Jump to content

S&P+ rankings: Overperformance or overcorrection?

satyanash

By satyanash
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Dahobbs
Dahobbs

Fozzz is a fucking idiot. 

Magus Ossis
Magus Ossis

A model that drops the winner and sustains the loser of a game needs adjusting.

NeverMarryAStripper
NeverMarryAStripper

Exactly.  Just because you beat someone doesn't mean than you can beat them.

Posted Images

Skipper

Skipper 6088

Posted
Posted

Seriously, the Mizzou ranking is so bad it makes you question the entire system.  What kind of "predictive' system can rank a team that can't beat Wyoming, Vanderbilt or Kentucky in the top 30?  And it's not like they have one single decent win to balance it out.   Just weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Capn81

Capn81 372

Posted
Posted
Seriously, the Mizzou ranking is so bad it makes you question the entire system.  What kind of "predictive' system can rank a team that can't beat Wyoming, Vanderbilt or Kentucky in the top 30?  And it's not like they have one single decent win to balance it out.   Just weird.


This. Missouri being ranked highly all season was reason enough for me to dismiss the ranking entirely. I like some of the stats that he uses, which causes me to check this thread, but this system is about as bad of a predictive system as there is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 26992

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Capn81 said:

 


This. Missouri being ranked highly all season was reason enough for me to dismiss the ranking entirely. I like some of the stats that he uses, which causes me to check this thread, but this system is about as bad of a predictive system as there is.

 

How's he doing ATS now? Seems like we haven't seen many updates on that from him, which makes me think it's not worth hyping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 16271

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

Seriously, the Mizzou ranking is so bad it makes you question the entire system.  What kind of "predictive' system can rank a team that can't beat Wyoming, Vanderbilt or Kentucky in the top 30?  And it's not like they have one single decent win to balance it out.   Just weird.

 

1 hour ago, Capn81 said:

 


This. Missouri being ranked highly all season was reason enough for me to dismiss the ranking entirely. I like some of the stats that he uses, which causes me to check this thread, but this system is about as bad of a predictive system as there is.

 

yall are hilarious, truly.

  • FEI has Mizzou at 44 - FEI is also #1 in ThePredictionTracker this year, correctly predicting 76.545% (421-129)
  • ThePowerRank is at 75.455% and has Mizzou at 39
  • FPI has Mizzou at 28th (#13 in TPT, 74.818% overall)
  • Atomic Football has Mizzou at 63 (#14 in TPT)
  • Massey Ratings (combined across a ton of ratings) have them at 57 - https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

acting like having Mizzou high invalidates the whole system is funny. his entire system isn't bad (and evidently is about 55% ATS per the week 11 ratings post)

I get what you are saying, but it isn't like he is some crazy outlier where he has them currently at a very low number and everyone else has them in the 90s. 

nor is this the 538/Nate Silver system where they assign different weights to pollsters based on their historical results and it is a black box as to how they do the ratings. he is very up front about what specifically goes into his numbers. at this point it is only results from this year, no preseason projections (i think that happens week 7?)

editing to add Mizzou week over week rating in FEI

  • Zero: 19
  • 1: 19
  • 2: 15
  • 3: 14
  • 4: 12
  • 5: 14
  • 6: 11
  • 7: 8
  • 8: 22
  • 9: 35
  • 10: 37
  • 11: 44

 

Edited by NoName
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Capn81

Capn81 372

Posted
Posted
The difference between 30 and 44 is pretty significant.  Nobody said Mizzou belongs in the 90's.  


Exactly and I cannot believe that you actually had to state this. Missouri was as high as 10 for a period of time. Give me a break if you thought that was even close to being accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13092

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Capn81 said:

 


Exactly and I cannot believe that you actually had to state this. Missouri was as high as 10 for a period of time. Give me a break if you thought that was even close to being accurate.

 

Should losing to Wyoming really keep somebody out of the top 10? I mean it was a road game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 16271

Posted
Posted

if the argument is "mizzou being high ruins a projection system" then that is quite clearly wrong with the success FEI is having this year and has had historically. they are trending back to where they probably "should" be but a number of successful projection systems had Mizzou pretty high. FEI had them in the top 10 through week 7 

the system can be complained about, and has been before in this thread, but focus on that instead of saying it is shit just because a school is higher than you think it should be and that must be because Bill C there.

in fact, Brian Fremeau (FEI) has been employed by Notre Dame since 2003 and graduated from ND in 99 but how many times have people bitched about him over ranking ND? before i looked it up just now i had no idea where he went or what he did.

Spoiler

He had ND between 9 and 11 in his system from Week 0 to Week 9 by the way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Hornarino

El Hornarino 367

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, NoName said:

in fact, Brian Fremeau (FEI) has been employed by Notre Dame since 2003 and graduated from ND in 99 but how many times have people bitched about him over ranking ND? before i looked it up just now i had no idea where he went or what he did.

