Posts in this topic

[Rick]

Rick,

Look at the analytics chart from the article. Read it and you will see how the Eagles decision at the NYG 43 was just on the fringe to go for it, under 4th and 8.

Then go up top and you will see that this analytics chart has you going for it on EVERY 4th and 1 regardless of field position.

That's what I'm referring to.

Do you see that?

And I've seen other charts, which say (sort of) the same thing. Also, Pedey also explained (in another article), it's not a go/no go chart they work off of. They get the probability of a play being successful and make a decision from there.

My point isn't about this particular play. Taken individually, ANY play could work (or not work), just like in any other sport. Taken as a whole, the numbers don't lie. This BS about it not working for football is just that, BS. The numbers don't lie. There is an ample sample size with the number of years they've been playing football and the number of plays which have been run. Are there more for baseball? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the numbers. The numbers may change over time but they are still what they are.

[nephillymike]

And I've seen other charts, which say (sort of) the same thing. Also, Pedey also explained (in another article), it's not a go/no go chart they work off of. They get the probability of a play being successful and make a decision from there.

My point isn't about this particular play. Taken individually, ANY play could work (or not work), just like in any other sport. Taken as a whole, the numbers don't lie. This BS about it not working for football is just that, BS. The numbers don't lie. There is an ample sample size with the number of years they've been playing football and the number of plays which have been run. Are there more for baseball? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the numbers. The numbers may change over time but they are still what they are.

I agree analytics should be used. There's nobody on this board more into this kind of stuff than Mikeynumbers. I am happy they do look at this stuff. However, my point is that I think the chart that is posted in this article is statistically wrong. I will try to work thru an example later on, but think about having to statistically defend a chart saying to go for it 4th and 1 from your own 9. I realize that teams adjust their actions based on game factors and maybe some gut feel, but if the statistical assumptions are wrong, then the basis for those decisions are wrong. As soon as I have time, I will try to work thru it and post it.

[The Franchise]

I agree analytics should be used. There's nobody on this board more into this kind of stuff than Mikeynumbers. I am happy they do look at this stuff. However, my point is that I think the chart that is posted in this article is statistically wrong.

I've been involved with data analysis my whole adult life, and I'm good at it. I feel you get the points I'm making. If meaningful data can be used to improve your team's chances of winning, good. But as we both agree, and few others seem to get here, the data used to justify a blatantly stupid decision was absurd. It's important to keep pounding this home, because it's going to lose us big games against good teams. It's especially worrisome that it appears the data used comes from Kevin Rudy, who's studies are about as useless and irrelevant as they come. Remember 'running efficiency?'

Baseball was made for this stuff, because every play starts out the exact same way, and it always boils down to individual vs. individual. No sport could be more suited for decisions based off of simple averages. Football is completely different.

[Rick]

I think the chart that is posted in this article is statistically wrong.

Based on what evidence?

[Rick]

Baseball was made for this stuff, because every play starts out the exact same way, and it always boils down to individual vs. individual. No sport could be more suited for decisions based off of simple averages. Football is completely different.

Obviously, baseball is more suited due to the personal competition nature of the game but every play starts out the same in football just like baseball. You have a QB who lines up under center (ok, you could have a wildcat formation or something else but I'm talking about 99%+ of the plays here) just like in baseball, you have a pitcher and a hitter. So not sure how you think it is so different.

Yes, it's different. But nearly as much as you're saying.

And, being someone who's worked with numbers so much, you know numbers don't lie. There are definitely trends the numbers show. Now, I'm not debating this particular play, I'm debating the lack of use of numbers in football because of this crazy belief that football is somehow different than everything else in the world where people do this type of numerical analysis. I'm also not saying you should ALWAYS go with what the numbers tell you. I don't even believe baseball people should ALWAYS go with what the numbers tell you.

There are other factors involved besides numbers but, the bottom line is, using this type of analysis can help someone if they use them correctly.

[The Franchise]

every play starts out the same in football just like baseball

Seriously?

[Reality Fan]

Seriously?

