|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 28, 2015 16:25:02 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. i think we are about to spin this thread off into a "Moneyball" thread
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 28, 2015 16:32:58 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. And you do what with this number? I think the idea would be to find the optimal group of players. run specific stats per player in a equasion to figure out who to start etc etc etc. I've never seen an equation like that for football (but ive done pretty extensive Sabermetrics work), there is no OBP or SLG (SA)..or their sum OPS equivalent in football per position. the difference with football and baseball (aside from everything) is that the same offensive variables and metrics can be used for every position in baseball. that is not the case in football. you wouldnt give an offensive linemen a QB rating..etc.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 28, 2015 16:37:28 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. i think we are about to spin this thread off into a "Moneyball" thread I can see that and not my intention. We're all looking to get something out of this data. My point is that some people get this data in different ways, not so mathematically deliberate, and can come up with the same conclusion Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 28, 2015 17:01:36 GMT -6
i think we are about to spin this thread off into a "Moneyball" thread I can see that and not my intention. We're all looking to get something out of this data. My point is that some people get this data in different ways, not so mathematically deliberate, and can come up with the same conclusion Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards i 100% get what you are saying i was just adding a little humor i think you see this a lot when replacing players after graduation and little changes in emphasis/focus in an offense for example you might graduate a superstar RB you are NEVER going to replace that kid, so you make up for the production in other areas in the movie moneyball they could never replace a jason giambi 38 homer, 120 RBI kind of guy... so they made up for him in other areas to put it back into a real life example for my team we graduate a playmaker... he played WR/RB/wing for us... very dynamic athlete that was the 2nd best player on our team (besides the kid going to bama) i am not going to find a kid who could do what he could do in both his skill sets (equally good at WR, RB, blocking and rushing from our wing set) but i can replicate his numbers through multiple players i have a kid who can be as good as him as a WR, another who can be as explosive as a RB, and another who can block as good as him those 3 kids (who i have already identified) need to as a whole contribute as much or more to our offense as the graduating senior did #moneyball
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 28, 2015 17:05:34 GMT -6
I can see that and not my intention. We're all looking to get something out of this data. My point is that some people get this data in different ways, not so mathematically deliberate, and can come up with the same conclusion Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards i 100% get what you are saying i was just adding a little humor i think you see this a lot when replacing players after graduation and little changes in emphasis/focus in an offense for example you might graduate a superstar RB you are NEVER going to replace that kid, so you make up for the production in other areas in the movie moneyball they could never replace a jason giambi 38 homer, 120 RBI kind of guy... so they made up for him in other areas to put it back into a real life example for my team we graduate a playmaker... he played WR/RB/wing for us... very dynamic athlete that was the 2nd best player on our team (besides the kid going to bama) i am not going to find a kid who could do what he could do in both his skill sets (equally good at WR, RB, blocking and rushing from our wing set) but i can replicate his numbers through multiple players i have a kid who can be as good as him as a WR, another who can be as explosive as a RB, and another who can block as good as him those 3 kids (who i have already identified) need to as a whole contribute as much or more to our offense as the graduating senior did #moneyball how did you go about identifying those 3 players?
