|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:35:01 GMT -6
EXACTLY! our goals and stats give us something to work on. we can look at our goals and say ok offensively: Time of Pocession requires: -Ball handling Control (Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of blocks verse all sorts of fronts (Drill It) -Converting under pressure (3rd down drill...Drill it) -Perfect Exicution of our quick passing game (Drill it) -conditioning (Drill it) if we go out and say "OK we are going to score on every play..." how do you drill that? and what happens when you dont in game? Couldn't your exact statements and points of emphasis be applicable to a team that ABHORS TOP and hopes to score as fast as possible. Wouldn't a hurry up spot the ball and snap it team also Drill ball security Drill execution of blocks (really dude? ) Drill converting 3rd downs Drill the quick game and have to be conditioned? Forrest for the trees boys. You guys and your arguments are only proving my point that false goals can skewer thinking, and unfortunately that may influence the performance in a negative way. it can, but they are also working off of metrics too! i hear it all the time, we need to snap the ball X amount of times every minute...WTF do you think that is?! measuring the amount of snaps per minute....sounds alot like what im doing...doesnt it? anyone with a philosophy should be working off of metrics and analysis. otherwise areas for improvement are not as easily found.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 11:35:34 GMT -6
Coach, as has been discussed many times here -- No you don't. The ONLY "certain task" you need to accomplish to obtain victory is have more points at the end of the game than the opponent. All of the other "goals" would be "false goals", and due to the ebb and due to constantly changing game situations trying to achieve some of those false goals can be counter productive to the goal of winning. For example--having a goal of passing or rushing for ____ yards. But that has been discussed many times regarding goals--this is about stats. how do you make priorities without dividing the goal of winning into smaller parts that are reachable without playing a game? or another way to say it: how do you decide to practice what? do you simply go to the practice field and yell "lets practice winning" and the kids (especially those who are there for the first time) understand what to do? to reach the goal of winning, you have to have a way of getting there. and nobody understands how to get there by simply saying "get there" or "lets win". in your case, you can only distinguish the "true goal", namely winning, from the "false goals", because you already have a good grasp of what you have to do to win. if you knew nothing (or little) about footballgames and somebody tells you in "order to win, you have to win" you have nothing learned as there is nothing to learn from this triviality. think of kids or players as those that have not yet learned what to do to win. you have to tell them, show them and put them through practice to reach goals to get them way you need them to play to win a game. practicing winning is practicing ballsecurity, blocking, tackling, running, (insert everything you believe you can win footballgames with). to reach "good ballsecurity" is a goal, even if its not spelled out at a motivational poster or powerpoint, so if you practice ballsecurity, you follow a goal, that you think helps your team win. Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run?
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:38:40 GMT -6
how do you make priorities without dividing the goal of winning into smaller parts that are reachable without playing a game? or another way to say it: how do you decide to practice what? do you simply go to the practice field and yell "lets practice winning" and the kids (especially those who are there for the first time) understand what to do? to reach the goal of winning, you have to have a way of getting there. and nobody understands how to get there by simply saying "get there" or "lets win". in your case, you can only distinguish the "true goal", namely winning, from the "false goals", because you already have a good grasp of what you have to do to win. if you knew nothing (or little) about footballgames and somebody tells you in "order to win, you have to win" you have nothing learned as there is nothing to learn from this triviality. think of kids or players as those that have not yet learned what to do to win. you have to tell them, show them and put them through practice to reach goals to get them way you need them to play to win a game. practicing winning is practicing ballsecurity, blocking, tackling, running, (insert everything you believe you can win footballgames with). to reach "good ballsecurity" is a goal, even if its not spelled out at a motivational poster or powerpoint, so if you practice ballsecurity, you follow a goal, that you think helps your team win. Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run? true, my only argument to this is that you need data to create metrics and KPI's (key performance indicators). your team may be just fine with opponents who rush 100 yards, your threshold is 175...
