An intriguing little correlation

[homerHAWKeye777]

I know that a lot of folks here like to attribute Iowa's success primarily to the D. However, by and large, the D is almost always pretty darn strong for the Hawks .... even in relative "down years."

Thus, I found it rather intriguing that when I combined the number of quality guys that Iowa has had on the OL, at RB, and at WR/TE ... I found that Iowa's regular seasons record appeared to have a direct correlation with that number. I admit that defining what constitutes a "quality guy" is a bit of a subjective undertaking ... however, my litmus test was whether I thought a guy could play at a reasonably high level on an every-down basis. I also attempted to minimize the impact of hindsight by relying more upon the hype that was coming out about players PRIOR to the given season ... thereby ignoring whether or not the guy ended up being productive during the season. Anyhow, with the above being said, the following is what I found:

'06: 17 guys, 6-6 regular season record
'07: 16 guys, 6-6 regular season record
'08: 19 guys, 8-4 regular season record
'09: 22 guys, 10-2 regular season record
'10: 18 guys, 7-5 regular season record

It's important to note that the above numbers do not reflect injuries that occur DURING the season ... thereby reducing the ACTUAL number of quality guys. However, part of listing the total number is also intended to get an indirect metric of how much talented depth we have on O.

I'd like to note that the above correlation does not take in account our QB situation. Thus, I think that that extra variable can be accounted for by simply adding extra annotations. For instance, in the '06 season we suffered a lot from turnovers ... and I believe that Tate's injury played a substantial role in contributing to our turnovers. Similarly, Stanzi's turnovers in '08 cost Iowa games ... and frankly Iowa would have had an even better season were it not for those turnovers. Lastly, Stanzi's injury in '09 AT LEAST cost us 1 game.

Anyhow, given the above correlation, I think that it is then rather interesting how things appear to stack up for the 2011 Hawkeyes.

2011: 19 guys

If you directly read off from the above correlation, that would perhaps suggest that we might be looking at an 8-4 record as being a rather likely scenario. Amusingly enough, Harty/Miller/Kakert each have Iowa pegged as likely being an 8-4 team.

However, I do not believe that it is reasonable to presume that the above correlation is quite strong enough to give us "hard limits" on what we should expect. For example, had Stanzi not fumbled the ball so much as mentioned previously, the '08 group that also had 19 guys would likely have fared better than an 8-4 record. Thus, such data more likely only gives us ranges of values. Given that recognition and combining it with the fact that Vandenberg, as a JR, is pretty experienced and likely to turn over the ball like Stanzi did as a SO ... I'm inclined to believe that it's reasonable to assume that 8-4 and 9-3 seasons are potentially the most likely scenarios for our beloved Hawks.

 

[gohawkz]

I don't know how anyone could rate "Quality" guys.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I don't know how anyone could rate "Quality" guys.

Based on multiple sources of info ...

- the experience level of the player (and his development trajectory)
- explicit breakdown of performance in games
- legit buzz coming out of the program

When you combine the above, it really isn't all that hard to get an impression of how many guys are capable of contributing at a pretty high level for the team.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I should add that I broke down the number of "quality" guys on O for each season prior to accounting for the record of each respective season. The point of this remark is to highlight that I did not artificially manipulate how I determined "quality guys" in order to artificially produce a correlation.

I was pretty surprised that the correlation "dropped out" quite like it did. Given all the expectation surrounding the Hawks in '06, I would have expected that that season would have been a bit more of a counterexample. Instead, the '06 season is perfectly consistent with it.

 

[bhawkn30]

Based on multiple sources of info ...

- the experience level of the player (and his development trajectory)
- explicit breakdown of performance in games
- legit buzz coming out of the program

When you combine the above, it really isn't all that hard to get an impression of how many guys are capable of contributing at a pretty high level for the team.

I did find the post interesting... But how do you come up with the "trajectory" or a players development? What is your process for an "explicit" breakdown? And who is your source within the program?

 

[BALDIES7980]

Homer, its obvious that you've put some thought and effort into this information but IMO sports is just not this easy to compile and compute. This is why your post "chills" means alot more to me.
We as human beings can do some very extrordinary things when we have a belief and dedication to achieve something. Even moreso as a group or a team. There is a reason coaches work their behind off trying to instill these things in the players. The SUM can be so much more than the individual pieces and thats the intangible that keeps life a mystery.
I believe it is the single most important factor including talent.
The thing about this "belief" or whatever you want to call it, is that it can be very fickle and easily disracted. Even the slightest thing can destroy the strength that lies within it.
So it is impossible to get an idea of how things will play because of the volume of factors that can screw things up.
The reality is that any team that can truly operate as the "perfect team" they will have a strong chance of winning anytime, anywhere against anyone!

 

[hawkfarmer]

I'd like to see your list of Quality guys for each season, because I know there was hype surroundign players that I thought didn't deserve it.

