QB CJ Stroud (All B1G, 2022 B1G QB of the Year, All-American, NFL OROY, Houston Texans)

[DaddyBigBucks]

Speaking of TD passes:

While Vegas still has Stroud as the strong favorite for the Heisman, the media has a new favorite of their own, flavor-of-the-month Hendon Hooker.

Both Stroud and Hooker have played teams whose passing defenses have given up 22 touchdown passes to everyone else.

Hooker has thrown 15 touchdown passes. About 68% as many as everyone else combined. Good job, Hendon. Have a cookie.

Stroud, as shown above, has thrown 24 touchdown passes. More than everyone else who has played his opponents combined.

Not all Heisman favorites are created equal, apparently.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Stroud vs Hooker continued...

While Stroud started out slow and then had a complete what-the-heck-was-that game against Rutgers, Hooker has been more consistent. Not what you wanted to hear, but it's the truth. Hooker has had the highest PE of any QB to face his opponents for every game. Stroud has the 3rd highest PE against Notre Dame. Against Rutgers, Iowa had a higher PE than Stroud. Seriously. Iowa. What-the-heck-was-that indeed.

In spite of all of that, Stroud is well ahead of Hooker in PE. Stroud is at 207.568. While Hooker is #2 in the country, he is well behind Stroud at 187.722.

Vols fans would, no doubt, point out that Hooker has played better pass defenses. Again, this might be something you don't want to hear, but that is a fact. The composite defensive PE of Stroud's opponents is 130.916 (if you're new to Differential Statistical Analysis (DSA), that excludes the games against the Buckeyes and all games against FCS teams). The composite PE of Hooker's opponents is 121.67.

For elite quarterbacks, going against stronger competition actually helps you to produce a stronger differential PE, so Hooker has a DSA advantage here. Moreover, Stroud's what-the-heck-was-that game against Rutgers pulled his numbers WAY down, as did his early season attempts to deal with the unexpected absence of JSN. In spite of that, Differential PE is as follows:

Stroud: 1.586
Hooker: 1.543

Stroud is better.

But you already knew that.

 

[Zurp]

I think if you add Iowa to that and you tie Stroud.

 

[Zurp]

Stroud vs Hooker continued...
The composite defensive PE of Stroud's opponents is 130.916 (if you're new to Differential Statistical Analysis (DSA), that excludes the games against the Buckeyes and all games against FCS teams). The composite PE of Hooker's opponents is 121.67.

So... we're looking at the opponents of Ohio State's opponents, excluding Ohio State. If Ohio State's opponents' opponents were just better passing teams than Tennessee's opponents' opponents are/were, wouldn't that change the stats, and the DSA?

I mean... I didn't look this up so maybe I'm just pulling this out of no where. But what if Toledo's opponents had high PE stats because they had awesome offenses, instead of because Toledo's defense was bad? And Tennessee's opponents played teams that wished they had Denard Robinson or Joe Bauserman throwing the ball? What if it's more of a "good offense" instead of a "bad defense" thing?

I'm not saying that Stroud is way better than Hooker is. I'm not even saying that Stroud is better than Hooker is at all. I guess what I'm saying is that we can probably use whatever stats we want to prove anything we want.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

So... we're looking at the opponents of Ohio State's opponents, excluding Ohio State. If Ohio State's opponents' opponents were just better passing teams than Tennessee's opponents' opponents are/were, wouldn't that change the stats, and the DSA?

I mean... I didn't look this up so maybe I'm just pulling this out of no where. But what if Toledo's opponents had high PE stats because they had awesome offenses, instead of because Toledo's defense was bad? And Tennessee's opponents played teams that wished they had Denard Robinson or Joe Bauserman throwing the ball? What if it's more of a "good offense" instead of a "bad defense" thing?

I'm not saying that Stroud is way better than Hooker is. I'm not even saying that Stroud is better than Hooker is at all. I guess what I'm saying is that we can probably use whatever stats we want to prove anything we want.

When I first started doing DSA, I actually thought there might be something to the opponents' opponents thing, so I took DSA to that extra layer of abstraction. Doing so proved to me that, by the time you're dealing with that many teams, everything evens out. The only difference is that the analysis gave me a good means of comparing conferences. Turns out the SEC is the best, like it or not; but the difference isn't anywhere in the vicinity of where the media thinks it is, and it is a tiny fraction of what some fans think it is. Beyond that, there was no point in that level of analysis. DSA is good enough.


As for using numbers to prove anything we want... No you can't. You can try, but anyone who knows simple principles will find the bias in your logic and shoot it down. Is it common for people who don't know what they're doing to use numbers as part of their poor analysis and then do a victory dance? Sure. That doesn't mean that numbers are worthless; it just means that some people are idiots.

I have run correlations that prove that DSA is as relevant a form of analysis as most that you'll find. But that's really not relevant to this kind of discussion, I find. Some people find numerical comparisons interesting, some don't. Based on the number of likes I get compared to the number of BP users there are, the vast majority don't really care about my contributions. That's completely ok. For most people they're just so much TL/DR. Other people like some of what I do, so I'll keep doing it.