Careful. don't be a meanie....you might get chastised for it....lol

[Rick]

Seriously?

Yes seriously. How is it so different than baseball on each play? People line up in different areas? They do that in baseball as well.

Either way, it still doesn't mean numbers don't mean something in football.

[The Franchise]

Yes seriously. How is it so different than baseball on each play? People line up in different areas? They do that in baseball as well.

Every play in baseball begins with a pitcher trying to throw a ball past a hitter. How that happens in and of itself has to do with numbers and averages. Every single play begins with one individual against another.

In football, you have different downs, different distances to go to pick up a new set of downs, different field positions, different teammates on the field dictated by different situations, different defenders on the field for the same reason, and a clock running. A variety of factors will determine the play called each time. Any weak link on your team or the opposition can be the difference between a great or terrible play. Those are just a few of the major differences.

For fun I've been thinking of putting together a mock data model, with actual relevant data. Maybe I'll find time one day.

[Rick]

Every play in baseball begins with a pitcher trying to throw a ball past a hitter. How that happens in and of itself has to do with numbers and averages. Every single play begins with one individual against another.

In football, you have different downs, different distances to go to pick up a new set of downs, different field positions, different teammates on the field dictated by different situations, different defenders on the field for the same reason, and a clock running. A variety of factors will determine the play called each time. Any weak link on your team or the opposition can be the difference between a great or terrible play. Those are just a few of the major differences.

For fun I've been thinking of putting together a mock data model, with actual relevant data. Maybe I'll find time one day.

I'm with you but you also have similar things in baseball--different situations, players in different locations, different times during the game, different score, different number of outs, different count on the batter, etc. Again, I'm not trying to say they're the same but they're not as different as some people keep saying. There are variables in all sports, some sports have more than others. But that doesn't invalidate the numbers, although it may be more difficult to utilize the numbers in certain sports vs. others.

But, as you've said elsewhere, the numbers are only as good as the data which has been put into the model. With baseball, there is certainly WAY more data than for football--or any other major sport. So the trends are more important--and more established. I'm just saying, I think people in football should look at the numbers more than they do. Not saying they should rely on them as heavily as in other sports like baseball.

[nephillymike]

Obviously, baseball is more suited due to the personal competition nature of the game but every play starts out the same in football just like baseball. You have a QB who lines up under center (ok, you could have a wildcat formation or something else but I'm talking about 99%+ of the plays here) just like in baseball, you have a pitcher and a hitter. So not sure how you think it is so different.

Yes, it's different. But nearly as much as you're saying.

And, being someone who's worked with numbers so much, you know numbers don't lie. There are definitely trends the numbers show. Now, I'm not debating this particular play, I'm debating the lack of use of numbers in football because of this crazy belief that football is somehow different than everything else in the world where people do this type of numerical analysis. I'm also not saying you should ALWAYS go with what the numbers tell you. I don't even believe baseball people should ALWAYS go with what the numbers tell you.

There are other factors involved besides numbers but, the bottom line is, using this type of analysis can help someone if they use them correctly.

I agree

[The Franchise]

I'm with you but you also have similar things in baseball--different situations, players in different locations, different times during the game, different score, different number of outs, different count on the batter, etc. Again, I'm not trying to say they're the same but they're not as different as some people keep saying.

Every single pitch has the exact same goal. I honestly can't believe I still have to argue the differences between the two sports. This isn't apples and oranges, it's peanuts and komodo dragons.

[Rick]

Every single pitch has the exact same goal. I honestly can't believe I still have to argue the differences between the two sports. This isn't apples and oranges, it's peanuts and komodo dragons.

I can't believe I have to keep explaining that I agree there are differences. Just because there are differences doesn't mean you should throw out numbers. That's just stupid.

[mcnabbulous]

Every single pitch has the exact same goal.

Well this simply isn’t true.

[mcnabbulous]

Every single pitch has the exact same goal.

Well this simply isn’t true.

[The Franchise]

Well this simply isn’t true.

Apart from an intentional walk or a beanball, yes it is.

