Sherrill v. Croom v. Mullen:who had worst final two years? (HINT: Guess Again)

[diddog]

Just for fun, here is the median SEC loss (in point differential) for Coaches Sherrill, Croom, and Mullen in their final two years on the job. I'm predicting a 25 point loss to Bama in 2013 because that is the current point spread, and not adding in any loss to Ole Miss at this time.

For fun, try to guess whose final two years these are?

Final two years SEC Losses, median loss in points:

Coach 1: Coach 2: Coach 3:
Year 1: 22.5 Year 1: 15.5 Year 1: 18
Year 2: 18 Year 2: 17.5 Year 2: 35


Once you figure out the answer, tell me again how we are in better shape now than in the past, or as some say, "Light years ahead"? And this is leaving out recruiting . . . .

 

[Curby]

Apples/oranges comparison.

Do you realize how tough the SEC West is nowadays compared to what it was during the Sherrill and even Croom years? Saban wasn't coaching in the SEC when Sherrill was coach. There wasn't the ASTRONOMICAL revenue back then like there is now (that has helped MSU, but the rich get richer as well and recruiting budgets for the big-name schools are a win-win for them)

And with Bracky holding us back we can't "recruit" like ole miss does. Every Saturday that we line up against an upper tier SEC school, we literally carry a knife to a gun fight.

And I'm not a Mullen apologist...but FACTS are FACTS.

 

[121Josey]

I don't know why people insist that the SEC wasn't competitive in the 1990's. The SEC has increased over other conferences, not so much over the individual schools. One school falters, another school takes its place. It's that simple.

State is still that same 2-6 conference team.

 

[PBRME]

Just for fun. Why don't you tell us what the average ranking was?

I would hate to see the results of your hero in today's SEC. The average margin of loss would be 50 because his offenses were the worst in div 1.

 

[kired]

Why are you using the "median" score?

 

[Strike.sixpack]

2003 Sherrill's 7 losses were by an average of 35 points. 2008 Croom's 6 losses were by an average of 18.83 points. 2013 Mullen's 4 losses were by an average of 13.75 points (the games we have played only). If you add, like to original poster supposed, a 25 point loss to Alabama then it's a 16 point average.

2007 Sherrill's 8 losses were by an average of 17.75 points. 2007 Croom's 4 losses were by an average of 22 points. 2012 Mullen's 4 losses were by an average of 23.5 points.

So if my numbers are right the actual average point differential in SEC losses is Sherrill 26.375, Croom 20.415, Mullen 18.625 actual 19.25 if you add a Alabama score.

 

[patdog]

Because he wants to throw out some blowouts that Sherrill & Croom took those years.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Yep. Although in Sherrill's last year they were all blow outs. Lol. And he used the last two years because that helped bring Dan's average up because as it stands today its 10 points better than last year. That's why I split it out last year vs last year and also gave the reader the number of losses each had for that season. Here is a crazy look inside of those numbers. Croom had two 1 point losses in 2008 to help keep the average below 20 points. If he wins those games he goes 6-6 on the year but his 4 SEC losses would have been by an average of 27.75 points.

 

[patdog]

Of course the SEC was competitive in the 90s. No one is saying it wasn't. But it's a damn juggernaut now. You're kidding yourself if you think the SEC was anywhere near as good in the 90s as it is now. LSU was down the whole decade and Bama was down for half of it. Auburn was down for about half of it too. Arkansas was decent. The SEC teams we beat in 1998 had a combined record of 28-35 overall. And we lost to a 4-7 SEC team that year.

 

[Digging dog]

I really have a hard time comparing coaches records. The most important thing that people keep failing to mention is the level of competition during their tenure. For example Alabama was no where near where it is now.
Sherrill beat a good (not great) Alabama team a few times.
Croom beat (only by a pic 6) a bad (soon to fire head coach) Alabama team.
The strength was in the SEC-E during their tenures.
Sherrill had put together a really good team during our 10-0 year but also caught LSU and Bama in a down year.
Not defending Mullen but he clearly is faced with a more difficult challenge.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Siiiighh...another history lesson.....
Croom beat Shula in Tuscaloosa in Shula's last year, 2006.
Croom beat Saban in Starkville in 2007 with Anthony Johnson's pick six before halftime being the signature play.

 

[121Josey]

Of course the SEC was competitive in the 90s. No one is saying it wasn't. But it's a damn juggernaut now. You're kidding yourself if you think the SEC was anywhere near as good in the 90s as it is now. LSU was down the whole decade and Bama was down for half of it. Auburn was down for about half of it too. Arkansas was decent. The SEC teams we beat in 1998 had a combined record of 28-35 overall. And we lost to a 4-7 SEC team that year.

Im just saying that parody existed then and exists now. The only difference is that MSU is the only school that goes on probation now.

In the 90s, the juggernauts were in the Eastern division. If there were any parody in the ACC, the SEC might have won a few more championships in the 90s.

