(10-15-2013 08:09 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But end of the day with me, 10-2 is better than 9-3, but not as good as 11-1. Only possible exception, 10-2 with a conference championship may be better than 11-1 without. But margin of victory doesn't really matter to me. A win is a win is a win, and you are what your record is.

I know you have posted on sabermetrics in baseball so you are familiar with pythagorean theorem and mean reversion for 1 run games.

Do you believe the same applies in football? Is a 3 point win in football as much about luck as a one run game in baseball? or are the sports so different that you can win six 3 point games in a row and be a solid 6-0 rather than a 3-3 team with good luck?

I would agree that something like the "pythagorean" approach does a better job at estimating the quality of a team than simple W-L. Margin of victory is useful information when trying to determinen the quality of a team.

But if I'm choosing between a) Rice winning 5 of our next 6 by 50 pts each and losing the other, or b) Rice winning all of our remaining 6 by 1 pt each, then I'm going to pick b) every time.
Even though the team that accomplishes a) is likely a "better" team than the team that accomplishes b), I don't care. All I really want is wins.

If we get to that point that we're so good that we can regularly win all of our games, then I'll start to care about how much we win them by.

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A lot of people have been critical of Todd's team because it didn't really put people away, it just found a way to pull out one game after another. That was probably my favorite Rice team ever to watch. The same players who had looked so hapless under Ken somehow found a way to pull out game after game at the end. I thought that team probably came as close to its potential as any Rice team I've seen.

In more ways than one, David Bailiff is the anti-Todd Graham. For all of Toad's shortcomings, he excelled at preparation, motivation, and getting the absolute most out of what he had.

(10-16-2013 08:24 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

The latter. Your expected winning percentage is your points squared, divided by the sum of your points squared plus your opponents' points squared. Walk through the math, you'll see.

I agree with Bailiff as the anti-Todd.

And JOwl put it better that I did. Give a choice of winning 6 games by 1 point each, or winning 5 by 50 points each and losing one by 1 point, I take 6-0 over 5-1 every time.

(10-15-2013 05:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 05:14 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  This thread reminds me of the old axiom that offense sells tickets, defense wins games and the kicking game wins championships (or its various iterations). Bailiff IMHO is focused on the latter 2, looking for the resulting wins and championships and bowl games. And your top 10 teams almost all share that philosophy. At the end of the day, 10-2 is 10-2 however you get there. I'll take it as 10 2 point wins if that's what I can get. I'd rather have that over 9 21 point wins and 3 30 point losses. JMHO.

My complaints about Bailiff have pretty much always been that I wasn't satisfied that he focused ENOUGH on the latter 2, particularly not the kicking game in the early years. If we got to be the one team in CUSA that played defense and emphasized the kicking game, I think we could line up in any offense known to man and win lots of games and championships. Ruowls will disagree, and I respect his thinking immensely, but we've spent the last 50 years or so trying to figure out one way after another to outscore people, and the most successful run we've had was when Fred was emphasizing defense and kicking game, and Ken came behind with Wally Ake as DC.

Conover's one or two good years was def and st also-best off years in that era was 76 and 77 and results were awful

(10-16-2013 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The latter. Your expected winning percentage is your points squared, divided by the sum of your points squared plus your opponents' points squared. Walk through the math, you'll see.

I forgot about the exponent. Isn't it different for different sports?

(10-16-2013 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree with Bailiff as the anti-Todd.

Does this explain some (or even most) of Rice's patience with Bailiff?

(10-16-2013 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And JOwl put it better that I did. Give a choice of winning 6 games by 1 point each, or winning 5 by 50 points each and losing one by 1 point, I take 6-0 over 5-1 every time.

ALERT
I'd rather lose to Alabama by 1 and beat 5 other SEC West teams by 50 than beat 6 C-USA West teams by 1 each.

Now given the same schedule for each set of 6 games, I agree with you.

The Pythagorean theorem does impact one's margin of victory.

For a receiver to create separation, he simply must create a right triangle between him, the defender and the catch point. Once this is created, simply orient the triangle such that the defender always runs the hypotenuse. Guaranteed step of separation. Coaching point: Always make the other guy run farther to get to catch point. Catch phrase: Make them run the hypotenuse.

And just for the record, I'm more 2 back run oriented than you think.

(10-17-2013 12:39 AM)ruowls Wrote:  The Pythagorean theorem does impact one's margin of victory.

For a receiver to create separation, he simply must create a right triangle between him, the defender and the catch point. Once this is created, simply orient the triangle such that the defender always runs the hypotenuse. Guaranteed step of separation. Coaching point: Always make the other guy run farther to get to catch point. Catch phrase: Make them run the hypotenuse.

And just for the record, I'm more 2 back run oriented than you think.

Well played.

(10-16-2013 11:19 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The latter. Your expected winning percentage is your points squared, divided by the sum of your points squared plus your opponents' points squared. Walk through the math, you'll see.

