#5 – Write about statistics that interests you
I recently published this article and another upcoming article on clustering ISFL offensive and defensive players. I thought it would be a cool idea to spend this column reviewing the results of these matchups for the two teams based on the clusters that they fell into – comparing positionally and the key differences between the clusters of the San Jose Sabercats and the Colorado Yeti.
Let’s start with the San Jose Sabercats. On offensive they’re lead by Jack at QB (c. 2), with Lackson (c. 2) and Cardrissian (c. 0) at runningback. At wideout they have Thomas-Fox (c. 7), Hood (c. 0), and Swift (c. 3). At tight end is McDavid (c. 0).
On defense for the Sabercats is Bass (c. 4) and Chestnut III (c. 0) at DE, and Cloudera (c. 0) and Allen (c. 0) to round out the defensive line at DT. They have Fisher (c. 6) and Brackenridge (c. 2) at LB. Krause (c. 3), Oles Jr. (c. 6) and PickSix (c. 6) at CB. And finally the squad is rounded out with Stein (c. 3) and Lanier (c. 6) at safety.
The Colorado Yeti are lead by QB McDummy (c. 1). They have runningbacks Owens (c. 2), and Gilbert (c. 1). At wide receiver is Lim (c. 0), Jenkins (c. 0), and Kingston (c. 3). And tight end has Sauce (c. 3).
On defense for the Yeti is Blackstone (c. 5), de Pengu (c. 1), and Thumper (c. 3) on the DL. Gabagool (c. 1), Stephens (c. 4) at LB. CB has Purchase (c. 1) and Scott (c. 6). Safety rounds out defense with Sly (c. 4), Kirkby (c. 5) and Parker (c. 5).
Comparing the two head to head looks like this:
Pos – SJS – COL
QB – Jack (c. 2) – McDummy (c. 1)
RB1 – Lackson (c. 2) – Owens (c. 2)
RB2 – Cardrissian (c. 0) – Gilbert (c. 1)
WR1 – Thomas-Fox (c. 7) – Lim (c. 0)
WR2 – Hood (c. 0) – Jenkins (c. 0)
WR3 – Swift (c. 3) – Kingson (c. 3)
TE – McDavid (c. 0) – Sauce (c. 3)
DE1 – Bass (c. 4) – Blackstone (c. 5)
DE2 – Chestnut III (c. 0) – de Pengu (c. 1)
DT – Cloudera (c. 0) – Thumper (c. 3)
DT2 – Allen (c. 0) – N/A
LB1 – Fisher (c. 6) – Gabagool (c. 1)
LB2 – Brackenridge (c. 2) – Stephens (c. 4)
CB1 – Krause (c. 3) – Purchase (c. 1)
CB2 – Oles JR (c. 6) – Scott (c. 6)
CB3 – PickSix (c. 6) – N/A
S1 – Stein (c. 3) – Sly (c. 4)
S2 – Lanier (c. 6) – Kirkby (c. 5)
S3 – N/A – Parker (c. 5)
Comparing the offensive clusters for the players on Colorado and San Jose presents a few interesting differences. Starting at QB, McDummy is clustered into what I nicknamed the Efficient cluster. 31 TDs and 9 interceptions, with a sterling 62.5 completion percentage (highest in the league), makes him a poster child for this cluster. Jack is meanwhile in the “getting it done” cluster, paired with rookies Slothlisberger and Skywalker. The advantage is to the former, based on these clusters.
But while McDummy edges out Jack, the reverse occurs at WR1. Thomas-Fox is clustered into the ‘studs’ group – high yardage and high TDs. Meanwhile Colorado’s WR1 is Lim, who checks in with cluster 0 – nicknamed ‘TD hawks’ – wide receivers with substantially fewer yards than clusters 4 or 7, but with plenty of touchdowns. Lim shares this category with both his teammate Jenkins, but also his Ultimus opponent Hood. Thomas-Fox has the opportunity to be a difference maker in the game.
On the defensive side of the ball, I’m not sure you could find two more different squads than these two defensive teams. On every position, there’s few shared clusters – which is surprising given the grouping nature of the defensive clusters. Starting at DE, I’d have to give the edge to Colorado. Blackstone and de Pengu both showed an ability to get to the pocket and pressure QBs. And while Bass did the same, Chestnut III was less effective. Thumper only exaggerates the DL skill for Colorado, where I clustered him into the node I nicknamed ‘studs.’ Cloudera and Allen were both classified as ‘safe’, but low event.
At LB, the teams are nearly matched with styles, as Gabagool and Brackenridge both can make big plays and Fisher and Stephens are solid all-around performers. Meanwhile further down field, Colorado’s Sly has a chance to be a difference maker. As an “interception hawk” this season, he differentiates from the rest of the CBs on either team who are either tacklers or classical cornerbacks. On the flip side, Stein has the same opportunity for the San Jose Sabercats as he differentiates from the other safeties in the Ultimus based on his higher interception numbers. And while both runningbacks are clustered together, Sly and Kirkby for Colorado are sure to make it tough on Sabercats’ Lackson, as both were clustered with ‘run stuffers’ and ‘slot safeties’ due to higher tackles, tackles for loss and sacks.
