Chest, True? -- Relative SRS scores over the last 30 years for UW and UO

Muttzen · October 2016

@TheChart , @HeretoBeatmyChest

Context:
1.0 is worst SRS rating in the Pac10/12, 0.0 is the best.

2016 uses the current SRS scores.

Colors are the school colors (I substituted green for Oregon instead of Cal blue)

Thoughts:
Chip Kelly was a hell of a coach.

Gilby, leader of midgets, was not.

SpoonieLuv · October 2016

Muttzen · October 2016

SpoonieLuv said:

Want me to hold your fucking hand the rest of your life? Break free AZ, there's a wealth of knowledge right at your fingertips.

Muttzen · October 2016

A little more explanation on the methodology:

Used this site
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2016-ratings.html

I used a formula to convert the Pac 12 ranking of SRS from a scale of 1-12 (or 1-10) to a scale of 0.0-1.0

Formula:
0-1 Scaled rank = ( Pac10/12 rank - 1 ) / ( Number of Pac schools - 1 )

Example: UW is currently ranked 9 overall in SRS, which is 1st in the Pac 12.
( 1 - 1 )/( 12 - 1) = 0 in 2016

Example: UO is currently ranked 56 overall in SRS, which is 10th in the Pac 12.
( 10 - 1 )/( 12 - 1) = 0.8181... in 2016

I went with the 0-1 scale over a 0-12 (@Owen12 har har) scale so that I could normalize the Pac12 and Pac 10 teams.

TheChart · October 2016

Muttzen said:
@TheChart , @HeretoBeatmyChest

Context:
1.0 is worst SRS rating in the Pac10/12, 0.0 is the best.

2016 uses the current SRS scores.

Colors are the school colors (I substituted green for Oregon instead of Cal blue)

Thoughts:
Chip Kelly was a hell of a coach.

Gilby, leader of midgets, was not.

This looks like a picture of all the ropes I'll be shooting all over the living room this Saturday.

Dennis_DeYoung · October 2016

I will say this until I'm blue in the face. The worst coach we ever had, easily, was Gilby. He was so fucking putridly awful it is unreal.

Also, this predicts we should win rather easily tomorrow. So, it's obviously bollocks because we are getting slaughtered.

Muttzen · October 2016

Here is Stanford.

Coaching matters. Year 3 matters.

Technically these would be better as scatterplots, or straight lines, but the curved ones look nicer.

Dennis_DeYoung · October 2016

Muttzen said:
Here is Stanford.

Coaching matters. Year 3 matters.

Technically these would be better as scatterplots, or straight lines, but the curved ones look nicer.

Fuck @Muttzen, get your shit together or put @TheChart in charge!!!!

Muttzen · October 2016

Here is one for the relative strength of the Pac-12 from 1992 to 2016. These are absolute SRS rankings.

Blue is the SRS of the strongest team, Orange is the median SRS, Grey is the SRS of the weakest team.

Notes:

The number of teams that are rated has increased from 107 in 1992 to 128 in 2016. This may explain the slight trend in the worst Pac12 team getting worse over time.

The best team in the Pac-10 sucked in 1999. Who?? Willingham's Rose bowl team at Stanford.

The average strength of the Pac fluctuates but hasn't changed that much over time.

backthepack · October 2016

Muttzen said:
A little more explanation on the methodology:

Used this site
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2016-ratings.html

I used a formula to convert the Pac 12 ranking of SRS from a scale of 1-12 (or 1-10) to a scale of 0.0-1.0

Formula:
0-1 Scaled rank = ( Pac10/12 rank - 1 ) / ( Number of Pac schools - 1 )

Example: UW is currently ranked 9 overall in SRS, which is 1st in the Pac 12.
( 1 - 1 )/( 12 - 1) = 0 in 2016

Example: UO is currently ranked 56 overall in SRS, which is 10th in the Pac 12.
( 10 - 1 )/( 12 - 1) = 0.8181... in 2016

I went with the 0-1 scale over a 0-12 (@Owen12 har har) scale so that I could normalize the Pac12 and Pac 10 teams.

Can you do my calcus homework?

Mad_Son · October 2016

If you flipped the vertical axis, or changed your variable to 1-relativeposition (obviously those do the exact same thing in effect), good results would be high and bad results would be low which is a lot more intuitive I think. Cool charts none the less.

Muttzen · October 2016

Mad_Son said:
If you flipped the vertical axis, or changed your variable to 1-relativeposition (obviously those do the exact same thing in effect), good results would be high and bad results would be low which is a lot more intuitive I think. Cool charts none the less.

Yer a fuckin genius!

here's the revised version

UW-UO

Stanford

PineapplePirate · October 2016

79smoothdawg · October 2016

Muttzen said:

show previous quotes
Mad_Son said:
If you flipped the vertical axis, or changed your variable to 1-relativeposition (obviously those do the exact same thing in effect), good results would be high and bad results would be low which is a lot more intuitive I think. Cool charts none the less.
Yer a fuckin genius!

here's the revised version

UW-UO

Stanford

NERDS!!!!

backthepack · October 2016

Mad_Son said:
If you flipped the vertical axis, or changed your variable to 1-relativeposition (obviously those do the exact same thing in effect), good results would be high and bad results would be low which is a lot more intuitive I think. Cool charts none the less.

Can you do my other homework? Like chemistry?

Dennis_DeYoung · October 2016

Shoutout to @Mad_Son for asking for an obvious conversion. I will admit I thought of asking, but didn't because I thought anyone who would put an inverted X axis on a chart was probably retarded and already stretched beyond their capacity.

Some faith in humanity is restored. The 'more intuitive' charts should be pinned for 3 reasons:

1) they expose Gilby's manboobs as the true assassin of our team, though the slide under Rick was undeniable.

2) they show that Harbs took the Tree from the lowest of the low to damn good in 3 fucking years.

and

3) they show that Lambo's teams underperformed like a motherfucker.

3 points that Doogs hate.

Muttzen · October 2016

Dennis_DeYoung said:
Shoutout to @Mad_Son for asking for an obvious conversion. I will admit I thought of asking, but didn't because I thought anyone who would put an inverted Y axis on a chart was probably retarded and already stretched beyond their capacity.

Some faith in humanity is restored. The 'more intuitive' charts should be pinned for 3 reasons:

1) they expose Gilby's manboobs as the true assassin of our team, though the slide under Rick was undeniable.

2) they show that Harbs took the Tree from the lowest of the low to damn good in 3 fucking years.

and

3) they show that Lambo's teams underperformed like a motherfucker.

3 points that Doogs hate.

FTFY

also my dads said I was smart, but I chose to follow husky football in the mid 2000s, so there's that.

doogsinparadise · October 2016

PineapplePirate said:

I am both drunk and angry, which makes this expression of confusion so important and, ultimately, influential.

droggins · October 2016

I heard the football IQ of this site decreased by some 70% when chest left. True?

Muttzen · October 2016

droggins said:
I heard the football IQ of this site decreased by some 70% when chest left. True?

Here's a short tribute to chest:

progris riport - octobre 8

chest says I shud rite down what I think and evrey thing that happins to me from now on. I dont know why but he says its importint so they will see if they will use me. I hope they use me. Miss Kinnian says maybe they can make me smart. I want to be smart. My name is Muttzn. I am 37 years old and 2 weeks ago was my brithday. I have nuthing more to rite now so I will close for today.

(Flowers for Algernon, hardy har har)

Muttzen · October 2016

Chest needed to go and his contributions will not be missed.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Chest, True? -- Relative SRS scores over the last 30 years for UW and UO

Comments