Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 6:33:55 GMT -6
I have watched this movie probably 100 times since it came out, and I flat LOVE it!!! Why? I like anything that's "outside the box". Now I know, Beane is still waiting to win the last game of the season, but you have to admit, that his way of thinking, and his bravery for putting it all together, did change the game of baseball. What I've been thinking of for a while, is how can this thought process be applied the game of football? We have stats like baseball, yes, but they are not as telling IMO. I may be digging too deep here, but what the hell, we could all use some dialogue right?! Anyhow, I'm always looking for a way to fit the round peg in the round hole, and if the peg is square, can we sand on it enough to make it round (I do analogies can you tell?). Do you think this is even possible to translate over, or are the game to drastically different in nature for something like this to be effective? Hell, I don't even know how you would translate the stats, I mean, what is on base percentage in football? I think the biggest difference is a guy can have a GREAT OBP in baseball and still be on a crappy team, whereas a rarely do you find a team in football with a terrible OL that has a RB with a great avg. yards per carry. Anyhow, that's been rolling around in my upstairs for the past few months, maybe getting it out on here will now keep me from thinking about it as much as I have! Lol...
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Apr 24, 2013 7:02:39 GMT -6
I have watched this movie probably 100 times since it came out, and I flat LOVE it!!! Why? I like anything that's "outside the box". Now I know, Beane is still waiting to win the last game of the season, but you have to admit, that his way of thinking, and his bravery for putting it all together, did change the game of baseball. What I've been thinking of for a while, is how can this thought process be applied the game of football? We have stats like baseball, yes, but they are not as telling IMO. I may be digging too deep here, but what the hell, we could all use some dialogue right?! Anyhow, I'm always looking for a way to fit the round peg in the round hole, and if the peg is square, can we sand on it enough to make it round (I do analogies can you tell?). Do you think this is even possible to translate over, or are the game to drastically different in nature for something like this to be effective? Hell, I don't even know how you would translate the stats, I mean, what is on base percentage in football? I think the biggest difference is a guy can have a GREAT OBP in baseball and still be on a crappy team, whereas a rarely do you find a team in football with a terrible OL that has a RB with a great avg. yards per carry. Anyhow, that's been rolling around in my upstairs for the past few months, maybe getting it out on here will now keep me from thinking about it as much as I have! Lol... Duece The concept of moneyball is/was to identify undervalued assets. In Baseball in the 90s, HRs and steals were overvalued, while simply getting on base was undervalued. After the release of the book and the increasing popularity of Baseball Prospectus and the SABR movement in general OBP became overvalued and defense and speed became undervalued (the Devil Rays were one of the first teams to pick up on defense). From a football standpoint I see a few things that can really be applied: -Player evaluation. One of the big aspects of the book, not so much in the movie, was how inefficiencies in the draft. Teams drafted players based on their physical appearance; that's where you get the "We're not selling jeans," line. High School prospects, and especially pitchers, were drafted too high based on potential while college players were underrated. The idea of objective evaluation based on ability rather than potential has a lot of applications at our level. - "Field Position.Ball Control" - Maybe the main theme of the book/movie was that Oakland, as an underdog, could not use the same strategies as the Yankees. That same lesson can be applied in football, and in my opinion, that is in the form of field position and time of possession. Put broadly, if both teams were to play "field position" football, eventually the better team will win through attrition, by virtue of being better. This can apply to special teams philosophy (kicking deep vs onside), play calling while you are backed up, going for it on 4th down, run/pass ratio ect... - Playing the percentages - This ties in with point #2, and it's been talked about before, but the math favors going for 2 point conversions and being aggressive on 4th down. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbw on Apr 24, 2013 7:06:19 GMT -6
