|
Post by 4verts on Mar 31, 2014 18:12:15 GMT -6
Which is more likely? Getting 5 yards or making a 50 yard FG? All the book says is that over the last 5 years that teams in that same position went on to win the game 30% of the time when they went for it in that situation, and 18% went on to win when they kicked the FG in that situation. If I'm 12% more likely to get laid by wearing a green shirt instead of black, I can assure you that you will see me in a green shirt.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 31, 2014 18:16:12 GMT -6
Which is more likely? Getting 5 yards or making a 50 yard FG? All the book says is that over the last 5 years that teams in that same position went on to win the game 30% of the time when they went for it in that situation, and 18% went on to win when they kicked the FG in that situation. If I'm 12% more likely to get laid by wearing a green shirt instead of black, I can assure you that you will see me in a green shirt. Is there a book on the percentages that you'll get fired if you pass up a makeable FG , don't get the 5 yards, and lose by 3?
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 31, 2014 18:16:26 GMT -6
Going back to the "whether to kick a 51 yard field goal or not" in that situation...My decision may be to go for it one year and to kick the FG another....It depends on my personnel and what our capabilities are. If I have a kicker who can make a 51 yard field goal somewhat regularly and our offense has been struggling I'm definitely going to kick it.
...not to mention field conditions and weather.
Or the other team's propensity for blocking kicks.
Pure Analytics or data don't account for those considerations when making in-game decisions.
These gentlemen do include the weather, point spread, score, time, kicker's ability, home/away, opposing special teams current and historical block FG, and the opposing teams offense into making that decision.
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 31, 2014 18:19:05 GMT -6
Which is more likely? Getting 5 yards or making a 50 yard FG? All the book says is that over the last 5 years that teams in that same position went on to win the game 30% of the time when they went for it in that situation, and 18% went on to win when they kicked the FG in that situation. If I'm 12% more likely to get laid by wearing a green shirt instead of black, I can assure you that you will see me in a green shirt. Is there a book on the percentages that you'll get fired if you pass up a makeable FG , don't get the 5 yards, and lose by 3? Saved our jobs by following it. I'd say that percentages are the same of you getting fired when you drive that kick low and get it blocked and run back for a TD and lose by 10.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 31, 2014 18:39:53 GMT -6
...not to mention field conditions and weather.
Or the other team's propensity for blocking kicks.
Pure Analytics or data don't account for those considerations when making in-game decisions.
These gentlemen do include the weather, point spread, score, time, kicker's ability, home/away, opposing special teams current and historical block FG, and the opposing teams offense into making that decision. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I have no problem with deciding to go for it rather than kicking. I have a problem with this particular service calling the decision to kick the worst decision of the year. I think that they'e just talking out of their a$$es. You say that these guys are going to make a lot of money. How?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 31, 2014 18:41:20 GMT -6
...not to mention field conditions and weather.
Or the other team's propensity for blocking kicks.
Pure Analytics or data don't account for those considerations when making in-game decisions.
These gentlemen do include the weather, point spread, score, time, kicker's ability, home/away, opposing special teams current and historical block FG, and the opposing teams offense into making that decision.
Can I call them from Quarter to Quarter during game if weather changes?
Are you trying to sell something here?
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 31, 2014 19:56:22 GMT -6
These gentlemen do include the weather, point spread, score, time, kicker's ability, home/away, opposing special teams current and historical block FG, and the opposing teams offense into making that decision. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I have no problem with deciding to go for it rather than kicking. I have a problem with this particular service calling the decision to kick the worst decision of the year. I think that they'e just talking out of their a$$es. You say that these guys are going to make a lot of money. How? Well I know Stanford and Nebraska just bought it. Wofford did as well.
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Mar 31, 2014 19:58:34 GMT -6
These gentlemen do include the weather, point spread, score, time, kicker's ability, home/away, opposing special teams current and historical block FG, and the opposing teams offense into making that decision.
Can I call them from Quarter to Quarter during game if weather changes?
Are you trying to sell something here?
