|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 8, 2016 9:24:34 GMT -6
You play to WIN the game, not to lose by a socially acceptable margin. I like this last line and I think that puts the thought process in perspective of many coaches. Some play loose some play conservatively. Was sitting at a state game this year, team scores with under 2 minutes to go, up 7. They have a choice to make, kick the EP or go for 2. Coaches in the stands were arguing over it (granted we were in the stands...) and most said kick the EP to go up 8. I said go for 2 because you are now up 2 scores, the EP keeps it one score all be it an 8 point lead. I really believe the decision to kick for 1 and theoretically go up by 8 was driven by being easily defensible if the other team ties it up or you miss and they score go for 2 than it is to publicly defend going for 2, missing it and the other team going for 2 and getting it to win. While both arguments were somewhat based on math (8 vs 9, MAYBE the probability of getting an EP over a 2 pt conversion...which at that point in that offense were about even) but I believe more so based on public perception if things went sideways.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jan 8, 2016 12:16:01 GMT -6
The data might show that on 4th and 1 inch, sneak is by far the best play. Sounds great. But what happens when my backup 165 pound center is in and playing against a 300 pound noseguard who has been offered by Bama? There ain't no data for that. there is actually. because looking further into the data you might actually find something like this: "on 4th and 1 with the starting offensive line - QB Sneak is 78% effective in getting the first down" " when the backup center is in, and facing a starting nose - efficiency drops 12%" " when the backup center is in, and facing any nose double his weight - efficiency drops "28%" it all depends on how deep, and how many variables you want to track. the only time "there is no data" is when your variable X (in this case the center) has never been reported on...which is failing of the staff, because by the time the kid is a varsity player, he should have some data to suggest his ability in various situations. and if there is no data, he probably shouldnt be the backup.....
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 8, 2016 12:25:12 GMT -6
The data might show that on 4th and 1 inch, sneak is by far the best play. Sounds great. But what happens when my backup 165 pound center is in and playing against a 300 pound noseguard who has been offered by Bama? There ain't no data for that. there is actually. because looking further into the data you might actually find something like this: "on 4th and 1 with the starting offensive line - QB Sneak is 78% effective in getting the first down" " when the backup center is in, and facing a starting nose - efficiency drops 12%" " when the backup center is in, and facing any nose double his weight - efficiency drops "28%" it all depends on how deep, and how many variables you want to track. the only time "there is no data" is when your variable X (in this case the center) has never been reported on...which is failing of the staff, because by the time the kid is a varsity player, he should have some data to suggest his ability in various situations. and if there is no data, he probably shouldnt be the backup..... How big is your staff? Who's going to fill in this data in-season?
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jan 8, 2016 12:30:48 GMT -6
there is actually. because looking further into the data you might actually find something like this: "on 4th and 1 with the starting offensive line - QB Sneak is 78% effective in getting the first down" " when the backup center is in, and facing a starting nose - efficiency drops 12%" " when the backup center is in, and facing any nose double his weight - efficiency drops "28%" it all depends on how deep, and how many variables you want to track. the only time "there is no data" is when your variable X (in this case the center) has never been reported on...which is failing of the staff, because by the time the kid is a varsity player, he should have some data to suggest his ability in various situations. and if there is no data, he probably shouldnt be the backup..... How big is your staff? Who's going to fill in this data in-season? i dont think its any more work then you already do, you know the reported weights / heights of your opponenet, you know the play called, the personnel in.... its not that much more to tie that all together.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 8, 2016 12:39:43 GMT -6
How big is your staff? Who's going to fill in this data in-season? i dont think its any more work then you already do, you know the reported weights / heights of your opponenet, you know the play called, the personnel in.... its not that much more to tie that all together. Is that really data or metrics? Seems to me that it just supports the OP's point that most "metrics" could be discerned by watching film and knowing your team and the opponent?
