Points Forced & Points Allowed

Hoosker

Hoosker

New member
RAs1Tpu.png


Here's a little graph I put together based on the average points forced/allowed per game. It's interesting to look at what both the offense and defense have done since Pelini took the reigns back in 2008.

2008

-QB: Joe Ganz (Sr.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

2009

-QB: Zac Lee (Jr.) / Cody Green (Fr.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

2010

-QB: Taylor Martinez (Fr.) / Cody Green (So.)

-OC: Shawn Watson

-DC: Carl Pelini

2011

-QB: Taylor Martinez (So.)

-OC: Tim Beck

-DC: Carl Pelini

2012

-QB: Taylor Martinez (Jr.)

-OC: Tim Beck

-DC: John Papuchis

Discuss

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KJ. said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
KJ. said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
lo country said:
I am an idiot. What you have posted looks good. What the heck does it mean in laymen's terms? Thanks!
Click to expand...
That simply in 2008, 11, and 12, the offense was good enough to win 9-10 despite the defense being bad enough to lose 4 whilst in 2009 and 10, the defense was good enough to win 10 games despite the offense being bad enough to lose 4.

Or basically the stuff everyone already knows.

 
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.

 
mrandyk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wont say they gave up. The guys play hard. The Pelini era has just contained some sort of mental block that once a few things go against us, things seem to spiral out of control. If anything, the 2012 season should be more than enough evidence to debunk any kind of "quit" or "give up" theory. Those ideas are just a copout way of trying to explain what happened instead of trying to identify the real issues.

 
mrandyk said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the Ohio State and Wisconsin games, where we were outscored by an average of 7 points in the 2nd half? Given that we were outscored by an average of 21.5 points in the first half, I'd say they were the ones who gave up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the mathematical statistical analysis. O sucked until last year and D carried the victories. O rocked last year and D sucked. All years we were lucky to win what we won.

I hope that the D can be remotely better than last year. Sell out on the run until some team decides to throw. After our run D last year, can't imagine too many teams that won't try to ram it down our throats.

Statistically speaking, what level would our D need to be to not "cost us" games this year. If the O limits TO's, would that be enough to negate the D and their possible lack of performance on par with 2012?

 
KJ. said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
KJ. said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
:dunno

 
Mavric said:
KJ. said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
KJ. said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
:dunno
Click to expand...
This confuses me, too

 
accountability said:
mrandyk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wont say they gave up. The guys play hard. The Pelini era has just contained some sort of mental block that once a few things go against us, things seem to spiral out of control. If anything, the 2012 season should be more than enough evidence to debunk any kind of "quit" or "give up" theory. Those ideas are just a copout way of trying to explain what happened instead of trying to identify the real issues.
Click to expand...
the spiraling out of control could be from the players trying to do too much and not playing within themselves.

 
Back
Top