I was browsing Football Outsiders today and noticed that they posted a link to a Pro Football Reference article regarding Pythagorean Wins.
At bottom, the guys at Pro Football Reference wanted to know if capping blow out wins in the NFL would make the Pythagorean projection more accurate.
And what did they find?
They found that capping blowout wins in the NFL does not make the formula any more accurate in terms of determining how good teams truly are. However, they did note that capping blowout wins in college football would make the that formula more accurate in terms of determining how good teams truly are.
If you recall from making posts on Pythagorean Wins, I have been doing the same thing for months in regard to college football. I've been making the argument that games against the Sisters of the Poor (Western Carolina, etc.) should not be used in Pythagorean projections because the talent disparities between the teams are so great, and one team is effectively guaranteed a win. The bigger opponent can basically name the score on the Sister of the Poor in question, and that massive blowout win inflates that team's Pythagorean projection to make it look like they should have more games than they did.
At bottom, when you do it for the entire SEC, it essentially means that basically every SEC team underachieves in a year, i.e. they didn't win as many games as the formula says they should have.
The same analysis, as the guys at Pro Football Reference noted, does not work for the NFL because the teams are so similar. Even when the best NFL teams play the worst, for example the Raiders, the teams are still relatively closely matched. You never run into anywhere near the disparities that you do in college football when, for example, when USC plays Idado (as they do in the 2007 season opener). To get that same disparity in the NFL, you would have to have a team like the New England Patriots play someone, for example, from NFL Europa, and of course that never happens.
So what does it mean for Pythagorean wins for college teams?
It means, as I've been saying for months, you should not factor in the cupcake games, and focus much more on conference games.
Perhaps I should tweak my Pythagorean formula slightly more, say including all "big" games (conference opponents and legitimate out-of-conference opponents, including possibly bowl games), or perhaps I should count the games against the Sisters of the Poor, but somehow weight down that game to where it is not very important. Doing so, of course, has pitfalls of its own (namely, you are comparing apples and oranges because then teams are playing very different schedules, unlike when you compare only conference play when schedules are very similar, so strength of schedule would became a major factor that would have to be evaluated), but perhaps it would make the formula more accurate.
Maybe that should be a research topic for another day.
Showing posts with label Pythagorean Wins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pythagorean Wins. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
2006 Pythagorean Wins
I've posted previously about Pythagorean Wins in this forum, so perhaps it should be a bit familiar. As a refresher, Pythagorean Wins is a statistical measure of how many wins a team "should" have in a given year based on how many points the team scored and how many points they allowed. The concept was first used in professional baseball, but has since been successfully applied to other sports, and I've applied it to college football as well.
At bottom, the underlying point of Pythagorean Wins in regard to predicting future performance is that teams that overachieve -- i.e. win more games than their Pythagorean projections says they should have -- tend to decline the following year, and teams that underachieve -- i.e. win fewer games than their Pythagorean projections said they should have -- tend to improve the following year. After analyzing SEC football from 1999-2006, it becomes very obvious that Pythagorean Wins is a highly useful indicator of future performance.
Among the major declines that Pythagorean wins predicted included 2000 Alabama, 2004 Ole Miss, 2004 Florida, and 2005 Tennessee. Among the major improvements predicted by Pythagorean wins included 2001 Alabama, 2005 Alabama, 2005 Florida, 2006 Arkansas, and 2006 Tennessee.
Generally speaking, the magic number seems to be one. You come up with a Pythagorean projection based on the eight regular season conference games, and the teams that win a game or more above their Pythagorean projection tend to decline the following year, and teams that win a game or fewer above their Pythagorean projection tend to improve the following year.
Here are the Pythagorean projections for the 2006 season:
Obviously, we had three overachievers -- Florida, Kentucky, and Auburn -- and two underachievers -- South Carolina and Vanderbilt -- in 2006.
