Points Forced & Points Allowed

[KJ.]

Pythagorean Projection records (Win Differential over expected):

2008: 7.9 - 5.1 (+1.1)

2009: 12.1 - 1.9 (-2.1)

2010: 10.8 - 3.2 (-0.8)

2011: 8.0 - 5.0 (+1)

2012: 8.5 - 5.5 (+1.5)

Not a good sign.

EDIT: Fixed subtraction error

Is it? It appears that we underachieved according to the projections when we weren't allowing points (2009 and 2010) and overachieved according to the projections when we were allowing points (2011 and 2012).

Unless I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

Nope, you have it correct. I don't think the correlation with scoring vs not scoring has much to it, but the recent trend of overachieving is definitely a red flag. And if there is a casual effect between points scored and differential, that's an even bigger red flag for how our team will be set up this year.

:dunno

This confuses me, too

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

 

[Mavric]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

 

[KJ.]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

While I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, what do you think the chances are that a team gives up 70 points to a 5 loss team wins 7 conference games?

 

[Count 'Bility]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

While I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, what do you think the chances are that a team gives up 70 points to a 5 loss team wins 7 conference games?

Demeaning Wisconsin for losing 5 games is as shaky as proppin Nebraska up for winnin 10. They very well couldve had 10-11 wins themselves.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What it means is that the years we had games where the players gave up and resulted in a blowout, some mathematical formula says we shouldn't have won many games.

OK...not really worth reading any more after that comment.

 

[KJ.]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

While I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, what do you think the chances are that a team gives up 70 points to a 5 loss team wins 7 conference games?

Demeaning Wisconsin for losing 5 games is as shaky as proppin Nebraska up for winnin 10. They very well couldve had 10-11 wins themselves.

Completely agree with you on that. I have no idea how they didn't have a much better record, they had a damn good team last year.

The point I was trying to make is that we can sit here all day and say "this should have happened, that was a fluke, blah blah blah" but what happened happened. My original post was just giving the theoretical expectation for the past season GIVEN it already happened. It doesn't go the other way around.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

While I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, what do you think the chances are that a team gives up 70 points to a 5 loss team wins 7 conference games?

Demeaning Wisconsin for losing 5 games is as shaky as proppin Nebraska up for winnin 10. They very well couldve had 10-11 wins themselves.

Completely agree with you on that. I have no idea how they didn't have a much better record, they had a damn good team last year.

The point I was trying to make is that we can sit here all day and say "this should have happened, that was a fluke, blah blah blah" but what happened happened. My original post was just giving the theoretical expectation for the past season GIVEN it already happened. It doesn't go the other way around.

I know what I said had nothing to do with the current topic in a way, it's just a point I wanted to make. I think too much has been made about losing that bad to a "7-5" teams when it's quite obvious they were much MUCH better than their record. Like sayin we were not nearly as good as our ten wins.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

The chances of finishing the year undefeated are the same as the chances of finishing the year winless at the beginning of every year. Just because a team went 9-4 and 10-4 the last two years doesn't increase or decrease the odds of them going 8-5 or 12-2 next year.

 

[StPaulHusker]

So basically this chart shows that we have not had a balanced team in Pelini's career as HC. Pretty much what we knew.

 

[KJ.]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

The chances of finishing the year undefeated are the same as the chances of finishing the year winless at the beginning of every year. Just because a team went 9-4 and 10-4 the last two years doesn't increase or decrease the odds of them going 8-5 or 12-2 next year.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

The chances of finishing the year undefeated are the same as the chances of finishing the year winless at the beginning of every year. Just because a team went 9-4 and 10-4 the last two years doesn't increase or decrease the odds of them going 8-5 or 12-2 next year.

The odds of every game ending in a loss is the same as the odds of every game ending in a win. They're opposite sides of the same coin.

And our disagreement is probably due to the "scope" of how we're wishing to make these predictions. I think you're going from a more holistic approach and seeing that a) we've overachieved according to the PF-PA differential and the projection for wins and predicting b) that we're going to eventually underachieve, which isn't what we want.

I'm taking a more specific approach and treating each season as separate from the season before because I think there are so many extraneous variables that factor into wins and losses that can not be controlled, so we can't look any further than just one year.

Or you could just be stating the very obvious: "Eventually we'll have a down year."

 

[KJ.]

The odds of every game ending in a loss is the same as the odds of every game ending in a win. They're opposite sides of the same coin.

You're going to need to clarify this. Do you mean for any randomly generated team? I might agree with you there. I haven't looked at the historical spread. But that isn't at all what this discussion is about, so I'm assuming you mean for a specific team. And that would be 100% wrong.

And our disagreement is probably due to the "scope" of how we're wishing to make these predictions. I think you're going from a more holistic approach and seeing that a) we've overachieved according to the PF-PA differential and the projection for wins and predicting b) that we're going to eventually underachieve, which isn't what we want.

I'm taking a more specific approach and treating each season as separate from the season before because I think there are so many extraneous variables that factor into wins and losses that can not be controlled, so we can't look any further than just one year.

For starters, I never said or implied the bold comment. I was talking about regression toward the mean, which is entirely different.

The disagreement lies in the fact that your second paragraph is just not true. Are you honestly telling me that the result from last season - a season against likely the same teams, with about 75% the same rosters - is completely uncorrelated to the result of the next season?

 

[StPaulHusker]

KJ-You owe me a +1 for calling the correct winners on games 2 and 3 against Indiana. Quit ducking me.

 

[Mavric]

The idea is that a team can't control those residual values. They are purely random which with enough data will converge to 0. It's like if you flip a coin ten times and it lands tails 8 times. Would you expect 8 tails on the next 10 turns?

There's definitely a fair amount of issues with analyzing these projected records, most notably high player turnover from year to year due to this being college ball. But I have a feeling we'd be feeling a lot differently about this upcoming season if we won ~8 games each of the last two years instead of 9 or 10.

And what do you suppose the chances of giving up 70 points to Wisconsin or 63 points to Ohio St. if we played them 10 times?

While I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, what do you think the chances are that a team gives up 70 points to a 5 loss team wins 7 conference games?

For starters, I never said or implied the bold comment. I was talking about regression toward the mean, which is entirely different.

The disagreement lies in the fact that your second paragraph is just not true. Are you honestly telling me that the result from last season - a season against likely the same teams, with about 75% the same rosters - is completely uncorrelated to the result of the next season?

I was saying you're not applying the same argument to both sides. By the numbers given, we "overachieved" when looking at our record compared to points scored vs. allowed. However, if our defense "regresses to the mean" by, for example, allowing 14 fewer points against tOSU and Wiscy II - still no stellar defensive showing but not quite as bad and not enough to change the outcome, we would have basically been right on the number of wins projected by calculation.

 

[KJ.]

I was saying you're not applying the same argument to both sides. By the numbers given, we "overachieved" when looking at our record compared to points scored vs. allowed. However, if our defense "regresses to the mean" by, for example, allowing 14 fewer points against tOSU and Wiscy II - still no stellar defensive showing but not quite as bad and not enough to change the outcome, we would have basically been right on the number of wins projected by calculation.

The point I was trying to make is that we can sit here all day and say "this should have happened, that was a fluke, blah blah blah" but what happened happened. My original post was just giving the theoretical expectation for the past season GIVEN it already happened. It doesn't go the other way around.

^ To add to that...There is no argument dude. There are no opinions in the stats that I gave, it really is as simple as we won more games than our points would have indicated. It's not a place to say "well it's skewed because of this" because not only is that an indicator of a team's worth, but I can also point out opposing points and we'd be back where we started.