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jan 8, 2016 12:49:09 GMT -6
i dont think its any more work then you already do, you know the reported weights / heights of your opponenet, you know the play called, the personnel in.... its not that much more to tie that all together. Is that really data or metrics? Seems to me that it just supports the OP's point that most "metrics" could be discerned by watching film and knowing your team and the opponent? i feel like there is a misunderstanding of what "metrics and data" are. so ill kind of talk through the process that i use in my world..... Take data input (from any source) -> analyze data -> report on analysis -> build metrics based on those reports -> build KPI's around the success of past metrics. thats the data lifecycle. that data typically comes from 3 sources: -- historical - film / stat sheets -- real time - in game - your eyes and your coaches communication -- Future - Scouting Reports / Rosters watching film is data input.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 8, 2016 13:17:07 GMT -6
The data might show that on 4th and 1 inch, sneak is by far the best play. Sounds great. But what happens when my backup 165 pound center is in and playing against a 300 pound noseguard who has been offered by Bama? There ain't no data for that. there is actually. because looking further into the data you might actually find something like this: "on 4th and 1 with the starting offensive line - QB Sneak is 78% effective in getting the first down" " when the backup center is in, and facing a starting nose - efficiency drops 12%" " when the backup center is in, and facing any nose double his weight - efficiency drops "28%" it all depends on how deep, and how many variables you want to track. the only time "there is no data" is when your variable X (in this case the center) has never been reported on...which is failing of the staff, because by the time the kid is a varsity player, he should have some data to suggest his ability in various situations. and if there is no data, he probably shouldnt be the backup..... Oh. My bad. I didn't mean there aren't numbers for that. I meant in a sarcastic smart a$$ way, that if you run sneak your qb might never walk again and his momma might come out of the stands and slap you right in front of thousands of people and then the principal might fire you on the spot.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jan 8, 2016 15:54:56 GMT -6
How many of you guys have actually read the paper mentioned about coaches going for it on 4th down more?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jan 8, 2016 20:17:07 GMT -6
Not the one mentioned above, but I'm familiar with Brian Burke's work (not the hockey buffoon), whom I consider to be the leading expert in the field.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 9, 2016 5:15:50 GMT -6
How many of you guys have actually read the paper mentioned about coaches going for it on 4th down more? I've read both of Dr. Romer's papers and various posts over the years from Burke and the crew at afa.com.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Jan 9, 2016 12:59:48 GMT -6
Statistics are like a lightpost to a drunk, used for support not for illumination. - Vin Scully
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 10, 2016 22:11:48 GMT -6
Statistics are like a lightpost to a drunk, used for support not for illumination. - Vin Scully Actually, it was Andrew Lang who first said this. Vin Scully simply reiterated it. Lang was referring to someone untrained in the art of statistical calculations. The full quote was, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamposts - for support rather than illumination."
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Jan 12, 2016 9:00:13 GMT -6
Statistics are like a lightpost to a drunk, used for support not for illumination. - Vin Scully Actually, it was Andrew Lang who first said this. Vin Scully simply reiterated it. Lang was referring to someone untrained in the art of statistical calculations. The full quote was, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamposts - for support rather than illumination." Thank you for the correction. The quote takes on an entirely new connotation when it is said this way.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 12, 2016 16:12:15 GMT -6
Actually, it was Andrew Lang who first said this. Vin Scully simply reiterated it. Lang was referring to someone untrained in the art of statistical calculations. The full quote was, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamposts - for support rather than illumination." Thank you for the correction. The quote takes on an entirely new connotation when it is said this way. I know, right? lol The first time I saw this quote, the preceding three words had been changed. When I saw it in its original form, it made so much more sense.
|
|
|
Post by saltfork on Jan 13, 2016 9:40:17 GMT -6
Stated earlier, scouting (data) is different than metrics. Scouting data is situational, so that you can make predictions on similar situations (3rd & short with 21 pers). The overuse of metrics these days has to do with the differing styles of offenses and how they effect the number of plays and length of the game.
Baylor's defense will have to defend way more plays than Georgia Tech's, which means Baylor's will probably give up more points and more yards, so to level the playing field guys are using yds per play & yds per series and points per play & points per series rather than total yards allowed and total points allowed.
I see the rationale, but it still comes down to wins and losses. Saying "we go fast all the time, no matter what - that's who we are" sounds good, but losing 49-45 too many times just makes you a 5-5 team with good offensive stats. When both sides communicate and the play caller knows when he needs to slow things down, it makes for a much better Win-Loss record. Personal Experience.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 13, 2016 12:14:09 GMT -6
Stated earlier, scouting (data) is different than metrics. Scouting data is situational, so that you can make predictions on similar situations (3rd & short with 21 pers). The overuse of metrics these days has to do with the differing styles of offenses and how they effect the number of plays and length of the game. Baylor's defense will have to defend way more plays than Georgia Tech's, which means Baylor's will probably give up more points and more yards, so to level the playing field guys are using yds per play & yds per series and points per play & points per series rather than total yards allowed and total points allowed. I see the rationale, but it still comes down to wins and losses. Saying "we go fast all the time, no matter what - that's who we are" sounds good, but losing 49-45 too many times just makes you a 5-5 team with good offensive stats. When both sides communicate and the play caller knows when he needs to slow things down, it makes for a much better Win-Loss record. Personal Experience. I think that that was the point that Buddy Ryan was making to Kevin Gilbride although you said it better.m
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 13, 2016 19:28:59 GMT -6
Baylor's defense will have to defend way more plays than Georgia Tech's, which means Baylor's will probably give up more points and more yards, so to level the playing field guys are using yds per play & yds per series and points per play & points per series rather than total yards allowed and total points allowed. It is my contention that this type of metric is useful for commentators, bookies, and someone trying to "objectively" compare two teams. I don't find it is very useful for coaches trying to win each week, and only mildly useful as a post season review
|
|