I'm not selling anything. Good guys that make a good product. I posted an analytic company's website in a thread about analytics. Call them whenever you like. Try their new consultant Tom Osborne.
|
|
|
Post by shotgunfivewide55 on Mar 31, 2014 20:03:12 GMT -6
go back and look at your rushing attempts, I love to throw the football and was fortunate to have a qb that threw 10 tds in one game, love to throw, I have taken over programs where we could not throw it in the ocean standing on the beach. as I adapted to what our strengths were I found out that if I ran the ball more than 40 times a game we only lost once, if we ran the ball more than 50 times we never lost and once ran the ball over 60 times and won that game. From a stat standpoint we figured and sold to the kids that if we got to 50 we would always win, our goal by quarter was to run between 12 and 15 plays, a guy in texas did some research several years ago and came out with some stats like this, if you rushed for 212 yards or more and threw for 112 yards or more you would have an 85 percent chance of winning every game you played, our win total also went up dramatically when we went for it on fourth down more and punted less, our defense was ok but was not great, keeping the ball for longer drives helped us on both sides of the ball
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Mar 31, 2014 23:06:43 GMT -6
Stats relating rushing yards to wins usually have it backwards, you ran more because you wanted to burn clock.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Apr 1, 2014 2:40:32 GMT -6
it comes down to the same thing as it was in the thread about "stats" the other day: coaches who look at analytics believe they don't know it all. (i think thats a good thing. never stop improving - not only your team, but yourself) Unless you're spending so much time on stats that you neglect time for other important things. I love playing with numbers, don't get me wrong, but the longer I've done this the more I question how helpful it is/was. As others have stated some numbers will help you get better, some mean nothing. For example...After a game you're talking to another staff member and say "man we couldn't run buck sweep for the life of us tonight." After film break down a couple days later you get the exact numbers. You ran Buck Sweep 9 times for 15 yards. Then you can break it down even more vs what front, field/boundary, whatever. Guess what, after reading all the stats, you say "man we couldn't run buck sweep for the life us us friday night. You knew just as much info as you did before you ran the numbers. i think, this is implied by my post as well. if you know that you couldnt run bucksweep, you dont need the numbers to tell you that you couldnt run it, because it was so obvious. these are not situations i speak of (i admit though, that maybe coaches who are fond of stats also look at some numbers that arent really helping them, but i think thats not avoidable. but its a common that you try to minimize "wasted" time - who doesnt?). its more a point of principle discussed here: i'd say that stats CAN help you, whereas the contraposition says that stats CANT help you. in your described situation, you would not only want to know THAT you couldnt run bucksweep (but confirming it, really is not much work, is it?) , but WHY you couldnt run it. this is really what we're looking for as coaches to then find a way to solve the problem. i think stats can always help you find the problem (maybe only indirect by showing that running it vs specific fronts or in certain situations etc was not significantly bad, so you can exclude these areas from your search for the problem). even if its only after the season, that you find, that you couldnt run bucksweep for no other reason that your kids had problems with a certain front. that is statistics and helpful for the next time you play that kind of defense.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Apr 1, 2014 6:29:01 GMT -6
"The benefits of working with CAI are substantial. With the CAI Game Book, teams will never take a timeout to debate a decision. Coordinators can plan ahead, knowing what the decision will be for every scenario. Most importantly, teams will gain a substantial strategic advantage by making decisions that optimize a team’s chance of winning."
Well thank goodness we can have all that information to make our decisions for us. Oh did I fail to mention that we had a kicker who could barely clear the cross bar on exp's last season? Does that factor into the analysis at all?