I forgot about the exponent. Isn't it different for different sports?

The sabermetric concept is the same for all sports. It works better for baseball than football, I think because of sample size.

The Indianapolis Colts went 11-5 last year while being outscored for the season.

This is a somewhat improbable pythagorean outcome, and many folks picked them to win fewer games this year as a mean reversion.

Does anyone know a handy way, as an illustration, of finding the narrowest cumulative run differential by an MLB team over the past 50 years that say won 90 games. I imagine it would be hard to find one that wasn't decisively positive.

(10-17-2013 07:10 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  The Indianapolis Colts went 11-5 last year while being outscored for the season.

This is a somewhat improbable pythagorean outcome, and many folks picked them to win fewer games this year as a mean reversion.

Does anyone know a handy way, as an illustration, of finding the narrowest cumulative run differential by an MLB team over the past 50 years that say won 90 games. I imagine it would be hard to find one that wasn't decisively positive.

2007 was a weird year. Arizona had the best record in the NL at 90-72 and was -20 in run differential. Seattle won 88 games that year with a -27 run differential.

Still searching for a better way to look over an extended period of time, but I remember the talk on the Diamondbacks.

(10-16-2013 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And JOwl put it better that I did. Give a choice of winning 6 games by 1 point each, or winning 5 by 50 points each and losing one by 1 point, I take 6-0 over 5-1 every time.

This has been said numerous times in numerous ways and nobody would dispute it, but the reality is that a team capable of both outcomes against the same schedule is so remote as to be silly to postulate about.

Giver our first 6, I'd certainly take 6-0 over 5-1... but but the probability of 6-0 was FAR FAR lower than of being 5-1... and 5 1 point victories to go with that loss isn't nearly as good as 5 50 point victories to go with that loss.

5 1 point victories and in most people's minds... we're clearly better than the best team we beat... but not by much. Alternatively, 50 point victories over those same teams implies that we are MUCH better than those other teams.

Yes... absolutely... don 't go so far into being aggressive that you risk losing to inferior teams... but when you get a lead, don't let up as much as we seem to have and keep the pressure on. An example would be to call ALL plays from the LOS with few substitutions (allowing few substitutions) and lining up quickly, but run the play clock inside 5 seconds every play...go to the Wild Owl, which has inarguably been somewhat effective at keeping enough of a deception to be somewhat effective against 8+ in the box... no penalties putting us in obvious passing situations... and just execute what SHOULD be a modestly dominant, run first, run the clock second DOMINATING style of football. It doesn't have to mean "go deep". or even throw the ball at all. Bring McH (who has some wheels) in from time to time making them think pass with a designed roll out towards what should be man coverage and run a 2-3 man pass/run option with the rule to McH being... unless it is so open that you can complete it left handed, turn the corner and get what you can and stay in bounds... or throw it to the cheap seats if something breaks down and you're trapped... Period.

That's all. Can we please stop making it more than it is?

(10-17-2013 12:39 AM)ruowls Wrote:  The Pythagorean theorem does impact one's margin of victory.

For a receiver to create separation, he simply must create a right triangle between him, the defender and the catch point. Once this is created, simply orient the triangle such that the defender always runs the hypotenuse. Guaranteed step of separation. Coaching point: Always make the other guy run farther to get to catch point. Catch phrase: Make them run the hypotenuse.

And just for the record, I'm more 2 back run oriented than you think.

FTW

(10-16-2013 08:24 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A lot of people have been critical of Todd's team because it didn't really put people away, it just found a way to pull out one game after another. That was probably my favorite Rice team ever to watch. The same players who had looked so hapless under Ken somehow found a way to pull out game after game at the end. I thought that team probably came as close to its potential as any Rice team I've seen.

In more ways than one, David Bailiff is the anti-Todd Graham. For all of Toad's shortcomings, he excelled at preparation, motivation, and getting the absolute most out of what he had.

I don't think Bailiff is short on motivation, and I hate when people suggest that.

If he was bad at that, we would have seen his Owl teams roll over and die multiple times during his tenure. The one thing I am consistently impressed with is how they fight through the whole game. Even during the stink stretch of '09-'11, I never felt like the team quit in ANY game, ever. And that is the hallmark of a coach who can motivate.

Now the quibble with the other two aspects, have at it.

(10-17-2013 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 08:24 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A lot of people have been critical of Todd's team because it didn't really put people away, it just found a way to pull out one game after another. That was probably my favorite Rice team ever to watch. The same players who had looked so hapless under Ken somehow found a way to pull out game after game at the end. I thought that team probably came as close to its potential as any Rice team I've seen.

In more ways than one, David Bailiff is the anti-Todd Graham. For all of Toad's shortcomings, he excelled at preparation, motivation, and getting the absolute most out of what he had.