Its an interesting thought. I am definitely not a math guy, but I agree with your comment about the individual vs team and my initial reaction is that the biggest difference is that football isn't as much about individual match ups as baseball is. That being said, there are times in football that it does become somewhat of a one on one game and those have to scenarios have to have stats built into them. I am thinking things like yards after the catch when it has momentarily become just the receiver vs the man who is covering him (until help gets there), or the grading of a QB's reads on option plays. This is something I will have to continue to ponder throughout the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by optionoline on Apr 24, 2013 7:29:13 GMT -6
I'm with you deuce, the minute I finished watching the movie I started brainstorming ideas on how to incorporate the economic reasoning to football. Here's what I came up with. The key is identifying inefficiencies on your team. First I reviewed our daily practice plans. -eliminate all unnecessary down time -went to staggered water breaks by position groups -used a session timer/horn with warnings and we stuck with it no matter what -hudl homework so less mental teaching on the field was needed (kids had actual tests to take before practices) -back to back drills to maximize reps (1's going north, 2's going south, coaches in the middle) Second I reviewed our offensive scheme. -how many plays do we have, what do we need vs. what do we want -we made a hard cap on number of plays. -how many reps do we have in practice for these plays? If we cant rep it we throw it out -the only reason to have a play is to solve a problem. If the play doesn't solve a problem we throw it out. If we already have a solution, we throw out the extra one. -If we cant execute a play perfect on air every time, we fix it or throw it out -If we cant execute it the overwhelming majority of the time live, we fix it or throw it out Third I tried to make people experts at their position. -You are an outside receiver only. You are an inside receiver only. You are an OL only. -I'll take the kid with less talent that knows what hes doing every single play and plays fast and aggressive over the confused talented one. -Made a list of everything each kid had to know in our offense, if it was too much for certain spots we looked for ways to reduce that positions thinking load. Fourth my OC ignored the second and third lists, wanted one guy to be our "percy harvin" and added 25 more pass concepts. That kid also started at CB, was confused 90% of the game. Our QB had a 48% completion percentage and set a school record for INT's this season. Fifth after numerous arguments, I decided to move down to 10th grade/JV  |
|
tekart
Junior Member
Posts: 298
|
Post by tekart on Apr 24, 2013 7:39:03 GMT -6
I thought this exact thing after I watched the movie but, being not being a math guru I would not even know where to begin. Like duece said what stats would you use? I do like the 2 pt. conversion (you only have to be good 1/2 the time to equal extra points) and being aggressive on 4th down.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Apr 24, 2013 7:41:09 GMT -6
I only have a passing knowledge, but I get the gist of Sabremetrics. I think in order apply the concepts to football, you have to look at unit metrics instead of individual ones.
IE a really good QB won't statistically be as good if his WRs can't get open, or his OL can't protect.
Now I am sure that there under valued units like ST that jump off the page, but maybe there are other under valued terms/metrics for units already valued in another way AND how do we go about quantifying them in term of creating values and standards for these values that are not the norm.
IE what is the 'Mendoza line' for any unit vs. being a '.300 hitter'?
Does anyone quantify these aspects of your team/units and if you do, what are the bench marks?
- OL What is the average amount of time for created for the QB in the 3 step/5 step/7 step passing game?
- QB How quickly can he move through his read progression Option 1, 2, 3, etc...?
- DL How successful is a 4 man pressure vs. 5 man protection/6 man pro/7+ man pro?
- LB How does the insertion of a LB into the pressure scheme affect the value of the 4 man pressure?*
- WR How often are they targeted vs press coverage alignment vs off alignment?
- WR How long does it take the WR to quickly/efficiently get to the 'get open' point against 1 high zone coverage structure vs. 2 high?
*Then again the argument could be made that is it the LB himself or the particular pressure scheme?*
Then again I don't know if you can accurately define and set values for any of these type of terms when scheme plays a significant roll. I think the best correlation that a coach could take is finding HOW they should value a particular player or unit.
For a:
- RB are YPC more important that YAC?
