption that true frosh and transfers don't start and even excel.  Just fun with statistics.  That's it.

So pay it no attention? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

So pay it no attention? 

IMO, the results are misleading.  The OL is not the least important unit when you're trying to determine who's gonna' win, just the opposite.  Fresno State will not finish last in the conference or even their division, again just the opposite.  Not every formula somebody wants to dream up gives usable data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

IMO, the results are misleading.  The OL is not the least important unit when you're trying to determine who's gonna' win, just the opposite.  Fresno State will not finish last in the conference or even their division, again just the opposite.  Not every formula somebody wants to dream up gives usable data.

How do you get from a new metric to derive returning production to a metric that predicts wins and losses? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

How do you get from a new metric to derive returning production to a metric that predicts wins and losses? 

Got it.  You're appreciating the metric.  I don't see any value in it, regardless of how well it derives returning production.  I'm not calling you out, just saying that we see it differently.  That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

Got it.  You're appreciating the metric.  I don't see any value in it, regardless of how well it derives returning production.  I'm not calling you out, just saying that we see it differently.  That's all.

You see no value in it, regardless of how well it does what it’s designed to do? That makes no sense to me. 

BUT, I do understand the gist of your argument. You just don’t see value in the article. It’s sorta like recruiting rankings for me I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

You see no value in it, regardless of how well it does what it’s designed to do? That makes no sense to me. 

BUT, I do understand the gist of your argument. You just don’t see value in the article. It’s sorta like recruiting rankings for me I suppose. 

OK, I'll give you that.  Here's the deal.  If returning production is high, then that bodes well for the team.  If it is low, it has likely been changed to address deficiencies.  So, you're comparing apples to oranges.  On one team the formula will be a good predictor, on another it will be working with intentionally bad data.  Here's one example.  Probably not the best, but it's one I'm very familiar with.  CSU's D line ranks very low, but is expected to be a strength of the team this year.  They added a Grad Transfer D-End from ASU that put up very good numbers in the P12, and return a kid that led the DL in tackles in 2016 but has been out hurt for two years.  Both have already worked their way into the starting lineup.  We had a weak DL last year, and adjusted the talent.  That changes the data.  I'm not saying its a bad formula, I'm saying that the results probably don't have near the weight across the board that the article seems to indicate.

One other problem with the article.  It's from January.  Not one team in the country likely has the same talent returning that they thought they would have back in January.  It's a cool formula I guess if you're deep into analytics, but I wouldn't put much weight on it if I'm playing Pick 10.  I think there are bigger inputs than what that table comes up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t open the link, whose on 1st in the MWC?

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented by this poster (Warbow) are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Univesity of Hawaii or it's loyal fans. All quotes and opinions from Warbow are valid for 30 days following the date of post transmission and are subject to change at any time. All information published herein by Warbow is gathered from his own opinions or sources which are thought to be reliable, but the reader should not assume that the information is official or fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SBBulldog85 said:

The Rainbows followed by UNLV.  So that should show you how much this article is worth...

It’s not that hard. All the article states is that Vegas and Hawaii have more returning production. And it uses a different metric to place value on the production.

It doesn’t state that production equates to wins or that those teams are better than Fresno. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Headbutt said:

OK, I'll give you that.  Here's the deal.  If returning production is high, then that bodes well for the team.  If it is low, it has likely been changed to address deficiencies.  So, you're comparing apples to oranges.  On one team the formula will be a good predictor, on another it will be working with intentionally bad data.  Here's one example.  Probably not the best, but it's one I'm very familiar with.  CSU's D line ranks very low, but is expected to be a strength of the team this year.  They added a Grad Transfer D-End from ASU that put up very good numbers in the P12, and return a kid that led the DL in tackles in 2016 but has been out hurt for two years.  Both have already worked their way into the starting lineup.  We had a weak DL last year, and adjusted the talent.  That changes the data.  I'm not saying its a bad formula, I'm saying that the results probably don't have near the weight across the board that the article seems to indicate.

One other problem with the article.  It's from January.  Not one team in the country likely has the same talent returning that they thought they would have back in January.  It's a cool formula I guess if you're deep into analytics, but I wouldn't put much weight on it if I'm playing Pick 10.  I think there are bigger inputs than what that table comes up with.

All it is saying is that these teams have the most returning production based on the formula it uses to calculate production. And rather than saying every position group should be given equal weight, it’s placing higher value on certain position groups. Obviously a QB is more important than any other position on the field. 

It takes about two seconds to recognize that the article is written in January and doesn’t factor in variables like recruiting, transfers, et al. It also doesn’t differentiate a good team from a bad one. So Hawaii returns more players than Boise? So what? Boise has better talent in its 2-3 deep. 

I thought it interesting because it’s a different way of looking at the number of returning players and assuming there’s value only because they have played minutes. It’s trying to discern value in those groups and minutes AND performance. I always assumed returning OL was important. This data is saying it’s not. That’s interesting and certainly more interesting than anecdotal evidence. Or the fact that a 3rd string LB got minutes because the two players in front of him were hurt.. who cares if that player didn’t produce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

All it is saying is that these teams have the most returning production based on the formula it uses to calculate production. And rather than saying every position group should be given equal weight, it’s placing higher value on certain position groups. Obviously a QB is more important than any other position on the field. 

It takes about two seconds to recognize that the article is written in January and doesn’t factor in variables like recruiting, transfers, et al. It also doesn’t differentiate a good team from a bad one. So Hawaii returns more players than Boise? So what? Boise has better talent in its 2-3 deep. 

I thought it interesting because it’s a different way of looking at the number of returning players and assuming there’s value only because they have played minutes. It’s trying to discern value in those groups and minutes AND performance. I always assumed returning OL was important. This data is saying it’s not. That’s interesting and certainly more interesting than anecdotal evidence. Or the fact that a 3rd string LB got minutes because the two players in front of him were hurt.. who cares if that player didn’t produce?

OK, I'm not totally sure how to answer because as I read what you write, you and I are looking at things completely differently.  I get that it's a different way of judging the value of a returning squad.  It's based on factors beyond just showing up for the game, getting a chance to be in the huddle.  It's attempting to measure what actually happened when a player was on the field and then attempts to forecast that value so you can look at that measurement on a returning roster.

I'm not looking to argue with you, you seem like a good guy.  I'm just saying that while you find that interesting, I think it's a waste of time.  I don't think most coaches would spend much time looking at it either.  It is an innovative way to find a certain value.  I just think that value becomes meaningless in a hurry when all of the other relevant factors are applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...