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 28, 2015 17:50:13 GMT -6
i 100% get what you are saying i was just adding a little humor i think you see this a lot when replacing players after graduation and little changes in emphasis/focus in an offense for example you might graduate a superstar RB you are NEVER going to replace that kid, so you make up for the production in other areas in the movie moneyball they could never replace a jason giambi 38 homer, 120 RBI kind of guy... so they made up for him in other areas to put it back into a real life example for my team we graduate a playmaker... he played WR/RB/wing for us... very dynamic athlete that was the 2nd best player on our team (besides the kid going to bama) i am not going to find a kid who could do what he could do in both his skill sets (equally good at WR, RB, blocking and rushing from our wing set) but i can replicate his numbers through multiple players i have a kid who can be as good as him as a WR, another who can be as explosive as a RB, and another who can block as good as him those 3 kids (who i have already identified) need to as a whole contribute as much or more to our offense as the graduating senior did #moneyball how did you go about identifying those 3 players? ah i knew i would get called out on that i could tell you just from observation that they have the skills to be as good, but looking further into data Kid 1 - backup WR on varsity this year, his yards per target were about the same just didnt throw it to him a ton last year kid 2- our JV RB last year, if stats JV HC gave me are accurate his yards/carry as just as explosive and in his limited varsity carries (4 carries for just over 100 yards) he proved to be EXPLOSIVE. Track star kid that can score a TD any time he gets a crease) kid 3 -wing - one of our backup RBs last year on varsity, good ypc in the touches he got, not the speed homerun threat, but more than capable of churning out 1st downs and a VERY physical/willing blocker... this one is a little more gut based than number based, i do not know how to put a really good quantitative value on blocking but judging from observation he is a very strong kid who has shown the ability to block at the varsity level as well as run the ball with some success) so it is a mix of my observation of what they have done, what they have shown the ability to do, with a dash of statistical analysis thrown in to verify that yeah they should be able to produce (i hope)
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 28, 2015 18:19:02 GMT -6
kid 2- our JV RB last year, if stats JV HC gave me are accurate his yards/carry as just as explosive and in his limited varsity carries (4 carries for just over 100 yards) he proved to be EXPLOSIVE. Track star kid that can score a TD any time he gets a crease) You needed metrics to tell you that a kid who averaged 25 yds. per rush has a chance to be good?
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 28, 2015 18:38:47 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. And you do what with this number? Absolutely nothing. If I was an NFL GM comparing free agents, trying to get an edge and maybe save some money then I would. I don't think there's any magic formula or number that will tell us what is most important and will lead to more victories. Too many variables, even more so at the HS level, but it sounds like there's coaches searching for that magic number.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 28, 2015 19:50:22 GMT -6
kid 2- our JV RB last year, if stats JV HC gave me are accurate his yards/carry as just as explosive and in his limited varsity carries (4 carries for just over 100 yards) he proved to be EXPLOSIVE. Track star kid that can score a TD any time he gets a crease) You needed metrics to tell you that a kid who averaged 25 yds. per rush has a chance to be good? no i knew he was good/explosive/fast just watching him at practice i know he can go to the house any time he touches the ball the fact that he averaged 25 yards a carry in his 4 varsity touches validated yeah he's good my description above was more thinking out loud making a moneyball/statistical analysis comparison to my real life team
|
|
|
Post by runitupthemiddle on Dec 28, 2015 20:40:37 GMT -6
thats a very high level and simplistic view. working in the corporate world has taught me one thing, metrics matter. sure, you could answer the question "why did the shop close?" with "they didnt make enough money." - but more accurately you would say "well they lost 300,000 in stolen items". or "a fire broke out in their distribution center, and that forced them to take a reduced amount of orders". is the outcome the same? yes. but knowing WHY is very important.... As I stated, the WHY is gained via actually watching the players in the game. lochness 's posts sum up the rest quite nicely. Your corporate analogy is inaccurate because a football team is not a large enough operation to need such analysis. The corporate metrics you mention would be used by a CEO in NY making decisions for 100+ storefronts nationwide because he is not in each store each day. Such is not (or rather SHOULD not) be the case with football success. Every negative piece of data is the product of what you watch on film. That is one reason why I got away from "grading". Watch film, yes. Watch to perform as best as you can, absolutely. But what good does is a grade if one week a player steps with the correct foot, has great pad level, brings his hips and punches and effectively blocks the 3, and the next week he steps with the correct foot, has great pad level, brings his hips, punches and gets stoned by the kid LSU and Bama are fighting over. Data is just a numerical representation of that. Just grade effort U know for film if he stepped right or not if u have skybcoach or echo u know it immediately and the kid does too Effort effort effort Line up correctly Come off the ball hard First 3 steps correct Effort effort and jimmy and joes after that and can they take advantage of what your opponent does on o or d, which is the coaches job to figure out Measurables Third down Plus minus in turnovers Red zone Those are the 3 most important If u aren't very good on defense then I would also add time of possesion
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Dec 28, 2015 20:56:02 GMT -6
And you do what with this number? I think the idea would be to find the optimal group of players. run specific stats per player in a equasion to figure out who to start etc etc etc. I've never seen an equation like that for football (but ive done pretty extensive Sabermetrics work), there is no OBP or SLG (SA)..or their sum OPS equivalent in football per position. the difference with football and baseball (aside from everything) is that the same offensive variables and metrics can be used for every position in baseball. that is not the case in football. you wouldnt give an offensive linemen a QB rating..etc. Now we are maybe getting somewhere with this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 29, 2015 12:38:55 GMT -6
Lots of talk of "data" and "analysis" in this thread. My thoughts in the original post were to question the need/fascination with what I considered "metrics" meaning data that measures the performance of your team in a way other than the scoreboard. It is those things (points per play, points per possession, Rushing yards per play, any type of ""efficiency" report etc.) I just don't see how any of that provides stuff that makes you BETTER. It is just a different way of telling you that you did well, or you sucked. That kind of data seems useful for sportscasters and bookies. Those pieces of data may be useful for PREDICTING a winner, but not for becoming one.