- QB is Comp. % more important than Yds/Comp? Or Yds/ATT
- DB are INTs more valued that # of attempted passing towards Rec. in that DB's area of responsibility?
- DL are Sacks more important than TFL? or maybe the number of times they get trapped?
- OL are sacks allowed more important than false starts? or false STEPS?
I would be interested in the boards experts breaking down the graded values of their particular unit and assessing whether or not these are true measures of value for that unit. Should I be counting the number of steps a CB back pedals before he has to flip his hips, or should I just count the number of times he gets beat deep or gives up a catch?
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 24, 2013 7:41:38 GMT -6
Isn't this what Bellichick was doing in the 2000s?
look at all those players he had that were role players.
Each year, players were replaced and veterans were brought in to perform a specific function (on the cheap)
In HS ball....how does that work? You really don't control the talent pool all that much (unless you're talking about specifically bringing in wrestling, soccer, track guys to perform a specific function)
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Apr 24, 2013 7:50:17 GMT -6
I think idea has alot of merit..IMO it is much harder to do this in football...Every single player in baseball has stats..batting vs lhp, vs rhp, walks, strike counts etc..every single player also has the same chances, 3 strikes you are out, 4 balls and you take your base.and the ball must be thrown over a know fixed object (home plate).how do you measure your offensive line, 5/11 of your offense? what about a wr in a pass offense vs a run offense...BTW, this why I like baseball at the end of the game...there is no kneeling on the ball, there are no fouling the other team..the other team, so long as they do not have 3 outs, ALWAYS has a chance
|
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Apr 24, 2013 7:58:54 GMT -6
I only have a passing knowledge, but I get the gist of Sabremetrics. I think in order apply the concepts to football, you have to look at unit metrics instead of individual ones. IE a really good QB won't statistically be as good if his WRs can't get open, or his OL can't protect. Now I am sure that there under valued units like ST that jump off the page, but maybe there are other under valued terms/metrics for units already valued in another way AND how do we go about quantifying them in term of creating values and standards for these values that are not the norm. IE what is the 'Mendoza line' for any unit vs. being a '.300 hitter'? Does anyone quantify these aspects of your team/units and if you do, what are the bench marks? - OL What is the average amount of time for created for the QB in the 3 step/5 step/7 step passing game? - QB How quickly can he move through his read progression Option 1, 2, 3, etc...? - DL How successful is a 4 man pressure vs. 5 man protection/6 man pro/7+ man pro? - LB How does the insertion of a LB into the pressure scheme affect the value of the 4 man pressure?* - WR How often are they targeted vs press coverage alignment vs off alignment? - WR How long does it take the WR to quickly/efficiently get to the 'get open' point against 1 high zone coverage structure vs. 2 high? *Then again the argument could be made that is it the LB himself or the particular pressure scheme?* Then again I don't know if you can accurately define and set values for any of these type of terms when scheme plays a significant roll. I think the best correlation that a coach could take is finding HOW they should value a particular player or unit. For a: - RB are YPC more important that YAC? - QB is Comp. % more important than Yds/Comp? Or Yds/ATT - DB are INTs more valued that # of attempted passing towards Rec. in that DB's area of responsibility? - DL are Sacks more important than TFL? or maybe the number of times they get trapped? - OL are sacks allowed more important than false starts? or false STEPS? I would be interested in the boards experts breaking down the graded values of their particular unit and assessing whether or not these are true measures of value for that unit. Should I be counting the number of steps a CB back pedals before he has to flip his hips, or should I just count the number of times he gets beat deep or gives up a catch? To backtrack a a bit and get into Sabermetrics, it starts with the "godfather" of the movement (Bill James). What James basically did was attempt to isolate why teams win, he found a few things of importance, the most important being that there is n accurate and predictable relationship between run differential and end of season record. He (and others), then ran regression analysis and found that the stat most highly correlated with runs scored was OBP. Using this data, and some other stuff, he and other SABR guys were able to develop the formula for runs created which is very pretty accurate. The pitching stuff is a little more complicated and developed much later. To bring it back to football, you would need to isolate which statistics are most positively correlated to winning. This has been done at the NFL level, but not all that well IMHO. Once you identify which variables are most positively correlated to winning you would then be able to judge your effectiveness at that variable. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 8:12:10 GMT -6
- Playing the percentages - This ties in with point #2, and it's been talked about before, but the math favors going for 2 point conversions and being aggressive on 4th down. If the other team has more talent aren't they still better on 4th down? |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 24, 2013 8:44:18 GMT -6
Two blogs that may be instructive relative to this topic are Homer Smith's and Chris Brown's ("Smart Football").
