Phil Steele-Analysis of Arkansas

[MuskogeeHogFan]

As always, a very detailed analysis. Here's a small part of what he published.

2015- Several things point down for TY as LY Arkansas had positive off and def ypp's, were +7 in TO's and TY are -3.5 on my Stock Market Indicator. Arkansas did have 4 net close losses and does have 15 ret st'rs incl their QB. They return TWO 1000 yd rushers and despite their 2-6 SEC record LY, Arkansas was only -27.4 ypg in conf play. They play Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss all on the road and draw 2 of the top 3 out of the East (Tenn & Missouri) but in the 3rd yr of Bielema's systems will still be a legitimate contender in the rugged SEC West as 2 of my 9 sets of PR's (not my main) call for them to have an 11-1 season.

http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/Blogs/2015_Top_40/22_Arkansas.pdf

[lahawg1]

Wow, he is high on us calling for an 11-1 season. I was thinking 9-3 but would like 11-1 much better...this may be one hell of a ride this year.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Wow, he is high on us calling for an 11-1 season. I was thinking 9-3 but would like 11-1 much better...this may be one hell of a ride this year.

He's saying that 2 of his 9 PR's project a 11-1 season. 2 of 9, that's like a 22.2% chance. Not impossible, but also not likely. Still, this will be a good season and hopefully we will finish in the 4th quarter this year in games instead of giving them away as we did several times last year. Just finishing those games out last year would likely have added 3 more regular season wins. Ending the regular season at 9-3 instead of 6-6, despite a pasting of Texas in the bowl game, might have more pundits picking Arkansas to do better this year.

[East TN HAWG]

I like the 22% chance.  11-1 in SEC means playoff bound.  That is saying we have a 1 in 5 chance to make the playoffs.  Those are great odds considering where we have been.  Phil is also the most accurate of all the gurus.

[daBoar]

I like the 22% chance.  11-1 in SEC means playoff bound.  That is saying we have a 1 in 5 chance to make the playoffs.  Those are great odds considering where we have been.  Phil is also the most accurate of all the gurus.

I think it's a very high chance considering the Hogs lost 6 games last year; seems to me Steele is nearly persuaded that the system has been installed and is building.

[hoggusamoungus]

But he only put six Hogs (none on D) on his first three All-SEC teams and was ripped by Hogville.



http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=593561.0

[carolinahogger]

Steele always puts a lot of stock in returning starters when he makes his predictions so I would have expected him to like this team.  This should be a fun season.

[bphi11ips]

Enjoyed reading.  Thanks for posting.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

But he only put six Hogs (none on D) on his first three All-SEC teams and was ripped by Hogville.



http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=593561.0

Though it would be a meticulous and difficult process, I'd like to see Steele do an in-depth analysis of the make up of the P-5 teams to include how their recruiting classes played out 2-4 years later in terms of player production and analyzing how those recruits played together in terms of overall team production. You can have 3 or 4 All SEC pre season picks on a team and perhaps not have all of the supporting parts that play well together in order to make the entire team more successful.

On the other hand, I think you can have a team full of very good, but not great players, that can work and play well together to make the sum of production better than it might have been projected to be by the so called experts.

I'd like to see that analysis done based on actual results from previous seasons.

[daBoar]

Though it would be a meticulous and difficult process, I'd like to see Steele do an in-depth analysis of the make up of the P-5 teams to include how their recruiting classes played out 2-4 years later in terms of player production and analyzing how those recruits played together in terms of overall team production. You can have 3 or 4 All SEC pre season picks on a team and perhaps not have all of the supporting parts that play well together in order to make the entire team more successful.

On the other hand, I think you can have a team full of very good, but not great players, that can work and play well together to make the sum of production better than it might have been projected to be by the so called experts.

I'd like to see that analysis done based on actual results from previous seasons.

Sounds like last season's Ark vs Texas game.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Sounds like last season's Ark vs Texas game.

It does, but I would like to see a longer term analysis of team by team, season after season. For instance, as it applied to the change in philosophy and applicable personnel from Nutt to Petrino and Petrino to Bielema. As another example, how is it that a team like California produces so many NFL draftees and yet, they have a hard time winning games in the Pac 12? An analysis like what I am suggesting might tend to give greater insight into instances like this.