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Apr 1, 2014 6:53:21 GMT -6
Unless you're spending so much time on stats that you neglect time for other important things. I love playing with numbers, don't get me wrong, but the longer I've done this the more I question how helpful it is/was. As others have stated some numbers will help you get better, some mean nothing. For example...After a game you're talking to another staff member and say "man we couldn't run buck sweep for the life of us tonight." After film break down a couple days later you get the exact numbers. You ran Buck Sweep 9 times for 15 yards. Then you can break it down even more vs what front, field/boundary, whatever. Guess what, after reading all the stats, you say "man we couldn't run buck sweep for the life us us friday night. You knew just as much info as you did before you ran the numbers. i think, this is implied by my post as well. if you know that you couldnt run bucksweep, you dont need the numbers to tell you that you couldnt run it, because it was so obvious. these are not situations i speak of (i admit though, that maybe coaches who are fond of stats also look at some numbers that arent really helping them, but i think thats not avoidable. but its a common that you try to minimize "wasted" time - who doesnt?). its more a point of principle discussed here: i'd say that stats CAN help you, whereas the contraposition says that stats CANT help you. in your described situation, you would not only want to know THAT you couldnt run bucksweep (but confirming it, really is not much work, is it?) , but WHY you couldnt run it. this is really what we're looking for as coaches to then find a way to solve the problem. i think stats can always help you find the problem (maybe only indirect by showing that running it vs specific fronts or in certain situations etc was not significantly bad, so you can exclude these areas from your search for the problem). even if its only after the season, that you find, that you couldnt run bucksweep for no other reason that your kids had problems with a certain front. that is statistics and helpful for the next time you play that kind of defense. Don't you learn why something worked or didn't work through watching film? Not numbers. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Apr 1, 2014 16:18:18 GMT -6
"The benefits of working with CAI are substantial. With the CAI Game Book, teams will never take a timeout to debate a decision. Coordinators can plan ahead, knowing what the decision will be for every scenario. Most importantly, teams will gain a substantial strategic advantage by making decisions that optimize a team’s chance of winning." Well thank goodness we can have all that information to make our decisions for us. Oh did I fail to mention that we had a kicker who could barely clear the cross bar on exp's last season? Does that factor into the analysis at all? Yes
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Apr 2, 2014 2:27:11 GMT -6
"The benefits of working with CAI are substantial. With the CAI Game Book, teams will never take a timeout to debate a decision. Coordinators can plan ahead, knowing what the decision will be for every scenario. Most importantly, teams will gain a substantial strategic advantage by making decisions that optimize a team’s chance of winning." Well thank goodness we can have all that information to make our decisions for us. Oh did I fail to mention that we had a kicker who could barely clear the cross bar on exp's last season? Does that factor into the analysis at all? Yes just to get it right. the CAI is team-customized for every customer?
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Apr 2, 2014 7:26:51 GMT -6
just to get it right. the CAI is team-customized for every customer? They don't have a HS product. For every D1 or 1AA it is customized to every squad.
|
|
|
Post by breakerdog on Apr 2, 2014 11:39:23 GMT -6
The first thing you need to do in order to improve is to measure your current state. You cannot quantify improvement if you don't have anything to measure against.
For many of us, measuring wins and losses is enough. That's great! If your team goes 10-2 one year and 2-10 the next, you can say that you need to recruit better athletes. Pretty simple.
Some of us may want to know more.
Did we run the ball as well as we did last year? What run concepts worked better for us? Did we defend the pass better in zone or man? How was our run defense when we blitzed? What pass concept got us more yards per completion? Which pass concept got us a higher completion %?
You will notice that none of those questions has why in it. I don't think that analytics does a good job with why. Experience and expertise does a good job with why. In other words, answering why is the coaches job. The thing that analytics does is provide lot's of good questions. Questions that you maybe wouldn't have come up with on your own. Sometimes you find that the questions lead you down paths that you don't really want to go. When you can be honest with yourself, you find truths that are uncomfortable or go against your preconceived notions. Or, Maybe the answer why really is just "better athletes".
Most of us are constantly working to improve ourselves as coaches. Clinics, books, consulting with other coaches, watching games and game film or just posting and answering on Huey are ways that we use to find answers. Often times, I will find an answer to a problem that I didn't even know I had.
Analytics is one way of self studying your team, and coming up with good questions.
|
|
|
Post by dthumphr on Apr 2, 2014 15:05:29 GMT -6
I believe the "think tanks" that are trying to progress analytics in football are devoting their efforts in the wrong direction. They spend a lot of time trying to convince people to go for it on fourth down or trying to determine when someone should kick a field goal. These in-game situations have been studied by coaches for 100 years now. I don't believe they are discovering anything meaningful to help coaches be better decision-makers.
The truth is that football coaches have been using analytics for in-game decision-making long before other sports caught on. Example: "what do I want to call on 3rd and short versus this team based on what they are most likely to run as a defense" or "based on the opponent's tendency to run power on 1st down inside the red zone I will call this blitz." Because the compiled data is much smaller (normally the previous 2-3 games of their opponent) than what the stat geeks are used to in baseball and basketball, they feel the need to compensate by using big data to try to find something that is a bunch of garbage.
If these football analytics guys were smart they would start looking in a different direction. If I had the time I would try to compile as much NFL data from the last few years about scheme (Xs & Os). I would try to answer questions such as "What has been the most successful run scheme (inside zone, outside zone, power, lead, etc.) vs an Over Front when using 21 personnel?" Instead of saying that an NFL team should go for it on 4th down and 3, lets figure out what have been the most successful plays vs a certain defense on 3rd n short/4th n short. These efforts would be much more beneficial to NFL teams and coaching staffs. The problem is that many of these stat geeks don't understand the strategy involved in the game so it is difficult for them to go in that direction.
