Comments on: Spread Sheets

By: Spread Sheets 10.17.2009 | The War Eagle Reader

Spread Sheets 10.17.2009 | The War Eagle Reader — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:23:27 +0000

[...] that just as we can topo-map India. And that’s just what I did, using season-to-date data acquired in my usual methods. Quarters on the horizontal, downs on the vertical, hot colors good and cold colors bad for both [...]

By: John

John — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:31:00 +0000

@ Gabe

The charts are charted and the graphs are graphed. Should be up on the interwebs before too long.

And I don’t know how much we necessarily gave away on film. IMHO this was a classic trap game. More on that later.

War Eagle!

By: Gabe

Gabe — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:08:04 +0000

I’d be interested in seeing last year’s arkansas game versus this years. I also think every coach we play will study the first half of the Arkansas game to get tips on how to shut our offense down.

By: More.Sawdust

More.Sawdust — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:58:54 +0000

When you do the Tennessee charts, put a big smudge mark at the point where Ben Tate bitch-slapped Eric Berry.

By: Auburn Elvis

Auburn Elvis — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:20:10 +0000

One other thing (and I know this is picky) but could the running sum lines have a marker on them for each quarter’s transition? That way, garbage yardage (gains and losses) late in a half would be more obvious.

By: David

David — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:13:49 +0000

Great analysis, John. I would wager that the inflection point you describe in your graphs of the 2009 is describing the point at which conditioning and the no-huddle begin to take over the game. Taking the West Virginia game–which I have chosen because it’s the only game that wasn’t really a blowout–it appears as if the point at which Auburn took over the game and didn’t give that control back was around play number 96. That doesn’t say it all, though–if the average football game is around 120 snaps (60 for both offenses, give or take), you would expect a no-huddle team to really start to pick up an advantage around the 120th snap, and, sure enough, Auburn begins to truly dominate around the 121st snap. Also, your metric turns positive when the 2009 game entered its 141st snap–15 or so snaps after the 2008 game was in the books, and about 20 snaps after an “average” football game would have ended. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself so early in the season, but based on the limited (though interesting and well-put together) data from this year and my extremely limited knowledge, I think that the no-huddle is delivering on its promise.

By: Johnny Ashtanga

Johnny Ashtanga — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:36:24 +0000

Now I know why Auburn is such a good engineering school.

By: John

John — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:08:06 +0000

Glad you like it, Elvis. I’ll hopefully be able to put up a Tennessee 08 vs 09 comparison as soon as the box score is ready.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:58:55 +0000

Wow! I’m an ME, and have just started nerding out with football stats, but nothing to this degree. One thing I would really be curious to see is a distribution graph of AU’s yards/play similar to this:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/3813734026_db589ff8a1_o.png

In particular to see how it compares with some of the elite offenses this year. Here’s the source site FWIW. Pretty good stuff for football nerds.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/08/comparing-running-performance.html

Anyway, thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work.

By: Auburn Elvis

Auburn Elvis — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:52:31 +0000

Fascinating. I’d be interested in seeing a graph of UT last year and this year.