[LZH]

Excellent find MHF....I'm still going thru all of it.  +1 buddy.

[lahawg1]

Excellent find MHF....I'm still going thru all of it.  +1 buddy.

I've never seen that much information packed into one page in my life.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I've never seen that much information packed into one page in my life.

Steele is always detailed. They do a great job.

[Cinco de Hogo]

It does, but I would like to see a longer term analysis of team by team, season after season. For instance, as it applied to the change in philosophy and applicable personnel from Nutt to Petrino and Petrino to Bielema. As another example, how is it that a team like California produces so many NFL draftees and yet, they have a hard time winning games in the Pac 12? An analysis like what I am suggesting might tend to give greater insight into instances like this.

A simpler thing to look at would be how many four and five stars vs the ranking of the classes.  It may tell you they get several stars exch year but don't do that well overall.  Another thing might be the reverse of what Beilema does and they don't have a good redshirt, walk on and development program.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

A simpler thing to look at would be how many four and five stars vs the ranking of the classes.  It may tell you they get several stars exch year but don't do that well overall.  Another thing might be the reverse of what Beilema does and they don't have a good redshirt, walk on and development program.

I am more concerned with not only how classes are evaluated but how players are developed and who has the better ability to evaluate, regardless of rankings of players. Additionally, you can recruit and sign a kid who is highly ranked as a player in one system, but may not fit in another system when the coaching philosophy changes.

Lots of factors at play here, not to mention the kids who were more lowly rated by recruiting services but find their legs and develop into tremendous contributors given a particular system/philosophy. There aren't any easy answers here and that is why I said that this would be a difficult and meticulous process in putting this analysis together.

[LZH]

Steele is always detailed. They do a great job.

There's more homework done there than I did all thru high school.

[Pig in the Pokey]

 They
play Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss all on the road and draw 2
of the top 3 out of the East (Tenn & Missouri) but in the 3rd yr
of Bielema's systems will still be a legitimate contender in the
rugged SEC West as 2 of my 9 sets of PR's (not my main) call
for them to have an 11-1 season.

[Pig in the Pokey]

Steele is always detailed. They do a great job.

but not infallable at all as he calls our home field WAR MEMORIAL IN LITTLE ROCK and even shows DWRRS's record. smdh

[Pig in the Pokey]

But he only put six Hogs (none on D) on his first three All-SEC teams and was ripped by Hogville.



http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=593561.0

first FOUR. It was stupid.

[hoggusamoungus]

first FOUR. It was stupid.

And contradictory.  With so little "talent", how can we possibly win 9-11 games?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

but not infallable at all as he calls our home field WAR MEMORIAL IN LITTLE ROCK and even shows DWRRS's record. smdh

Of course he does, we technically have two home fields.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Excellent find MHF....I'm still going thru all of it.  +1 buddy.

One thing of note here with regard to FG's last year. Inside the 29 yard line we were 4 of 4 last year. From the 30 out we were only 5 of 10 (though we were 4 of 6 from the 30 to the 39). I know we like to pound the ball in the RZ and try to get TD's instead of FG's, but I have to wonder how many outcomes might have been different last year if at key times, we would have taken a FG and 3 points when we had the chance?

I know that we missed one from 44 out vs. A&M with about 2:30 remaining in the 2nd half that would have given us a 31-21 lead and probably would have preserved a victory and kept us from going into OT.

And there was that missed XP in the 2nd Qtr vs. Alabama that would come back to haunt us.

But, in all fairness, one might also say that our play calling might have effected the choices that we made as well. In the 2nd half of the Alabama game we had a run-pass split of something like 7 runs to 27 passes. Throwing so often and running so little, it was only a matter of time before we were going to throw a pick. You want to believe that we were taking what the defense was giving us, but that sure seems overly slanted towards throwing for the entire 2nd half when the score was 7-6 at halftime.

We need to become more reliable in our kicking game and possess the ability to be more consistent in striking from further out, but I think that what we saw in the Alabama game is a reason that folks like Phil Steele are more optimistic about the Hogs this year, with the addition of Dan Enos and perhaps a more balanced approach to our play calling.

