"Returning Production" metric shows schedule might not be as difficult as thought

[Judge Smails]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...eturning-starters-experience-oregon-tcu-texas

Last year, I began using a returning production figure based on what seems to have the most direct impact on year-to-year performance. With what is now a few years’ worth of data, let’s take a look at some updated correlations between given categories and change in production.

The conclusion remains: Continuity in the passing game matters a hell of a lot, and continuity in the run game doesn’t have as strong an impact.


Defense: The main takeaways are similar to last year: disruption and continuity in the secondary are key. And the ability to get hands on passes, via interception or breakup, is harder to replicate than any other, when it comes to box-score disruption.

So what does this mean for 2017? As with last year, I used categories like the ones above, weighted for largest effect — so, quarterbacks, receivers, and defensive backs carry more heft — to create general “returning production” numbers for offense and defense.

If you look at the ratings in the link, PSU returns the 27th most production. Some of our opponents?

Indiana #13
Northwestern #30
Rutgers #46
Ohio State #72
Maryland #86
Temple #87
Iowa #118
Nebraska #122
Pittsburgh #123
Michigan State #124
Michigan #127 (out of 129)

 

[ram2020]

that's a fascinating view, thanks for adding

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Are you using this as a multiplier effect relative to actual production to compute a projected product for the following year?

 

[Judge Smails]

Are you using this as a multiplier effect relative to actual production to compute a projected product for the following year?

Read the article. It isn't my formula, it's the authors. It is an improved metric over just "returning starters". He adjusts returning starters based on how easy or how hard it is to replace the following year. So the teams low on the list are losing the most harmful type of starters measured to production the following year, based on his research.

 

[Ian]

FAU, FIU?

Most of the teams ahead of PSU weren't very good in 2016 and played for 2017 by years end.

As has been proven, on offense you can't do much without a good OL. A returning QB would be my second. Just saying...

 

[Judge Smails]

FAU, FIU?

Most of the teams ahead of PSU weren't very good in 2016 and played for 2017 by years end.

As has been proven, on offense you can't do much without a good OL. A returning QB would be my second. Just saying...

This isn't a ranking of how they will finish in 2017.

Imagine if they ranked the teams based on returning starters. #1 has the most returning starters. #129 has the fewest returning starters. They just tweaked the formula to make certain position groups returning more or less important than others.

 

[Limestoner]

These things are cute and give writers something to write about I guess but I will take a team returning all of their lineman over a team returning all of their skill positions all day long. There is a reason why rb's and db's generally crack two deeps earlier in their career then lineman. A lot of thoes positions come down to instinct and athleticism.

 

[Zenophile]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...eturning-starters-experience-oregon-tcu-texas

Last year, I began using a returning production figure based on what seems to have the most direct impact on year-to-year performance. With what is now a few years’ worth of data, let’s take a look at some updated correlations between given categories and change in production.

The conclusion remains: Continuity in the passing game matters a hell of a lot, and continuity in the run game doesn’t have as strong an impact.


Defense: The main takeaways are similar to last year: disruption and continuity in the secondary are key. And the ability to get hands on passes, via interception or breakup, is harder to replicate than any other, when it comes to box-score disruption.

So what does this mean for 2017? As with last year, I used categories like the ones above, weighted for largest effect — so, quarterbacks, receivers, and defensive backs carry more heft — to create general “returning production” numbers for offense and defense.

If you look at the ratings in the link, PSU returns the 27th most production. Some of our opponents?

Indiana #13
Northwestern #30
Rutgers #46
Ohio State #72
Maryland #86
Temple #87
Iowa #118
Nebraska #122
Pittsburgh #123
Michigan State #124
Michigan #127 (out of 129)

IU was scary in '16. September 30th should be interesting.

 

[4rosco]

What i found interesting in the article is that they rank the BIG with the least amount of production returning

 

[Ian]

Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, and Iowa are all among the bottom 12 in returning production. The Wolverines will continue to recruit well and should get a top-15 overall projection because of it, but a step or two backward could be in the works.