A project for you stats freaks

[Mike_e]

Hi all.

Reading through some posts tonight got me wondering just how to judge past teams to today's and an idea wiggled through.  Why not (I really don't know if it's been done) compare size and so forth along with on the field stats of each year's all American players and using that as a baseline grade each team to that.

So, a 1964 Razorback team could be judged against that year's AAs for a +/- number to compare to say the 2010 team.  For instance a 0.96 to a 0.89.

This should negate different eras of rules, weight training and diet and so forth as each year is judged against itself -a sliding scale it's true but still relative to itself.



Why don't I do it?

I'm curious, not crazy. 

[Dr. Starcs]

Not sure what you mean

[bennyl08]

Hi all.

Reading through some posts tonight got me wondering just how to judge past teams to today's and an idea wiggled through.  Why not (I really don't know if it's been done) compare size and so forth along with on the field stats of each year's all American players and using that as a baseline grade each team to that.

So, a 1964 Razorback team could be judged against that year's AAs for a +/- number to compare to say the 2010 team.  For instance a 0.96 to a 0.89.

This should negate different eras of rules, weight training and diet and so forth as each year is judged against itself -a sliding scale it's true but still relative to itself.



Why don't I do it?

I'm curious, not crazy. 

I get the idea of what you are trying to convey, but I don't think it would work in practice. What number do you give an OL player? You can give then a 0-100 grade, but that's subjective and there isn't some vault of stats to go back multiple decades with the same grading. How about DT's? You have tackles and such, but there isn't really a "disruptive" statistic. Even for players that do accumulate a lot more stats like a WR, it isn't just the stat winners that make all american. Look at the WR All americans in a given year and the stat leaders. They don't usually line up very well.

[Mike_e]

I get the idea of what you are trying to convey, but I don't think it would work in practice. What number do you give an OL player? You can give then a 0-100 grade, but that's subjective and there isn't some vault of stats to go back multiple decades with the same grading. How about DT's? You have tackles and such, but there isn't really a "disruptive" statistic. Even for players that do accumulate a lot more stats like a WR, it isn't just the stat winners that make all american. Look at the WR All americans in a given year and the stat leaders. They don't usually line up very well.

Yeah, as I thought about it through the day I couldn't come up with a way to judge the lines.  No way could you go through and grade every one of those players and whatever tape was left would take a lifetime to get together much less go through.

Oh well, I tend to treat each years team like one of my kids anyway.. cherish each of them for who they are.  Seems like a good plan to me so I guess I'll just keep it up.

Thanks

[Bacons Rebellion]

The "traditional" way (Sabermetrics, etc.) to compare eras is to try to compare player stats in one year to the next for many years in a series of rolling statistics, as new players arrive and others depart, but it doesn't work for college football because of the short careers (2 or 3 years) and the lack of stats for all but a few positions. It seems to work fairly well for professional baseball and basketball.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

It was a Jack Daniels kind of a night for Mike_e last night...

[Pork Twain]

I do not have enough time left in my life to put together that information with any amount of accuracy.

[Ex-Trumpet]

Tiger Woods was better than Arnold Palmer.