KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: Chingon on November 01, 2009, 11:11:28 AM
-
Earlier in the year I talked about normalized scoring differences being an important statistic to monitor.
The Big 12 to date (ranked by NSD %):
North
| NU | = | 1.6% |
| KSU | = | -0.33% |
| ISU | = | -6.9% |
| ku | = | -17% |
| MU | = | -24% |
| CU | = | -27% |
South
| UT | = | 40% |
| OU | = | 30% |
| TT | = | 19% |
| OSU | = | 9.9% |
| aTm | = | -2.2% |
| BU | = | -53% |
Analysis:
The B12N is horrid, with no dominant team, but KSU and NU are clearly the two best at this point in time. In fact KSU's NSD is remarkably close to last years, the North has slid even further backwards this year. I am fairly confident that if KSU can get its NSD positive by the end of the year (we might be the only north team to do so), the north will be ours. Texas and OU are the only heavy hitters in the conference (no surprise).
-
Crap-stats like NSD are everything that is wrong with the BCS and its computer ranking BS.
-
NSD has nothing to do with the BCS, it's something I made up and NOT a crap stat, but a pretty damn good indicator of a team.
*UPDATE*
The Big 12 to date (ranked by NSD %):
North
| NU | = | 6.5% |
| KSU | = | 1.8% |
| ISU | = | -16% |
| ku | = | -18% |
| CU | = | -20% |
| MU | = | -21% |
South
| UT | = | 40% |
| OU | = | 25% |
| TT | = | 19% |
| OSU | = | 18% |
| aTm | = | -2.1% |
| BU | = | -32% |
True to form, the B12N will come down to KSU-NU as expected.
Here's a point of reference to the past:
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/interficio/KSU_asym.png)
-
Didn't try to understand the stat at all yet, but do you have error bars on these NSD?
Can you test for signficant differences among teams? :users:
-
Didn't try to understand the stat at all yet, but do you have error bars on these NSD?
Can you test for signficant differences among teams? :users:
Normalized Scoring Difference is really simple:
(Points Scored - Points Allowed)/(Points Scored + Points Allowed)
The closer your team is to 1.0 the more dominant they are, likewise the closer to -1 the more they get dominated.
There are no error bars since points scored (and allowed) is an exact number.
-
You should compare NSD to rankings and to recruit rankings.
-
*UPDATE*
The Big 12 to date (ranked by NSD %):
North
| NU | = | 12% |
| KSU | = | -5.3% |
| MU | = | -9% |
| ISU | = | -12% |
| ku | = | -19% |
| CU | = | -20% |
South
| UT | = | 43% |
| OU | = | 38% |
| OSU | = | 18% |
| TT | = | 15% |
| aTm | = | -15% |
| BU | = | -37% |
2008 KSU = -19%
2007 KSU = 1.2%
2006 KSU = -7.4%
2005 KSU = -18%
:users:
-
Chings, can you "crunch the numbers" and let me know if we win this weekend? Please respond with words and not numbers. Very confusing thread to read. TIA :steadymobbin':
-
Chings, can you "crunch the numbers" and let me know if we win this weekend? Please respond with words and not numbers. Very confusing thread to read. TIA :steadymobbin':
Based purely on the numbers (this is not my "official" prediction) KSU has about a 35% chance of winning, and the final score will be:
KSU 18
NU 21
-
A game like tech can seriously skew this stat. Fortunately we had aTm to deskew it.
You could theoretically win one game by 70 points and either win or lose all the rest by 1 and your NSD would look a lot better than it actually is. I'm not sure there is really a large enough sample size to make this a legitimate stat. Maybe in the NBA or MLB where you play 80 or more games it might make a little more statistical sense.
-
*UPDATE*
The Big 12 to date (ranked by NSD %):
North
| TEAM | || | NSD% | PW% | PWR |
| NU | = | 18% | 70% | 6-2 |
| MU | = | -4.9% | 44% | 4-4 |
| KSU | = | -8.5% | 40% | 3-5 |
| ISU | = | -13% | 35% | 3-5 |
| CU | = | -18% | 30% | 2-6 |
| ku | = | -24% | 24% | 2-6 |
South
| TEAM | || | NSD% | PW% | PWR |
| TU | = | 43% | 90% | 7-1 |
| OU | = | 23% | 75% | 6-2 |
| TT | = | 20% | 72% | 6-2 |
| OSU | = | 16% | 68% | 5-3 |
| aTm | = | -5.9% | 43% | 3-5 |
| BU | = | -43% | 10% | 1-7 |
NDS = Normalized Scoring Differential
PW% = Pythagorean Winning Percentage (PS^2.37)/(PS^2.37+PA^2.37)
PWR = Predicted Record (based on PW%)
Analysis
KSU actually overachieved this year based on talent I would have to say. By either sheer luck (or most likely the ball control strategy Bill used this year) we won one more game in conference than we should have (as it turns out it was ku game as ku lost one more game than they should have).
Texas probably should have lost that Oklahoma game, but it gets dicey when the PW% is above 90%. Obviously the underachievement (and frankly bad luck) of the Sooners is pretty striking as well as the overachievment of OSU. To be honest there is little difference between TT, OU, and OSU, but OSU got the breaks (and maybe their coach did a better job dealing with injuries) this year.
The Big XII seems to have divided itself into tiers:
TU
OU
TT
OSU
NU
MU
aTM
KSU
ISU
CU
ku
BU
where ISU could argued to be in either of two groups (KSU,MU aTM, or CU,ku).
-
chingon, 2010 cat football preview in the works?
:hope:
-
chingon, 2010 cat football preview in the works?
:hope:
You betcha, I have a big cat-focused number crunching session planned for T'giving break. It should give us benchmarks to focus on during the next season do determine if we're really improving toward another DoD.