|
|
Post by coachscdub on Oct 22, 2020 16:07:39 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2020 16:10:38 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know there are entire websites dedicated to such things. Don’t ask me what they are, but they do exist. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 22, 2020 22:15:32 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Oct 23, 2020 5:24:23 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would say the most important is how big is your mom? how big is your dad? were they athletes? |
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Oct 23, 2020 6:23:00 GMT -6
At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would say the most important is how big is your mom? how big is your dad? were they athletes? ^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Oct 23, 2020 6:26:53 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know What is your goal? Are you looking at stats to see what you need to improve on or what? Also, I think a lot of stats can be misleading. Say you are a run/clock control team, and you grind out long drives that eat clock. However your defense sux and the opponent scores with one play every drive. Some will say TOP determines wins, does it really? I was a DC. My stat that I looked at first was missed tackles. Then find out who is missing tackles, can he be improved or does he need replaced? That's just an example of stats that worked for me. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 6:26:59 GMT -6
At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would say the most important is how big is your mom? how big is your dad? were they athletes? Understand the point but not sure I would subscribe to it. I think you can manufacture team wins and success in high school through the weight room. A good example would be @delta19 ‘s son “little delta” Obviously 11 “weight room guys” probably wont beat 11 genetic lottery winners - but in the real world I think you can create those guys at a much higher rate than you happen to get lottery winners on the team Now if the question was analytics that correlate with individual success and playing beyond HS ball, then the genetics would be key |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 9:10:09 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know Getting back to the direction I think the OP wanted this thread to go in- there are several threads on huey that discuss analytics. Invariably, these threads start to point out that analytics for FB are tougher due to the dynamic interaction of the variables. Another issue with analytics and football is football has fewer games or discrete trials. Its one thing in Major League Baseball to say “if we do this - it will be successful 57% of the time and we will have 1000 opportunities this season...” football is a bit different In HS this is further exacerbated by the talent disparity between those variables (players). An easy example that I remember was silkyice showing how one year trap was his biggest “explosive” play- because they were handing off to a kid who would be playing in the SEC the following fall. |
|
|
|
Post by coachscdub on Oct 23, 2020 10:41:53 GMT -6
So things i am looking for are things that correlate to an increase in win percentage.
Something like
Every time a team recovers an onside kick, they win the game __% of the time
Every time a team has ____ amount of explosive plays, they win the game __% of the time
Things of this nature, i realize as coachd5085 mentioned that talent disparity is always key, but this is more of something interesting i want to examine in my free time, as i am not coaching right now due to the pandemic.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 23, 2020 11:59:18 GMT -6
I don't see the need to apply Moneyball analytics to football...
1. If they turn the ball over more than you, you'll probably win.
2. If you have more big plays then they do, you'll probably win.
3. If you convert more third downs than they do, you'll probably win.
The rest of the metrics are either "Duh..." or inconsequential.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Oct 23, 2020 12:25:29 GMT -6
I don't see the need to apply Moneyball analytics to football... 1. If they turn the ball over more than you, you'll probably win. 2. If you have more big plays then they do, you'll probably win. 3. If you convert more third downs than they do, you'll probably win. The rest of the metrics are either "Duh..." or inconsequential. Then I think the real moneyball is- What actions correlate to those events you listed. IE which players, plays, formations, coverages, etc. lead to more turnovers, big plays, converted 3rd downs. Try to find the lead measure that causes the lag measure. Now, as others have written, in HS this seems to be somewhat fruitless. The talent disparity outweighs all the other factors; but as talent becomes more homogeneous I could see a study into such things being important. Of course, as has also already been pointed out, its more difficult to isolate the variable in football. Baseball its easy, basketball though not as easy but still easier, football is more dynamic in its events and has smaller sample sizes. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 13:03:03 GMT -6
I don't see the need to apply Moneyball analytics to football... 1. If they turn the ball over more than you, you'll probably win. 2. If you have more big plays then they do, you'll probably win. 3. If you convert more third downs than they do, you'll probably win. The rest of the metrics are either "Duh..." or inconsequential. My point when discussing analytics is always : "What will you CHANGE based on what you will learn". "Last year when the opposition threw the ball our DBs would knock it down. After seeing that having more turnovers than our opponents is correlated with winning, this year we are going to coach the DBs to catch it...."  Sure, a bit tongue in cheek, but the idea still remains. Looking at stats/analytics/data can be interesting but I will be honest, if it doesn't lead to a change in behavior, I would probably find other things more interesting to do in my spare time. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 23, 2020 13:14:32 GMT -6
IMO, if you watched games and charted every mistake (major or minor) that a team committed, you'd have a valid variable. Fundamentally sound teams that don't get penalties win football games, more often than not.