 

[ScriptOhio]

I think if you add Iowa to that and you tie Stroud.

Yeah, Iowa/Petras only has 2 TDs; however, he has more interceptions, i.e. 3.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/2294/iowa-hawkeyes

 

[muffler dragon]

Some people find numerical comparisons interesting, some don't. Based on the number of likes I get compared to the number of BP users there are, the vast majority don't really care about my contributions. That's completely ok. For most people they're just so much TL/DR. Other people like some of what I do, so I'll keep doing it.

I thoroughly enjoy your numerical comparison posts and hope you keep presenting them.

 

[brodybuck21]

I thoroughly enjoy your numerical comparison posts and hope you keep presenting them.

same!

 

[Zurp]

When I first started doing DSA, I actually thought there might be something to the opponents' opponents thing, so I took DSA to that extra layer of abstraction. Doing so proved to me that, by the time you're dealing with that many teams, everything evens out.

Okay. I can buy that.

Turns out the SEC is the best, like it or not;

I can buy that.

but the difference isn't anywhere in the vicinity of where the media thinks it is,

I can buy that.

and it is a tiny fraction of what some fans think it is.

I definitely believe that.

Beyond that, there was no point in that level of analysis. DSA is good enough.

Okay. Thank you for explaining that.

As for using numbers to prove anything we want... No you can't. You can try, but anyone who knows simple principles will find the bias in your logic and shoot it down. Is it common for people who don't know what they're doing to use numbers as part of their poor analysis and then do a victory dance? Sure. That doesn't mean that numbers are worthless; it just means that some people are idiots.

I posted that part more of as a joke than anything. Any excuse to throw a Simpsons line in there is enough for me. I know what you mean with the "this guy knows just enough about the subject to be dangerous", but I was not accusing that of you (or anyone else, really). If it came across that way then I apologize. I thought your analysis was great, and I enjoy seeing these stats.

I have run correlations that prove that DSA is as relevant a form of analysis as most that you'll find. But that's really not relevant to this kind of discussion, I find. Some people find numerical comparisons interesting, some don't. Based on the number of likes I get compared to the number of BP users there are, the vast majority don't really care about my contributions. That's completely ok. For most people they're just so much TL/DR. Other people like some of what I do, so I'll keep doing it.

I may not hit the "like" button as often as maybe I "should". I consider myself a "numbers guy", though maybe not to your level, but to the point that my dream job would be to come up with a computer formula for ranking the college teams. I really enjoy the stats and comparisons. I think my post started as a thought that maybe opponents' opponents might be more of a factor than you were giving credit for. (You've since answered that question, and I thank you for that.) Then my stream of consciousness drove my post into that Simpsons scene and that's where it ended.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Okay. I can buy that.


I can buy that.

I can buy that.

I definitely believe that.

Okay. Thank you for explaining that.




I posted that part more of as a joke than anything. Any excuse to throw a Simpsons line in there is enough for me. I know what you mean with the "this guy knows just enough about the subject to be dangerous", but I was not accusing that of you (or anyone else, really). If it came across that way then I apologize. I thought your analysis was great, and I enjoy seeing these stats.



I may not hit the "like" button as often as maybe I "should". I consider myself a "numbers guy", though maybe not to your level, but to the point that my dream job would be to come up with a computer formula for ranking the college teams. I really enjoy the stats and comparisons. I think my post started as a thought that maybe opponents' opponents might be more of a factor than you were giving credit for. (You've since answered that question, and I thank you for that.) Then my stream of consciousness drove my post into that Simpsons scene and that's where it ended.

Thanks very much for taking the time for this, Zurp. I truly appreciate it.

It is also nice of you to have given me an opportunity to fulfill my other role on this board: missing the point and going off on tangents.

 

[charlohiottean]

Okay. I can buy that.


I can buy that.

I can buy that.

I definitely believe that.

Okay. Thank you for explaining that.




I posted that part more of as a joke than anything. Any excuse to throw a Simpsons line in there is enough for me. I know what you mean with the "this guy knows just enough about the subject to be dangerous", but I was not accusing that of you (or anyone else, really). If it came across that way then I apologize. I thought your analysis was great, and I enjoy seeing these stats.



I may not hit the "like" button as often as maybe I "should". I consider myself a "numbers guy", though maybe not to your level, but to the point that my dream job would be to come up with a computer formula for ranking the college teams. I really enjoy the stats and comparisons. I think my post started as a thought that maybe opponents' opponents might be more of a factor than you were giving credit for. (You've since answered that question, and I thank you for that.) Then my stream of consciousness drove my post into that Simpsons scene and that's where it ended.

Thanks very much for taking the time for this, Zurp. I truly appreciate it.

It is also nice of you to have given me an opportunity to fulfill my other role on this board: missing the point and going off on tangents.

 

[Dryden]

 

[MGMT]

Is YAC factored into that stat? Or is it strictly air travel prior to initial reception?

 

[dragurd]

Here's a few laughs. Let CJ who embraced his dark side see this..

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

View attachment 33413
View attachment 33414
Here's a few laughs. Let CJ who embraced his dark side see this..

what is that from?