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 11:41:52 GMT -6
Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run? true, my only argument to this is that you need data to create metrics and KPI's (key performance indicators). your team may be just fine with opponents who rush 100 yards, your threshold is 175... Agreed. Data isn't the same as a goals chart (and I'm not saying that you're arguing in favor of charts. There are a lot of conversations happening at the same time here).
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 11:44:03 GMT -6
true, my only argument to this is that you need data to create metrics and KPI's (key performance indicators). your team may be just fine with opponents who rush 100 yards, your threshold is 175... Agreed. Data isn't the same as a goals chart (and I'm not saying that you're arguing in favor of charts. There are a lot of conversations happening at the same time here). there are a couple lol. well, goal charts are great once you understand your team i guess is what im getting at. and...its hard to understand your team in the first weeks and then comes the trickiest part. figuring out how to drill to those goals, thats what we spend most of our off season on. figuring out what our goals are and how we can tie drills directly back to those goals. we treat it like a business: we have Goals (KPI's), we have our daily work (drills). and we have revenue (wins) our Drills have to be directly tied to our goals, which then need to be tied to revenue. if its not, we have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 11:54:23 GMT -6
Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run? true, my only argument to this is that you need data to create metrics and KPI's (key performance indicators). your team may be just fine with opponents who rush 100 yards, your threshold is 175... No, you really don't need DATA to create metrics and Key performance indicators--as just shown by the fact that the "drills" you talk about would be "drilled" by teams that want a long TOP, by teams that could care less about TOP, by teams that want to run the ball 50 times a game, by teams that want to be 50/50 balanced pass to run, by teams that want to throw, throw throw, and throw.. (by the way --right now many of the teachers on the board are probably thinking you would be a great candidate for a department of education job.....) There are things in football that lead to winning. Some are TNT's (i stole that from a coach here, don't remember who). Takes no Talents. Those are things like alignment, and assignment. It takes no talent to align properly or to know your assignment. Some do take talent. Maintaining pad level, blocking/block destruction, reading keys, getting off on the snap, tackling, throwing, catching, route running, creating separation or staying in phase...etc. Here is where I believe coaches trying to use "metrics" are wasting their time, or flat out wrong. Unlike in business operation settings, where a manager/operational consultant uses data to make assumptions about the individual workerss and their processes/ FOOTBALL COACHES actually STUDY AND REVIEW those processes. I don't need a report on 3rd down efficiency to then go back and study 3rd down play and see it was poor because Johnny missed his block on the DE everytime we tried to 3 step because I have already reviewed the film and have watched Johnny miss his block on the DE when we tried to 3 step. You guys do what you want.. I won't "work on TOP", i WILL work on the things I outlined in this thread. As Coach Walsh said "The score will take care of itself" however, 33-- here is a link you might enjoy www.stampedeblue.com/2009/4/14/834798/finding-the-winning-factors-time
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 12:02:01 GMT -6
true, my only argument to this is that you need data to create metrics and KPI's (key performance indicators). your team may be just fine with opponents who rush 100 yards, your threshold is 175... No, you really don't need DATA to create metrics and Key performance indicators (by the way --right now many of the teachers on the board are probably thinking you would be a great candidate for a department of education job.....) There are things in football that lead to winning. Some are TNT's (i stole that from a coach here, don't remember who). Takes no Talents. Those are things like alignment, and assignment. It takes no talent to align properly or to know your assignment. Some do take talent. Maintaining pad level, blocking/block destruction, reading keys, getting off on the snap, tackling, throwing, catching, route running, creating separation or staying in phase...etc. Here is where I believe coaches trying to use "metrics" are wasting their time, or flat out wrong. Unlike in business operation settings, where a manager/operational consultant uses data to make assumptions about the individual workerss and their processes/ FOOTBALL COACHES actually STUDY AND REVIEW those processes. I don't need a report on 3rd down efficiency to then go back and study 3rd down play and see it was poor because Johnny missed his block on the DE everytime we tried to 3 step because I have already reviewed the film and have watched Johnny miss his block on the DE when we tried to 3 step. You guys do what you want.. I won't "work on TOP", i WILL work on the things I outlined in this thread. As Coach Walsh said "The score will take care of itself" however, 33-- here is a link you might enjoy www.stampedeblue.com/2009/4/14/834798/finding-the-winning-factors-timeWell, i was a Comp sci major and math minor, I work as a web application developer, and a lot of my time is spent in business intelligence. so im not sure id fit in at a DOE job ;-). you are right, thats a great term for the things that require no prior knowledge and just takes training: Stance, Alignment, Assignment. is what i typically say to my coaches but back on point: you are over simplifying the situation. maybe its not the same kid every time, and maybe 7/8ths of the time IT DOESNT MATTER and you convert on 4th?... but you wont ever know if you don't do the work to figure that out. absolutely denying the existence of quantifiable metrics in football is foolish in my opinion, but maybe that's just me.