  Hide contents

He had ND between 9 and 11 in his system from Week 0 to Week 9 by the way. 

 

Now that I know this, I will start bitching.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 16271

Posted
Posted

 

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

So let me get this straight - ISU pretty much kicks Texas' ass for 80% of the game and yet Texas moves UP in SP+?  And people take this clown seriously? LMAO

*sigh*

  • this thread is not for you.
  • projection systems are not for you.
  • advanced stats are not for you.
  • advanced concepts do not appear to be for you. 

i think you should just probably stick to looking at yards given up and yards earned and keep assuming that is a good measuring stick of teams. 

i am using some combo of FEI and S&P+ to make these explanations because FEI has better access to the underlying stats, while S&P+ has the box score information for the game.

S&P+: Texas defense played quite well in certain situations (17% success rate in passing downs, explosive plays in running and passing game below the national avg, were successful in basically every quarter outside the first by success rate, despite giving up a  ton of yards they gave up points a a less than national avg rate, )

ISU did not "kick Texas ass for 80% of the game" based on success rate (gaining 50% of required yardage on 1st down, 70% on 2nd down 100% on 3rd/4th) - outside of the first quarter they were actually below the national average the rest of the way (72% / 41% / 38% / 28% - national average is 42%)

 

FEI: the ISU offense is quite good - #13 OFEI team in the country - which lead to Texas actually holding steady in FEI at #22, despite the offense getting worse (#11 OFEI offense in week 11 went down to #16 in week 12) but the DFEI, based on their success in the game, went from #60 to #51. 

Iowa State is not shitty, #13 Offense and #34 Defense by FEI (vs Texas at #16 and #51)

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, NoName said:

 

*sigh*

  • this thread is not for you.
  • projection systems are not for you.
  • advanced stats are not for you.
  • advanced concepts do not appear to be for you. 

i think you should just probably stick to looking at yards given up and yards earned and keep assuming that is a good measuring stick of teams. 

i am using some combo of FEI and S&P+ to make these explanations because FEI has better access to the underlying stats, while S&P+ has the box score information for the game.

S&P+: Texas defense played quite well in certain situations (17% success rate in passing downs, explosive plays in running and passing game below the national avg, were successful in basically every quarter outside the first by success rate, despite giving up a  ton of yards they gave up points a a less than national avg rate, )

ISU did not "kick Texas ass for 80% of the game" based on success rate (gaining 50% of required yardage on 1st down, 70% on 2nd down 100% on 3rd/4th) - outside of the first quarter they were actually below the national average the rest of the way (72% / 41% / 38% / 28% - national average is 42%)

 

FEI: the ISU offense is quite good - #13 OFEI team in the country - which lead to Texas actually holding steady in FEI at #22, despite the offense getting worse (#11 OFEI offense in week 11 went down to #16 in week 12) but the DFEI, based on their success in the game, went from #60 to #51. 

Iowa State is not shitty, #13 Offense and #34 Defense by FEI (vs Texas at #16 and #51)

 

 

Shut up, Bill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
On 2/12/2019 at 12:05 PM, Burt Macklin said:

Other thing I’ll say about why Texas is underrated by S&P+ is that this coaching staff on offense and defense both seem to just try to run out the clock when we get a lead. Herman quits running Sam as much and Orlando quits bringing pressure. I think it’s a flaw in the coaching, but there wasn’t a single game we lost last year because of that flaw. This flaw is easily correctable and isn’t representative of our team’s ability if the game were close. 

S&P+ assumes each team is trying to maximie it’s quality of play and doesn’t account for a team choosing to lower its quality of play in order to run out the clock. Like I said, I’d prefer Herman and Orlando quit doing this, but It’s pretty easily changeable and S&P+ downgrades Texas a ton for this. We had a lot of close wins that S&P+ downgraded us for.  

Herman’s teams definitely play up and down to their competition, but I also think that by 2020, our roster will be so talented that we’ll be a lot less likely to lose any of those games, even if the wins are closer than they should be.

LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
On 2/11/2019 at 5:38 PM, Burt Macklin said:

 

I think you’re a little confused here. The category you’re referencing is returning production. It’s basically the percentage of production you return multiplied (based on a weighted formula) by your teams S&P+ from last year. He’s not ranking based on individual players coming back; he’s using a broad set of data that indicates teams get worse when they lose a lot of production. We lost 8 of 11 starters on defense, so we lose a ton of our production from last year. Similar on O, though not quite as drastic. We lose our top receiver and rusher, plus 3/5 of our OL. In general UT will be misleading in this stat because 1) we were under ranked by last year’s system and 2) no school in the country has a greater talent disparity than what was left of the 2015, 2016, and 2017 classes compared to what came in 2018 and 2019. For example,  we likely won’t be hurt by losing guys like wheeler and Locke, even though they made up a large portion of our production (I.e. tackles) from last year. 