Don't kid yourself that LSU was down for a decade. Or Auburn

1990	Auburn	8–3–1	4–2–1	4th	W Peach	19	19
1991	Auburn	5–6	2–5	8th
1992	Auburn	5–5–1	2–5–1	5th <small>(West)</small>

<tbody>
</tbody>

1993	Auburn	11–0	8–0	1st <small>(West)</small> ‡	‡	‡	4
1994	Auburn	9–1–1	6–1–1	2nd <small>(West)</small> ‡	‡	‡	9
1995	Auburn	8–4	5–3	2nd <small>(West)</small>	L Outback	21	22
1996	Auburn	8–4	4–4	3rd <small>(West)</small>	W Independence	25	24
1997	Auburn	10–3	6–2	T–1st <small>(West)</small>	W Peach	11	11
1998	Auburn	3–8 (1–7 SEC)

<tbody>
</tbody>

1999	Auburn	5–6	2–6	5th <small>(West)</small>
2000	Auburn	9–4	6–2	1st <small>(West)</small>	L Citrus	20	18

<tbody>
</tbody>

1991	LSU	5–6	3–4	T–6th
1992	LSU	2–9	1–7	6th <small>(West)</small>
1993	LSU	5–6	3–5	T–4th <small>(West)</small>
1994	LSU	4–7	3–5	4th <small>(West)</small>

<tbody>
</tbody>

1995	LSU	7–4–1	4–3–1	3rd <small>(West)</small>	W Independence	25
1996	LSU	10–2	6–2	T–1st <small>(West)</small>	W Peach	13	12
1997	LSU	9–3	6–2	T–1st <small>(West)</small>	W Independence	13	13
1998	LSU	4–7	2–6	5th <small>(West)</small>
1999	LSU	2–8*	0–7*	6th <small>(West)</small>*

<tbody>
</tbody>

2000

LSU

8–4

5–3

3rd <small>(West)</small>

W Peach

22

<tbody>
</tbody>

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Well when you look at the SECw from 1990-1999 we averaged playing about 2 ranked teams from our division per year. The last five years its been 3.4 ranked teams from our division alone. I think that's where you see the more difficulty coming from compared to the 90's.

 

[patdog]

The only difference is there was some parity in the 90s among a bunch of pretty good football teams. Now there's some parity among a bunch of top-10 football teams. From 1990 to 1999, 6 SEC West teams finished in the top 10, only 1 from 1995 to 1999. In Mullen's 4+ seasons, 9 teams from the SEC West finished in the top 10 and 2 more are currently ranked in the top 10.

 

[Philly Dawg]

If you have statistics that results in Croom being compared favorably to Mullen, then you have done something horrifically and catastrophically wrong in your analysis.

Choosing the last two years is completely arbitrary and non-instructive in any way. Sherrill had three bad years before being fired, while Croom's second to last year was his one good year. In neither scenario do you show how bad things really were.

Further, Sherrill and Croom in their final years fielded horrible teams. So some of the losses you are including are to poor non-conference teams, i.e. you are comparing the scores from losses to teams like LSU and A&M to teams like Tulane and La. Tech.

And why compare losses only? And why ignore actual records?

 

[Crazy Cotton]

because he's suffering from acute confirmation bias

Why are you using the "median" score?

The mean doesn't give him the answer he's looking for.

He's not testing a hypothesis by examining the data, he's searching around desperately, and rather pathetically, for data that confirms his obvious per-existing belief. The scientific method was developed to avoid the type of argument this poor shlup is attempting.

 

[Philly Dawg]

Did he really use median instead of average or did he just not know the difference? I can't see how the median margin in losses only has any meaning whatsoever.

Maybe if you count up the median margin of loss on dates that include a three, you can make a prediction of when the world will end.

 

[Indndawg]

Seriously flawed

 

[ReadyReady]

Some amateur statisticians in this thread ...

To the OP, an analysis of median point differential in losses doesn't support the hypothesis you're trying to test or the conclusion you've reached.

To you median-haters, let's set the f'ing record straight.

What you're referring to as an "average" is presumably the arithmetic mean, which, just like a median, is a measure of central tendency for a set of data.

As to its appropriateness for hypothesis testing, a median is very often used in hypothesis testing, especially when (as one could argue for this case) the data are not assumed to be drawn from a uniform distribution. But when using a median, it would also be more appropriate to incorporate rank into the analysis, so that the analysis is relative to the population in some way. This attempts to control for the fact that "SEC West now isn't what it was then", etc.

 

[kired]

A somewhat better comparison --- average point differential in SEC games, looking at each coach's 5 best seasons.

Sherrill - 92, 94, 98, 99, 00 = +3.9
Croom - 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 = -12.6
Mullen - 09, 10, 11, 12, 13 = -5.6 (I'm assuming the 25 point loss, and even + / - between ARK & UM)

So Mullen has been on average 7 points better than Croom and 10 points worse than Sherrill in his best 5 years. If you compare the 3 best seasons of each the values change but the difference between coaches remains the same. Interesting (but not surprising) Mullen has never had a positive point differential vs SEC teams. This could also be Mullens worst season. He needs to go +4 in the next 3 games to equal the differential in 2009.