[Biggus Piggus]

No excuse for calling War Memorial Arkansas's home field. It is clear that Steele has never been to Fayetteville.

[hawgbawb]

He's saying that 2 of his 9 PR's project a 11-1 season. 2 of 9, that's like a 22.2% chance. Not impossible, but also not likely. Still, this will be a good season and hopefully we will finish in the 4th quarter this year in games instead of giving them away as we did several times last year. Just finishing those games out last year would likely have added 3 more regular season wins. Ending the regular season at 9-3 instead of 6-6, despite a pasting of Texas in the bowl game, might have more pundits picking Arkansas to do better this year.

More depth = less 4th quarter fatigue

[wholehog92]

Arkansas trailed Texas Tech 28-21 at
half

Nope.  We led them 28-21 at the half.

Loved the fat man TD reference.

[hogcard1964]

They
play Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss all on the road and draw 2
of the top 3 out of the East (Tenn & Missouri) but in the 3rd yr
of Bielema's systems will still be a legitimate contender in the
rugged SEC West as 2 of my 9 sets of PR's (not my main) call
for them to have an 11-1 season.

11-1 puts us in title contention.

[EastexHawg]

And contradictory.  With so little "talent", how can we possibly win 9-11 games?

He's not predicting that we will win 9-11 games.  He said two out of nine of his predictors, and not his main predictors, point to an 11-1 season.

Read the first line of his analysis for 2015.  "Several things point down for this year."  He mentions the factors that led to our final record last year (for instance being +7 in turnover margin) but then says that for 2015 we are -3.5 on his Stock Market Indicator.

Last year we were +4.5 on his Stock Market Indicator and went 2-6 in SEC play, 6-6 overall in the regular season.

[nwahogfan1]

good stuff.  Phil bases alot on having a 5th year experienced QB and a very good Offensive line and RBs plus our WRs being very adequate.

I know our Defensive has some question marks but I really do like the pieces we have.  I think it will be as good as last year.  I don't know if the defense we can keep our opponents  under 20ppg on average like last year but man for man I think we are pretty darn good. 

I am not as optimistic as Phil is at 11-1 but 9-4 or 10-3 is very reachable. 

I am scared of Ms, Bama, Tn and LSU on the road.  I think maybe we can split or worse case going 1-3 but going 3-1 on the road in the SEC against those teams is a tough task.

[hogcard1964]

He's not predicting that we will win 9-11 games.  He said two out of nine of his predictors, and not his main predictors, point to an 11-1 season.

Read the first line of his analysis for 2015.  "Several things point down for this year."  He mentions the factors that led to our final record last year (for instance being +7 in turnover margin) but then says that for 2015 we are -3.5 on his Stock Market Indicator.

Last year we were +4.5 on his Stock Market Indicator and went 2-6 in SEC play, 6-6 overall in the regular season.

Not understanding. Is he claiming we'll be worse than we were last year? 

[EastexHawg]

Not understanding. Is he claiming we'll be worse than we were last year? 

He's like a politician.  He's all over the place in his analysis and every person can take what he wants to believe from it.  If we win 11 games Steele will be able to say, "Well, I said two of my predictors said they would."  If we go 5-7 he will be able to say, "I said things pointed downward for this year and that they were a -3.5 on my Stock Market Indicator."

[EastexHawg]

Here's an explanation I found for Steele's Stock Market Indicator.  Remember, he has us at   -3.5 for this year:

Teams that had a Stock Market Indicator of -5 or lower had a weaker or the same record the next year 91% of the time with 76 having a weaker record, only 8 managing to improve and 5 having the same record. Even teams with a Stock Market Indicator of -3.0 to -4.5 were in a 78% category having a weaker record 168 times and improving the record just 51 and the same record 21 times. Unlike the positive Market Indicator, I was not pleased with the results of -1.5 so the chart really should be cut off at 2.0. The teams in the -2.0 to -2.5 Stock Market Indicator had a weaker or same record the next year 73.7% of the time.

