Started By
Message
Different way to look at returning experience (LSU #1)
Posted on 2/5/16 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 2/5/16 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 2/5/16 at 5:02 pm to Cheeky Fellow
I'm just happy we only lost ONE underclassman to the draft this year (OL Jerald Hawkins), as opposed to leading the nation in that category the last few years!
Posted on 2/5/16 at 5:32 pm to Cheeky Fellow
Interesting take. If we only improve by an average of 2.1 pts/game, 2016 is going to be a long season...
Posted on 2/5/16 at 5:34 pm to Cheeky Fellow
Very cool article and method. And even though he acknowledges that his OL metric is flawed, it seems like that should've been dealt with already (I'm greedy ). Returning three of last year's starters seems magnitudes more valuable than returning a three year starter. I would think his simple proposed solution of using only the previous year's starts would be sufficient, but you could consider weighting by recency (2x for previous year and 1x for 2+ years prior).
I think that considering the consensus that OL play is largely influenced by experience and highly correlated with offensive success, it's imperative to devise a metric for OL experience that properly reflects this correlation. With other stuff you don't wanna fish and fiddle, but there's no way OL experience doesn't matter.
I think that considering the consensus that OL play is largely influenced by experience and highly correlated with offensive success, it's imperative to devise a metric for OL experience that properly reflects this correlation. With other stuff you don't wanna fish and fiddle, but there's no way OL experience doesn't matter.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 6:00 pm to Cheeky Fellow
I like SB nation... but any "system' that has Alabama projected last in the SEC, and 104th in the nation is not something I would pay much attention to.
The statisticians at SB get off in left field pretty often. Their mathematical method of picking the winners of the bowl games... winners outright, not beating the line... ended almost exactly 50-50. A coin toss would have done the same.
The statisticians at SB get off in left field pretty often. Their mathematical method of picking the winners of the bowl games... winners outright, not beating the line... ended almost exactly 50-50. A coin toss would have done the same.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 6:07 pm to Cheeky Fellow
Pressure is on for the grass eater.
Time to do something.
Time to do something.
This post was edited on 2/5/16 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 2/5/16 at 8:00 pm to Jacknola
Well it's important to realize what it's projecting: net change in performance (pts/game) for next year. Alabama won the NC this year and seemed to clearly be the best team. Do you think they should be projected to improve given who they lose? Now Alabama recruits well enough to mitigate experience lost more than anyone in the country, so this projection is going to skew them negatively.
However, the 50/50 finish on bowl bets is pretty bad. It's one year, and I don't know how many bowls they predicted, but any kind of worthwhile system should be significantly over 50 for outright winners. That's terrible.
However, the 50/50 finish on bowl bets is pretty bad. It's one year, and I don't know how many bowls they predicted, but any kind of worthwhile system should be significantly over 50 for outright winners. That's terrible.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 8:39 pm to TheMuffinMan
Nobody gives a shite unless we beat bama
Posted on 2/5/16 at 8:43 pm to TutHillTiger
Not LSU-related, but what value does returning a bunch of losers (UCF, Wake, Syracuse, Charlotte) mean?
Obviously LSU is an anomaly at the top of the list given their level of talent.
Obviously LSU is an anomaly at the top of the list given their level of talent.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 9:20 pm to silverstreak02
It provides value because players generally get better with experience, and those teams would be replacing those losers with less experienced losers.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 9:33 pm to Jacknola
All it's saying is that Bama is losing the most offensive and defensive production from last year.
Posted on 2/5/16 at 10:06 pm to DallasTiger45
quote:
It provides value because players generally get better with experience, and those teams would be replacing those losers with less experienced losers.
True, but everybody has a ceiling, and I'm guessing the ceiling for most of those players is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. It does little good to return greater experience if they still can't beat teams with players who are already better than them even without the experience. Being a four year starter at Vandy doesn't keep you from being pancake-blocked by a 4* freak athlete freshman at a major SEC program.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News