The "hidden yardage" in the Kicking Game is something that could be an undervalued factor in winning and losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Apr 24, 2013 8:53:47 GMT -6
Isn't this what Bellichick was doing in the 2000s? look at all those players he had that were role players. Each year, players were replaced and veterans were brought in to perform a specific function (on the cheap) In HS ball....how does that work? You really don't control the talent pool all that much (unless you're talking about specifically bringing in wrestling, soccer, track guys to perform a specific function) This somewhat. It may apply to HS though in that sometimes we over value the playmaker over the steady kid. For instance, you have 2 WRs, one is a break away explosive threat kid but isn't consistent, the other is an average athlete but perfect route runner move the chains type kid. I have seen coaches bench steady for explosive when maybe the best thing to do (and this is the furthest thing from revolutionary) is stick with the steady receiver and put the explosive receiver in for only certain packages. I think you can apply some of the concepts to get more kids to play by looking at what is valued. Do you value sometimes explosive or consistently adequate? Then how do you combine the two for maximum output. This is where the Bellicheck model can fit, putting those players in a position to play and suceed by focusing on their strengths. I think you could get a lot more players in a rotation with this line of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 24, 2013 9:29:02 GMT -6
- Playing the percentages - This ties in with point #2, and it's been talked about before, but the math favors going for 2 point conversions and being aggressive on 4th down. If the other team has more talent aren't they still better on 4th down? Yes, but you have to do certain things. First, keep the game close. If it gets out of hand and you get one-dimensional you're toast. Second, shorten the game. Not in the sense of time, which is meaningless outside the last 4 minutes of a half, but in terms of a possession. The other team is better and will likely score more points per possession than you. If you keep trading possession the numbers will catch up to you. At the NFL level the best application might be in schemes. Fullbacks come cheap these days, as do slot receivers and all-around good but not great RBs. Incorporating more of these into your game lets you get more value out of each salary cap dollar, which is the big concern for NFL teams. If you want to imitate what every other team wants you end up spending a fortune on a QB, a LT, a tall, fast WR, and pretty soon you've got nothing left for the rest of your team. Hence the read-option being popular now, as people realized that these guys come super-cheap (aside from other football-based reasons for running that scheme). |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 9:48:20 GMT -6
If the other team has more talent aren't they still better on 4th down? Yes, but you have to do certain things. First, keep the game close. If it gets out of hand and you get one-dimensional you're toast. Second, shorten the game. Not in the sense of time, which is meaningless outside the last 4 minutes of a half, but in terms of a possession. The other team is better and will likely score more points per possession than you. If you keep trading possession the numbers will catch up to you. Giving up the ball on your own 30 isn't much of a way to keep the game close, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Apr 24, 2013 9:58:03 GMT -6
I remember reading moneyball in college, and like you always being a do different type guy; but be wary when studying advanced metrics for football. So many of them analyze the pro game and a lot of the numbers the espouse don't bear out in HS. The overall talent difference between the best guy on the field and the worst guy on the field in a HS game is far greater than that in the pros. Moreover, there are certain things every pro team can do (consistently drill 40+ yard FGS, etc) that we at the HS level cannot.
That being written footballoutsiders.com has always been my go to for things of this nature, and I bet you'll find a lot of the stuff you're looking for there.