Bottom line is that a 91% trend of a weaker or same record if teams have a -5 indicator or less, -3 to -4.5 is 78% and -2 to -2.5 74%. Overall, teams that had -2 Stock Market Indicator or lower had the weaker or the same record basically 79% of the time.

http://www.philsteele.com/blogs/2013/JUN13/DBJune06.html

[onebadrubi]

He's like a politician.  He's all over the place in his analysis and every person can take what he wants to believe from it.  If we win 11 games Steele will be able to say, "Well, I said two of my predictors said they would."  If we go 5-7 he will be able to say, "I said things pointed downward for this year and that they were a -3.5 on my Stock Market Indicator."

Exactly, he has built a system that will cover all basis and he's always "correct".  Yet in season when he is asked to make picks he always has a losing record. 

[Biggus Piggus]

He sells data. Not so good with prediction, but who is?

[The NewEra]

He sells data. Not so good with prediction, but who is?

Just like charts on the stock market, the data will tell you where it's been and where it is, but not where it's going.

[Bacon_Bitz]

The "stock market indicator" is just a very very simplified way of guessing whether a team will return to their "normal" amount of wins (which is just the average from 2 and 3 years ago) after whatever happened last season.  This measure is completely useless when a team is obviously in transition, like Arkansas, and when that measure is being influenced by strange seasons like our historically peculiar 4-8 season under JLS. 

So Steele says we are trending down with a -3.5 stock market, but he just got that number by averaging the 4 wins under JLS and the 3 wins in CBB's first year, then subtracting our 7 wins from last.  All it is saying is that Arkansas won 3.5 more games last year than it had averaged winning the 2 years before that.  This is completely meaningless without any context of what has gone on in Arkansas football the past few years. 

The yards per point correlation also seems silly: http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune17.html

He is right about TO's though, we were +7 overall and we do got to keep winning the TO battle to give ourselves the best chance to win more games.  That's true of every football team in the world though.

Steele is really basic and not very impressive when you actually look at his "stats."

[trashcan maN]

Phil puts out a great magazine, but it is true that he uses a ton of different algorithms to rank teams/units and predict future success, and toots his horn when a couple of them were correct.

I hate to say this, but his stock market indicator is usually one that I look at as being consistently pretty accurate. His +4.5 last year was deadly accurate, as we improved on our record by 4 games, and were a tripping call from winning 8 games.

I don't really see how we can be -3.5 this year, considering we were 0-4 in close games last year.

[trashcan maN]

Also interesting that:

Bielema evidently compared RW3 to Montee Ball at some point?

He expects our DB unit to get even better this year. I thought they were great in the 2nd half of ssn last year.

[EastexHawg]

Phil puts out a great magazine, but it is true that he uses a ton of different algorithms to rank teams/units and predict future success, and toots his horn when a couple of them were correct.

I hate to say this, but his stock market indicator is usually one that I look at as being consistently pretty accurate. His +4.5 last year was deadly accurate, as we improved on our record by 4 games, and were a tripping call from winning 8 games.

I don't really see how we can be -3.5 this year, considering we were 0-4 in close games last year.

After reading the explanation I didn't take it to mean he expects a team to win or lose that many more games, it is merely an indicator that they will win more or win fewer than the year before.  In other words, a -3.5 doesn't mean he expects us to lose 3-4 more games than last year, it just means that the likelihood that we will win fewer games is stronger than if our Indicator was -2.0.

If you look at the formula he's basically going with the assumption that each team's previous season was an anomaly and that they will settle back into their "average" of recent years.

[Bacon_Bitz]

After reading the explanation I didn't take it to mean he expects a team to win or lose that many more games, it is merely an indicator that they will win more or win fewer than the year before.  In other words, a -3.5 doesn't mean he expects us to lose 3-4 more games than last year, it just means that the likelihood that we will win fewer games is stronger than if our Indicator was -2.0.

If you look at the formula he's basically going with the assumption that each team's previous season was an anomaly and that they will settle back into their "average" of recent years.

Yes. 

4 wins in 2012. 3 wins in 2013. 7 wins in 2014. 

(4 + 3)/2 - 7 = -3.5

It is a meaningless number.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

As long as you read Phil Steele for the vast amount of information that they collect annually, realizing that some of his staff are going to make some mistakes and you have to be knowledgable enough to catch some of the errors, you will be fine.