Some have talked about the corporate world and made analogies there, but I don't think they fit. Corporate measurements are evaluated by people who are not on site. They don't see the operations first hand daily. A shift manager at McDonald's doesn't need to review drive thru time metrics to see an employee making a mistake and correcting it. Now, one could argue that such data would help the shift manager evaluate what he is teaching the employee, and that would have some merit. But my counter argument is that TIME itself has evaluated the "curriculum" so to speak. So unless you are inventing your own offense or defense, you pretty much can go with the flow and be confident that if you can get _______ (fill in position) to do ________ ( fill in task) better than the other guy, you will have success.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 29, 2015 14:27:27 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. I think there's more to baseball metrics than that. From a moneyball perspective, yeah, they were trying to identify unique formulas around deeper or less commonly used statistics to try to tell the story of a player's value in a way that other teams weren't seeing. But the use of stats in baseball goes further - pitcher performance under specific circumstances (day/night, LH/RH, at certain pitch counts), batter performance specific circumstances (count, situations - risp, close and late, LH/RH, etc. and so forth). Sometimes that can inform you of something a player should work on - Joe Shmoe is batting .380 early in the count so maybe that's a guy who you don't want automatically taking a strike. One of the more controversial aspects in MLB has been around statistics and in-game decision making - the "old school managers" who eyeball a pitcher and leave him in based on a gut feeling (cough-Grady Little-cough) vs. the "new school" manager who knows from statistical analysis that all season Pedro's numbers got putrid quickly after 100 pitches. Some level of statistical analysis ultimately changed the landscape in basketball - Rick Pitino figured out early on that shooting 33% from 3 = 50% from 2. Seems simple now, but I was playing then, and it was a revolutionary thought that many coaches of that day shied away from. Then Providence bombed (and pressed) their way to the final 4 with a team that was less talented, and eyes were opened. I'm sure he had some kind of statistical analysis around his pressure D as well. I started to think about football metrics reading this thread. I can think of one right off the bat - the when to go for 2 chart. That is completely based on a statistical analysis. I'm sure there are more. I'm sure the no-punt/always on-sides guy has all kinds of statistics to back up his approach. That said, as has been pointed out, many of those metrics are going to change over time based on your team's talent and your opposition. And then, even if you DO have "relevant" metrics that apply to your team, you have the fact that none of these numbers can tell you whether a specific decision at a specific point in time during a game will work out for you or not, only that it should work a certain percentage of the time and do X for you over the long haul. As has been said - you can get statistics to tell you anything you want. The trick is to find ones that have meaning, and that you can then put in the right context to apply to your situation.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 29, 2015 14:57:51 GMT -6
Lots of talk of "data" and "analysis" in this thread. My thoughts in the original post were to question the need/fascination with what I considered "metrics" meaning data that measures the performance of your team in a way other than the scoreboard. It is those things (points per play, points per possession, Rushing yards per play, any type of ""efficiency" report etc.) I just don't see how any of that provides stuff that makes you BETTER. It is just a different way of telling you that you did well, or you sucked. That kind of data seems useful for sportscasters and bookies. Those pieces of data may be useful for PREDICTING a winner, but not for becoming one. Here's an example - I'm sure there are statistics around on-sides kicking. I'd imagine that you could take a butt-load of numbers like defensive points per possession factoring in starting field position compared to average kick-off return compared to offensive points per possession or whatever, and you could probably generate some statistic that would tell you at what point it's worth ditching the kick-off for on-sides kicks. That might help you decide what to do in years where you don't have a kicker who can reach the end zone on kick-offs. Or the numbers may show you it doesn't matter, you are better off doing X no matter what. Again - this won't tell you how the next kick is going to impact your current game. You'll just know that over a season you should score X amount of points more if you recover Y% of those kicks vs. kicking deep. Up to you to decide what to do with those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 29, 2015 20:49:11 GMT -6
You guys keep working on your metrics on points per possession, onside kick effectiveness and play efficiency. I'll be in the weight room and in the meeting rooms getting my guys hungry, strong, and sound.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 29, 2015 20:56:54 GMT -6
Not mutually exclusive coach.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 29, 2015 21:46:53 GMT -6
Not mutually exclusive coach. Perhaps not, but there's only so many hours in a day. I know where I want to allocate my time. Maybe someone will put a metric together that compares time spent on player development vs time spent on metrics analysis and which pursuit more positively impacts team performance. I'd actually be interested in looking at that.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 29, 2015 22:07:10 GMT -6
I have absolutely no doubt that player development is more valuable in high school football than any type of statistical analysis, scheme, etc. to me it's the single most important factor in developing a great prigram.