That sounds like a fairly obvious statement and the same can be said for all team sports. But, because of the large number of players on the field, it holds especially true with football.
I've watched some basketball teams that were terrible in almost all aspects of the game. But, they had one or two kids who could shoot the lights out and they won games.
I've watched some baseball teams who's play in the field was terrible as well; poor pitching and error after error. But, they won games because they had guys who could put people on base.
And, that is why I love football. Regardless of talent level, a team can win games a punch a -little- above their weight if they're disciplined and fundamentally sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachscdub on Oct 23, 2020 13:24:03 GMT -6
I don't see the need to apply Moneyball analytics to football... 1. If they turn the ball over more than you, you'll probably win. 2. If you have more big plays then they do, you'll probably win. 3. If you convert more third downs than they do, you'll probably win. The rest of the metrics are either "Duh..." or inconsequential. This isnt about altering the way the game is played like baseball, it's about looking at small things that can be implemented that might help our odds. For example i heard one coach mention that plays in which more than two players touch the ball (not counting QB/Center) have an increased percentage of being explosive plays... or something like this dont quote me. So in looking at this i could go ok, maybe this week one of our trick plays will be a hook and lateral. Or a HB Pass or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 14:13:54 GMT -6
IMO, if you watched games and charted every mistake (major or minor) that a team committed, you'd have a valid variable. Fundamentally sound teams that don't get penalties win football games, more often than not. That sounds like a fairly obvious statement and the same can be said for all team sports. But, because of the large number of players on the field, it holds especially true with football. I've watched some basketball teams that were terrible in almost all aspects of the game. But, they had one or two kids who could shoot the lights out and they won games. I've watched some baseball teams who's play in the field was terrible as well; poor pitching and error after error. But, they won games because they had guys who could put people on base. And, that is why I love football. Regardless of talent level, a team can win games a punch a -little- above their weight if they're disciplined and fundamentally sound. Couldn't the same hold true with football though? Poor pad level, rubbish fundamentals, manchild takes handoff...TD and win. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 23, 2020 14:32:48 GMT -6
IMO, if you watched games and charted every mistake (major or minor) that a team committed, you'd have a valid variable. Fundamentally sound teams that don't get penalties win football games, more often than not. That sounds like a fairly obvious statement and the same can be said for all team sports. But, because of the large number of players on the field, it holds especially true with football. I've watched some basketball teams that were terrible in almost all aspects of the game. But, they had one or two kids who could shoot the lights out and they won games. I've watched some baseball teams who's play in the field was terrible as well; poor pitching and error after error. But, they won games because they had guys who could put people on base. And, that is why I love football. Regardless of talent level, a team can win games a punch a -little- above their weight if they're disciplined and fundamentally sound. Couldn't the same hold true with football though? Poor pad level, rubbish fundamentals, manchild takes handoff...TD and win.
Yes but, IME, it's harder for a football team to win consistently in those scenarios because of the nature/rules of the game. I've watched small-town basketball teams go deep into the state tournament with awful fundamentals; they just rode a couple of kids with some talent. I've rarely seen a football team that can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 14:44:27 GMT -6
Couldn't the same hold true with football though? Poor pad level, rubbish fundamentals, manchild takes handoff...TD and win.