PS. I always thought that there is an observer effect with advanced statistics. For example, if the #s say that you should always go for two then defenses will know this and eventually alter what they do (maybe prepare for this more) and then your odds decrease and it may not be as beneficial
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 24, 2013 10:17:51 GMT -6
Yes, but you have to do certain things. First, keep the game close. If it gets out of hand and you get one-dimensional you're toast. Second, shorten the game. Not in the sense of time, which is meaningless outside the last 4 minutes of a half, but in terms of a possession. The other team is better and will likely score more points per possession than you. If you keep trading possession the numbers will catch up to you. Giving up the ball on your own 30 isn't much of a way to keep the game close, IMO. Not arguing but there's an interesting argument about how do underdogs beat teams that are much more talented. One thing the stats (not really stats actually so much as probability) indicate is that you want to use high variance strategies. These don't all go in the same direction -- shortening the game is actually a way to increase the variance in the game, but obviously passing and going for it on 4th down are higher variance as well. The reason you want to do that is it gives you a better chance at an extreme outcome, i.e. where the underdog beats the heavy favorite. Unfortunately there's a trade, which is that higher variance strategies can also result in wider swings to the other side, i.e. enormously bad blowout losses. If you go into a game wanting to onside kick, go for it on fourth down, try some trick plays, and let it hang loose, that might be your best way to pull off an upset, but there's also a good chance you can turn a sound loss into a staggering blowout. At that point it's all psychological. Are there "moral victories" in the context of close losses, even if you never really had the chance to win the game? Can upset victories and heavy blowouts really be only separated by a few bounces of the ball? It's interesting to think about. This is also why it's often best for heavy favorite/talented teams to play conservative: You already have the advantage, just don't screw it up. Anyway, there's more to be said about Moneyball to football but to me it's just a willingness to think about new ideas, especially ones from fields outside of football or sports in general. Doesn't have to be just "stats." I honestly think a big problem with the "Moneyball to football" stuff is the football guys don't know probability and stats and the geeks don't really *get* football. It's a tough bridge to cross, but it'll happen. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 10:44:15 GMT -6
Giving up the ball on your own 30 isn't much of a way to keep the game close, IMO. Not arguing but there's an interesting argument about how do underdogs beat teams that are much more talented. One thing the stats (not really stats actually so much as probability) indicate is that you want to use high variance strategies. These don't all go in the same direction -- shortening the game is actually a way to increase the variance in the game, but obviously passing and going for it on 4th down are higher variance as well. The reason you want to do that is it gives you a better chance at an extreme outcome, i.e. where the underdog beats the heavy favorite. Unfortunately there's a trade, which is that higher variance strategies can also result in wider swings to the other side, i.e. enormously bad blowout losses. If you go into a game wanting to onside kick, go for it on fourth down, try some trick plays, and let it hang loose, that might be your best way to pull off an upset, but there's also a good chance you can turn a sound loss into a staggering blowout. At that point it's all psychological. Are there "moral victories" in the context of close losses, even if you never really had the chance to win the game? Can upset victories and heavy blowouts really be only separated by a few bounces of the ball? It's interesting to think about. This is also why it's often best for heavy favorite/talented teams to play conservative: You already have the advantage, just don't screw it up. Anyway, there's more to be said about Moneyball to football but to me it's just a willingness to think about new ideas, especially ones from fields outside of football or sports in general. Doesn't have to be just "stats." I honestly think a big problem with the "Moneyball to football" stuff is the football guys don't know probability and stats and the geeks don't really *get* football. It's a tough bridge to cross, but it'll happen. Percentages are based on averages. Overall, maybe it is true that your "expected points" are