At Least Nick Sheridan Has People Skills
Yards - Turnovers = Points
This isn't exactly groundbreaking. It's a fundamental assumption behind Dr. Saturday's Life on the Margins, iirc, and I'm pretty sure this is what I'm going to find in Pete Palmer's Hidden Game of Football if and when it eventually ships to a2. And it's sorta-kinda what David Romer did, though not nearly exhaustive. The theory is good. The actual arithmetic is kind of annoying and is summarized in the following paragraph. Feel free to skip to the part where we find out just how crippling the impact of Nick Sheridan was and how much worse it could have been. The key to being able to do this yourself is to figure out yards and turnovers in terms of points. I ripped the drive logs of every Big Ten conference game in 2008 from Yahoo. That'll give you yards/point, which came out to about 15. Then I plotted, in buckets of 10 yards, the percent of drives that resulted in a TD or FG based on the drive starting field position, except the last 30 yards which I averaged at the opponent's 15 due to relatively few samples.* This gives you average expected points based on field position. That plus average field position equals the average value of a possession, which is what you lose in a turnover. Not only that, but you give expected points to your opposition. According to my math, an INT was worth about -4 points. Thus points per throw is (Yds/15 + INTs*4)/attempts.Feel free to comment
I Am Not An Expert. If my math is off, then suggest different constants/methods. They pass the sniff test to me; I ran assorted regressions on excel to test assumptions and it looked right. I'd be glad to share the drive chart database. Onward...The Part Where We Find Out Just How Crippling The Impact Of Nick Sheridan Was
go here It's sorted by pts/attempt, the relevant measure. Average was .33. Mr. Sheridan was dead last with those over 50 attempts with .15 points per attempt. An all around average team wins 4 games. The results indicate that an all around average team that replaced its average quarterback with Nick Sheridan would win 2 (converting to wins over average is easy enough). But it would also have tremendous team chemistry and at least one valedictorian. Wins aren't everything. Also, check out Terrelle Pryor's numbers. Remember, this is just per throw. Rushing and sack yards are not included, nor is it defense adjusted. Having rewatched the Texas and Michigan games in HD (being able to see the d-backs helps), I was impressed. Tressel used the threat of Wells inside and Pryor's skills when bootlegged on the edge to great effect. The playbook seemed cut down, but his athleticism made it work. The sack numbers (scroll right in the g-doc) and somewhat inconsistent mechanics are the most glaring issues, but they were exaggerated by a bad pass blocking unit in front of him. In conclusion: barring injury, Pryor is going to be a terror. Surprise! Rivals #1 overall prospect in 2008 is projected to dominate. At least he'll probably be gone after his junior year. *It's a shortcut and it probably understates how valuable possessions that start inside the 15 are. I actually think inside the 15 the function is probably no longer linear. I'm also sorry that this is isn't the most thorough or transparent presentation. It's a start though.February 13th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 10:59 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^
February 14th, 2009 at 7:03 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
February 15th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:38 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:38 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:09 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 3:17 PM ^
February 13th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
Comments