Yes but, IME, it's harder for a football team to win consistently in those scenarios because of the nature/rules of the game. I've watched small-town basketball teams go deep into the state tournament with awful fundamentals; they just rode a couple of kids with some talent. I've rarely seen a football team that can do the same.
No doubt that due to 11 man squads vs 5 man squads, 1 or 2 studs have less of an impact (smaller % of team). And with baseball, you can go far with 1 ace. But with football, a "fundamentally sound" team is probably has to have at least a baseline of athletic ability. Not only that, but how does one become a "fundamentally sound" team. Is there a "no penalty drill?" |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Oct 23, 2020 14:45:45 GMT -6
Once you get the Analytics of what wins football games -
The more important question then is HOW, as the coach of my team, can I accomplish those things.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 15:09:06 GMT -6
Once you get the Analytics of what wins football games - The more important question then is HOW, as the coach of my team, can I accomplish those things. Just run 11 personnel like Joe Gibbs |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 15:14:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Oct 23, 2020 20:16:30 GMT -6
I would think that the place analytics would be most likely to show up in football would be decisions like when, or how often, to do things like go for two, onside kick, throw deep, 6 man pressure on 3rd down, etc.
Those are things that a coach can control in a game situation and that you can actually change. They aren't things like "we'll try to get more explosive plays because the team with the most explosive plays wins X percent of the time."
I think people get sideways when they make decisions like "we'll ALWAYS go for 2" or "we'll ALWAYS onside kick" because the numbers say so, because those numbers don't account for a specific game situation that you can encounter.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 23, 2020 20:47:56 GMT -6
I would think that the place analytics would be most likely to show up in football would be decisions like when, or how often, to do things like go for two, onside kick, throw deep, 6 man pressure on 3rd down, etc. Those are things that a coach can control in a game situation and that you can actually change. They aren't things like "we'll try to get more explosive plays because the team with the most explosive plays wins X percent of the time." I think people get sideways when they make decisions like "we'll ALWAYS go for 2" or "we'll ALWAYS onside kick" because the numbers say so, because those numbers don't account for a specific game situation that you can encounter. Also, again at the HS level the talent differential makes “game changing” analytics a little less prevalent. For example in MLB the analytics have shown that playing for the home run ball produces more wins and stealing may be a sub optimal strategy. In the NBA the 3 point shot has exploded in its use. The Great Larry Bird sits solidly at the 265th position in 3 pointers made. He attempted an average of less than 1 a game 4 out of 5 of his first years. Contrast that with Steoh curry who currently shoots more than 10 a game |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Oct 24, 2020 0:11:59 GMT -6
I would think that the place analytics would be most likely to show up in football would be decisions like when, or how often, to do things like go for two, onside kick, throw deep, 6 man pressure on 3rd down, etc. Those are things that a coach can control in a game situation and that you can actually change. They aren't things like "we'll try to get more explosive plays because the team with the most explosive plays wins X percent of the time." I think people get sideways when they make decisions like "we'll ALWAYS go for 2" or "we'll ALWAYS onside kick" because the numbers say so, because those numbers don't account for a specific game situation that you can encounter. Also, again at the HS level the talent differential makes “game changing” analytics a little less prevalent. For example in MLB the analytics have shown that playing for the home run ball produces more wins and stealing may be a sub optimal strategy. In the NBA the 3 point shot has exploded in its use. The Great Larry Bird sits solidly at the 265th position in 3 pointers made. He attempted an average of less than 1 a game 4 out of 5 of his first years. Contrast that with Steoh curry who currently shoots more than 10 a game I agree I think the thing that makes all of this really hard if not impossible to apply to HS is the variety in talent on a week to week basis. Some weeks we know going in we will have a dog fight on our hands, some weeks we can pull away if we play well, and some weeks we could win playing with 10 guys. That makes analyzing statistics really hard, if we go 6 for 6 on 2 pointers playing against a turd we shouldn't assume our conversion percentage will be similar against another opponent. Pro sports are so much closer from a talent level and sports like MLB and NBA have so many games that these types of analytics seem much more viable in those games. I will say, the way the NFL game is officiated and the way pass interference is enforced I don't understand why more teams don't throw vertical more often. |
|
|
|
Post by aceback76 on Oct 24, 2020 8:36:25 GMT -6
Look for a copy of "FOOTBALL GAME ANALYSIS" by Michael Stoeber (U of Fla,). 2012 XOS Digital copy.
