Comments on: Did the Irish Actually Overachieve in 2011?: A Statistical Analysis

By: Twibby

Twibby — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:01:43 +0000

In reply to TXIrish2. Completely agree. Unfortunately controlling for that across all teams would probably take thousands of hours of watching games from last year unless someone knows where you can find that kind of statistic.

By: IrishLion

IrishLion — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:51:25 +0000

In reply to Bayou Irish. I think the analysis says that we overachieved based on our number of turnovers, not overachieved in general. We definitly underachieved based on how close this team was to ten wins, but we OVERachieved based on how many times we turned the ball over.

By: TXIrish2

TXIrish2 — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:49:46 +0000

How do you control for the yards differential that was a direct result of turnovers? The stats just show how much an average turnover changes the expectancy of a win. The soul crushing 99 yard turnover returns still suggest that ND was unlucky because our turnovers were anything but average.

By: Bayou Irish

Bayou Irish — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:35:37 +0000

*to him.

By: Bayou Irish

Bayou Irish — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:35:02 +0000

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Or something. We underachieved the hell out of last year: USF, UM and USC were all not only winnable games, they are games we gave away. I read the entire post/argument and I agreed with the entire premise, except for the parts where I was as confused as my dog, Buttercup, when I explain something to me and he just sits and cocks his head to one side or the other and just gives me that look. You know, that look. Anyway, everything made total sense except for the answer. I’m going back to my central premise: if we value the football on offense and competently execute the offense consistently, we win 10 games. I don’t care if we have Andrew, Everett or a two-headed monster behind center. Gunner needs to redshirt, BTW and IMHO. If we protect the ball and execute the offense, we will win 10 games.

By: TheCzar

TheCzar — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:21:57 +0000

I am interested to see how 3rd down conversion rates, both offensively and defensively, would change this. I feel like that was one of the areas where we struggled last year, and it could account for why this math has us “overachieving”.

By: GB

GB — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:50:19 +0000

The thing that jumped out at me was that the overachievers this past year are normally some of the best teams in FB, year in and year out. The underachievers are normally some of the worst teams in FB every year. The main exception is TX with maybe A&M. I agree that the stats you indicated are the major indicators of success orfailure in FB. It does not include timing as others indicated like fumbling at the 1 yd. line. Mostly, I am thinking of giving up a lot of yards and then stopping the O near the goal line or blocking FGs or having short drives on O, etc.

By: The Biscuit

The Biscuit — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:36:00 +0000

In reply to Twibby. Cool. Check Sagarin on USA today.

By: Twibby

Twibby — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:37:41 +0000

In reply to The Biscuit.

Biscuit – I was thinking about doing a SOS adjustment but couldn’t quite figure out how to incorporate it. Once I get the kinks worked out, I’ll fire out an update.

By: kyndfan

kyndfan — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:33:01 +0000

In reply to The Biscuit. Note I said they can't explain everything due to the human factor. Tex throws in and interesting point, SOS. Stats can show what is likely, but not what actually happens. The old saying, that's why they play the game, comes to mind.