| “It’s about winning and I’ve seen someone told one of the reporters I’m in the teardown,’’ Gettleman said recently. “We’re not spending $62.5 million on Nate Solder, spending the money on [28-year-old guard] Patrick Omameh, we’re not trading for Alec Ogletree. If it’s a teardown, we’re not doing that. We evaluated the roster, we’ve developed a plan moving forward. It’s about winning now. Who wants to lose? I don’t.’’ |
I saw this on twitter today - link to article below. A lot of people say this wasn’t a “win now” year or philosophy. I keep seeing the point of “60 percent roster turnover”. This quote says a lot & they are staring down 5-11.
Link - (
New Window )
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Great post and fully agree.
Quote:
In comment 14226321 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
Some of the people acting like it was clear we wouldn't compete this year were singing a different tune this off-season. And now that it failed, they're pretending it was obvious from the get-go.
Basically, everyone other than myself is full of shit.
Some of the people here are pretending cutting half of your team right before the season didn't signal they thought the roster sucked and that they weren't ready. In a sport where continuity and cohesiveness are crucial, the GM and HC decided to still cut half the team. You do realize the quotes being shared here are from the spring, before the summer, the period of time in which Gettleman and Shurmur watch the players in person?
The people on here, including myself, that have discussed this have yet to receive a valid response as to how that signals they were ready to win this year.
Were those cuts above the average for an NFL team? Above the average for a new GM?
I can be persuaded on this point - I wish it would be changed, because a lot of my pessimism about Gettleman is because I think he thought the changes he made were sufficient to make this team a playoff team.
I did not. I thought this team was a bit further away. I view it as a failure of self-evaluation. And then his FA signings have been poor. A failure of player evaluation and cap allocation.
No GM is all bad or all good. But I'm worried about the process here and think the early returns are poor.
Also, I was a fan of the Shurmur hire (he was the guy I wanted) and am completely underwhelmed so far. Game management, clock management, lack of proper Barkley usage, etc. It's frustrating.
Fair response and funnily enough, i wasn't big on the hire at the time.
I have no idea what the average cut number is to be honest. I just don't see how cutting half the team signals our guys thought we were ready.
I will not argue clock or game management because i would be wrong. He needs to improve.
Barkley is so good, we all want more of him. At times his usage frustrates me as well...i don't agree or disagree with this thought, but i think they are trying to use him cautiously.
If i see another Barkley check down on 3rd and long i may vomit though.
I suspect we're not as far off on things as this thread might suggest.
I'm not calling for DG's head. But I am very critical and think the leash should be short based on this off-season's performance (which I view as a failure despite a promising draft). I think some people are changing the narrative from what they said four months ago.
What was the alternative? Keep Flowers at LT? That would've been far worse, despite PFF's 'stats' saying Solder has only been slightly better. It's not like the draft was stacked with LT prospects either.
The Smith signing was awful. No way around that. Ditto Omameh as they badly missed on that projection.
I think he won the JPP trade. Recouped cap space and the pick led to Hill who could potentially out produce JPP over the next 3 seasons (albeit at slightly different positions).
Ogletree trade was so-so. He's pretty much what was expected. If DG can force a paycut for next year, it could tilt the trade to a slight positive for the Giants, but if he's counting ~$10M against the cap its a negative.
As for the draft, I think DG hit a HR here, but most people's perceptions will be based on how they feel about Barkley vs the QBs. IMO though, any time you get an all-pro quality player (don't care where you're picking) plus a player with legit pro bowl potential (Hernandez) plus a solid starter (Hill) plus potential depth (Carter and hopefully McIntosh) you're well ahead of the game.
Where DG also did very well was in a lot of the under-the-radar pickups. Guys like BW Webb (though he's a UFA), Haley, Penny, Hamilton, etc. The depth on this team was dreadful and while they still have some serious holes in the starting lineup (pass rusher, LB, FS, C, RT), the overall depth is significantly better.
I suspect we're not as far off on things as this thread might suggest.
I'm not calling for DG's head. But I am very critical and think the leash should be short based on this off-season's performance (which I view as a failure despite a promising draft). I think some people are changing the narrative from what they said four months ago.
