It's an oft-repeated joke on twitter that the most effective college football offense is the All PI offense, but I think there's something to it - yeah yeah, not as a strategy, but just it *seemed* like we were sustaining a lot of drives by looking for Hunter and Crawford on deep routes, and a pretty good way to trap the CB into PI would be to have wide outs beat their men deep and then underthrown a back shoulder route so the only way back to the ball would be THROUGH a CB's interference.
Great quant analysis. I think you have exposed some of the flaws in the thinking of our coaching braintrust. Mainly the maniacal reliance on passing on third and short. If we ran in more of those situations the level of effectiveness would be enhanced, even more so if we considered it a four down situation and ran on 4th and 1. After all, this is a 1-5 team and there is virtually nothing to lose at this point,
Man, you did a great deal of work here. This is fascinating, thank you. In summation, I think we should run it up the middle and off tackle till the other guys puke. Pass it a couple times, then run it up the middle and off tackle some more.
Wow, that is terrible! Not going to win many games when you only score 4 TD in Q2 and Q3 in 6 games. I imagine that stat is even worse when you remove Sac State.
I can't help but attribute the struggles in the 2nd and 3rd quarter as Musgrave not adjusting fast enough to the defense. Speculation of course. But it's a very striking trend--out of all the analysis you posted it seems the most aberrant.
Pitor - does your analysis take into account DPI?
It's an oft-repeated joke on twitter that the most effective college football offense is the All PI offense, but I think there's something to it - yeah yeah, not as a strategy, but just it *seemed* like we were sustaining a lot of drives by looking for Hunter and Crawford on deep routes, and a pretty good way to trap the CB into PI would be to have wide outs beat their men deep and then underthrown a back shoulder route so the only way back to the ball would be THROUGH a CB's interference.
I don't have it on hand. I might be able to figure it out via some coding shenanigance.
Mine isn't a real serious question - it's almost certainly statistically negligible, but you know things that you see make a larger impression on you.
Great quant analysis. I think you have exposed some of the flaws in the thinking of our coaching braintrust. Mainly the maniacal reliance on passing on third and short. If we ran in more of those situations the level of effectiveness would be enhanced, even more so if we considered it a four down situation and ran on 4th and 1. After all, this is a 1-5 team and there is virtually nothing to lose at this point,
What program are you using to play with the data? I'm trying to teach myself data science and would love to know (sorry off topic)
I used R and Rstudio with a bunch of the packages like dplyr, ggplot etc.
Man, you did a great deal of work here. This is fascinating, thank you. In summation, I think we should run it up the middle and off tackle till the other guys puke. Pass it a couple times, then run it up the middle and off tackle some more.
"Another pressing issue is that we have crossed into the opponent’s end-zone exactly 4 times in Q2 and Q3 across all games. That’s bad. "
aiyah!!
Wow, that is terrible! Not going to win many games when you only score 4 TD in Q2 and Q3 in 6 games. I imagine that stat is even worse when you remove Sac State.
I can't help but attribute the struggles in the 2nd and 3rd quarter as Musgrave not adjusting fast enough to the defense. Speculation of course. But it's a very striking trend--out of all the analysis you posted it seems the most aberrant.