|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on May 16, 2024 6:44:35 GMT -6
What percentage of your plays went Big, Med, Small, No Gain? We were 20%, 30%, 26%, 25% according to hudl.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 17, 2024 14:51:04 GMT -6
What percentage of your plays went Big, Med, Small, No Gain? We were 20%, 30%, 26%, 25% according to hudl. What are your definitions of Big, Med, Small? Are they pre-set by Hudl? Adjustable? |
|
|
|
Effeciency
May 18, 2024 19:07:47 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by wolverine55 on May 18, 2024 19:07:47 GMT -6
50% of your plays going "med" or "big" seems like a lot! But, I don't really have any context either. And as asked above, the definition matters too. Not even sure what our percentages were.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 19, 2024 8:22:05 GMT -6
How do you also deal with outliers?
What about low outcome D&D situations?
|
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on May 19, 2024 19:31:06 GMT -6
How do you also deal with outliers? What about low outcome D&D situations? Agree here. I like defining "efficiency" or "effectiveness" as gaining 1/2 the yards to gain (or more) on 1st and 2nd down. And then getting the first down on 3rd and 4th. Like as much as that 12 yard gain on a draw on 3rd and 20 might help your averages, it is a completely different play and outcome than the 2 yard gain on 3rd and 1. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on May 20, 2024 6:46:17 GMT -6
What percentage of your plays went Big, Med, Small, No Gain? We were 20%, 30%, 26%, 25% according to hudl. What are your definitions of Big, Med, Small? Are they pre-set by Hudl? Adjustable? Yes- Predetermined by hudl |
|
|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on May 20, 2024 6:47:14 GMT -6
Big- 10+
Med-4-9
Low 1-3
0-0 to negative
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcp on May 20, 2024 11:45:48 GMT -6
Took me awhile to find it in Hudl, but we were 18% big gain, 21% medium gain, 23% small gain and 38% loss/no gain. Like others though, I tend to look at efficiency by down more than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcp on May 20, 2024 12:32:05 GMT -6
Took me awhile to find it in Hudl, but we were 18% big gain, 21% medium gain, 23% small gain and 38% loss/no gain. Like others though, I tend to look at efficiency by down more than this. I should note, this is for our defense! |
|
|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on May 20, 2024 13:17:01 GMT -6
Took me awhile to find it in Hudl, but we were 18% big gain, 21% medium gain, 23% small gain and 38% loss/no gain. Like others though, I tend to look at efficiency by down more than this. I should note, this is for our defense! lol |
|
|
|
Effeciency
May 20, 2024 18:12:52 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on May 20, 2024 18:12:52 GMT -6
How do you also deal with outliers? What about low outcome D&D situations? Agree here. I like defining "efficiency" or "effectiveness" as gaining 1/2 the yards to gain (or more) on 1st and 2nd down. And then getting the first down on 3rd and 4th. Like as much as that 12 yard gain on a draw on 3rd and 20 might help your averages, it is a completely different play and outcome than the 2 yard gain on 3rd and 1. 1/2 on first seems like a pretty high standard for first down. 2nd and 6 would definitely be efficient by most standards. |
|
|
|
Effeciency
May 20, 2024 18:23:26 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on May 20, 2024 18:23:26 GMT -6
Not that I am against analytics, I just don’t understand why I can’t just “grade” the play. Why do I need some metric to tell me?
Examples:
Most every standard on 2nd down is “half the distance”. Two quick examples to dispute that.
1) 2nd and 2 and you pick up 1 yard. That isn’t really efficient. 2nd and 2 is a time for a big play. And to make matters worse it is with 30 seconds left and you are down 6. You called it to catch them off guard. By the metric, it is efficient. I don’t even think that is efficient in the middle of the game much less then.
2) 3rd and 30 and you pick up 29. While that didn’t pick up the first down, that is really inefficient? And what if you pick up the first down on fourth down? The only reason you even went for it fourth down was because of the great “inefficient” play on third.
And what is even crazier about number 2 is that all metrics will say that that inefficient play was explosive!!! So which is it, explosive or inefficient in reality?