But I find it very hard to believe that anybody is doing a statistical analysis at the expense of having their kids lifting weights or teaching their scheme to their players. The school I coach at is the best in our area in the weight room every single year. We also run our base scheme on both sides of the ball as much as anybody in our area. We also look at statistics to see if we can find anything to help us do things better. They aren't mutually exclusive things.
So I can't get to the conclusion that you appear to be advocating that because one thing is most valuable that makes the other things worthless or not worth putting time into.
Do I use every metric that has been put forward in this thread? No, not even close. But if looking at these various metrics leads coaches in a direction that lets them improve the way they do things then the time spent is worthwhile. I don't think anybody in this thread is advocating blowing off player development, if they are I couldn't disagree with them more.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 30, 2015 7:30:14 GMT -6
I have absolutely no doubt that player development is more valuable in high school football than any type of statistical analysis, scheme, etc. to me it's the single most important factor in developing a great prigram. But I find it very hard to believe that anybody is doing a statistical analysis at the expense of having their kids lifting weights or teaching their scheme to their players. The school I coach at is the best in our area in the weight room every single year. We also run our base scheme on both sides of the ball as much as anybody in our area. We also look at statistics to see if we can find anything to help us do things better. They aren't mutually exclusive things. So I can't get to the conclusion that you appear to be advocating that because one thing is most valuable that makes the other things worthless or not worth putting time into. Do I use every metric that has been put forward in this thread? No, not even close. But if looking at these various metrics leads coaches in a direction that lets them improve the way they do things then the time spent is worthwhile. I don't think anybody in this thread is advocating blowing off player development, if they are I couldn't disagree with them more. How have you applied a metric to measurably improve your team in a way that couldn't be observed through watching film? This is the question nobody has answered yet in four pages. I don't mean to insult anyone's methods...but it just seems like a waste of time designed to make everyone feel like a hard worker who is on the cutting edge as opposed to something that produces actual meaningful results for a program.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 30, 2015 8:14:41 GMT -6
I think my view of metrics differs from some of you because I'm a baseball guy. To me metrics is using several different stats, coming up with a formula that makes that final number usable for a purpose. A common example is OPS (On Base % + Slugging). So in football I consider metrics along the lines of a stat like QB rating, but somehow coming up with a RB raiting, or Oline rating using mitiple stats into a formula to come up with 1 number. I think there's more to baseball metrics than that. From a moneyball perspective, yeah, they were trying to identify unique formulas around deeper or less commonly used statistics to try to tell the story of a player's value in a way that other teams weren't seeing. But the use of stats in baseball goes further - pitcher performance under specific circumstances (day/night, LH/RH, at certain pitch counts), batter performance specific circumstances (count, situations - risp, close and late, LH/RH, etc. and so forth). Sometimes that can inform you of something a player should work on - Joe Shmoe is batting .380 early in the count so maybe that's a guy who you don't want automatically taking a strike. One of the more controversial