We've basically come to the same point in the road. The truth is, we don't know yet. I know its frustrating for Giants fans that we now look most forward to the draft, but this is draft is SO important. They need to find 3-6 significant contributors. If they miss on this draft i don't see how these guys see out the rebuild - its going to set us back again.
Yeah but that's second tier QB money. Eli isn't 2nd tier anymore.
I also agree with what NGD in that there was little turnover up top outside of DG. So I don't view this as an entirely new regime worthy of a long leash. But I also don't think a single year is enough, of course.
The above average left tackle is grading out as above average. There is no ticker tape parade. The people who are coming on here saying he sucks are being notified they are wrong, because they are. Don't believe me? Don't believe FMiC? Research the Giant beats that watch the all-22 who have been saying he is MUCH improved since the bye week.
It's fine that he's grading out at above average. He's paid to be excellent. It's the fact that the GM missed on his evaluation just like he missed on Omameh. And in the name of 'positivity' we'll just wash our hand on what amounts to a $20m mistake because we like 'ol DG and he had the guts to admit a mistake. He still flushed money down the toilet. They still have to suffer a penalty for that mistake.
Norwell would have been a signing for the long term because of his age and resume. It was reasonable to overpay for a 26 year old on the upswing. He didn't want to play here. Can't control that. You CAN control not breaking the bank on a consolation prize, and getting half a season of solid work out of that overpay doesn't make it smart.
I also agree with what NGD in that there was little turnover up top outside of DG. So I don't view this as an entirely new regime worthy of a long leash. But I also don't think a single year is enough, of course.
Yeah and I just want to add at no point did I say DG should be fired. But I do absolutely think the organization should hire a director of analytics with a strong technical and/or mathematical background and i'm really not sure why people think this shouldn't be the case because DG "hired developers in Carolina." And also the fact that he mocked analytics openly kind of making this even more imperative.
I also said more heads should have rolled in the scouting department and i'm not sure why people argue against that.
Overall i'm just not sure why there isn't more general concern for our direction. And yes, all this talk of getting rid of malcontents without looking in the mirror in regards to how we managed to collect all of them.
Guess what? The impact of analytics on some organizational decisions takes years of work and mistakes. True for BB. True for most places. True in almost all industries. And its often spotty. So for example, the analytics behind stock price inflection points and correlations? Heavily embraced and funded and sophisticated. Analytics behind new product risk management at banks? Deficient, primitive and ignored
In the meantime,saying shit is much more fun
Yeah and I just want to add at no point did I say DG should be fired. But I do absolutely think the organization should hire a director of analytics with a strong technical and/or mathematical background and i'm really not sure why people think this shouldn't be the case because DG "hired developers in Carolina." And also the fact that he mocked analytics openly kind of making this even more imperative.
I also said more heads should have rolled in the scouting department and i'm not sure why people argue against that.
Overall i'm just not sure why there isn't more general concern for our direction. And yes, all this talk of getting rid of malcontents without looking in the mirror in regards to how we managed to collect all of them.
I've been behind in reading your earlier stuff, but saw that you wrote that ample "evidence" has been provided that the NYG have no such analytics comparable to the other teams you mentioned. I don't want to assume anything, so would you please reference me a spot in your postings where that evidence is provided?
My premature conclusion is that we differ on how we define and use the term "evidence", and quite possibly "ample" as well.
What evidence is there of this? And does a growing effort matter if the Giants are so far behind?
I'm not in touch with the internal workings of the Giants. There may be a bunch of hires that were made that I have no clue about it. There's an absence of evidence that the Giants are heavily involved in analytics in my eyes.
There are a lot of things I'm worried about, including the analytics efforts, that may just be solved by having knowledge that only people inside the organization have. But the past seven years and early returns on this regime has made me cautious to trust the guys in the room.
Sorry that realities intrude on the dreamy world of mind reading DG and the Maras and Tisch's despite never having met them and having no idea what they think or are doing.
BTW; its partially an entertainment industry. Entertainment industry leaders are responsible for talking up the fans.