 

[mcdawg22]

So if a coach went 12-1 his last two years and both those years lost by 40 to the two teams they would be last in your analysis.

 

[Philly Dawg]

Even worse, look at this comparison:

Year One - five losses of 3, 6, 18, 28, and 35
Year Two - three losses of 2, 20, 24

By his method, year one is better than year two because it has a has a lower median loss margin of 18 compared to 20. Nevermind the fact that year two had another thing going for it, two additional wins, which seems important, but maybe that is just me.

 

[Philly Dawg]

Since the discussion was whether we were better off under Mullen, I think you should use Sherrill's last five years rather than his best five. Nobody is arguing that Mullen is matching Sherrill's best five years.

 

[Philly Dawg]

Without some sort of rank, I don't see how calculating the mean or the median really tells you much about the quality of play.

You would want to compare the scores against teams of similar calibre, irrespective of whether game was won or lost, i.e. what is the mean or median point differential against top 10, top 25, and unranked oppoents, or what was the mean or median point differential against conference and non-conference opponents, etc.

In the end, however, the true weakness of such an analysis is that it can obfuscate what almost any fan will consider the statistic of primary importance, wins and losses.

 

[kired]

I just threw the best 5 in for comparison - the best we've ever done vs. what we're doing now.

I would never compare anything to Sherrill's final years. I sat threw those games as a student and don't need any numbers to know that was as bad as it gets.

I really thought his point was that Mullen hasn't done any better these last two years than Croom did in 07-08, and I can't really argue with that. It all depends on what happens the next 3 weeks.

 

[Philly Dawg]

The problem is that '07 was Croom's ONLY good year, and, ironically, at 4-8, '08 was his second best year. And we lost to La. Tech and Kentucky.

 

[diddog]

I picked the median because as another poster said it is the most common measure of central tendency in statistical testing. I didn't look at mean or mode. I think median comes up first on ms excel.
Croom and Mullen are likely to have the same SEC record for their final two years. 4-4 and 2-6. Thus, this makes the comparison closer - same number of losses compared.
Now, relative ranks of teams is important. This just doesn't swing in Mullen's favor only though- croom's wins in his 4-4 season were against higher ranked teams than Mullen's wins in his 4-4 season.
If course it is an imperfect comparison - all comparisons are that compare different coaches in different years. But it is sec only against almost the same exact teams, so it is much better than overall record, for example.
The point is, the difference that some folks perceive is not as great as you might think. In some metrics, we were better in croom's last two years relative to our competition. Yes, Croom's teams were terrible on offense during his tenure here. But the point differential was not much different in our losses, which points to the fact that Mullen's last two years had similar success to croom's final two years.
Plus, relative to the rest of the sec, our recruiting is now worse. We are never going to be great with bottom of the sec recruiting. Can't we all agree on that?

 

[Strike.sixpack]

And what happens when you adjust for the opposing offense scoring of the SEC teams we lost to of the last two years compared to 2007 & 2008? The 8 teams we have lost to in 2012 & 2013 average scoring 34.175 points per game in conference play. In 2007 & 2008 the 10 teams we lost to had an average scoring of 25.2 points per game. Shouldn't that be a part of the analysis and adjusted to more accurately reflect the competition level of the offenses that these teams were playing?

 

[Philly Dawg]

What about Croom's first three years? I refuse to simply write those three 3-9's off. I also refuse to write off that in this year, Mullen is losing to top 15 teams, while Croom was losing to Kentucky and La Tech in his last year.

 

[diddog]

I think that is captured in the comparison

And what happens when you adjust for the opposing offense scoring of the SEC teams we lost to of the last two years compared to 2007 & 2008? The 8 teams we have lost to in 2012 & 2013 average scoring 34.175 points per game in conference play. In 2007 & 2008 the 10 teams we lost to had an average scoring of 25.2 points per game. Shouldn't that be a part of the analysis and adjusted to more accurately reflect the competition level of the offenses that these teams were playing?

SEC football has changed toward hurry up offenses, which increases the number of plays and possessions in a game. Therefore, the average score has increased, but the average score of the opposing team also increases - because the other team gets more plays and possessions too.

It doesn't matter if we are scoring more points if the other teams are also scoring points at an equal rate - because it doesn't get us closer to actually winning games. We are scoring more points now, but so are other teams, so looking at the point differential is what matters to measure our progress and see if we are getting closer to our competition.

Looking at the median score differential in our losses, we are not getting closer to being competitive in the SEC in 2012 and 2013 to what we were in the time frame 2007 to 2008. In fact, we were slightly worse.
Now in 2002 and 2003, we were absolutely horrible at football, and the point differential in losses was even greater, despite the fact that we had fewer wins, which means the true difference between Sherrill's last two years and Croom and Mullen's is even greater than the numbers show.