|
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on May 21, 2024 5:33:10 GMT -6
Not that I am against analytics, I just don’t understand why I can’t just “grade” the play. Why do I need some metric to tell me? Examples: Most every standard on 2nd down is “half the distance”. Two quick examples to dispute that. 1) 2nd and 2 and you pick up 1 yard. That isn’t really efficient. 2nd and 2 is a time for a big play. And to make matters worse it is with 30 seconds left and you are down 6. You called it to catch them off guard. By the metric, it is efficient. I don’t even think that is efficient in the middle of the game much less then. 2) 3rd and 30 and you pick up 29. While that didn’t pick up the first down, that is really inefficient? And what if you pick up the first down on fourth down? The only reason you even went for it fourth down was because of the great “inefficient” play on third. And what is even crazier about number 2 is that all metrics will say that that inefficient play was explosive!!! So which is it, explosive or inefficient in reality? The point of gathering the data is it gives a picture over a large sample size. And when combined with average, it paints a good picture over the course of a season and even a game as to what was good for you and the team and what wasn't. Just a way to measure and grade your plays in comparisons to others. So yes, that PA shot play will likely be less efficient than running power on 2nd and 2. But the average should be higher. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 21, 2024 6:29:14 GMT -6
Not that I am against analytics, I just don’t understand why I can’t just “grade” the play. Why do I need some metric to tell me? Examples: Most every standard on 2nd down is “half the distance”. Two quick examples to dispute that. 1) 2nd and 2 and you pick up 1 yard. That isn’t really efficient. 2nd and 2 is a time for a big play. And to make matters worse it is with 30 seconds left and you are down 6. You called it to catch them off guard. By the metric, it is efficient. I don’t even think that is efficient in the middle of the game much less then. 2) 3rd and 30 and you pick up 29. While that didn’t pick up the first down, that is really inefficient? And what if you pick up the first down on fourth down? The only reason you even went for it fourth down was because of the great “inefficient” play on third. And what is even crazier about number 2 is that all metrics will say that that inefficient play was explosive!!! So which is it, explosive or inefficient in reality? The point of gathering the data is it gives a picture over a large sample size. And when combined with average, it paints a good picture over the course of a season and even a game as to what was good for you and the team and what wasn't. Just a way to measure and grade your plays in comparisons to others. So yes, that PA shot play will likely be less efficient than running power on 2nd and 2. But the average should be higher. I think the issue that always arises in these discussions is the variability is so great that it seems unlikely any sample size would really give you useful information. One of the best examples silkyice references Is that the year he had an SEC running back at fullback- Trap was a far more explosive play. I don’t know if one needs to data mine to discover this. That said, these threads do serve a purpose if it opens the readers to focus on thinking about things more and not just doing what is generally accepted Using voice to text so if anything is jumbled, I apologize guys |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 21, 2024 10:57:53 GMT -6
That said, these threads do serve a purpose if it opens the readers to focus on thinking about things more and not just doing what is generally accepted So here is my issue, I think the analytics ARE what is generally accepted now. And again, I don't really have an issue with analytics. But garbage in, garbage out. I am not saying that everything is garbage. It isn't. It can be useful. I just think that instead of having a metric of whether something was efficient or explosive, why not just grade it yourself? Of course that makes it subjective instead of objective, but it is YOUR team. |
|
|
|
Post by raider92 on May 21, 2024 11:40:17 GMT -6
Tubby Raymond used to track efficiency for a play by whether it gained 4 yards OR gained a 1st down/scored and anything that went over 4 yards was still considered "just" 4 yards.
It was an interesting way to track it because it removed the big play skewing things and gave credit for that tough hard nosed power off tackle play that only gains 6 inches but only needed 6 inches to score
The basic idea was to track and see which plays you were good at so you could call them more or know what to work on. He wanted to get an idea of which plays were consistent 4 yard gainers and which were big gain/no gain type plays for them
|
|
|
|
Effeciency
May 21, 2024 11:41:26 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by raider92 on May 21, 2024 11:41:26 GMT -6
Tubby Raymond used to track efficiency for a play by whether it gained 4 yards OR gained a 1st down/scored and anything that went over 4 yards was still considered "just" 4 yards. It was an interesting way to track it because it removed the big play skewing things and gave credit for that tough hard nosed power off tackle play that only gains 6 inches but only needed 6 inches to score The basic idea was to track and see which plays you were good at so you could call them more or know what to work on. He wanted to get an idea of which plays were consistent 4 yard gainers and which were big gain/no gain type plays for them My numbers might be off by a little but you get the idea. I think they may have capped big plays at 10 yards and the standard was 4 (or maybe 5 yards) per play |
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 21, 2024 12:10:35 GMT -6
There are just so many variables - D&D, Field Position including hash marks (not to mention quality of opposition) - to try to use averages and-or percentages to tell you much of value when actually game planning or more importantly calling plays on game night.