The Gators, despite having a projection of only 5.5 conference wins, went 7-1 in conference play, won the SEC, and ultimately became national champions. Auburn was the second most overachieving team, and it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. The Tigers beat LSU on a controversial call, stood up South Carolina on the goal line, beat Florida in a narrow game, needed an interception returned for a touchdown to beat Ole Miss, and had another narrow win over Alabama, despite being annihilated by Georgia and Arkansas. Kentucky, too, becomes suspect with a few close wins mixed in with a few lopsided blowouts.
The underachievers, as largely expected, include South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Both teams played solid football all year, but generally ran out of luck in close contests.
You never know for certain, and there will be some exceptions, but if you are looking for teams to mildly improve in 2006, Vanderbilt and South Carolina would be safe beats, and no one should be surprised if Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky suffer a bit of a decline.
A few more general notes on Pythagorean wins:
At bottom, the underlying point of Pythagorean Wins in regard to predicting future performance is that teams that overachieve -- i.e. win more games than their Pythagorean projections says they should have -- tend to decline the following year, and teams that underachieve -- i.e. win fewer games than their Pythagorean projections said they should have -- tend to improve the following year. After analyzing SEC football from 1999-2006, it becomes very obvious that Pythagorean Wins is a highly useful indicator of future performance.
Among the major declines that Pythagorean wins predicted included 2000 Alabama, 2004 Ole Miss, 2004 Florida, and 2005 Tennessee. Among the major improvements predicted by Pythagorean wins included 2001 Alabama, 2005 Alabama, 2005 Florida, 2006 Arkansas, and 2006 Tennessee.
Generally speaking, the magic number seems to be one. You come up with a Pythagorean projection based on the eight regular season conference games, and the teams that win a game or more above their Pythagorean projection tend to decline the following year, and teams that win a game or fewer above their Pythagorean projection tend to improve the following year.
Here are the Pythagorean projections for the 2006 season:
Obviously, we had three overachievers -- Florida, Kentucky, and Auburn -- and two underachievers -- South Carolina and Vanderbilt -- in 2006.
The Gators, despite having a projection of only 5.5 conference wins, went 7-1 in conference play, won the SEC, and ultimately became national champions. Auburn was the second most overachieving team, and it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. The Tigers beat LSU on a controversial call, stood up South Carolina on the goal line, beat Florida in a narrow game, needed an interception returned for a touchdown to beat Ole Miss, and had another narrow win over Alabama, despite being annihilated by Georgia and Arkansas. Kentucky, too, becomes suspect with a few close wins mixed in with a few lopsided blowouts.
The underachievers, as largely expected, include South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Both teams played solid football all year, but generally ran out of luck in close contests.
You never know for certain, and there will be some exceptions, but if you are looking for teams to mildly improve in 2006, Vanderbilt and South Carolina would be safe beats, and no one should be surprised if Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky suffer a bit of a decline.
A few more general notes on Pythagorean wins:
- Generally speaking, the underlying rule regarding Pythagorean wins holds true in SEC football. There does seem to be a couple of exceptions, however. The first exception is second year coaches. Even when a team overachieves with a first year coach, they often times nevertheless improve in their second season. It's not a guaranteed thing, but apparently the gains made by continuity and that particular coach's players in place help offset what the Pythagorean projection says you should do. The second exception is with the sisters of the poor of the SEC, mainly Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State. For whatever reason, those teams tend to be able to underachieve one year, and consistently do as bad or worse the following year. I'm not sure why that happens, but it is something that keeps popping up.
- If you factor out the last-second fluke touchdown that Auburn scored on Florida (in which had no influence on the outcome of the game), the Pythagorean projections flip a bit, as suddenly Auburn was the most overachieving team and Florida was the second most overachieving team. Some people take out meaningless, fluke points like that because they skew the data, and that wouldn't be a bad idea in this case. But, technically if I did it for that game, I'd have to do it for every other, too, so I decided against that for the sake of simplicity.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Pythagorean Projection: Alabama Football
The Pythagorean Projection is an approximation of how many games a particular team should have won in a particular season that is determined solely by focusing on points scored and points allowed. First created by revolutionary baseball thinker Bill James, the Pythagorean Projection has been equated to many other sports, such as football and basketball.
