FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Pat and Hansen:  Do you have a definition of "returning starter"?  Or do coaches simply report their returning numbers according to their own criteria.  For example, in the absence of specific guidelines a coach might report a returning starter as a player who started, let's say, two or the final three games when the starter who began the season in injured.  Or a coach might think that a player who started half (or three or four) or more of the previous season's games is a returning starter.  In a strict sense any player who started even one game could be counted as a returning starter if the coach has authority to define the term in any way he wants.  I can even imagine a coach under-reporting the number of returners for whatever reasons--motivation, etc.   And so on.  So, again, is there a common "rule" for how a coach must define returning starter?  Given that Hansen is a mathematical system that gives points for the number of returning starters it might skew the numbers, although probably only slightly, if coaches can decide how to report their returning guys.
     I'm asking the question because, using Wabash as an example, I could argue that there are X number or returning starters or X+?.

When I'm asking, I'm asking for people who started at least half the season.

[sigma one]

Thanks, Pat and Hansen.  Starting at least half the season seems a fair way to be considered a starter.   Also, gives strong support for Hansen's system.   

[wally_wabash]

Thanks, Pat and Hansen.  Starting at least half the season seems a fair way to be considered a starter.   Also, gives strong support for Hansen's system.

The returning starter thing, I think, is a good first pass at looking at what teams might be coming up and what teams might be taking a step back.  But that is definitely operating in generalities as there are layers to the returning starter game.  An extreme example, but 2015 Mason Zurek would not have been counted as a returning starter (Holmes started the 2014 games in the Wabash RB timeshare), but 2015 Mason Zurek finished up with two stacks of high society and a first team AA honor- things that didn't exactly come out of nowhere as he was certainly a known commodity coming into last season. 

[sigma one]

Despite not being a "starter," Zurek, along with Holmes, was a first-team all-NCAC running back in 2014.   This would be factor if Hansen can figure out how to assimilate the idea of production into his system. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

The whole returning starter/production thing really, really fascinates me.  Great discussion.

For a season preview, I think it makes the most sense to use a flat definition like Pat's "started for at least half the season" to give readers a general sense of what's back.  If you're really drilling down into specific teams for a conference title pick, you can go through position-by-position and find the more nuanced stuff like a guy who started for the last three games, or RB that was part of a time-share, etc.  But you have to draw a line somewhere for a season preview of 200+ teams, that's the easiest way to do it - did the guy start X games last year?

Plus, as Hansen alluded, some coaches have more than 11 "starting positions" in this day of multiple offensive and defensive packages, when you consider the extra WR, extra TE, extra RB, etc that play in special packages...and bringing those guys back can give you sort of a half-returning-starter.  If my team plays a 3-4 base defense but brings an extra lineman onto the field for goal-line and short-yardage situations, and last year's "extra man" will be sliding into the starting lineup this year at nose tackle in place of a departing senior, we might be plugging in a guy that played 25 percent of the defensive snaps last year.  He's not a "returning starter" but he's seen plenty of game action, and I'd feel good about that if he'd shown flashes in his action the previous year.

With that in mind, it would be extremely cool to look at "returning production" (offensive - presumably computed as a function of the % of passing yards, rushing yards, receiving yards...you could go really nuts and also include the % of snaps played on the OL as part of the offensive equation...then I assume defensive production is a % of the tackles, sacks, INT, fumbles, etc) but that takes us down a really nerdy road when the qualitative "Of the guys who will matter this year, how many of them are experienced dudes?" probably will tell us just as much.  Analytics, schmanalytics.

[HansenRatings]

If any of you can find play-by-play data from a centralized location for all of d3, let me know. The best thing I can think of to approximate "percentage of snaps played" would be some combination of K1*(Games Played)+K2*(Games Started). My first assumption is to use K1 = 1 and K2 = 2 (a starter plays twice as many snaps as someone who merely appeared in the game), but I feel like it will probably skew more towards 3:1. I actually started scraping some of that data from the NCAA Stats site today.
If I can get a good number of teams input how ExTartan was describing, and the results are no more accurate than a coach saying "we're returning X of our best 11," I'm probably not going to spend too much time pursuing this further.

[Bombers798891]

In talking about returning starters/production, I think it's also tricky because, especially on defense, there's a lot of noise.

ETP already mentioned the various alignments that require different guys to come in. But it goes way beyond that. Any of the 11 guys can get a sack, INT, or tackle on any play. Multiple guys can get credited with a tackle or sack, and it might not even be clear who did what on a gang tackle. Or, if a guy is obviously making his way to the sidelines and I give him a shove just before he does, and he falls as he's going out, maybe the SID decides to give me a tackle, maybe they don't. Then, you factor in special teams, where there could be another 60 tackles and a couple of fumbles to go around. And because some defensive stats (INTs, sacks, fumble recoveries) are relatively rare, a couple garbage time ones by a guy can really overstate his production relative to his teammates.