Do we believe what Disney says about its next release? Its a likely Oscar winner. Would any of us get pissed and claim you were lied to when entertainment dollar claims to get your interest do not come true? Or do you expect them to say: "Jennifer Lawrence in the worst performance of her career in the blockbuster we are releasing on the Memorial Day Weekend"
BTW; its partially an entertainment industry. Entertainment industry leaders are responsible for talking up the fans.
Do we believe what Disney says about its next release? Its a likely Oscar winner. Would any of us get pissed and claim you were lied to when entertainment dollar claims to get your interest do not come true?
It seems to me that plenty of people take what the team says at face value. This mistake is made pretty often.
Sorry, but would like some more info. First of all, the guy mentioned is who? How have you seen his resume? How do we know he's the one leading analytics efforts?
Second, what age is he, and why is that important? What is the right age for someone to be leading analytics efforts for an NFL franchise?
Thanks in advance. I know he probably posted all that somewhere but I've honestly not been able to keep up with it all. Through all the skimming I've been doing in between work I can't seem to find anything remotely resembling evidence of the NYG analytics operations, including development or use of analytics, let alone the names, ages, and resumes of their leaders.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
Bill2, I've said this before but likely you don't remember, either way you are one of BBI's treasures and a must read here whenever you post. I highly regard your thinking and appreciate what you write.
But this quote stands out for me:
It's so well written that it's almost lyrical. Very, very nicely put.
Thanks again, and as always I wish you and yours the very best.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
I'm not sure we've seen an inflection point, though.
I know when I think the last inflection point was - week 6 2008 in Cleveland. That was when the offensive line showed signs of cracking, and it foretold of future problems that to this day have troubled the organization. We played some good football after that point and even won a title, but I believe that's when things started to shift in this direction.
Where is the inflection point indicating that it's starting to go the other way? I don't see it.
I'm not sure we've seen an inflection point, though.
I know when I think the last inflection point was - week 6 2008 in Cleveland. That was when the offensive line showed signs of cracking, and it foretold of future problems that to this day have troubled the organization. We played some good football after that point and even won a title, but I believe that's when things started to shift in this direction.
Where is the inflection point indicating that it's starting to go the other way? I don't see it.
I think you and Bill2 are in agreement when he said:
...and for the first time in a long time on this subject Go Terps, we are also in agreement.
I don't know if we are there yet either. The evidence isn't clear.
Quote:
Dan, I'm not going to speak for NGD, but the guy mentioned as the Giants 'Data Analytics' guy has a resume about on par with my own and is around my age - he isn't someone who should be leading an analytics effort. I don't mean to shit on a guy who may be competent in other areas, but compare him to the guy the Steelers hired and it isn't close.
Sorry, but would like some more info. First of all, the guy mentioned is who? How have you seen his resume? How do we know he's the one leading analytics efforts?
Second, what age is he, and why is that important? What is the right age for someone to be leading analytics efforts for an NFL franchise?
Thanks in advance. I know he probably posted all that somewhere but I've honestly not been able to keep up with it all. Through all the skimming I've been doing in between work I can't seem to find anything remotely resembling evidence of the NYG analytics operations, including development or use of analytics, let alone the names, ages, and resumes of their leaders.
He has a consulting background. Age doesn't matter as much as background but he lacks experience in fields that matter IMV. He lacks a math/computing background. I looked him up on LinkedIn. Compare that to who the Steelers hired.
We don't know for sure that he leads the analytics effort, but there was this from SI a few years ago:
The Giants are quiet about it, but they’ve pushed forward aggressively and, it was explained to me, are “very optimistic” with the early results they’ve gotten. Jon Berger is the team’s senior director of football information, and analyst Tyseer Siam is considered a rising star in the field. GM Jerry Reese is considered a proponent.
Giants Front Office - ( New Window )
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
I'm hoping we're getting there, but I'm skeptical given how poorly I think DG did this off-season in FA. I think this is a franchise 2-3 years away at best. And I think DG may have initially misjudged a poor roster, delaying contention even further.
We'll see.