The basic formula for the Pythagorean Projection is as follows:
For football, the basic formula remains relatively the same. However, Daryl Morey of STATS, Inc. found that for football, the best exponent is not 2, but 2.37, so the formula is slightly tweaked for football.
But what all does it mean? If a team wins fewer games than its projection said it should have, that team underachieved, and if a team wins more games than they should have, that team underachieved. But exactly what does that mean? Well, the Projection can mean different things to different people, but it is generally accepted that, more than anything else, Pythagorean Projections are mainly an indicator of lucks. Teams that overachieve are said to be "lucky" and teams that underachieve are said to be "unlucky." And truthfully, that's probably the foremost thing we should take from this. However, baseball researchers have found two other variables that have an impact besides luck: coaching decisions and bullpen depth. Obviously, there's no bullpen in football, but that could be construed as a measure of overall team depth, and obviously coaching decisions come into play.
So how has the Crimson Tide stacked up in terms of the Pythagorean Projection the past few years? Let's have a look-see.
To begin with, I should note that I only analyzed eight games in most seasons, and only seven in 1990 and 1991. Why only analyze seven or eight games when you play eleven or twelve regular season games? The reason I did so was because I found that when you look at all games played, the Pythagorean Projection seems to be a bit inflated, as teams never seem to win as many games as they should have. Something didn't seem right to me when I ran the numbers that way, and then it suddenly dawned on me that the reason it was happening because all of the weak opponents an SEC program will play in a season. For example, you play Division 1-AA Western Carolina, and you win 52-0, and suddenly your Pythagorean Projection shoots up dramatically. But why should you get credit for beating an East Popcorn State? In MLB, where the Pythagorean Projection has its roots, you don't have East Popcorn States because all MLB teams only play other MLB teams, where the talent levels are much closer, and as a result the Projections are much more accurate. Obviously, if you started counting results from when the Chicago White Sox play the Birmingham Barons, the projections would lose a good bit of their accuracy, and that is essentially what happens when a team like Alabama plays Western Carolina.
So, to get around all of that, I used solely regular season conference games. As a result, the Projections became much more accurate. And hence why there are only seven and eight conference games. Since 1992, the SEC has played eight regular season conference games, and seven were the norm before the expansion of the SEC in 1990 and 1991.
So what do we see about the Crimson Tide?
I noticed that some of the teams that I felt really underachieved were actually some of the ones that underachieved in the Pythagorean Projection. Just to name a few...
As noted earlier, bullpen depth seemingly changes the difference between actual and expected wins, so you would think overall team depth in football would do the same. So what about when we were on probation? In 1997-1999, the years most thought would be the worst from the probation era, we overachieved twice in three years. On the other hand, from 2004-2006, the years most thought would be the worst from the second probation era, we underachieved three straight years.
Also as mentioned earlier, the quality of coaching decisions can change the difference between actual and expected wins. Unfortunately for former coach Mike Shula, in his four seasons, we underachieved all four years. Maybe the baseball people have it right when it comes to coaching. After all, luck is probably a big part of the Pythagorean Projection, but I'm sure it's not the only variable.
The 2002 squad really was a great one. Although we lost to Georgia in a narrow game at Bryant-Denny (without our starting quarterback), we actually had more Pythagorean Wins than the Dawgs did in the 2002 season. It just reinforces the fact that we all missed out on a great SEC Championship game. And although it shows the 2002 team as underachieving (we had a projection of roughly seven wins, but won only six), I wouldn't look at them as underachievers. We had a projection of seven wins, and going into the Auburn game we had six wins, coming off of a 31-0 blowout of LSU in Tiger Stadium. Long story short, we were on pace to nail the projection... and then Dennis Franchione decided he was going to be an Aggie, and missed team meetings all week. The lack of preparation resulted in an Iron Bowl loss, and that caused us to underachieve. But did we really? Not in my book.