At least on offense, despite different alignments and packages, only one guy gets each carry, catch, or pass, and there's no judgement calls about what happened, and with several hundred catches and carries, and thousands of yards, you don't really have a guy who can fluke his way to a large percentage of that. I actually feel like I'd want to use "starters" for defense, and production for offense.

[HansenRatings]

I'm totally with you on that Bombers. I think that something that can get forgotten in the analytics community sometimes is that coaches know what they're doing. Coaches want to play the guys who are going to give them the best chance at winning, which is typically going to be the players who play best within the system. It's very probable (and I would say likely), that a defensive player can fit their role better, and the defense be better off for it, while having less "production" than a player who does their own thing. "Sure, you may get an interception on that one play, but for almost every other play during the game, you were a liability." By using games started/games played, you can make inferences on who the coaching staff thought was the best players, which may disagree with the stats.

If I were to eventually use "returning production" in my preseason ratings, I would definitely weight production based on whether or not the player was also a starter.

[wabco]

I understand Raeburn just added Tony Neymeiyer to his lineup of coaches on the O side of the ball.  Best wishes and all things good to Tony.

[Bombers798891]

I'm totally with you on that Bombers. I think that something that can get forgotten in the analytics community sometimes is that coaches know what they're doing. Coaches want to play the guys who are going to give them the best chance at winning, which is typically going to be the players who play best within the system. It's very probable (and I would say likely), that a defensive player can fit their role better, and the defense be better off for it, while having less "production" than a player who does their own thing. "Sure, you may get an interception on that one play, but for almost every other play during the game, you were a liability." By using games started/games played, you can make inferences on who the coaching staff thought was the best players, which may disagree with the stats.

If I were to eventually use "returning production" in my preseason ratings, I would definitely weight production based on whether or not the player was also a starter.

Right. I mean, I'll give you an example from IC. One year, they had a guy who was credited with five sacks, which, this being Ithaca, was 2nd on the team. Those five sacks accounted for five of his 11 tackles that season. If you're just focusing on sacks, you might think "Hey, there's a decent pass rusher coming back" but then you think about what it means that, even as a DL, that pretty much was all of his production. Was he used exclusively in obvious pass rush situations? So what happens next year when he's asked to play every down and can't just get to the QB?

[DPU3619]

I understand Raeburn just added Tony Neymeiyer to his lineup of coaches on the O side of the ball.  Best wishes and all things good to Tony.

The elephant in the room here that hasn't been brought up in this conference measuring tape conversation is the serious turnover in the Wabash coaching staff. Changing both coordinators is a big deal, particularly when both appear to have drastically different schemes than what we've seen from Wabash in the Raeburn era.

Still think they're far and away the most talented roster, and that counts for a lot. But there are a lot of question marks, too.

[bashbrother]

I understand Raeburn just added Tony Neymeiyer to his lineup of coaches on the O side of the ball.  Best wishes and all things good to Tony.

The elephant in the room here that hasn't been brought up in this conference measuring tape conversation is the serious turnover in the Wabash coaching staff. Changing both coordinators is a big deal, particularly when both appear to have drastically different schemes than what we've seen from Wabash in the Raeburn era.

Still think they're far and away the most talented roster, and that counts for a lot. But there are a lot of question marks, too.

I believe the new coaching staff would be foolish to tinker too much with either the offensive or defensive schemes....at least in 2016....They've been handed the keys to a Ferrari,  just drive the speed limit and win another Conference Championship.   

My bigger point of anxiety is looking a couple of year's out.    As you know,  this is when the real impact of all of the coaching changes will be realized.   This coaching staff will be helped significantly from an extremely strong recruiting class this year....  will this continue?

I also agree there are questions.... even with the talent,  new coaches mean new culture/personality.  We shall see what happens...  ready to get it started to find out. 

[DPU3619]

It's really not that easy to come in to a team that BJ Hammer left and watch his defense's film and go, "Yeah. Let's do that. That worked. I want to do more of that stuff he's doing there."

There are a couple guys hanging around on that side from last year's staff. And yes, you can put guys in similar positions through base scheme, but what made that defense so great was how BJ called it. His timing on pressures and what pressures to bring was exceptional. That's not as easy as "Let me just look at his playbook and put all this crap back in for 2016."

It may all work out. They may not lose a beat and keep rolling. Or they may get down in an even front and play their base, try to be fundamentally sound, and bring less pressure. We're gonna find out next month.

I just think it's worth noting that this could be a drastically different Wabash team than we've seen in some time.

[wally_wabash]

Agree with Wes that it may be tough for Wabash to get as many free dudes into the backfield as often as BJ was able to do it.  I also don't think Wabash is all of a sudden going to turn into a team that gives up 450 yards and 28 points every game.  That's also not happening.   The players are too good.  Jeff Ramsey is too good.  Wabash will be good.  Different, yes.  But still very good. 

[bashbrother]

I agree completely that BJ was/is a special coach that is a master at dialing up "the plan" and making adjustments on the fly.       

He will get the most out of his talent at AC this year....  will it translate to additional wins?  Maybe not,  but I know they will play harder and smarter under BJ.