 

[olddude]

Sounds to simple to me. Simple most of the time equals more room for error. I break it down position by position, 2 deep, then come up with a number for that position. I guess kind of like how they do it for video games. You have to do it without fan glasses on, infact if you even think about "upping" their score, you have to go even lower instead. Then when done, go back over it all, double check some things and tweak it as the summer goes.
That all said, I came up with somewhat similar numbers and ended up with barely to just under a 9-3. Then as we keep moving forward, I changed to a more solid 9-3, and now am above a 9-3 but below a 10-2. Ofcourse things like injuries, bad news and "program news" about us and of other B10 teams we play has it's place in this as well. So unless something major happens in the conf, I just cant see anything over 10-2 or maybe even a little under 10-2. Thats a good year and should be good enough to take the Hawks to Indy.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Homer, its obvious that you've put some thought and effort into this information but IMO sports is just not this easy to compile and compute. This is why your post "chills" means alot more to me.
We as human beings can do some very extrordinary things when we have a belief and dedication to achieve something. Even moreso as a group or a team. There is a reason coaches work their behind off trying to instill these things in the players. The SUM can be so much more than the individual pieces and thats the intangible that keeps life a mystery.
I believe it is the single most important factor including talent.
The thing about this "belief" or whatever you want to call it, is that it can be very fickle and easily disracted. Even the slightest thing can destroy the strength that lies within it.
So it is impossible to get an idea of how things will play because of the volume of factors that can screw things up.
The reality is that any team that can truly operate as the "perfect team" they will have a strong chance of winning anytime, anywhere against anyone!

I agree fully with your assertion(s). However, part of why I think that the aforementioned correlation is particularly useful is because it falls in line with Ferentz's base-strategy. Ferentz seems to implement strategies that make the squad more robust to uncertainty ... to factors that are beyond our control. The O is built to eat clock while still being able to put points on the board .... the O is built to SIMPLIFY what the opposing D can do ... and the D is built to minimize the impact of rare events (i.e. big plays).

Injuries are another bit of uncertainty that can hit a squad ... and, consequently, Ferentz has attempted to instill a "next man in" philosophy. That very philosophy/approach helps to increase the number of "quality guys" that we can field ... thereby making the squad more robust to the "perturbation" of injury. Tallying the number of quality guys on the O (at the positions previously listed) then gives a measure of our depth on O. Thus, when injuries DO occur, we're more capable of absorbing them. For instance, the squad got hit by quite a number of injuries in '09 ... and the large pool of talent that we had allowed us to still be able to absorb the blow due to those injuries. In contrast, injuries also struck pretty bad in '06 and we were much less equipped to deal with them.

 

[CAARHawk]

I would like to see the 19 guys you have listed for this year as well. Clearly you have included a number of guys on the Oline that have virtually no game experience. When Gettis and Nolan went down, Iowa went in the tank, having to rely on an undersized 5th year senior. Nobody else was deemed ready to step up. Now, all of a sudden, Iowa is two deep along the line. I know there is buzz about Connor and Brett, but don't we need a little on field evidence first?

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I would like to see the 19 guys you have listed for this year as well. Clearly you have included a number of guys on the Oline that have virtually no game experience. When Gettis and Nolan went down, Iowa went in the tank, having to rely on an undersized 5th year senior. Nobody else was deemed ready to step up. Now, all of a sudden, Iowa is two deep along the line. I know there is buzz about Connor and Brett, but don't we need a little on field evidence first?

From what I understand, Boffeli was likely the next in line to get tapped with both Gettis and MacMillan down ... however, he was injured too. They couldn't opt for Van Sloten because he'd been pretty exclusively been working at OT. Perhaps the bigger mystery is why Orne didn't manage to jump in and earn the job.

 

[MikeyJoe]

It's somewhat of a self-supporting analysis, though. Even though you say you're compiling your list of "quality" guys before you look at the season record, you can't make yourself forget the past season results. The only way this would be meaningful would be if you had done this before the season every year, so we could judge how good your preseason feelings about number of quality players is.

Naturally the years with more players that you subjectively remember as good players are the years with better records.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

It's somewhat of a self-supporting analysis, though. Even though you say you're compiling your list of "quality" guys before you look at the season record, you can't make yourself forget the past season results. The only way this would be meaningful would be if you had done this before the season every year, so we could judge how good your preseason feelings about number of quality players is.

Naturally the years with more players that you subjectively remember as good players are the years with better records.

While that may be possible with some individuals ... however, I have a pretty ridiculous memory when it comes to Iowa football ... dating back to roughly around 2002.

Also, an immediate counterexample to your statement is that there were several years where Iowa didn't perform as well and the D had A LARGE number of "quality players."

In fact, that number of quality players on D really doesn't correlate much AT ALL to our success or failure as a team.

 

[Raziel]

In fact, that number of quality players on D really doesn't correlate much AT ALL to our success or failure as a team.

I agree generally, however, the 2005 team had one of the higher scoring offenses of the past decade and was significantly hampered by our lack of a DL.

If we would have had a veteran DL in 2005, I think that team may have potentially lived up to its preseason top 10 ranking.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I agree generally, however, the 2005 team had one of the higher scoring offenses of the past decade and was significantly hampered by our lack of a DL.

If we would have had a veteran DL in 2005, I think that team may have potentially lived up to its preseason top 10 ranking.