He has a consulting background. Age doesn't matter as much as background but he lacks experience in fields that matter IMV. He lacks a math/computing background. I looked him up on LinkedIn. Compare that to who the Steelers hired.
We don't know for sure that he leads the analytics effort, but there was this from SI a few years ago:
Thanks - I've seen both names thrown around and looked at the org charts and easily found the same SI article. I have no idea though what it means or how that stands as sufficient evidence for the kinds of claims being made.
FWIW, are we talking about Berger then or Siam? Seems one is at least highly regarded in some circles.
Assuming a 65% to 70 guess right regime as opposed to a 30% regime the last 7 years with will take a lot of digging.
to me it was always impossible to do a turnaround in a year when the QB was transitioning as well.
I ask that you just read the individual post that starts with "I honestly hope someone from Giants ownership reads this" 2/3rds of the way down the page. I spent time researching my points and supporting my thoughts with facts. I don't by any means think I have all the answers but I have worked with many different financial firms in my 7 years in AI and while there are no hard and fast rules for building out successful analytics pipelines there are much higher degrees of success working with people with friendly personality types as opposed to gruff as well as when there seems to be a good shared decision making process / power between knowledge experts and people with real technical experience. (beyond that of stats and consulting which is who the Giants appear to still have on their staff)
I'm talking about people with experience programming and hopefully applied mathematics as well, it's all fine and good to consult with the best minds but having a real technical stakeholder is very important as well. I have seen the resumes of the people in the analytics department of the Giants on linkedin and as I mentioned in my other thread, they are insufficient to get an entry level position at back end tech jobs, even at a startup. I don't know how that would be viewed as non-problematic. Most startups want a masters in data science at the very least if not a PhD in math or computer science. Why should the Giants have a lower standard for their leaders in technical abilities than startups have for entry level positions?
I'm not just throwing sand because i'm bitter or on my high horse it is because I feel like I've gathered some real evidence that I lay out in that post that the Giants aren't demonstrating best practices in terms of personality types and backgrounds for stakeholders that I have seen to be the best at building successful systems. I also think I make a pretty good case for why you want it's good to have information propagated about the quality of your analytics program as well as the the personalities and technical qualifications of the people on your internal team as a means of attracting more and more talent as a team like the Yankees have done. And honestly I don't think it is all that ridiculous to think the Giants should have more internal technical people publicized when you have a team like the Astros who make sure their minor league managers understand databases. If you say there is a fire coming great, that makes me happy but I don't think you can underestimate the value of smoke as a means to recruit the best people either. There is lots of smoke coming out of New England as I point out, smoke in Philly, smoke in Seattle. (And not just smoke, a list of qualified technical minds internally) I don't think it is unreasonable as a fan to want to see more smoke coming out of New York.
I have always respected you as a poster Bill2 and I hope you can also respect that I have knowledge of these systems or at least ask pointed questions instead of disregarding research I have actually put a lot of work into over the years. I have built out analysis pipelines for many different asset classes and functions and more importantly looked at the makeup of different internal teams. (I've been on many dog and pony shows, and while they were collecting information on us I was also collecting information on them) I think I represent my knowledge base well in that thread as well but if you have any questions about why I might have drawn the conclusions I list above or in the linked thread I would be happy to elaborate.
Also, Siam's age was an irrelevant point by me - the Toronto Maple Leafs made a 32 year old their GM and I think he was a great hire.
Bill, I think DG is in a very difficult spot without the next QB on the roster (and maybe Lauletta turns out to be that guy, although that's probably unlikely). Getting that guy seems at least another year away. I have a very low bar for next year - I just want to see the young guys do well. Shurmur's game management to improve. No dumb signings. I think my big critique of poor self-evaluation (which, again, is speculative based on how I read the evidence) won't be an issue this off-season.
The team can be 2-14 next year and I could still think the Giants are heading in the right direction.
I don't think we are competing until we get a different QB on the roster. I think Eli's been a bigger problem than most and I'm doubtful he gets better. Not that we'd be 10-6 with an average QB or anything, but I think he's below average now and I don't think we can get the conditions in place for him to get back to playing consistently good ball before his career is over.
