Chest's Free pub

BlowItUp

@HeretoBeatmyChest has taken some flack lately, but Bill Connelly of sbnation.com and footballoutsiders.com writes a column called 'numerical' every week. Here's the excerpt on UW which speaks directly to the point chest has been making. The bolded part especially:

21

Washington rose 21 spots, from 40th to 19th, in this week's F/+ rankings following a 49-3 destruction of Arizona. The change in S&P+ (which accounts for half of the F/+ rankings) was even more stark: 30 spots, from 48th to 18th.

How does a jump like that happen this late in the year, long after preseason projections have been phased out of the system? Two primary reasons:

Teams in this portion of the ratings are bunched together. S&P+ is presented in the form of an adjusted scoring margin, and at the moment there's only a touchdown's difference between No. 18 Washington (plus-14.2) and No. 44 Georgia (plus-7.2). Meanwhile, there's a touchdown's difference between No. 1 Clemson (28.7) and No. 4 Ohio State (plus-21.4). This is a crowded section of the bell curve, so a really good game can move you up.
Washington played a really good game. Arizona is a bad team this year -- 87th in F/+, 86th in S&P+ (32nd on offense, 115th on defense) -- but the Huskies' domination was swift and complete. The Wildcats drove for a field goal on their first drive, then finished with five punts, four turnovers and three turnovers on downs. The young Washington offense finished with seven touchdowns in 10 drives. Hard to top that.
Washington is only 4-4 but has played at an incredibly high level in its four wins (average percentile performance: 89.8) and has suffered three one-possession losses. Considering youth, the Huskies are far closer to being a strong team than they should be. They could be something pretty awesome in 2016

that's the full exerpt from this link: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/3/9662926/mark-richt-georgia-hot-seat-brian-schottenheimer-faton-bauta

Alexis

Doog. (Obligatory)

FremontTroll

The key point is that there is always a giant glut of mediocre teams in college football. We shouldn't be reading too much into small improvements in the various analytic ranking systems year over year because the margin separating any two given teams is smaller and smaller as you move down the rankings from 1 to 60 or so.

topdawgnc

They could be something pretty awesome in 2016

Next year is going to be fucking special!!!!!!!

PostGameOrangeSlices

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Slocus

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Are you sure you ran that through the flux capacitor properly?

MisterEm

Slocus said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Are you sure you ran that through the random play generator properly?

PostGameOrangeSlices

Slocus said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Are you sure you ran that through the flux capacitor properly?

I spent hours double checking the formulas in Wolfram Alpha.

I'd post the dumbed down excel spreadsheet, but the odds of this bored understanding the calculations are slim

RaceBannon

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Plagerism but you put a much better effort than I did so I'll allow it

allpurpleallgold

They lost to Oregon. Nothing else matters.

CFetters_Nacho_Lover

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Awesome day for the statistically affluent.

RaceBannon

allpurpleallgold said:

They lost to Oregon, Stanford, Boise, and Cal. Basically any team with a pulse. Nothing else matters.

PostGameOrangeSlices

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

You've got to dig deeper into the advanced metrical statistical analytics. Our C+H^3 rating is sitting at 52.3÷2...something remarkable for a team where 3.478 out of 7.1 recruits have reached the LMF threshold. However, you have to take into account that our 4 losses impacts the z variable in the ¥+a^2 (z-81) equation, where ¥ is the LMF formula diveded by the beta of yards per play. This theorem has been getting a lot of press lately among the statically affluent, which is rather interesting.


Currently, ¥+a^2 (z-81)=23, which is admittedly surprising.

Plagerism but you put a much better effort than I did so I'll allow it

Thank you sir, your calculations were inspiring.

I'm still working on a way to accurately incorporate altitude into the metrics, so stay tuned.

Swaye

Wake me when we get 10 wins and one of them is Oregon.

HeretoBeatmyChest

Connelly's point is exactly what I'm saying. Its a deep rebuilding year and we are showing indications that we could be much better next year.

We will see how the season ends as they essentially have three near 50-50 games left plus one near gimmie. Only winning one of those three would be a disappointment. Winning 2/3 and having a chance to be 8-5 would be a sign of improvement since the start of the year.

Pete has lost too many near 50-50 games at home. Beating Utah would be a sign of another small step considering we've lost all the games over the past two seasons.

PurpleJ

FremontTroll said:

The key point is that there is always a giant glut of mediocre defenses in college football. We shouldn't be reading too much into small improvements in the various analytic ranking systems year over year because the margin separating any two given defenses is smaller and smaller as you move down the rankings from 1 to 60 or so.

godawgst

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

Connelly's point is exactly what I'm saying. Its a deep rebuilding year and we are showing indications that we could be much better next year.

We will see how the season ends as they essentially have three near 50-50 games left plus one near gimmie. Only winning one of those three would be a disappointment. Winning 2/3 and having a chance to be 8-5 would be a sign of improvement since the start of the year.

Pete has lost too many near 50-50 games at home. Beating Utah would be a sign of another small step considering we've lost all the games over the past two seasons.

As programs rise, they start at winning at home, then win on the road, then beat someone your not supposed to at home, then finally beat someone on the road your not supposed to beat.

Utah is our home chance, and ASU is the one left on the road (I don't count USC w/ all the Sark drama going on).

Mike_Honcho

RaceBannon said:

allpurpleallgold said:

They lost to Oregon, Stanford, Boise, Cal, Utah, ASU, Oregon State and Washington State. Basically any team with a pulse. Nothing else matters.

Fixed once again

HuskyInAZ

Mike_Honcho said:

RaceBannon said:

allpurpleallgold said:

They lost to Oregon, Stanford, Boise, Cal, Utah, ASU, Oregon State and Washington State. Basically any team with a pulse. Nothing else matters.

Fixed once again

Great poast.....