[mcnabbulous]

Apart from an intentional walk or a beanball, yes it is.

Good to get the confirmation that your knowledge on the topic of baseball rivals your fundamental obliviousness regarding all things football.

[The Franchise]

Good to get the confirmation that your knowledge on the topic of baseball rivals your fundamental obliviousness regarding all things football.

Coming from you, I'll consider that a great compliment.

I'm the one supporting common football knowledge on this thread. You're on the side of going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 9. Have at it.

[mcnabbulous]

You're on the side of going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 9. Have at it.

No, I've said nothing about 4th and 1 from my own 9.

I'm on the side of being aggressive and trusting your players to make plays. We brought in an "innovating" coach whom I was told was going to push the boundaries as it related to 4th downs and 2 point conversions.

I saw none of that.

If we have a coach who is willing to be that guy now, I'm happy. I hate the archaic, old guard of NFL football. All of the innovation takes place at the lower levels these days.

[The Franchise]

No, I've said nothing about 4th and 1 from my own 9.

I'm on the side of being aggressive and trusting your players to make plays. We brought in an "innovating" coach whom I was told was going to push the boundaries as it related to 4th downs and 2 point conversions.

I saw none of that.

If we have a coach who is willing to be that guy now, I'm happy. I hate the archaic, old guard of NFL football. All of the innovation takes place at the lower levels these days.

I'm on the side of common sense and winning. The 'old guard' keep winning rings. Our last 'innovator' destroyed our roster, got rid of our best weapons, and is now unemployed after 3 years (a quick search of this site shows that you had similar praise for Chip Kelly). That's what happens when you ignore established, common sense football decisions and try to show everyone how smart you are.

Last year he made several decisions that reminded me of a 12 year old playing Madden. Not only has he not appeared to learn from his mistakes, but he seems to be getting worse. It bothers me, and it should bother everyone here. 'Aggressive' and 'stupid' can be the same thing.

[mcnabbulous]

I'm on the side of common sense and winning. The 'old guard' keep winning rings.

There is no new guard. Belichick is one of the few that is consistently reinventing himself and adopting concepts from the lower ranks. Andy is another.

Our last 'innovator' destroyed our roster, got rid of our best weapons, and is now unemployed after 3 years (a quick search of this site shows that you had similar praise for Chip Kelly). That's what happens when you ignore established, common sense football decisions and try to show everyone how smart you are.

He literally did nothing innovative and was actually in the bottom tier as it related to conservatism.

Last year he made several decisions that reminded me of a 12 year old playing Madden. Not only has he not appeared to learn from his mistakes, but he seems to be getting worse. It bothers me, and it should bother everyone here. 'Aggressive' and 'stupid' can be the same thing.

We get it. You think you're smarter than every coach in the NFL. You're not.

[The Franchise]

There is no new guard. Belichick is one of the few that is consistently reinventing himself and adopting concepts from the lower ranks. Andy is another.

Belichick is constantly innovating, while never abandoning basic foootball 101. Andy is innovative as well, while almost serially flubbing basic football 101. One is heading towards a likely 6th championship. The other is headed towards a guaranteed 13th January exit.

He literally did nothing innovative and was actually in the bottom tier as it related to conservatism.

This was a post you made over two years ago:

This read is probably the best I've seen with regards to Chip's master plan. I don't know how one could read it and not understand what he is trying to create, regardless of your affinity for some of the guys that didn't fit in.

Chip Kelly and his Relentless Assault on the Status Quo

I know what it's like to introduce new policies and tools in the workplace. In some situations, if just one person doesn't buy in to using a new tool, the entire thing is worthless. That seems to be what is going on here and so Chip is weeding out the outliers. It's fine by me.

I understand how you like to forget history, especially since you were horribly wrong (as always). You hailed him as the new guard. He currently shares our level of NFL employment.

We get it. You think you're smarter than every coach in the NFL. You're not.

Agreed. But I am smarter than a coach who decides to go for it on 4th and 8 in that situation, using flawed data.