aspects in MLB has been around statistics and in-game decision making - the "old school managers" who eyeball a pitcher and leave him in based on a gut feeling (cough-Grady Little-cough) vs. the "new school" manager who knows from statistical analysis that all season Pedro's numbers got putrid quickly after 100 pitches. Some level of statistical analysis ultimately changed the landscape in basketball - Rick Pitino figured out early on that shooting 33% from 3 = 50% from 2. Seems simple now, but I was playing then, and it was a revolutionary thought that many coaches of that day shied away from. Then Providence bombed (and pressed) their way to the final 4 with a team that was less talented, and eyes were opened. I'm sure he had some kind of statistical analysis around his pressure D as well. I started to think about football metrics reading this thread. I can think of one right off the bat - the when to go for 2 chart. That is completely based on a statistical analysis. I'm sure there are more. I'm sure the no-punt/always on-sides guy has all kinds of statistics to back up his approach. That said, as has been pointed out, many of those metrics are going to change over time based on your team's talent and your opposition. And then, even if you DO have "relevant" metrics that apply to your team, you have the fact that none of these numbers can tell you whether a specific decision at a specific point in time during a game will work out for you or not, only that it should work a certain percentage of the time and do X for you over the long haul. As has been said - you can get statistics to tell you anything you want. The trick is to find ones that have meaning, and that you can then put in the right context to apply to your situation. There's a lot more, but I was giving a basic example. I coach HS baseball not MLB. My pitchers stats vs. lefties in a 2-1 count in weather under 55 degrees at night time is useless for me because the sample size would be too small.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 30, 2015 8:18:35 GMT -6
I think there's more to baseball metrics than that. There's a lot more, but I was giving a basic example. I coach HS baseball not MLB. My pitchers stats vs. lefties in weather under 55 degrees at night time is useless for me because the sample size would be too low. Yeah, I understand that. Much, much different. And different for football too - much like every other aspect of HS sports vs. college or pro sports...
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 30, 2015 8:21:48 GMT -6
There's a lot more, but I was giving a basic example. I coach HS baseball not MLB. My pitchers stats vs. lefties in weather under 55 degrees at night time is useless for me because the sample size would be too low. Yeah, I understand that. Much, much different. And different for football too - much like every other aspect of HS sports vs. college or pro sports... And I think that ties in to this thread. Metrics are far less valuable in football for reasons several posters have stated already and also the level of play is a major factor as well. The lower the level the less relevants these numbers have because the number of variables goes way up.
|
|
|
Post by 19Gate83 on Dec 30, 2015 8:30:55 GMT -6
The only Metrics formula I/we use is:
Power Quotient Predictor Vertical Jump X Body Weight = SUM take Square Root of SUM 80% or better
I got this from Mike Lombardi when he was a Scout and I was an assistant at SWT. It measures an athletes explosive power.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 30, 2015 8:32:47 GMT -6
And what do you do with that? How does calculating that metric help your team score more points or give up fewer points?
|
|
|
Post by 19Gate83 on Dec 30, 2015 8:55:42 GMT -6
Puts players in best positions to help us win. Also allows us to emphasize the importance that the weight room plays in our being a better team. Motivates the players to work harder. Other than that...nothing!