I have one but don't know where they can be found now.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Oct 24, 2020 10:46:35 GMT -6
#1 analytic in HS is the talent disparity... most games are won/lost before you ever gameplan, scout, or do anything. The difference in talent is so large, all the other stuff doesn't quite matter. There are teams around here that could turn it over 6 times and still win against a lot of teams because they are so good.
Once the talent-level is fairly close... turnovers.
Everything else, you are now looking at one team being Bama and the other is Clemson. Now all the other stuff starts to be the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Oct 25, 2020 4:26:58 GMT -6
Im wanting to look over any stats pertaining to win percentage im just trying to see which elements of the game have significant effect on the outcome, but im not sure entirely where to find these stats. I did a basic google search and found a couple things, but if you know where i can find others please let me know At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would agree with this and it would be interesting to find out the numbers associated with wins. For example the win % of a team who's average squat is 300 compared to 250 and 350. Do higher bench press #'s correlate to better tackling? Or is it squat, or cleans? I feel like in our world we have just excepted the fact that we should lift weights and get stronger but what lifts give us the most ROI?Could we settle the cleans or no cleans debate? |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Oct 25, 2020 6:23:52 GMT -6
At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would agree with this and it would be interesting to find out the numbers associated with wins. For example the win % of a team who's average squat is 300 compared to 250 and 350. Do higher bench press #'s correlate to better tackling? Or is it squat, or cleans? I feel like in our world we have just excepted the fact that we should lift weights and get stronger but what lifts give us the most ROI?Could we settle the cleans or no cleans debate? I can tell you the winning percentage of one team that’s squat average is below 300 lbs, unfortunately... |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 25, 2020 7:31:06 GMT -6
At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would agree with this and it would be interesting to find out the numbers associated with wins. For example the win % of a team who's average squat is 300 compared to 250 and 350. Do higher bench press #'s correlate to better tackling? Or is it squat, or cleans? I feel like in our world we have just excepted the fact that we should lift weights and get stronger but what lifts give us the most ROI?Could we settle the cleans or no cleans debate? I think the answer would be heavy, ground based compound lifts. I don’t think it would be possible or productive to try and drill down more than that, and I don’t think data would show significant differences between a team that front squats vs back squats vs cleans vs push press vs bench press etc. I do think data may show a gap between teams whose varsity has been lifting year round since 6th/7th grade vs 9th grade or later. I think programs whose athletes are part of a school wide integrated program (so they lift heavy using ground based compound movements year round if they are a multi sport athlete) will have more wins than programs who have a weight room open and whoever comes in comes in. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Oct 25, 2020 9:19:39 GMT -6
At the HS level I would bet sizable amounts of money that the analytics most associated with winning percentage are squat,bench,clean, and deadlift weights. I would agree with this and it would be interesting to find out the numbers associated with wins. For example the win % of a team who's average squat is 300 compared to 250 and 350. Do higher bench press #'s correlate to better tackling? Or is it squat, or cleans? I feel like in our world we have just excepted the fact that we should lift weights and get stronger but what lifts give us the most ROI?Could we settle the cleans or no cleans debate? Unfortunately, I think there are too many other variables to isolate, specifically opponents relative ability. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Oct 25, 2020 9:50:51 GMT -6
I would agree with this and it would be interesting to find out the numbers associated with wins. For example the win % of a team who's average squat is 300 compared to 250 and 350. Do higher bench press #'s correlate to better tackling? Or is it squat, or cleans? I feel like in our world we have just excepted the fact that we should lift weights and get stronger but what lifts give us the most ROI?Could we settle the cleans or no cleans debate? I can tell you the winning percentage of one team that’s squat average is below 300 lbs, unfortunately... Lol. Me too |
|