One of the biggest the biggest issues with his system is that it weighs the last 2-5 years of the program as one of its 3 metrics. Well, no team in the country will be more misleading based on that metric than Herman with his guys in there compared to the dumpster fire that was Charlie strong for 3 years plus Herman going 7-6 with the mess Charlie left. 

This would also indicate that last year, UT entered the year ranked too low because the Strong years were weighing it down. 

Overall, UT Is an extreme outlier in 2/3 of these categories and there’s good reason to believe we’re underrated based on this metric. It would be nice if Connelly admitted these factors as a reason why UT could be an outlier instead of doubling down on his system being perfect, but I’m sure he gets a lot of flack and it gets old for him.

 

Hahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fondren & Main

Fondren & Main 6658

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NoName said:

 

*sigh*

  • this thread is not for you.
  • projection systems are not for you.
  • advanced stats are not for you.
  • advanced concepts do not appear to be for you. 

i think you should just probably stick to looking at yards given up and yards earned and keep assuming that is a good measuring stick of teams. 

i am using some combo of FEI and S&P+ to make these explanations because FEI has better access to the underlying stats, while S&P+ has the box score information for the game.

S&P+: Texas defense played quite well in certain situations (17% success rate in passing downs, explosive plays in running and passing game below the national avg, were successful in basically every quarter outside the first by success rate, despite giving up a  ton of yards they gave up points a a less than national avg rate, )

ISU did not "kick Texas ass for 80% of the game" based on success rate (gaining 50% of required yardage on 1st down, 70% on 2nd down 100% on 3rd/4th) - outside of the first quarter they were actually below the national average the rest of the way (72% / 41% / 38% / 28% - national average is 42%)

 

FEI: the ISU offense is quite good - #13 OFEI team in the country - which lead to Texas actually holding steady in FEI at #22, despite the offense getting worse (#11 OFEI offense in week 11 went down to #16 in week 12) but the DFEI, based on their success in the game, went from #60 to #51. 

Iowa State is not shitty, #13 Offense and #34 Defense by FEI (vs Texas at #16 and #51)

 

 

That's a lot of words to say Texas sucks big fat donkey dick.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 16271

Posted
Posted (edited)

if you think these systems are so shit (FEI is currently at 76.5% correct picks this year btw) why are you in this thread in the first place?

no, seriously.

not that these systems are perfect, they aren't, but the total and complete lack of understanding about what goes into them, why they spit out the results they do and why those outcomes are useful totally confuses me. 

if you have disagreements (people here have had them about how S&P+ uses PBUs) bring them up.

but when your shitty arguments ("ISU kicked ass for 80% of the game") are shown to be incorrect a number of ways (success rate, points per opportunity, TOP, explosiveness via IsoPPP, plays per drive, etc) you just laugh and don't even try to refute any of them because of...reasons.

not that stats tell you EVERYTHING but totally ignoring them because they don't match up with your eye test - let me guess, you think Gallo sucks because he strikes out too much and has a low average and you probably think Dak isn't very good either - is stupidity personified. 

 

 

 

Edited by NoName
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, NoName said:

if you think these systems are so shit (FEI is currently at 76.5% correct picks this year btw) why are you in this thread in the first place?

no, seriously.

not that these systems are perfect, they aren't, but the total and complete lack of understanding about what goes into them, why they spit out the results they do and why those outcomes are useful totally confuses me. 

if you have disagreements (people here have had them about how S&P+ uses PBUs) bring them up.

but when your shitty arguments ("ISU kicked ass for 80% of the game") are shown to be incorrect a number of ways (success rate, points per opportunity, TOP, explosiveness via IsoPPP, plays per drive, etc) you just laugh and don't even try to refute any of them because of...reasons.

not that stats tell you EVERYTHING but totally ignoring them because they don't match up with your eye test - let me guess, you think Gallo sucks because he strikes out too much and has a low average and you probably think Dak isn't very good either - is stupidity personified. 