~830 words
I recently published this article and another upcoming article on clustering ISFL offensive and defensive players. I thought it would be a cool idea to spend this column reviewing the results of these matchups for the two teams based on the clusters that they fell into – comparing positionally and the key differences between the clusters of the San Jose Sabercats and the Colorado Yeti.
Let’s start with the San Jose Sabercats. On offensive they’re lead by Jack at QB (c. 2), with Lackson (c. 2) and Cardrissian (c. 0) at runningback. At wideout they have Thomas-Fox (c. 7), Hood (c. 0), and Swift (c. 3). At tight end is McDavid (c. 0).
On defense for the Sabercats is Bass (c. 4) and Chestnut III (c. 0) at DE, and Cloudera (c. 0) and Allen (c. 0) to round out the defensive line at DT. They have Fisher (c. 6) and Brackenridge (c. 2) at LB. Krause (c. 3), Oles Jr. (c. 6) and PickSix (c. 6) at CB. And finally the squad is rounded out with Stein (c. 3) and Lanier (c. 6) at safety.
The Colorado Yeti are lead by QB McDummy (c. 1). They have runningbacks Owens (c. 2), and Gilbert (c. 1). At wide receiver is Lim (c. 0), Jenkins (c. 0), and Kingston (c. 3). And tight end has Sauce (c. 3).
On defense for the Yeti is Blackstone (c. 5), de Pengu (c. 1), and Thumper (c. 3) on the DL. Gabagool (c. 1), Stephens (c. 4) at LB. CB has Purchase (c. 1) and Scott (c. 6). Safety rounds out defense with Sly (c. 4), Kirkby (c. 5) and Parker (c. 5).
Comparing the two head to head looks like this:
Pos – SJS – COL
QB – Jack (c. 2) – McDummy (c. 1)
RB1 – Lackson (c. 2) – Owens (c. 2)
RB2 – Cardrissian (c. 0) – Gilbert (c. 1)
WR1 – Thomas-Fox (c. 7) – Lim (c. 0)
WR2 – Hood (c. 0) – Jenkins (c. 0)
WR3 – Swift (c. 3) – Kingson (c. 3)
TE – McDavid (c. 0) – Sauce (c. 3)
DE1 – Bass (c. 4) – Blackstone (c. 5)
DE2 – Chestnut III (c. 0) – de Pengu (c. 1)
DT – Cloudera (c. 0) – Thumper (c. 3)
DT2 – Allen (c. 0) – N/A
LB1 – Fisher (c. 6) – Gabagool (c. 1)
LB2 – Brackenridge (c. 2) – Stephens (c. 4)
CB1 – Krause (c. 3) – Purchase (c. 1)
CB2 – Oles JR (c. 6) – Scott (c. 6)
CB3 – PickSix (c. 6) – N/A
S1 – Stein (c. 3) – Sly (c. 4)
S2 – Lanier (c. 6) – Kirkby (c. 5)
S3 – N/A – Parker (c. 5)
Comparing the offensive clusters for the players on Colorado and San Jose presents a few interesting differences. Starting at QB, McDummy is clustered into what I nicknamed the Efficient cluster. 31 TDs and 9 interceptions, with a sterling 62.5 completion percentage (highest in the league), makes him a poster child for this cluster. Jack is meanwhile in the “getting it done” cluster, paired with rookies Slothlisberger and Skywalker. The advantage is to the former, based on these clusters.
But while McDummy edges out Jack, the reverse occurs at WR1. Thomas-Fox is clustered into the ‘studs’ group – high yardage and high TDs. Meanwhile Colorado’s WR1 is Lim, who checks in with cluster 0 – nicknamed ‘TD hawks’ – wide receivers with substantially fewer yards than clusters 4 or 7, but with plenty of touchdowns. Lim shares this category with both his teammate Jenkins, but also his Ultimus opponent Hood. Thomas-Fox has the opportunity to be a difference maker in the game.
On the defensive side of the ball, I’m not sure you could find two more different squads than these two defensive teams. On every position, there’s few shared clusters – which is surprising given the grouping nature of the defensive clusters. Starting at DE, I’d have to give the edge to Colorado. Blackstone and de Pengu both showed an ability to get to the pocket and pressure QBs. And while Bass did the same, Chestnut III was less effective. Thumper only exaggerates the DL skill for Colorado, where I clustered him into the node I nicknamed ‘studs.’ Cloudera and Allen were both classified as ‘safe’, but low event.
At LB, the teams are nearly matched with styles, as Gabagool and Brackenridge both can make big plays and Fisher and Stephens are solid all-around performers. Meanwhile further down field, Colorado’s Sly has a chance to be a difference maker. As an “interception hawk” this season, he differentiates from the rest of the CBs on either team who are either tacklers or classical cornerbacks. On the flip side, Stein has the same opportunity for the San Jose Sabercats as he differentiates from the other safeties in the Ultimus based on his higher interception numbers. And while both runningbacks are clustered together, Sly and Kirkby for Colorado are sure to make it tough on Sabercats’ Lackson, as both were clustered with ‘run stuffers’ and ‘slot safeties’ due to higher tackles, tackles for loss and sacks.
~830 words