The basic formula for the Pythagorean Projection is as follows:
For football, the basic formula remains relatively the same. However, Daryl Morey of STATS, Inc. found that for football, the best exponent is not 2, but 2.37, so the formula is slightly tweaked for football.
But what all does it mean? If a team wins fewer games than its projection said it should have, that team underachieved, and if a team wins more games than they should have, that team underachieved. But exactly what does that mean? Well, the Projection can mean different things to different people, but it is generally accepted that, more than anything else, Pythagorean Projections are mainly an indicator of lucks. Teams that overachieve are said to be "lucky" and teams that underachieve are said to be "unlucky." And truthfully, that's probably the foremost thing we should take from this. However, baseball researchers have found two other variables that have an impact besides luck: coaching decisions and bullpen depth. Obviously, there's no bullpen in football, but that could be construed as a measure of overall team depth, and obviously coaching decisions come into play.
So how has the Crimson Tide stacked up in terms of the Pythagorean Projection the past few years? Let's have a look-see.
To begin with, I should note that I only analyzed eight games in most seasons, and only seven in 1990 and 1991. Why only analyze seven or eight games when you play eleven or twelve regular season games? The reason I did so was because I found that when you look at all games played, the Pythagorean Projection seems to be a bit inflated, as teams never seem to win as many games as they should have. Something didn't seem right to me when I ran the numbers that way, and then it suddenly dawned on me that the reason it was happening because all of the weak opponents an SEC program will play in a season. For example, you play Division 1-AA Western Carolina, and you win 52-0, and suddenly your Pythagorean Projection shoots up dramatically. But why should you get credit for beating an East Popcorn State? In MLB, where the Pythagorean Projection has its roots, you don't have East Popcorn States because all MLB teams only play other MLB teams, where the talent levels are much closer, and as a result the Projections are much more accurate. Obviously, if you started counting results from when the Chicago White Sox play the Birmingham Barons, the projections would lose a good bit of their accuracy, and that is essentially what happens when a team like Alabama plays Western Carolina.
So, to get around all of that, I used solely regular season conference games. As a result, the Projections became much more accurate. And hence why there are only seven and eight conference games. Since 1992, the SEC has played eight regular season conference games, and seven were the norm before the expansion of the SEC in 1990 and 1991.
So what do we see about the Crimson Tide?
I noticed that some of the teams that I felt really underachieved were actually some of the ones that underachieved in the Pythagorean Projection. Just to name a few...
- 1990: You never hear it mentioned, but in actuality the 1990 defense allowed exactly as many points as the 1992 defense. The offense, though, really struggled with a tough schedule and injuries. Siran Stacey, the star of the offense, went out for the year with a torn ACL on the first play from scrimmage in the season opener against Southern Miss, and that really turned the Tide offense stagnant. As a result, the Tide lost narrow games against Georgia and Florida (Spurrier's first year) when the offense couldn't get it going.
- 2000: The 2000 team underachieved quite a bit, obviously. Some people think of that season as a pure disaster, and it was, but people often forget just how close we were to winning several games. We lost in Fayetteville to Arkansas when two very controversial penalties kept their game-winning drive alive, lost to Central Florida by two points, and lost to LSU in Baton Rouge by two points.
- 2004: The 2004 season was, in a lot of ways, a clone of the 1990 season. The torn ACL by Brodie Croyle basically ended the season, and we lost a ton of close games due to an impotent offense. In both years, atrocious offensive output spoiled great defensive efforts.