Instead of telling me I should go for it on 4th down, tell me which plays have had the most success against New England on 3rd/4th in short and medium over the last 5 years. Therefore, if I feel good about the play(s) then I will feel good about going for it on 4th down.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 2, 2014 17:25:53 GMT -6
I think you misunderstand the math.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Apr 2, 2014 17:30:12 GMT -6
I've been following this thread for a few days, and I've just posted an article under General Football Topics in relation to what I've read in here. I've done my best to clear up any misconceptions about data analysis, as well as answer some of the questions that have been asked in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by CoachCP on Apr 3, 2014 19:39:57 GMT -6
I would say there most definitely is a place for Analytics in football. It's silly to say otherwise. The question is the extent of it and the efficiency of it itself. I'm one of the people who believe that players should know little about stats and stay true to their reads on the field because those are always right where tendencies are just ... tendencies. Coaches should know that stuff, not players. But This discussion is about us coaches. You need to ask yourself, is doing this research going to help us win? And don't just think about it from an opponent perspective or play perspective. Look at the big picture. There is a lot of historical data you can dig into from the ] pro level (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/04/play-by-play-data.html). It's not perfect, but it's a starting point and the insights are great and you can compare them to your own stats to see if the numbers are close (even if they aren't significant - yet - which is hard to do in football). We're going to look for a "big metric". Something that helps us be more productive on our side of the ball that we can help control. Time of possession is always one. No turnovers is also a big one (but that's hard to control). But let's think outside the box. For example, we might find out know that "explosive" plays increases a teams chance of scoring on that drive. Explosive plays are run plays of over 12 yards and passes over 15. The more we get per drive, the better our chance of scoring. This is valuable for the defense when they do risk/reward analysis as well when they decide are they going to be "aggressive" or "simple" in their schemes and calls. Once I believe in a concept (like the one above), I need to find ways to increase explosive plays. That's the hard part. Then I dig in my data for that, or I build a theory and stick to it when calling plays. I should look to see which running plays and passing plays created the most explosive plays (look at your data for this). You need to be careful and control for the opponent a bit (maybe take the ones that had the most average explosive plays per game). For instance, I might believe that a strong running game with a complete play action game will lead to more explosive plays. Or maybe it's intermediate passing plays. Or the screen game. I should then see if my data supports it. Again, look at the big data and your own. If that assumption is true (about running plays and play action) I need to dedicate the appropriate time to supporting this in the off-season with my coaches, and then the practice time (as you all discussed above) to making these plays work. If it's not true, think about other ways to improve that metric. Maybe it's something more specific. Maybe it's a specific running play. Or maybe it's just all "outside" running plays and their play actions. Once you find it, and you have data that supports running it, try it. Make it your goal to see if those things ultimately improve your chances of winning. Now, obviously if you are playing a team that's giving you 9 in the box and you can throw all day without play action - do that, but that's an extreme. Remember that data isn't smart. Information is because YOU use it when it's appropriate. Its a tool, not an answer to all your problems. It won't always be perfect, and it doesn't have to be. It just has to help you win. OOOOOORRRRRRRRRR..... I can just make sure my players are as strong as I can get them, fast as I can get them, line up in the right place, react to their keys or make their calls the best they can, get off the snap as fast as they can, keep their pad level as low as they can, strike as aggressively as they can... run their routes the best you can, etc. etc. I think your post shows exactly why analytics can be "dangerous", particular for young coaches. Talking about "creating" explosive plays, testing against data etc... when what really matters are the things I typed above. silkyice gave an excellent example in a thread similar to this--showing how "belly" was a good play one year, and an EXPLOSIVE play the second year. The change-- Went from a H.S running back to a kid who signed at Nebraska. ORRRR we don't need to use all caps and get frustrated or insult people or call this dangerous when it's working across the country at all levels. Why do you say "young coaches" as well? Is it because I'm "young"? Is it because I don't look experienced? Assumptions are dangerous to make. There are plenty of veteran coaches who have started using the same techniques. It's laughable to assume you think that analytics users are blind to athleticism and playmakers or all we do is look at charts on a computer and ignore film or are bad coaches. Really, it's quite funny. Also, why does me doing analytics prevent me from coaching players to be as strong/fast/well coached? As I mentioned, I don't slam numbers down the kids throats (I actually slam