Who knows how many pieces of data are collected on each and every team and is published? 500 pieces? More? If it were 500 and he had 95% accuracy, that would be 5 things wrong about each team. Who is more accurate? Could any of us put together an annual magazine of this magnitude requiring the collection of this much information and be more accurate? I doubt it.

Like anyone making a prediction at this time of the year, we don't know exactly what is going to happen. His projections come from experience based on watching and recording data on teams year after year and he is going off averages to come up with some of these predictions. But like anything else, only time will truly tell the story.

Enjoy Steele for the wealth of information that he provides about every team and don't worry so much about the predictions. The teams are going to determine their own futures when the time comes. But maybe some of the data that he provides can help you to form your own in-depth prognostications for various teams?

[GoHogs1091]

The "stock market indicator" is just a very very simplified way of guessing whether a team will return to their "normal" amount of wins (which is just the average from 2 and 3 years ago) after whatever happened last season.  This measure is completely useless when a team is obviously in transition, like Arkansas, and when that measure is being influenced by strange seasons like our historically peculiar 4-8 season under JLS. 

So Steele says we are trending down with a -3.5 stock market, but he just got that number by averaging the 4 wins under JLS and the 3 wins in CBB's first year, then subtracting our 7 wins from last.  All it is saying is that Arkansas won 3.5 more games last year than it had averaged winning the 2 years before that.  This is completely meaningless without any context of what has gone on in Arkansas football the past few years. 

The yards per point correlation also seems silly: http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune17.html

He is right about TO's though, we were +7 overall and we do got to keep winning the TO battle to give ourselves the best chance to win more games.  That's true of every football team in the world though.

Steele is really basic and not very impressive when you actually look at his "stats."

I have my own way of analyzing teams, so I don't put much stock in an analysis such as Steele's.  Here is my own personal way of analyzing teams.

How good is the starting Quarterback.  Has the QB performed well in the past in crunch time in the 4th Quarter of big games?

How good is the starting Left Offensive Tackle.

2 of the 3 starting Wide Receivers must be high level.

How good is the starting Weakside Defensive End, which is the DE on the blind side of the opposing QB.

How good is the starting Middle Linebacker.

How good are the starting Cornerbacks, particularly the Cornerback that plays on the boundary side.

How good is the starting Strong Safety.

How good is the Field Goal Kicker.

How good are the Assistant Coaches.

The teams that will be good in all the above areas are the teams that usually win 9 to 12 games during the regular season.

[RazorRick77]

I am not seeing 11 wins. 9 is likely the ceiling which would be a great year.

[Dugann]

Steele's staff analysis... that is more of it.   He dose however, oversees and has a softer scale for the hogs.

[Bigdavis]

I don't understand why he thinks we're pointing down and has us at -3.5. If you look at his position by position rankings he thinks we'll be better or the same at every position. How does that translate to pointing down for this year?

I was anxious for his rankings this year because I thought he would have us pointing up. Considering how close our losses were last year and who we have returning, in years past he's used those kinds of things to say we would be better not worse. 

I'm saying he's dead wrong here. It's almost like he made a mistake.

[trashcan maN]

 

I don't understand why he thinks we're pointing down and has us at -3.5. If you look at his position by position rankings he thinks we'll be better or the same at every position. How does that translate to pointing down for this year?

That's what I'm saying. We beat up everyone we beat, and we went 0-4 in close games. You have to think we come out on the right side of one or two of those this year, and that we take care of our business otherwise..

[Biggus Piggus]

Why does Steele say Arkansas has seven returning starters on offense? Four offensive linemen, TE, QB, TB, almost all WRs (as Demetrius Wilson was hardly available last season), what? You'd have to be very conservative to say only nine returning starters. Everybody who is going to play a lot already has played, except for Dominique Reed. We lost a right tackle, our second tight end, and a backup receiver who had 17 catches.

[lrcentral]

I like the 22% chance.  11-1 in SEC means playoff bound.  That is saying we have a 1 in 5 chance to make the playoffs.  Those are great odds considering where we have been.  Phil is also the most accurate of all the gurus.

So does that mean 22% of the time we make it every time? I like those odds.