- 1991: Stallings' second squad went 11-1, but even I questioned how good we were during that time. In the second game of the season, we were annihilated 35-0 in Gainesville by Florida, in what is still the most dominating performance I've ever seen against an Alabama squad. From there, we had a ton of squeaker wins, such as a five point win over 9-3 Tennessee, a six point win over 7-5 Mississippi State (Danny Woodson's last game, I believe), a three point win over 5-6 Memphis, a seven point win over 5-6 Auburn, and a six point win over 8-3-1 Colorado. We were a good team that year, but you don't win that many close games without a good bit of luck on your side.
- 1994: Going into the 1994 SEC Championship Game, we were 11-0 and 3rd in the country. But we probably weren't that good, to be brutally honest. We looked sloppy in a 17-7 win over Vanderbilt, and Arkansas gave us trouble in Fayetteville, as we won only 13-6 over a 4-7 Danny Ford team. It took a career night from Jay Barker, at home, and luck from the Field Goals Gods on a Michael Proctor kick late in the first half for us to pull out a narrow 29-28 victory over a 6-4-1 Georgia team. We won two road games by a combined four points against solid Mississippi State and Tennessee teams. Finally, we held on to beat Auburn in the closing seconds after their furious comeback ended when Frank Sanders was stopped inches short on a 4th and 6. Again, you just don't do something like that without a good bit of luck on your side.
- 1999: The 2000 collapse shocked everyone, but should have really shocked no one. We had a projection of a mere five wins in 1999, yet went 7-1 in conference play and won the SEC. The 1999 season, all together, was full of close wins. After squeaking by Arkansas, the Gators had us beat in Florida until we got very lucky with a muffed Florida punt return with under two minutes to go and the Extra Point Gods decided to shine on us twice in overtime. A week later, it was another narrow win over a solid Ole Miss team, led by Deuce McAllister and Romero Miller. After a loss to Tennessee, we faced LSU, a team in the midst of a seven-game losing streak that had blown blown out by the likes of Kentucky, yet we needed a time-expiring Goal Line stand to beat the hapless Dinardo-led Bayou Bengals, in Bryant-Denny. Two weeks later, we trailed Auburn for three quarters, and pulled out a victory only after a
dumb play call by Tommy Tubervillegreat play by Kindal Moorehead to sack Ben Leard for a safety after Auburn held on fourth and goal, and Shaun Alexander re-emerged for the first time in weeks to run wild on the Auburn defense in the last stanza. Long story short, it shouldn't have surprised many that we fell apart in 2000, it was a wonder all along that we won that many games in 1999.
As noted earlier, bullpen depth seemingly changes the difference between actual and expected wins, so you would think overall team depth in football would do the same. So what about when we were on probation? In 1997-1999, the years most thought would be the worst from the probation era, we overachieved twice in three years. On the other hand, from 2004-2006, the years most thought would be the worst from the second probation era, we underachieved three straight years.
Also as mentioned earlier, the quality of coaching decisions can change the difference between actual and expected wins. Unfortunately for former coach Mike Shula, in his four seasons, we underachieved all four years. Maybe the baseball people have it right when it comes to coaching. After all, luck is probably a big part of the Pythagorean Projection, but I'm sure it's not the only variable.
The 2002 squad really was a great one. Although we lost to Georgia in a narrow game at Bryant-Denny (without our starting quarterback), we actually had more Pythagorean Wins than the Dawgs did in the 2002 season. It just reinforces the fact that we all missed out on a great SEC Championship game. And although it shows the 2002 team as underachieving (we had a projection of roughly seven wins, but won only six), I wouldn't look at them as underachievers. We had a projection of seven wins, and going into the Auburn game we had six wins, coming off of a 31-0 blowout of LSU in Tiger Stadium. Long story short, we were on pace to nail the projection... and then Dennis Franchione decided he was going to be an Aggie, and missed team meetings all week. The lack of preparation resulted in an Iron Bowl loss, and that caused us to underachieve. But did we really? Not in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