I never asked you to hop on the bandwagon, just sharing what, in part, has made us successful. oh and that link is absolutely useless, measuring someone else's team and talent doesn't help anyone.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 12:11:03 GMT -6
Well, i was a Comp sci major and math minor, I work as a web application developer, and a lot of my time is spent in business intelligence. so im not sure id fit in at a DOE job ;-). No, that is EXACTLY my point. And ironically enough, I think it somewhat goes with this discussion as well. Currently in education, it is all about things that don't actually fit education. However, the "business metric" people are "reforming" education through a lovely square peg/round hole process. Again, thats the point. One doesn't need "metrics" to see that the players are messing up because one evaluates each of the 11 players and their processes each play. No need for a product goal or metric. I saw the process. Regarding the link being useless, for someone so gun ho on metrics, I would think you would like to see the process by which others use numbers to evaluate as well. I am not saying take their date, I am saying you may find use examining their process.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 12:14:36 GMT -6
that is plain circularity and explains nothing. if you know, that by the rules you win a game, if you score more points than the opponent, you just stated the definition of what winning is, but not HOW to win a game. My point was to shed light on the meaningless of a statement that says we win the game 75% of the time when we have a 60% time of possession You win football games by : Aligning correctly, not missing assignments, maintaining body control/balance, maintaining low pad level and leverage, getting off the football first, making the proper reads, violent block destruction, crisp tackling, maintaining run fits, keeping in phase on pass coveage... etc. NOT by : rushing for 300 yards, Passing for 300 yards, Having _____ time of possession.. etc. but how did you come about these "principles"? you've noticed that the team with the most missing assignments rathers loses the game than the one that doesnt. even if this is bad statistics, based solely on personal experience, its still that - statistics. if you find that of all things you can objectively measure, a high time of possession makes winning the most probable, its only rational to treat that as a goal with highest priority. now you still have to discover why TOP is contributing to winning and that is mostly not an objectively measurable thing like ballsecurity, playcalling, personell decisions, xs and os.. and i think here should the discussion start - how can we accomplish what the stats tell us being the aspect most correlating to winning? is it explosive plays? how do we get those? is it better to trade up for that great runningback or take the 2 solid guards in the later rounds? these decisions are based on the interpretation of the stats and are largely subjective and thus up to debate (and often false), but the stats itself dont lie (except for the fact that all stats are always not independently of us humans, so maybe some time ago the 4 yards on first down had a higher probability of winning a game than explosive plays, but the game and strategies changed so much that we now have different statistics. if we dont think we have to reinvent the wheel this thought does not apply). i think the stats still tell you what your goals should be and you have to learn how you reach (interpret) them. at some point you will find, what we call our 'principles' and these then form our 'philosophy'.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 12:16:46 GMT -6
Well, i was a Comp sci major and math minor, I work as a web application developer, and a lot of my time is spent in business intelligence. so im not sure id fit in at a DOE job ;-). No, that is EXACTLY my point. And ironically enough, I think it somewhat goes with this discussion as well. Currently in education, it is all about things that don't actually fit education. However, the "business metric" people are "reforming" education through a lovely square peg/round hole process. Again, thats the point. One doesn't need "metrics" to see that the players are messing up because one evaluates each of the 11 players and their processes each play. No need for a product goal or metric. I saw the process. so, how do you evaluate players? do you chart plays? do you take notes during film? do you have a grading sheet? most coaches do one of the 3, and guess what you are doing? you are...........applying..........KPIs....to.........performance. huh...so whether you are doing it at the big picture level, or at the individual player level you are using a formula to grade performance which in turn....shows success or failure. now take that one step further, what was the outcome of your players failure? did it ACTUALLY effect the outcome of the game, math can actually prove whether that one error did effect the game. coaches/fans/people like to say "oh that one play lost us the game" but that's RARELY the case. but you will never know...and you may be chasing your tail fixing leaks in a pipe that doesn't leak.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 12:22:58 GMT -6
