PonyFans.com

I am currently putting something together, using some statistical measures that Football Outsiders / Bill Barnwell on Grantland use when looking at teams.

Will post within the hour.

In the meantime, would love to hear everyone's opinion on the eve of our season.

Reasons for Optimism:
GG has experience now
Mumme may reinvigorate JJ offense
Depth in secondary, LB, and Receiver


Causes for Concern:
Depth at DE/DT
Will the receivers catch the ball this season?


3vs2

I guess I'm optimistic....

Applying the Pythagorean Theorem to SMU since JJ started in 2008 yielded some surprising results. In 2008 (1-11), we were outscored by 202 points (256 for, 458 again), and based on the equation (below), we underperformed our win total by 1.4 games. Based on the this, we were expected to improve by 2.0 wins in 2009, which we did going 8-6. During that 2009 season, we outscored our opponents by 21 points (380-359), yielding an expected win total of 6.9 wins. By outperforming our expected win total, the data (1983-2010 performance) suggested that we should on average decline by 1.5 wins in 2010. While, we only won 7 games in 2010, we matched the theorem’s projected wins. In 2011, we outperformed our expected win total again (8 vs. 7.4). Based on points for/against, we underperformed (7 vs. 7.8 wins). While, we would expect to improve by 0.6 wins in 2013, I don’t think this is the case, due in large part our over reliance on creating turnovers (and TAINTS)
___________________________________________________________
Football's Pythagorean Theorem

In a Sentence: Point differential is a better indicator of future winning percentage than winning percentage itself.

How It Works: Created by Bill James for baseball and modified for football in the early '90s by current Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey, the Pythagorean theorem (or "Pythagorean expectation") is a formula that translates a team's points scored and allowed into an "expected" winning percentage. That formula isn't exactly for the faint of heart:

Points For2.37 / (Points For2.37 + Points Against2.37)

As an example, let's take the 2011 Chiefs, who went 7-9 while scoring 212 points and allowing 338. Our formula is 2122.37 / (2122.37 + 3382.37) = 0.248. That's the Chiefs' expected winning percentage from their point differential, and if we multiply it by 16 games, we get a total of just 4.0 wins. The Pythagorean theorem suggests that the Chiefs outperformed their true level of performance by three full wins.

Why It Works: Because all wins aren't created equal. During Kansas City's three-game winning streak last year, they beat the Raiders 28-0 in a game in which they forced six interceptions. Pretty impressive. A week later, they beat the Chargers 23-20 in overtime during that game in which Philip Rivers fumbled a meaningless snap moments before San Diego could attempt a game-winning field goal. For each of those two performances, Kansas City got the same exact mark on their record: one win. Nobody in his right mind would think that Kansas City looked equally good in both of those games, even if they got the same result. That's where the "All that matters is the W" argument falls apart. It's like saying the pass/fail system is just as useful as the traditional grading scale when figuring out how well somebody did in a class.

HARRY WILL WE WIN OR LOSE?

Jesus

Wouldn't Jesus already know the answer to this?

The Tech TE will be out for the first half