forums

Dan Enos by the Numbers

craval85 said:
1st you cherrypick stats in order to fit the narrative that Enos was an underwhelming hire or to prove that he's not that great of an offensive mind. Then you attempt to form a relationship between those cherrypicked stats, coaching experience & opponent familiarity as a way to evaluate/assess coaching ability. With every additional post, this forum and thread specifically fall further into the abyss. Congratulations...👏

correlation ≠ causation..dummy!
Click to expand...

I didn’t put you in ignore..hold on. I am now
 
Advertisement
Edward20 said:
Notice how you have put clapping hands or laughing emojis for yourself at the end of your statements? Incredible how proud you are of yourself for being a keyboard gangster.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Looking at those numbers is a pointless exercise. There are so many variables that can affect the statistics. You also have to factor in the Jimmies and Joe's. If you don't have them at QB or WR or your O-line, your going to have a tough time no matter what you do.

Put another way. You should not be judged on what you do. You should be judged on what you do with what you have.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
Looking at those numbers is a pointless exercise. There are so many variables that can affect the statistics. You also have to factor in the Jimmies and Joe's. If you don't have them at QB or WR or your O-line, your going to have a tough time no matter what you do.

Put another way. You should not be judged on what you do. You should be judged on what you do with what you have.
Click to expand...

There’s not one entity of business that subscribes to the belief that 7 years worth of numbers is pointless. Not ONE.
 
Tee3000 said:
I didn’t put you in ignore..hold on. I am now
Click to expand...

Back to the drawing board you go Jr. While you're at it..also THOROUGHLY study Lance Roffers' piece on the subject matter. It's as close to predictive analytics as you will get on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Wisconsin beat us the last 2 times they played us. Northwestern also lost to Akron last year right after Duke. Northwestern got a lot better by the end of the season. Purdue destroyed Boston College last year who beat Miami and Va Tech. Iowa is always very solid. Nebraska is on the up and up with frost. Minnesota spanked GT and Illinois would probably beat UNC.
Click to expand...

“Always very solid” is about where every team in the Big Ten West is.
None of those teams, outside of Nebraska when it could recruit nationally, have played for the NC in my lifetime, and really haven’t been close.
It’s by far the least athletic and fast division in all of college football. That’s beyond debate. Over the last few seasons they have improved their coaching, so that might help mitigate that some.
But in terms of a division, it really comes down to what you would rather play: unathletic teams that receive solid coaching, or Tier II southern talent that maybe receives subpar coaching? I’d rather play the former than the latter on a weekly basis because I think talent wins out usually.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
LuCane said:
Come on. There's context to everything. You're way better than that conclusion. We played different teams in totally different settings and had the ball bounce (straight luck) totally different ways. But, 3rd down percentages on both sides of the ball are correlated to winning teams throughout college football. Just like yards/play (instead of total offense and total defense) on both sides of the ball.
Click to expand...

There's way too much context here...the top 40 of offensive 3rd down conversion, there are 6 teams with losing records. It's more probable than not but in no way does 3rd down cov both offense and defense is a guarantee of W/L performance.

LuCane said:
By the way, not sure where you get your stats, but we were #1 in the country in 3rd down conversion defense in 2018 with a 26.5% 3rd down conversion rate on defense. We were (on defense) 38.9% the year before (2017). On offense, we were 39% on 3rd downs in 2018 and 27.7% in 2017.
Click to expand...

There's only one place to get NCAA football stats and that's from the NCAA. Here's the link to the 2018 stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/449839?...=113581&commit=Submit&org_sport_name=&org_id=

For 2018 regarding 3rd down conversion defense you're right, we were ranked #1 at 25% (not 26.5%). I wrote that we were ranked 23rd, at 42% and that was wrong on my part bc that was our 4th down defensive conversion metric I was looking at. The rest of my numbers are perfect...per the NCAA.

LuCane said:
My response to you was about what metrics are typically correlated to winning football. If you want to look at direct comparison of wins between seasons, there are countless other variables, including and especially your opponents (who they are, where you play them, etc.).
Click to expand...

We can make stats do what they want...it's the nature of stats.
 