 

 

 

lol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoName

NoName 16271

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, El Hornarino said:

I'm going to ask Fremeau to add Coaching-FEI to see where we rank.

check with CFB matrix (https://twitter.com/cfbmatrix?lang=en) - he has a coach effect stat i just don't pay for his patreon or his site

Quote

Coaching Effect – Another one of our factor calculations.   This is the difference in our predicted baseline result versus the actual results of a team.  A team can finish at a higher level than predicted (positive coaching diff.) or under what we predicted (negative coaching diff.).  These numbers carry forward and are used to predict the mostly ‘likely’ scenario for season wins/losses and individual games.

here it is through week 11:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/coacheffect-thru-31589732?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

Texas is at -2 for the year

Edited by NoName
Link to comment
Share on other sites
texifornia

texifornia 56434

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, NoName said:

if you think these systems are so shit (FEI is currently at 76.5% correct picks this year btw) why are you in this thread in the first place?

no, seriously.

not that these systems are perfect, they aren't, but the total and complete lack of understanding about what goes into them, why they spit out the results they do and why those outcomes are useful totally confuses me. 

if you have disagreements (people here have had them about how S&P+ uses PBUs) bring them up.

but when your shitty arguments ("ISU kicked ass for 80% of the game") are shown to be incorrect a number of ways (success rate, points per opportunity, TOP, explosiveness via IsoPPP, plays per drive, etc) you just laugh and don't even try to refute any of them because of...reasons.

not that stats tell you EVERYTHING but totally ignoring them because they don't match up with your eye test - let me guess, you think Gallo sucks because he strikes out too much and has a low average and you probably think Dak isn't very good either - is stupidity personified. 

 

 

 

(Fozzz loves this shit, he's taking a very trollish victory lap after everyone dumping on him earlier in the year)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, NoName said:

check with CFB matrix (https://twitter.com/cfbmatrix?lang=en) - he has a coach effect stat i just don't pay for his patreon or his site

here it is through week 11:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/coacheffect-thru-31589732?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

Texas is at -2 for the year

This would be an interesting thing to track - something like comparing preseason SP+ with the final SP+ for each team, although I imagine you would need some way to control for injuries and their impact on predicted production.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16463

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, NoName said:

check with CFB matrix (https://twitter.com/cfbmatrix?lang=en) - he has a coach effect stat i just don't pay for his patreon or his site

here it is through week 11:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/coacheffect-thru-31589732?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

Texas is at -2 for the year

Tied with Chad Morris lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt Macklin

Burt Macklin 18988

Posted
Posted

 

8 hours ago, NoName said:

check with CFB matrix (https://twitter.com/cfbmatrix?lang=en) - he has a coach effect stat i just don't pay for his patreon or his site

here it is through week 11:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/coacheffect-thru-31589732?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare

Texas is at -2 for the year

Dear God, that is so bad. I mean, I absolutely believe it, it’s just so bad. Is there anywhere we can see what Herman’s past numbers have been? I’d be surprised if he’s been a net negative. This year seems like it’s been much worse coaching than usual from him. 

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Tied with Chad Morris lol

JFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder if the off-season kool-aid to which posters like Burt Tardlin succumbed will win out this Spring or if Texas fans will continue to wallow in their self pity through the summer. I suspect 2020 could be a poor man’s 2008, although it will most likely be nothing more than a dead cat bounce given the departure of Herman’s saving grace at QB. 

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13092

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I wonder if the off-season kool-aid to which posters like Burt Tardlin succumbed will win out this Spring or if Texas fans will continue to wallow in their self pity through the summer. I suspect 2020 could be a poor man’s 2008, although it will most likely be nothing more than a dead cat bounce given the departure of Herman’s saving grace at QB. 

Well that is oddly optimistic of you. I wish I felt the same way.

I don't get the ridiculous trash talking of Texas fans since, you know, you are one and shit. And you seem to indulge in some kind of ridiculous and tiresome victim-complex even though it was not even your computer system anybody was dogging. Talk about wallowing in self-pity.

Anyway as I stated a million times my criticism of these computer models was never that they under-rated Texas.

Edited by Valmy77
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

Well that is oddly optimistic of you. I don't get the ridiculous trash talking of Texas fans since, you know, you are one and shit.

Anyway as I stated a million times my criticism of these computer models was never that they under-rated Texas.

There are manifold reasons to be optimistic about next season. This is a very talented group, including one of the best Texas QBs of this millennium, and the experience accrued on defense this season will pay dividends next year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6088

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This thread seems lonely. Anyone feeling like eating crow for the retarded bullshit they posted earlier this year?  There would be more dignity in it if you did so. 

Crow here.  He apparently did have us pegged.   He's still a fucking moron as it relates to Missouri.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
JBJ

JBJ 3647

Posted
Posted (edited)

I had to look this up.

His SOS metric is expected win% of a top5 team against the schedule.

It's not very different from how I calculate mine (odds top5 team loses 1 or less), but my results are far more even:

SEC 24.4

B10 26.1

B12 26.9

P12 30.6

ACC 70.9

 

But if we take the top 3 from each conference (because these metrics work better for comparing top teams) it flips to something more expected:

B12: 32.7 (only conference where 1 & 2 played twice)

P12: 34.7

B10: 36.7

SEC: 38.3 (only conference where 2 and 3 didn't play)

ACC: 104.3

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...