higher if you never punt. But, in this case we've already established that the other team is better than yours. That means that your chances of making it on 4th down are below average. The recipe for an upset is almost always the same: keep it close and get lucky. "Lucky" means winning the turnover differential. To me, turning the ball over on downs is no different from a fumble. You wouldn't intentionally fumble on your own 30. Why risk turning it over on downs on your 30 (I'm not talking about the "plus" side of the field here. There's certainly an argument for going for it on the +40)? I've semi-jokingly said before: that math professor can afford to be bold. He has tenure. If you lose to a better team 28-0 that won't necessarily get you fired. 63-0 gets peoples' attention and not in a good way. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbw on Apr 24, 2013 11:03:01 GMT -6
To backtrack a a bit and get into Sabermetrics, it starts with the "godfather" of the movement (Bill James). What James basically did was attempt to isolate why teams win, he found a few things of importance, the most important being that there is n accurate and predictable relationship between run differential and end of season record. He (and others), then ran regression analysis and found that the stat most highly correlated with runs scored was OBP. Using this data, and some other stuff, he and other SABR guys were able to develop the formula for runs created which is very pretty accurate. The pitching stuff is a little more complicated and developed much later. To bring it back to football, you would need to isolate which statistics are most positively correlated to winning. This has been done at the NFL level, but not all that well IMHO. Once you identify which variables are most positively correlated to winning you would then be able to judge your effectiveness at that variable. Ok, so lets see if I have this straight. The two stats that I have most commonly correlated to winning are turnover margin and punts blocked. So I am just thinking out loud here then . . . would the Moneyball theory have us playing our RB who has the best ball security vs the one who is the "best" runner. Start the defensive player who causes the most turnovers, etc. Or maybe you don't start the punter with the best net yardage, but you start the punter with the fastest operation time. I can see value to this to a certain extent. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Apr 24, 2013 11:09:38 GMT -6
To backtrack a a bit and get into Sabermetrics, it starts with the "godfather" of the movement (Bill James). What James basically did was attempt to isolate why teams win, he found a few things of importance, the most important being that there is n accurate and predictable relationship between run differential and end of season record. He (and others), then ran regression analysis and found that the stat most highly correlated with runs scored was OBP. Using this data, and some other stuff, he and other SABR guys were able to develop the formula for runs created which is very pretty accurate. The pitching stuff is a little more complicated and developed much later. To bring it back to football, you would need to isolate which statistics are most positively correlated to winning. This has been done at the NFL level, but not all that well IMHO. Once you identify which variables are most positively correlated to winning you would then be able to judge your effectiveness at that variable. Ok, so lets see if I have this straight. The two stats that I have most commonly correlated to winning are turnover margin and punts blocked. So I am just thinking out loud here then . . . would the Moneyball theory have us playing our RB who has the best ball security vs the one who is the "best" runner. Start the defensive player who causes the most turnovers, etc. Or maybe you don't start the punter with the best net yardage, but you start the punter with the fastest operation time. I can see value to this to a certain extent. That's what I'm thinking |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Apr 24, 2013 11:18:41 GMT -6
I think people cite turnovers because in the NFL (where talent level is so close to being equal) this ends up being a variable that often tips the scale.
Im gonna side with what fantom wrote, or at least what I gathered from it, in that in many ways turnovers are lucky; or at least they are a variable that the defense has far less control of and is somewhat out of its hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Apr 24, 2013 11:18:44 GMT -6
What about completion %?
Say you want to play small ball by organizing your passing game around high percentage screens, the quick game and the "flip" jet (or whatever it's called...like shovel pass but to a sweeper).