to reach "good ballsecurity" is a goal, even if its not spelled out at a motivational poster or powerpoint, so if you practice ballsecurity, you follow a goal, that you think helps your team win. Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run? i explicitely and consciously didnt define a goal as a spelled out thing. it is more of a thing that constitutes acts, so if you decide what to do in the next practice, there is a goal behind it, working towards completing a task in the game. so we all have goals, not just young coaches. i also happen to think that a lot of older/more experienced coaches that already formed their personality as a footballcoach (or their philosophy of how to play the game) lack creativity and the will to learn. my point is only that i'd rather not generalize the idea that spelled out goals or the act of spelling out goals only helps young coaches.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 12:26:05 GMT -6
I think we have all chased our tails enough here fellas. I am tapping out of this part of the discussion-- coachb0 is talking about trading up in the draft and 33coach is going Big Bang Theory/Sheldon Cooper on me
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 12:26:13 GMT -6
Understanding these goals may be useful in helping a young coach understand what it takes to play good football but does a goals chart really do anything for the kids? Does a goals chart really change anything that you were going to do? If you didn't have a square to mark off that said "Hold the opponent to under 100 yards rushing" would you not know that you need to stop the run? i explicitely and consciously didnt define a goal as a spelled out thing. it is more of a thing that constitutes acts, so if you decide what to do in the next practice, there is a goal behind it, working towards completing a task in the game. so we all have goals, not just young coaches. i also happen to think that a lot of older/more experienced coaches that already formed their personality as a footballcoach (or their philosophy of how to play the game) lack creativity and the will to learn. my point is only that i'd rather not generalize the idea that spelled out goals or the act of spelling out goals only helps young coaches. So, young creative coach, tell me a metric that you've learned that will change the way that you practice. Maybe you can help me learn something.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 5, 2014 12:29:40 GMT -6
I think we have all chased our tails enough here fellas. I am tapping out of this part of the discussion-- coachb0 is talking about trading up in the draft and 33coach is going Big Bang Theory/Sheldon Cooper on me Rule #1: dont lump math geeks and physics geeks in the same category. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 12:33:57 GMT -6
Well, i was a Comp sci major and math minor, I work as a web application developer, and a lot of my time is spent in business intelligence. so im not sure id fit in at a DOE job ;-). No, that is EXACTLY my point. And ironically enough, I think it somewhat goes with this discussion as well. Currently in education, it is all about things that don't actually fit education. However, the "business metric" people are "reforming" education through a lovely square peg/round hole process. here lies the misunderstanding. stats and metrics can help education if you interpret it right. say some new technique of teaching has a better score in test 80% of the time - we should think it is rational to help johnny, too. but maybe we don't know that johnny is part of the a 20% minority that this technique, which is for visual learners, doesn't apply, because johnny as the other 20% are auditory learners. the stats are still true, you just had to do some more research to apply it in the right way. and there is the fundamental difference. if all stats say you wing most of the games if your TOP is higher than your opponents, there is no way to argue that. you can differ in your way to approach it as a goal (as you did, when you say the goals of 33coach can be applied to other philosophies as well). what the critique is, is how to interpret the stats and how to apply the tasks we articulate by interpreting the stats. still nothing wrong with stats..