no numbers down their throats). I believe in simple keys. I believe in lining up right. I believe in stronger players. I believe in faster players. I believe in knowing a system so well you have all the answers using it and not making a massive playbook. I also believe coaches make a difference, and analytics can help us do that. It's all for the staff and myself. But we still look at important things. We look at player matchups. We look at fundamentals on film. For instance, maybe the best way for me to get an explosive play is to get the ball in my playmakers hands 20 times. Or maybe it's on 3rd downs because he turns it up a notch then - which is unquantifiable but you know it when you see it. Or maybe it's to get it in a guys hands 5 times but no more because then he starts making mistakes. Data helps me find these things. Explosive plays is not about a play carrying over each year or improving it with schemes. It's a system of method of calling plays that has a purpose. Maybe one year our best explosive play is power-o, because we have the #1 back in the state. The next year it might be play action off of Iso, because our QB is the best player. Our goal is to find what's creating big plays and OPTIMIZE the crap out of it. Nothing's static. Nothing's in a test tube. I'm insulted by your response. MAAAYYYBBBBEEE rather than thinking that analytics is a bunch of "dangerous" crap you should know that we think about the things above, maybe more than you do because we probably think about and maybe quantify the best ways to make them bigger/faster/stronger.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 4, 2014 20:58:31 GMT -6
coachcp I could go and address your post point by point, but I think you pretty much already proved my point
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Jun 10, 2016 12:32:46 GMT -6
Here's an example: Our defence thought we were god-awful against motion. They'd go into full panic at the thought of it. "The players don't understand the checks," "Players X and Y get lost whenever two receivers get near each other." We thought it was giving up so many big plays that it's what singlehandedly cost us a game. By identifying every play with motion for every team over the last two seasons we found that not only was our YPA (Mo) vs YPA (No-Mo) one of the best in the league, but also that YPA (Mo) < YPA (No-Mo). We thought we had the best quads D in the league, so I tested that hypothesis the same way, and there our hypothesis was correct, so assumptions like that are unreliable and probably influenced by singular plays in high-leverage situations. If you think you can go through 70 games and 12000 plays and come away with sound conclusions like that, then have fun. Just using this example
was motion already in your charting, or did you have to go back and chart that to look into this question?
how detailed is the charting you already do? how many man-hours is spent doing it?
-----------
this seems like a function of how much charting you already have
at the college level there's already a lot of man hours spent charting as much as possible, once you have everything charted, you ought to use what you have charted as much as you're able to
high school level coaches might not have the man hours to chart that extensively, and trying to might not be the best bang for their man-hour buck
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 10, 2016 16:18:16 GMT -6
Motion is a major part of our scout report and is a fundamental part of how we describe formations.
Who DOESN'T track motion in their breakdown?
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Jun 10, 2016 17:48:27 GMT -6
Motion is a major part of our scout report and is a fundamental part of how we describe formations. Who DOESN'T track motion in their breakdown? How many elements to each play are you charting in your breakdowns? Who does the charting for your team (is it a GA?) How many man-hours go into it? Do you have any sense for how many man hours per game charted go into it? --------- do you have a charting form that you feel like sharing?
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jun 10, 2016 18:26:50 GMT -6
I'm thrilled that someone resurrected an "analytics" thread.
No, really.
I am.
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Jun 10, 2016 18:41:43 GMT -6
I'm thrilled that someone resurrected an "analytics" thread. No, really. I am. Lol, sorry, stumbled across this, piqued my curiosity (didn't mean to drag up a tired topic (I see it got a little contentious above))
|
|
|
Analytics
Jun 10, 2016 19:03:36 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on Jun 10, 2016 19:03:36 GMT -6
I'm thrilled that someone resurrected an "analytics" thread. No, really. I am. I am analyzing your reaction to this. What metrics should I use?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 10, 2016 21:58:39 GMT -6
We chart formation (includes motion), play, play type (just a broader categorization, pretty automatic) protection, patterns. It's critical to our scout report and gameplan, and a game's breakdown takes less than an hour. Either myself or the DC does it, because it's part of his game planning process.
What are you doing for breakdown if you don't track formations?
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jun 11, 2016 19:36:55 GMT -6
Motion is a major part of our scout report and is a fundamental part of how we describe formations. Who DOESN'T track motion in their breakdown? Not much. Motion for us is less about formation as about eye candy. The main motion thing we chart/address is -man beaters -huge play indicators Most motions are simple formation adjustments that are intended to make a 16 year old go, "Hey, there's a chicken...."
|
|