I'd say that if you're passing north of 60%, your playmakers will be keeping you in games, if not winning them.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 11:27:12 GMT -6
I think people cite turnovers because in the NFL (where talent level is so close to being equal) this ends up being a variable that often tips the scale. Im gonna side with what fantom wrote, or at least what I gathered from it, in that in many ways turnovers are lucky; or at least they are a variable that the defense has far less control of and is somewhat out of its hands. I definitely think that turnovers are largely luck. You can certainly improve your chances of getting them by running to the ball and working on stripping but if the other guy doesn't drop it or if it bounces the wrong way there's not much you can do about it. |
|
|
|
Post by rudyrude9 on Apr 24, 2013 12:05:38 GMT -6
I think people cite turnovers because in the NFL (where talent level is so close to being equal) this ends up being a variable that often tips the scale. Im gonna side with what fantom wrote, or at least what I gathered from it, in that in many ways turnovers are lucky; or at least they are a variable that the defense has far less control of and is somewhat out of its hands. I definitely think that turnovers are largely luck. You can certainly improve your chances of getting them by running to the ball and working on stripping but if the other guy doesn't drop it or if it bounces the wrong way there's not much you can do about it. The best teams in our League and State take care of the ball and take it away on D. Is this really all luck? I would argue that the best coached teams focus on the details of every aspect including ball security and take aways. It's usually the 0-9 team that fumbles the ball all over the field. Are they just really unlucky? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 12:24:39 GMT -6
I definitely think that turnovers are largely luck. You can certainly improve your chances of getting them by running to the ball and working on stripping but if the other guy doesn't drop it or if it bounces the wrong way there's not much you can do about it. The best teams in our League and State take care of the ball and take it away on D. Is this really all luck? I didn't say "all". |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 24, 2013 12:35:14 GMT -6
The best teams in our League and State take care of the ball and take it away on D. Is this really all luck? I didn't say "all". In 2011 Oklahoma State led the NCAA in Takeaways. Last year they finished 57th. Did they coach worse? |
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Apr 24, 2013 12:50:21 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 12:53:02 GMT -6
One thing I've noticed on our own team is that we're too caught up in "prototype worship," meaning that if we have a kid who fits the coach's idea of what a player should be at one position, or doesn't fit the ideal at another, we won't even think about moving him.
For example, we have a "stud ILB" who's going to still be riding the pine as a Jr. because the 2 guys ahead of him are faster and handle the game better mentally. We have 2 big holes on the DL and no one who's even competent to fill them, let alone nearly as big, strong, or athletic as this guy, but we won't even think of moving this kid to a spot where he could start and plug a hole in our defense because we're so caught up in the idea of him as a "stud ILB" we can bring off the bench.
I think that a better application of this would be to simply identify your key positions, whatever they may be, in all phases of the game and make sure those key positions are nailed down with guys you can build around, even if it means the player you put there might be more of an ideal fit for another position. For example if you're spread and you have a "stud WR" but no QB who can run or throw, you might want to look at putting him at QB. If you're a 4-3 team and you have a guy you think is going to be a great college LB or 5 tech, but you're weak at DT, maybe you move him there to shore up your run defense.
Most coaches do this through common sense, but common sense isn't really all that common, I've found.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 24, 2013 12:58:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Apr 24, 2013 14:11:00 GMT -6
I definitely think that turnovers are largely luck. You can certainly improve your chances of getting them by running to the ball and working on stripping but if the other guy doesn't drop it or if it bounces the wrong way there's not much you can do about it. The best teams in our League and State take care of the ball and take it away on D. Is this really all luck? I would argue that the best coached teams focus on the details of every aspect including ball security and take aways. It's usually the 0-9 team that fumbles the ball all over the field. Are they just really unlucky? I don't think so. I wrote that turnovers are less of a consequence of the Defenses actions and more a result of the offense. So simply stating our goal of "winning the turnover battle" may not always be as feasible as simply working strip and tip drill. Moreover to your specific point, maybe they are not the best teams because they dont turn the ball over, maybe they dont turn the ball over because they are the best teams. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Apr 24, 2013 14:20:58 GMT -6
You realize that "Moneyball", especially the movie, is about 40% fiction right? Kind of like The Blind Side.
I think trying to run your team based on any idea you got from this movie is like deciding to run the Oopty Oop because it worked in Varsity Blues.
|
|