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 12:38:21 GMT -6
i explicitely and consciously didnt define a goal as a spelled out thing. it is more of a thing that constitutes acts, so if you decide what to do in the next practice, there is a goal behind it, working towards completing a task in the game. so we all have goals, not just young coaches. i also happen to think that a lot of older/more experienced coaches that already formed their personality as a footballcoach (or their philosophy of how to play the game) lack creativity and the will to learn. my point is only that i'd rather not generalize the idea that spelled out goals or the act of spelling out goals only helps young coaches. So, young creative coach, tell me a metric that you've learned that will change the way that you practice. Maybe you can help me learn something. never said that - it's what you exaggerated. i said it does not neccessarily holds true that only young coaches benefit from looking at metrics.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 12:39:03 GMT -6
No, that is EXACTLY my point. And ironically enough, I think it somewhat goes with this discussion as well. Currently in education, it is all about things that don't actually fit education. However, the "business metric" people are "reforming" education through a lovely square peg/round hole process. here lies the misunderstanding. stats and metrics can help education if you interpret it right. say some new technique of teaching has a better score in test 80% of the time - we should think it is rational to help johnny, too. but maybe we don't know that johnny is part of the a 20% minority that this technique, which is for visual learners, doesn't apply, because johnny as the other 20% are auditory learners. the stats are still true, you just had to do some more research to apply it in the right way. and there is the fundamental difference. if all stats say you wing most of the games if your TOP is higher than your opponents, there is no way to argue that. you can differ in your way to approach it as a goal (as you did, when you say the goals of 33coach can be applied to other philosophies as well). what the critique is, is how to interpret the stats and how to apply the tasks we articulate by interpreting the stats. still nothing wrong with stats.. And that enlarged portion shows why they fail--- because the definition of the goal (much like our discussion here) is different.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Mar 5, 2014 12:45:24 GMT -6
here lies the misunderstanding. stats and metrics can help education if you interpret it right. say some new technique of teaching has a better score in test 80% of the time - we should think it is rational to help johnny, too. but maybe we don't know that johnny is part of the a 20% minority that this technique, which is for visual learners, doesn't apply, because johnny as the other 20% are auditory learners. the stats are still true, you just had to do some more research to apply it in the right way. and there is the fundamental difference. if all stats say you wing most of the games if your TOP is higher than your opponents, there is no way to argue that. you can differ in your way to approach it as a goal (as you did, when you say the goals of 33coach can be applied to other philosophies as well). what the critique is, is how to interpret the stats and how to apply the tasks we articulate by interpreting the stats. still nothing wrong with stats.. And that enlarged portion shows why they fail--- because the definition of the goal (much like our discussion here) is different. i chose the example because your declared goal was winning that i thought is analogous to "winning" a test. what is your definition of goal then?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2014 12:49:23 GMT -6
And that enlarged portion shows why they fail--- because the definition of the goal (much like our discussion here) is different. i chose the example because your declared goal was winning that i thought is analogous to "winning" a test. what is your definition of goal then? No coach.. my point is that the definition of the goal of EDUCATION ... is not best measured by a test. Square peg, round hole, but make it work so we can get metrics on it!!!!! That was my point. We have thoroughly derailed this thread, and for my part in this I apologize to the original poster.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Mar 5, 2014 15:15:39 GMT -6
When I first saw this thread I also thought it was just another thread about stats and goals. When I read it later, when I had more time, a few things hit me: 1. The "never punt" and "onside kick" crowd often say that field position doesn't matter but it does. It's harder to drive 80 yards than 60 and it's harder to drive 60 than 40. So, if you want to risk going for it on 4th and 4 on your 30, knock yourself out. I'm punting the ball and making you work for points. 