I don't think Bailiff is short on motivation, and I hate when people suggest that.
If he was bad at that, we would have seen his Owl teams roll over and die multiple times during his tenure. The one thing I am consistently impressed with is how they fight through the whole game. Even during the stink stretch of '09-'11, I never felt like the team quit in ANY game, ever. And that is the hallmark of a coach who can motivate.
Now the quibble with the other two aspects, have at it.

I don't think he is short on motivation. He is short on preparation and intensity. I think we still rely too much on emotion and not enough on intensity. We can get up and put on a major effort versus aTm, but can't sustain that every week.

(10-17-2013 07:10 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  The Indianapolis Colts went 11-5 last year while being outscored for the season.

This is a somewhat improbable pythagorean outcome, and many folks picked them to win fewer games this year as a mean reversion.

Does anyone know a handy way, as an illustration, of finding the narrowest cumulative run differential by an MLB team over the past 50 years that say won 90 games. I imagine it would be hard to find one that wasn't decisively positive.

In the NFL, it would seem much more improbable due to parity. Yet, Rice seems to have that sort of outcome frequently due to the unbalanced schedule.

That reminds me of the story about Bear Bryant telling his Alabama team that Georgia Tech will be coming out to play all fired up. That willend when you drive them into the turf. Bear believed more in preparation than emotion.

(10-17-2013 10:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 08:24 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A lot of people have been critical of Todd's team because it didn't really put people away, it just found a way to pull out one game after another. That was probably my favorite Rice team ever to watch. The same players who had looked so hapless under Ken somehow found a way to pull out game after game at the end. I thought that team probably came as close to its potential as any Rice team I've seen.

In more ways than one, David Bailiff is the anti-Todd Graham. For all of Toad's shortcomings, he excelled at preparation, motivation, and getting the absolute most out of what he had.

I don't think Bailiff is short on motivation, and I hate when people suggest that.
If he was bad at that, we would have seen his Owl teams roll over and die multiple times during his tenure. The one thing I am consistently impressed with is how they fight through the whole game. Even during the stink stretch of '09-'11, I never felt like the team quit in ANY game, ever. And that is the hallmark of a coach who can motivate.
Now the quibble with the other two aspects, have at it.

I don't think he is short on motivation. He is short on preparation and intensity. I think we still rely too much on emotion and not enough on intensity. We can get up and put on a major effort versus aTm, but can't sustain that every week.

(10-17-2013 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 08:24 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winning every game 17-3 is going to give you a better Pythagorean result than winning every game 70-21.

Really? I thought Pythagorean results were only based on differential and not actual scores. As in 17-3 is identical to 56-42 (both +14). Or are you saying it's a multiplier thing, so that 17-3 means you scored 466.666...% more than your opponent, while 70-21 is only outscoring your opponent by 233.333...%?

(10-16-2013 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A lot of people have been critical of Todd's team because it didn't really put people away, it just found a way to pull out one game after another. That was probably my favorite Rice team ever to watch. The same players who had looked so hapless under Ken somehow found a way to pull out game after game at the end. I thought that team probably came as close to its potential as any Rice team I've seen.

In more ways than one, David Bailiff is the anti-Todd Graham. For all of Toad's shortcomings, he excelled at preparation, motivation, and getting the absolute most out of what he had.

I don't think Bailiff is short on motivation, and I hate when people suggest that.

If he was bad at that, we would have seen his Owl teams roll over and die multiple times during his tenure. The one thing I am consistently impressed with is how they fight through the whole game. Even during the stink stretch of '09-'11, I never felt like the team quit in ANY game, ever. And that is the hallmark of a coach who can motivate.

Now the quibble with the other two aspects, have at it.

Good post and I agree. I've never seen Rice players quit.

Always find it ironic how people external to the program use adjectives to describe Rice as 'well coached and disciplined' (see below) but people internal to Rice (i.e., Parliament) use 'poorly coached and poorly prepared' as their adjectives..

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-spo...-they-host

(10-19-2013 11:30 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Always find it ironic how people external to the program use adjectives to describe Rice as 'well coached and disciplined' (see below) but people internal to Rice (i.e., Parliament) use 'poorly coached and poorly prepared' as their adjectives..

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-spo...-they-host

That's usually because they assume, as it is Rice, the team must have minimal talent.

(10-19-2013 12:35 PM)talon owl Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:30 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Always find it ironic how people external to the program use adjectives to describe Rice as 'well coached and disciplined' (see below) but people internal to Rice (i.e., Parliament) use 'poorly coached and poorly prepared' as their adjectives..

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-spo...-they-host

That's usually because they assume, as it is Rice, the team must have minimal talent.

I don't put much stock in this stuff. It's normal for players and coaches to pump up their upcoming opponents, and very rare to openly disrespect them.

FWIW I do think the egregious errors have been cut down over the past two years, at least on defense. There's still room for improvement, of course, but I give a lot of credit to Thurmond.

Quote: It's normal for players and coaches to pump up their upcoming opponents, and very rare to openly disrespect them.

Coachspeak. Everybody does it.