I am a technical person with a background in in computer science, math, physics and finance. I have undergraduate degrees is computer science and physics, and graduate degrees in computer science and finance. Until recently I ran a large department at a major bank the developed portfolio performance and risk analytic software tools. So I feel somewhat qualified to give some judgement here.
Ty Siam has undergraduate and masters degrees from Cronell in Health Administration and Management.
I am going to ignore his "experience" while he was in school, "experience" that was largely internships, research assistance, and laboratory management, hardly anything that qualifies him for the role in data analytics.
Once he graduated, he was a consultant with Deloitte focusing largely on health care strategy and hospital operational performance.
That's it folks... Nothing at all to suggest he is remotely qualified to run a data analytics enterprise.
This is not to say that he isn't a smart guy... But I see nothing to suggest that he has background and skills to perform meaningful data and statistical analysis. If I were hiring for the position, I would want somebody with a background in higher math, statistics and big data analytics, as well as some computer science.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tysiam/
FMiC, I have seen you contend that Gettleman "created the analytics dept. in Carolina" . I have never seen any mention of such (not that I am saying you are wrong, I just cannot find the evidence of such). However, I do see articles and reporters who questioned him on analytics, and he generally brushed them off with "of course we use analytics... next.."
Given his responses to these questions in Carolina and here with the Giants, I think it's fair to say that he does not put much stock in analytics. That he is not looking to hire real experts in analytics. What he calls "using analytics" is likely not what most of us, nor what other teams that progressive in this area would call "using analytics".
I find Gettleman's general dismissal of analytics disturbing. However, I would say that it would be a mistake to replace him at this point. His draft was decent (he did have the advantage of picking near the top every round). and I like the fact he is willing to cut loose players that don't perform, and do it quickly. He doesn't double down down on mistakes. Jury is out.
1) Go Terps I remember that game very well and I agree with that assessment. Shaun Rodgers put on a clinic on the Achilles Heel of the NYG and man has time proven that lesson too often.
2) NYG Dayne, I will read your link and I find much I agree with (also a data science business). Give me a day or two and I will respond.
Lastly, I do not think that is the telltale sign of where the Giants are on analytics.
There are four sources of analytics for the Giants (and many other teams):
1) Different external providers of packaged/custom package analytics to:
- The Scouting process
- The Coaching staffs
- The past film and upcoming game breakdown personnel
- The FO on the draft and on assessments of FA and the Giants own players
2) That group of analysts whose job I do not know...for all I know they syndicate and coordinate input from other sources
3) Many of the better teams get separate feeds that help set up contract and FA values/risk assessments
The last is the most important. Analytics take off when the top people in the organization stop being satisified with just being sent analytics and listening to analytics-and start ASKING for analytics.
So a guy like Cashman and BB have a mental framework for what they want to know. That drives questioning and subordinates downstream to realize that unless they get into the numbers they cant be of interest to the top guys or be in on the top decisions.
Billy Beane went to analytics decades before Cashman or Epstein (and baseball is infinitely easier to analyze). According to Cashman the time he first looked into analytics to the time the organization adopted them from top to bottom in their decisions - took many years of change management with guys used to experiential learning.
Thats the piece I dont know. Imho, consistent analytical frameworks for tough decisions, not available sophisticated correlations, neural nets and AI agent infused probabilities are the hallmark of an organization using "analytics" instead of hunches
I would also remind us all that when any organization is doing very well or very poorly is often when they do not use analytics. They dont have good choices. This is my point about last year and this for the NY Giants. When you dont have an OL ( especially a LT) and there are not many available FA or top 2 round choices...how much advanced analytics does it take to get the top two you can with the cap available in FA?
As for signs...some of you wont like this answer but oddly enough here are signs of an analytical framwork at work:
Rememeber when BB traded Richard Sherman? and then others and then did not resign or even offer FA at open positions? Remember all the trades of vets for future draft picks?
OK...all that observable decision making has to be based on a view he adopted akin to setting a kind of DCF number on the future performance of his players and then playing the probability of maximizing talent and depth under the cap over the long term.