2. As a DC, I hope that a lot of guys misunderstand the part about explosive plays. I count on their impatience. If you don't have an explosive player, though, an OC has to be patient and be ready to punish the defense when they lose their own patience and make a mistake. The importance of explosive plays has made me a patient, cautious DC. It's why all of our blitz game is zone blitz and have eliminated man blitzes. Yes.. one very "dangerous" aspect about trying to use statistics such as these to drive any type of thinking is that often these statistics are cumulative in nature. (I am not sure I am expressing this properly). In football, the objective is to win THAT game. Period. The "percentages" from such studies/reports usually represent overarching numbers---but the actual probabilities change from game to game. Games are FINITE--the probabilities/percentages don't necessarily recognize that fact. It is similar to ring/cash poker vs tournament poker. You see MUCH MORE conservative play and playing by the percentages in cash games because they theoretically don't end. Tournaments have a time structure (increasing blinds) and a finite end point which changes the percentages. The statistics being discussed in this forum are rather rudimentary. They're mostly descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode) that only begin to describe a data set, not determine its validity. Once you move beyond this, there are ways to determine significance of a data set. And, things such as down, distance, time left, etc. can be figured in as independent variables (IV), and their effect on the outcome that you're seeking, in this case, victories, AKA the dependent variable (DV). Each IV can be measured for its significance on the DV, and it can also be measured for its significance on other IVs. Someone earlier mentioned the Romer paper ("Do Firms Maximize?") about the kicking game in the NFL. I've read this paper. Professor Romer delivers his significant results in a way that most scientists deliver significant results, by suggesting that they have some applicability to them. However, he can't conclusively say that they prove anything, b/c they don't. There is no way to prove a hypothesis test of this nature. The reason I mention this is that I've never heard him interpret the results from his paper outside of the paper. I've only heard others offer their interpretation of his results. What I'm saying is that they're focusing in on this idea that kicking is bad, and they're running w/ it. This isn't what the data suggested. The data suggests that there are multi-faceted reasons for why some coaches will make statistically incorrect decisions in certain situations. Professor Romer clearly took the external validity of his results in mind. He realized that his findings weren't necessarily generalizable to the population as a whole. Others who have read this document and suggested otherwise are misinterpreting the results.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 5, 2014 21:56:58 GMT -6
Yes.. one very "dangerous" aspect about trying to use statistics such as these to drive any type of thinking is that often these statistics are cumulative in nature. (I am not sure I am expressing this properly). In football, the objective is to win THAT game. Period. The "percentages" from such studies/reports usually represent overarching numbers---but the actual probabilities change from game to game. Games are FINITE--the probabilities/percentages don't necessarily recognize that fact. It is similar to ring/cash poker vs tournament poker. You see MUCH MORE conservative play and playing by the percentages in cash games because they theoretically don't end. Tournaments have a time structure (increasing blinds) and a finite end point which changes the percentages. The statistics being discussed in this forum are rather rudimentary. They're mostly descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode) that only begin to describe a data set, not determine its validity. Once you move beyond this, there are ways to determine significance of a data set. And, things such as down, distance, time left, etc. can be figured in as independent variables (IV), and their effect on the outcome that you're seeking, in this case, victories, AKA the dependent variable (DV). Each IV can be measured for its significance on the DV, and it can also be measured for its significance on other IVs. Someone earlier mentioned the Romer paper ("Do Firms Maximize?") about the kicking game in the NFL. I've read this paper. Professor Romer delivers his significant results in a way that most scientists deliver significant results, by suggesting that they have some applicability to them. However, he can't conclusively say that they prove anything, b/c they don't. There is no way to prove a hypothesis test of this nature. The reason I mention this is that I've never heard him interpret the results from his paper outside of the paper. I've only heard others offer their interpretation of his results. What I'm saying is that they're focusing in on this idea that kicking is bad, and they're running w/ it. This isn't what the data suggested. The data suggests that there are multi-faceted reasons for why some coaches will make statistically incorrect decisions in certain situations. Professor Romer clearly took the external validity of his results in mind. He realized that his findings weren't necessarily generalizable to the population as a whole. Others who have read this document and suggested otherwise are misinterpreting the results. I understand that (Well, not the math stuff. I don't understand ANY of that). Of course the blurb on the first article that I read on this said, "Want to win a state championship? Don't punt.".
|
|