A more veteran DL would certainly have helped in '05, however, our OL wasn't terribly deep that year. Furthermore, we had to field TWO all new OTs because Gray got injured prior to the season. The lack of protection for Tate, particularly early in the season was a big reason why we lost to ISU.

Furthermore, our lack of talented/experienced depth was particularly evident in the losses against Northwestern and Michigan when Hinkel was out. Were Hinkel healthy for those games ... then they likely would have ended up Ws.

 

[Raziel]

A more veteran DL would certainly have helped in '05, however, our OL wasn't terribly deep that year. Furthermore, we had to field TWO all new OTs because Gray got injured prior to the season. The lack of protection for Tate, particularly early in the season was a big reason why we lost to ISU.

Furthermore, our lack of talented/experienced depth was particularly evident in the losses against Northwestern and Michigan when Hinkel was out. Were Hinkel healthy for those games ... then they likely would have ended up Ws.

The ISU loss notwithstanding, our offense that year scored 20 or more points in 10 of 12 games (ISU/OSU were the two games where Iowa's offense was held below 20). The only Iowa team in the KF era to score 20 or more points in all but two games was the 2002 offense. The 05 offense, though not terrible deep, performed admirably.

I don't put the 05 debacle on the offense....they put up enough points in most games to hold up their end of the bargain....it was the defense that dropped the ball. The defense gave up 20 or more points in 8 of 12 games - that is REALLY bad for an Iowa defense.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

The ISU loss notwithstanding, our offense that year scored 20 or more points in 10 of 12 games (ISU/OSU were the two games where Iowa's offense was held below 20). The only Iowa team in the KF era to score 20 or more points in all but two games was the 2002 offense. The 05 offense, though not terrible deep, performed admirably.

I don't put the 05 debacle on the offense....they put up enough points in most games to hold up their end of the bargain....it was the defense that dropped the ball. The defense gave up 20 or more points in 8 of 12 games - that is REALLY bad for an Iowa defense.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

I don't agree that you can put it on the D because the D had to replace so many players with VERY young/inexperienced players. It would be like blaming our O for the '07 season ... when that group was extremely young too.

I agree with you that the O, while not deep, did perform admirably. However, a big part of the success on O was attributable to the fact that our OL had enough veterans to execute our system with some success, the fact that Albert Young was a terrific RB, and the fact that Tate belongs among the Hawkeye's all-timers. These factors all conspire to give the Iowa O BALANCE ... and, whenever the Hawk O can be balanced, it almost always is pretty good.

However, the above point made, not only did Iowa suffer some in the passing game without Hinkel playing ... the Hawks also struggled running the ball in the second half against Michigan ... and that was a BIG reason why we weren't able to hold onto the lead in that game.

You cannot necessarily look at coarse-stats and draw conclusions without also accounting for some of the particularly relevant details. Iowa's O was capable of scoring points, but they should have been capable of scoring more.

 

[mb21]

Based on multiple sources of info ...

- the experience level of the player (and his development trajectory)
- explicit breakdown of performance in games
- legit buzz coming out of the program

When you combine the above, it really isn't all that hard to get an impression of how many guys are capable of contributing at a pretty high level for the team.

OK, let's say you could accurately assign the label of quality player. Even if you're accurate, there's going to be significant error, but let's ignore that altogether.

You said that Iowa almost always has a strong defense. If we accept that you're accurate, what you've proven is that when Iowa, a team that always has a strong defense, has more quality players on offense perform better.

In other words, a strong defense and in years when they have a better offense than others they are better. Think about that for a few minutes and then decide if you want to continue arguing. What you have shown, if we accept you are accurate, is that Iowa, a team that always has a strong defense, has its best seasons when they ALSO have a strong offense. Or more simply, good defense, bad offense, not so good. Good defense, good offense, pretty good. That's what you have found. Why would expect to find anything else?

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

OK, let's say you could accurately assign the label of quality player. Even if you're accurate, there's going to be significant error, but let's ignore that altogether.

You said that Iowa almost always has a strong defense. If we accept that you're accurate, what you've proven is that when Iowa, a team that always has a strong defense, has more quality players on offense perform better.

In other words, a strong defense and in years when they have a better offense than others they are better. Think about that for a few minutes and then decide if you want to continue arguing. What you have shown, if we accept you are accurate, is that Iowa, a team that always has a strong defense, has its best seasons when they ALSO have a strong offense. Or more simply, good defense, bad offense, not so good. Good defense, good offense, pretty good. That's what you have found. Why would expect to find anything else?

LOL! Thank you for "getting it." The foundation of the relationship really is THAT simple.

The more interesting question is this ... how significant are the errors in the analysis? To be honest, I believe that my errors in assigning a number of "quality players" would actually be rather small. For one thing, I was somewhat conservative in how I assigned them. Furthermore, most of my biases would be rather systematic and consequently would likely just relate to a uniform shift in all the numbers (either all one way or the other).

That is why the correlation is interesting. I can count the number of quality guys for the '11 season AND make a prediction! And if you go back and read the original post, I did just that!

Thus, I've put my hypothesis to the test ... and we'll see through the season if there is anything to it.