Tee3000 said:
There's way too much context here...the top 40 of offensive 3rd down conversion, there are 6 teams with losing records. It's more probable than not but in no way does 3rd down cov both offense and defense is a guarantee of W/L performance.



There's only one place to get NCAA football stats and that's from the NCAA. Here's the link to the 2018 stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/449839?utf8=✓&year_id=449839&sport_id=113581&commit=Submit&org_sport_name=&org_id=

For 2018 regarding 3rd down conversion defense you're right, we were ranked #1 at 25% (not 26.5%). I wrote that we were ranked 23rd, at 42% and that was wrong on my part bc that was our 4th down defensive conversion metric I was looking at. The rest of my numbers are perfect...per the NCAA.



We can make stats do what they want...it's the nature of stats.
Click to expand...

We obviously use different sites for our stats because our numbers are slightly different. So, I'm not really sure what the NCAA decides counts as a game vs what other sites do (perhaps remove non-D1 games, perhaps include bowl games, etc.).

As for the more important comment about 3rd down conversion or yards/play (or any stat) guaranteeing W/L performance, no correlative data is going to do that. It's correlation; not causation. All we can do is look at which data points correlate to association with winning football games/teams. The two I provided are some of the stronger positive correlations to winning teams.
 
mossmadness said:
That's not true.
His time at CMU is concerning.
His Arkansas offenses either outperformed where one would expect or performed right at where one would expect. They were never "disappointing" though. If Enos is able to come to Miami and perform on offense where the recruiting class rankings say he should be at relative to the talent we play, you can just pencil us into the ACCCG every single year with a chance to make the playoffs with a win.

The biggest concern with Enos isn't really his history of success per se, which is more than good enough at the P5 level.
But instead: can it work here at Miami? I think a lot of people are pointing to the Alabama offense and hoping he brings more of that because it lends itself more to continual success here compared to what he ran at Arkansas. But the jury is still out on that.

If Enos wants to go under center, run a huge playbook, and rely on an OL that just whips the man in front of them, I think there is a ceiling on the offense when looked at over a lot of years time.
Click to expand...

if he is able to do that, then he would have done what no coach has done since 2001. i hope he does. i just want players playing at or above their collective level of talent. isn't that the basic objective?
 
LuCane said:
We obviously use different sites for our stats because our numbers are slightly different. So, I'm not really sure what the NCAA decides counts as a game vs what other sites do (perhaps remove non-D1 games, perhaps include bowl games, etc.).

As for the more important comment about 3rd down conversion or yards/play (or any stat) guaranteeing W/L performance, no correlative data is going to do that. It's correlation; not causation. All we can do is look at which data points correlate to association with winning football games/teams. The two I provided are some of the stronger positive correlations to winning teams.
Click to expand...

& I don't necessarily agree that 3rd down conversion rates are stronger correlations to winning teams......the turnover margin is a much stronger correlation and is essentially a guarantee. For advanced metrics, stats like average starting field position, points per trip inside the 40 and Success Rate are way stronger than 3rd down conversion metrics ever will be imho.

Good points though...we just see the game differently...no harm in that...both ways seem to work.
 
Advertisement
Tee3000 said:
There's way too much context here...the top 40 of offensive 3rd down conversion, there are 6 teams with losing records. It's more probable than not but in no way does 3rd down cov both offense and defense is a guarantee of W/L performance.
Click to expand...

Since the CFBP started, here's the 3rd down attempts PG rankings, 3rd attempts PG, & 3rd down conversion percentage:

14'-15':
Alabama - 84th/14.2/8th
FSU - 115th/12.9/23rd
OSU - 114th/13.1/3rd
Oregon - 104th/13.6/6th

15'-16':
Alabama - 78th/14.4/99th
Clemson - 34th/15.1/13th
MSU - 73/14.6/7th
OU - 105th/13.8/26th

16'-17':
Alabama - 89th/13.9/25th
Clemson - 31st/15.6/8th
OSU - 39th/15.3/14th
UW - 122/12.5/32nd

17'-18':
Alabama - 111th/13.2/50th
Clemson - 19th/15.8/11th
UGA - 125th/12.5/21st
OU - 130TH/11.6/13th

18'-19':
Alabama - 129/11.4/3rd
Clemson - 92/13.6/15th
ND - 42/14.8/31st
OU - 130/10.0/5th

Maybe an anomaly, but Alabama won the Natty in 15'-16' ranked 99th in conversion percentage.