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 30, 2015 8:58:05 GMT -6
I have absolutely no doubt that player development is more valuable in high school football than any type of statistical analysis, scheme, etc. to me it's the single most important factor in developing a great prigram. But I find it very hard to believe that anybody is doing a statistical analysis at the expense of having their kids lifting weights or teaching their scheme to their players. The school I coach at is the best in our area in the weight room every single year. We also run our base scheme on both sides of the ball as much as anybody in our area. We also look at statistics to see if we can find anything to help us do things better. They aren't mutually exclusive things. So I can't get to the conclusion that you appear to be advocating that because one thing is most valuable that makes the other things worthless or not worth putting time into. Do I use every metric that has been put forward in this thread? No, not even close. But if looking at these various metrics leads coaches in a direction that lets them improve the way they do things then the time spent is worthwhile. I don't think anybody in this thread is advocating blowing off player development, if they are I couldn't disagree with them more. How have you applied a metric to measurably improve your team in a way that couldn't be observed through watching film? This is the question nobody has answered yet in four pages. I don't mean to insult anyone's methods...but it just seems like a waste of time designed to make everyone feel like a hard worker who is on the cutting edge as opposed to something that produces actual meaningful results for a program. The data that I look at has the biggest impact on how we do things the following year are the frequency with which we saw certain run and pass concepts the previous year. This has a huge impact on the structure of our spring practices because I wasn't tp practice against the stuff people were actually calling against us. I'll give you an example of something we actually changed based on this data collection. We are a Cover 3 defense so we have always operated under the assumption that we should spend our spring and summer working on defending 4 verticals and Flood concepts a ton, because those are some of your common "cover 3 beaters". As it turns out, we rarely see Flood anymore for whatever reason but that trend has held for several years, so we quit spending a bunch of time on it. We also almost never saw 4 verticals out of 2X2 so we don't spend nearly as much time on that as we do 3X1 verticals. I don't know that I can prove that this made us a better team any more than we could prove that practicing on a Tuesday helps you get better for a Friday game, but I think we'd all agree that practicing against the plays you see is a good idea, that's why we watch scout film.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 30, 2015 9:10:46 GMT -6
How have you applied a metric to measurably improve your team in a way that couldn't be observed through watching film? This is the question nobody has answered yet in four pages. I don't mean to insult anyone's methods...but it just seems like a waste of time designed to make everyone feel like a hard worker who is on the cutting edge as opposed to something that produces actual meaningful results for a program. The data that I look at has the biggest impact on how we do things the following year are the frequency with which we saw certain run and pass concepts the previous year. This has a huge impact on the structure of our spring practices because I wasn't tp practice against the stuff people were actually calling against us. I'll give you an example of something we actually changed based on this data collection. We are a Cover 3 defense so we have always operated under the assumption that we should spend our spring and summer working on defending 4 verticals and Flood concepts a ton, because those are some of your common "cover 3 beaters". As it turns out, we rarely see Flood anymore for whatever reason but that trend has held for several years, so we quit spending a bunch of time on it. We also almost never saw 4 verticals out of 2X2 so we don't spend nearly as much time on that as we do 3X1 verticals. I don't know that I can prove that this made us a better team any more than we could prove that practicing on a Tuesday helps you get better for a Friday game, but I think we'd all agree that practicing against the plays you see is a good idea, that's why we watch scout film. This is a great post. Most every coach would agree that is good coaching. But that is scouting or film review. Not metrics in the sense of what the OP is talking about metrics.
|
|
|
Post by bignose on Dec 30, 2015 9:11:26 GMT -6
re: Metrics Looking to find some useful data for comparison purposes are things like:
yards per carry-if you have 3 running backs, who has the best ypc ? Should that kid get more touches?
completion percentage/yards per completion- if you are completing 50% of your passes, (and you are averaging 8 yards per carry running the ball), you better be averaging 16 yards per reception, or you are better off continuing to run the ball.
turnovers: fumbles, interceptions-if your best ypc kid is also most likely to fumble, what is the risk vs. the reward? Does giving him the ball more give a diminishing return?
|
|
|
Post by 19Gate83 on Dec 30, 2015 9:33:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Dec 30, 2015 10:24:37 GMT -6
I think everyone here is in agreement that information is only as good as what you do with it.
Every time I see something like "pass concepts encountered during a season" or "zone targeted for highest completion percentage" it is followed by "That's film evaluation, not metrics." So, I don't know what metrics are. I do think some data is far more useful than other data. So, I can understand when coaches laugh over some young guy boasting about his points per possession. But, I also understand how someone could use that information to determine if his defense is still as effective as it used to be, but other factors are effecting the total score.
One thing I think that needs to get clarified is the idea that guys who like to accrue data are spending hours in a dungeon with an abacus figuring this stuff out. I can pull up some of these obscure metrics that I don't even care about in a matter of seconds just by using Excel or Hudl. I'm not sacrificing hours in the weight room with my team by looking up points per possession. I'm taking the total number of points allowed on the season and dividing them up by a single number of possessions during a game or a season. It takes five minutes tops. If I wanted to know how many yards my running back got on days where he ate a ham sandwich versus days he didn't eat a sandwich at all, it takes a couple of stupid questions and two minutes of long addition. Can we stop pretending that pro-metrics guys are spending weeks at a time figuring this stuff out?
|
|