Bill C.’s rosy statistical picture

If you thought Georgia’s effort against South Carolina would get dinged in Connelly’s performance percentile, guess again.  The Dawgs notched a robust 91%.

S&P+ has Georgia favored in each of its three remaining games, with better than an 86% of losing no more than one of them.

And the defense is still totally bad ass in the first and third quarters.

14 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Stats Geek!

14 responses to “Bill C.’s rosy statistical picture

  1. Alkaline

    That’s a higher overall grade than I expected, but it’s hard not to notice that the Adjusted Scoring Margin for the game is +30. So even the statistics that agree that the offense basically earned another two TDs but didn’t put them on the board.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. DawgFlan

    Defense is consistently very good, but hot dam those 1st and 3rd quarter stats are amazing.

    Offense reads significantly less consistent, but money on 3rd down. Great work by Fromm and good situational play-calling.

    The OL still shows as a work in progress, with a rotation of RBs and staying committed to the run required to balance semi-consistent stuffs with pops of large runs.

    I really like this UGA team, but Auburn’s front seven scares me, a lot more than ND’s ever did. This is the first week that my nervous ghost of UGA football-past is louder than my confident ghost of UGA football-future.

    Like

    • Biggus Rickus

      Auburn’s good. It doesn’t take a faceplant to lose to them. Being worried about this game is just common sense. I expect Georgia to win, because they’re a little better, but it’s likely to be loseable in the fourth quarter.

      Like

  3. Otto

    Defense has been awesome in the 3rd. It would also be interesting to see how many times UGA opened the 3rd with 4+minute drive and/or TD allowing the D to catch their breath. UGA’s 1st 3rd qtr drive against SC was 5:32, 4:11 for Mizzou. The 3rd qtr has been UGA’s in all 3 phases of the game.

    Like

  4. Smokey Joe

    He has Ohio State ranked ahead of us, not sure how much I should pay attention to his rankings. I get efficiency and all that, but Ohio State got smoked twice, I think he came up with all this to help his relationship with his bookie.

    Like

    • Biggus Rickus

      I can’t put my finger on what his numbers miss, but it seems to overvalue extremely good performances against completely overmatched opponents. Blowing out bad teams is often a sign of quality, but it shouldn’t outweigh poor performances against quality opponents as seems to be the case for Ohio State and Missouri, for two examples.

      Like

      • Folks on /r/CFB were discussing this yesterday (https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7ayza6/130team_sp_rankings_where_alabama_rules_college/).

        Apparently, S&P+ is a “rating” system and not a “ranking” system. The goal is to list teams by their likelihood of beating those below them.

        Like

        • Smokey Joe

          So he believes on a neutral site, tOSU would beat UGA? Or that Central Florida would beat Oklahoma. I think the guy does great work analyzing games that already happened. It also might be a fairly accurate predictor, but he takes no account for who you have played and what your efficiency ratings are against teams that are not very good. I just hate it that sites like SB nation swears by it and says that this team is going to beat that team based on what he says. Ask Iowa about that.

          Like

          • Xon

            It does take quality of opponent into account (the “+” in “S&P+” means precisely that: opponent-adjusted). It’s an attempt to accurately predict what will happen based on what has happened. Yes it would NARROWLY favor tOSU over UGA on a neutral field right now (really it would be a ritual toss-up as the distance is less than a point between them). That’s just what the error-minimizing-over-time formula spits out based on what’s actually happened. tOSU has destroyed teams so badly in their wins (and played so well down over down despite spotting some mistakes to Penn State early last week), that the two losses still leave them highly rated. The whole point of an objective statistics-based analysis is that sometimes the formula says things that our human brains aren’t quite sure about. But over time the formula is also more accurate at making predictions than our human brains are too.

            In any case it’s nothing to be insulted about. tOSU lost twice in ugly fashion so they are done. But if a good team plays them and expects to beat them, they should beware because they are still an excellent team down-over-down. That’s all the system says.

            Like

        • Biggus Rickus

          I get that. I don’t have a problem with what he’s trying to do. I just don’t think it’s especially accurate and needs to be qualified. For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s possible to create a particularly effective system for projecting college football teams. There isn’t enough data. There’s a reason advanced stats originated with baseball. It has a zillion numbers over a huge sample of games. Football doesn’t give you many numbers to begin with, and those numbers are generated over 12 to 15 games.

          Like

    • Chickamona

      Yeah, I appreciate all the work he does, but he also had Georgia going 7-5 this year. His numbers seem completely unable to account for changes in personnel and growth/development of players (as evidenced by his pessimistic projection for us.) College football is a fairly difficult sport to project through advanced stats. Has both a lot of players on field on once (so a lot of variables on every play) and not a lot of plays/games to really draw strong and reliable patterns from. Relies too heavily on past performance as indicator of future and with a bunch of 18-22 year olds that only goes so far.

      Like

      • Xon

        It relies on things that actually have predictive value and does better over time than the vast majority of human prognosticators. But as with any system it gets certain things wrong. There are always misses but that doesn’t prove the system is bad or flawed or wrong. He was ambivalent on us (not really pessimistic) bc over time certain factors tend to predict what your next season is going to be like pretty well, and those factors had us right around the top 20. Why is that pessimistic, anyway? UGA was historically bad in the advanced stats last year. Ranked in the 60s. Everyone is aware of the second year bump but it doesn’t always happen and there is no way to quantify exactly when it will happen. So uga was positioned as a likely top 20 team, and if Smart got a second year bump they could go much higher. Where’s the error here?

        Like

  5. Fire everyone involved and n special teams! We slipped to #2, PAWWWL!

    Like