2010 Adjusted Stats and More
As mentioned about a month ago, a large amount of data on previous season was recently made available, which allowed me to run my stat adjustments on all seasons beginning in 2000.
The results are available online here, and using those historical results as well as completing last season's work allowed me to complete my 2010 Adjusted Stats Year in Review.
Also available via the adjusted stats link above are historical ratings for all teams going back to 1869. Please note that there are multiple ratings representing multiple rating theories available. While I consider EWP my best rating method at this point, no computer rating can or should claim to definitively determine the best team. Computer ratings offer an objective calculation of the teams' performances and can be an essential part of an argument regarding best teams. When using them for historical comparison purposes, you need to truly understand the rating you're looking at as well as its limitations. EWP, while very valid, does not do as good a job allowing for the differences in the college football landscape in the first half of the 20th Century. For that reason I added a date range tool for use when reviewing those ratings. I also have added a normalized EWP stat to somewhat mitigate the differences between eras. That gives just one more rating tool for comparison.
Additionally, I have touched base with Bill at Football Study Hall and we've bounced a few ideas off each other and I'm excited about where college football stats may be headed in the near future.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is a treasure trove.
BTW, readers, when you click on the pdf, Huck defines all of his terms and explain each concept. Don’t be daunted by the verbiage or EWP. You’ll find this stuff really enlightening and a lot more sophisticated than raw stats.
This blew me away: Offensive points per play = 91st in the country.
Yards per passing attempt = 96th in the country. Passing efficiency – 100th in the country.
Forget our shitty running game – we couldn’t throw the ball worth a damn so we decided to feature it.
I’d like to see you and Connelly team up on some stuff. Any ideas?
by Scipio Tex on Aug 11, 2011 12:51 AM CDT reply actions
I’ve got one idea in particular I’m excited about, but about a third of my ideas are no bueno once the numbers are run. All I need now are mountains of data to analyze.
by Huckleberry on Aug 11, 2011 7:44 AM CDT reply actions
Considering the resources we have, and the talent we supposedly have recruited, this is expansion team – like performance as the data indicate.
by lonesome devil on Aug 11, 2011 9:06 AM CDT reply actions
All coming 8 months after playing for a MNC.
by lonesome devil on Aug 11, 2011 9:08 AM CDT reply actions
Also available via the adjusted stats link above are historical ratings for all teams going back to 1869.
Nice.
by Sailor Ripley on Aug 11, 2011 10:27 AM CDT reply actions
Thanks for this Huck. Good stuff, as always. I knew we were putrid — I just didn’t realize how objetive that putridness really was.
by Toadvine on Aug 11, 2011 10:29 AM CDT reply actions
I still can’t get over the amount of quality stuff that’s in here.
402 pages.
This is a magnum opus. Newton’s Principia. Well done, man.
by Scipio Tex on Aug 11, 2011 1:04 PM CDT reply actions
adjusted offense per game, 81. Rice, 82. Texas. that just makes me so sad.
by Mehul Mehta on Aug 17, 2011 6:32 PM CDT reply actions

by 