And notice most of the CFBP teams are in the bottom half in 3rd down attempts.

What this tells me is the less 3rd downs you have PG, the better your chances of converting em'.
 
Tee3000 said:
& I don't necessarily agree that 3rd down conversion rates are stronger correlations to winning teams......the turnover margin is a much stronger correlation and is essentially a guarantee. For advanced metrics, stats like average starting field position, points per trip inside the 40 and Success Rate are way stronger than 3rd down conversion metrics ever will be imho.

Good points though...we just see the game differently...no harm in that...both ways seem to work.
Click to expand...
Turnover margin is actually stronger, but I find it to be less useful in predictive analytics and less controllable by coaches (yes, Defensive coordinators can coach for strips and play riskier blitz packages, etc.) than when you use it as support (in hindsight). Of course, teams with more possessions (and often from better starting positions) are going to have more chances to score more points. Those are good stats to look back on.

When it comes to 3rd down conversion and yards/play, coaches can explicitly change the way they call games to get better results without needing so many other variables to fall in place (like they do for fickle Turnovers).

Good talk, nonetheless.
 
Advertisement
Number1CanesFan said:
The numbers have value only with context. Without context, they're not worth much.
Click to expand...

Whose using numbers without context? It defeats the purpose of using numbers...for you to totally dismiss 7 years worth of work in the coaching business does not resonate with me or any coach in any regard.
 
CaneSince4Ever said:
Since the CFBP started, here's the 3rd down attempts PG rankings, 3rd attempts PG, & 3rd down conversion percentage:

14'-15':
Alabama - 84th/14.2/8th
FSU - 115th/12.9/23rd
OSU - 114th/13.1/3rd
Oregon - 104th/13.6/6th

15'-16':
Alabama - 78th/14.4/99th
Clemson - 34th/15.1/13th
MSU - 73/14.6/7th
OU - 105th/13.8/26th

16'-17':
Alabama - 89th/13.9/25th
Clemson - 31st/15.6/8th
OSU - 39th/15.3/14th
UW - 122/12.5/32nd

17'-18':
Alabama - 111th/13.2/50th
Clemson - 19th/15.8/11th
UGA - 125th/12.5/21st
OU - 130TH/11.6/13th

18'-19':
Alabama - 129/11.4/3rd
Clemson - 92/13.6/15th
ND - 42/14.8/31st
OU - 130/10.0/5th

Maybe an anomaly, but Alabama won the Natty in 15'-16' ranked 99th in conversion percentage.

And notice most of the CFBP teams are in the bottom half in 3rd down attempts.

What this tells me is the less 3rd downs you have PG, the better your chances of converting em'.
Click to expand...

Good stuff
 
It’s not difficult to understand why 3rd down conversion rate would highly correlate to offensive success: it’s measuring efficiency.

Bill Connely’s S&P+ breaks down offenses into two categories:
1. How successful are you in getting the minimum number of yards on a play for the play to be successful? (efficiency)
2. When you are successful, how explosive is the play? (Explosion).

Offensive efficiency has a high correlation to offensive success. Teams that convert on third down a lot, are going to usually be teams that were efficient on 1st and 2nd down. So there’s no reason to think that that efficiency would stop on 3rd down. If you’re picking up 4 yards on every first and second down, there’s no reason why 3rd and 2 becomes difficult for you. Conversely, if you’re constantly inefficient on 1st and 2nd down, there’s no reason to think a team would be “good” on 3rd and 8.
 
mossmadness said:
Teams that convert on third down a lot, are going to usually be teams that were efficient on 1st and 2nd down.
Click to expand...

Sorta disagree...as demonstrated by the stats that I put up, teams that convert on 3rd down a lot, for the most part, rank anywhere from the bottom half, to dead last in 3rd down attempts per game. So given that, I'll go out on a limb and say those teams are the leaders in average yds. per 1st down, even though nobody charts that stat.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top