|
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on May 21, 2024 19:15:55 GMT -6
That said, these threads do serve a purpose if it opens the readers to focus on thinking about things more and not just doing what is generally accepted So here is my issue, I think the analytics ARE what is generally accepted now. And again, I don't really have an issue with analytics. But garbage in, garbage out. I am not saying that everything is garbage. It isn't. It can be useful. I just think that instead of having a metric of whether something was efficient or explosive, why not just grade it yourself? Of course that makes it subjective instead of objective, but it is YOUR team. Right. I'm fine with that. But how are you quantifying or labeling it? Good/Bad? And are you looking at the course of a season or something like that for self scout and self reflection? Or are you just talking game to game? |
|
|
|
Effeciency
May 21, 2024 19:32:24 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on May 21, 2024 19:32:24 GMT -6
So here is my issue, I think the analytics ARE what is generally accepted now. And again, I don't really have an issue with analytics. But garbage in, garbage out. I am not saying that everything is garbage. It isn't. It can be useful. I just think that instead of having a metric of whether something was efficient or explosive, why not just grade it yourself? Of course that makes it subjective instead of objective, but it is YOUR team. Right. I'm fine with that. But how are you quantifying or labeling it? Good/Bad? And are you looking at the course of a season or something like that for self scout and self reflection? Or are you just talking game to game? I would rate using some form of +/-. Maybe even allow for +/0/-. If I did it, I would definitely use for all those scenarios- game/season/self scout/reflection, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on May 22, 2024 4:16:39 GMT -6
Right. I'm fine with that. But how are you quantifying or labeling it? Good/Bad? And are you looking at the course of a season or something like that for self scout and self reflection? Or are you just talking game to game? I would rate using some form of +/-. Maybe even allow for +/0/-. If I did it, I would definitely use for all those scenarios- game/season/self scout/reflection, etc. Makes sense. Beauty is that Hudl has an "Eff" column already built in. You can use whatever metric you want but if you input that data in that column it will populate in reports. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on May 22, 2024 5:16:06 GMT -6
Tubby Raymond used to track efficiency for a play by whether it gained 4 yards OR gained a 1st down/scored and anything that went over 4 yards was still considered "just" 4 yards. It was an interesting way to track it because it removed the big play skewing things and gave credit for that tough hard nosed power off tackle play that only gains 6 inches but only needed 6 inches to score The basic idea was to track and see which plays you were good at so you could call them more or know what to work on. He wanted to get an idea of which plays were consistent 4 yard gainers and which were big gain/no gain type plays for them My numbers might be off by a little but you get the idea. I think they may have capped big plays at 10 yards and the standard was 4 (or maybe 5 yards) per play Efficiency for me is 4 yards plus or a first down/touchdown. Grade each play individually. So for an example if we ran a play twice in a game and the first is 2 yards and the second is 20 that play was only efficient 50% of the time. If a play doesnt grade out to at least 60% we take a hard look at it. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 22, 2024 6:51:29 GMT -6
So, what is the defensive equivalent?
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on May 22, 2024 8:06:33 GMT -6
So, what is the defensive equivalent? You can use the same metrics I used above. If you can hold them to below 4 yards the downs become very predictable. I wouldn't do them by specific plays but by downs. Of course I would be able to mine more data from that. For example pass vs run play efficiency, formations etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on May 22, 2024 8:50:23 GMT -6
Tubby Raymond used to track efficiency for a play by whether it gained 4 yards OR gained a 1st down/scored and anything that went over 4 yards was still considered "just" 4 yards. It was an interesting way to track it because it removed the big play skewing things and gave credit for that tough hard nosed power off tackle play that only gains 6 inches but only needed 6 inches to score The basic idea was to track and see which plays you were good at so you could call them more or know what to work on. He wanted to get an idea of which plays were consistent 4 yard gainers and which were big gain/no gain type plays for them I'll run the report that way while I am waiting on this parent that isn't going to show for a conference .............. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 22, 2024 11:15:47 GMT -6
The thing about tracking "efficiency" of offensive (or even defensive) plays is...
Most football games are won or lost by Big Plays, including Kicking Game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on May 22, 2024 11:24:06 GMT -6
The thing about tracking "efficiency" of offensive (or even defensive) plays is... Most football games are won or lost by Big Plays, including Kicking Game. This is true but when your offensive plays are efficient and you are making first downs it gives you the opportunity to have more big plays and conversely when you are efficient on defense, you are limiting the amount of big pig plays the other team will get. |
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on May 22, 2024 12:22:24 GMT -6
The thing about tracking "efficiency" of offensive (or even defensive) plays is... Most football games are won or lost by Big Plays, including Kicking Game. Correct... but the catch-22 is that big plays have a generally random distribution. Best way to get more big plays is have the offense on the field. :format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9085867/big_plays_by_down.png) |
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 22, 2024 12:38:11 GMT -6
Big plays can make up for a lot of "inefficient" plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeye7525 on May 22, 2024 16:00:14 GMT -6
I track the efficiency of our plays using the "traditional" metric of +4 on 1st, 1/2 on 2nd and picked it up on 3rd. As a run based offense I really like the idea of the +4 standard that Tubby Raymond employed, that may be a little more applicable to what we do and how we function on our offense.
The thing I think that is useful with tracking efficiency is that during the course of the season it can give you an idea of what is working for you and what isn't from a dispassioned perspective. For example, I love the Down play. We had one year where we just were not very good at the play. It was something we knew qualitatively, but having the numbers at just how inefficient we were at the play gave us a pretty good reason to can it half way through. If I wasn't looking at the numbers I would have probably tried to make some sort of justification for keeping it, and ignoring the fact that we just weren't very good at it.
After the season I think it has some value in allowing you to zero in on plays that didn't work very well and figure out why. If you find that Counter wasn't a very good play from a percentage standpoint and then when you go through the cutups and find that on a high percentage of those your pulling guard did a poor job of kicking out it gives you a starting point to start looking at better ways to teach the technique as well as drill work
(or maybe just it has to be a personnel change).
I think of it kind of like grading in school. If I slap an 82 on a kids essay that's not much, but explaining that his thesis was poorly constructed and he lacked supporting details gives some feedback to make that 82 a more meaningful grade.
|
|