Thats a sign of a team making decisions based on an analytical framework and not on emotion or fan considerations or this year vs the long term. Cold hearted analytic driven decisions.
The inflection point is slowly greater adherence to the outcomes that only a cold analytical approach could support
We don't want sophisticated analytics. We want decisions now based on analytical probabilities in the future. That's an analytical organization
Ok now...who just traded Snacks and Apple for future picks at positions we "need" this year? and dropped Flowers? and did not panic and over offer Pugh and Richburg
Oh shit. A counterfactual to the preferred narrative... what do we do? Claim we can mind read based on an oft-hand comment to the media?
Now are there other examples I cant connect to adherence to analytics...but to me...those decisions (plus shopping Jenkins for a number and pulling it back when we did not get our number) were the first ones I have seen in years not based on emotion or feelings...but based on likely future value.
Sorry for the long winded answer...but to summarize:
1) We want hard assessments about likely future value (which is devotion to an analytical approach to the portfolio of talent) much more than we want QBRversion5 derived by fractal analysis of each QB's Brownian motion (joke)
.
2) Cant assume the on staff additions mean much. I point out that demanding certain statistical comparisons for each different position in every scouting report is more a sign of progress than the math backgrounds of guys labeled analysts.
3) Unpopular drops and trades for future assets a year or two early is one of the biggest signs of an organizations growing appreciation that hard analysis trumps emotion.
food for thought
Just how important is cutting edge probability calculations driven by computer science and applied math when correlations cant be drawn easily given 22 players on the field playing a game where emotion, confidence and degree of fatigue are huge unmeasurable factors in the outcome?
Signs of hard edged oft unpopular decisions are the signs of an analytical approach to better decisions more than the presence of expereinced quants on the org chart
There are only 17 players on this roster that were there when Gettleman took over (14 active, 3 on IR).
No matter what he said in the Spring, there is only one way to describe this... This has been a teardown and rebuild.
I agree with those who say that team officials can never actually say this, but that is what this has been.
The team had so many needs, I was in favor of trading down and adding more players. Particularly OL. I wanted maneuver pick so that we could get good value while drafting 3 OL, or maybe 2 OL and an ER.
I am still in favor of building the team before we drop in a rookie QB. Listening to the Yes/BBI podcast, it seems that Eric and the others shared the same sentiment. This team still needs ALOT of players across the board.
Any expectations that this team was going to show major improvement over 3 - 13 was and still is delusional. Should we, as fans, accept continued mediocrity ad infinitim... Of course not, but should we expect winning seasons, playoff berths and SB contention yet. No that's unrealistic. We see teams having sudden major turnarounds, but usually there are multiple factors there. A team that has been rebuilding finally hitting critical mass, new coaching, a new player at a critical position, etc... None of these apply to the Giants, since the roster is still too bare.
That said, a rebuild takes time, if all goes right, we are still at least 2 years, probably more like 4 from being able to contend for a championship.
Watch for incremental positional/unit improvements. THe overall record this year and for the next year or 2 are meaningless. Having higher expectations and getting bent about it now is also delusional.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
1) Go Terps I remember that game very well and I agree with that assessment. Shaun Rodgers put on a clinic on the Achilles Heel of the NYG and man has time proven that lesson too often.
2) NYG Dayne, I will read your link and I find much I agree with (also a data science business). Give me a day or two and I will respond.
Lastly, I do not think that is the telltale sign of where the Giants are on analytics.
There are four sources of analytics for the Giants (and many other teams):
1) Different external providers of packaged/custom package analytics to:
- The Scouting process
- The Coaching staffs
- The past film and upcoming game breakdown personnel
- The FO on the draft and on assessments of FA and the Giants own players
2) That group of analysts whose job I do not know...for all I know they syndicate and coordinate input from other sources
3) Many of the better teams get separate feeds that help set up contract and FA values/risk assessments
The last is the most important. Analytics take off when the top people in the organization stop being satisified with just being sent analytics and listening to analytics-and start ASKING for analytics.
So a guy like Cashman and BB have a mental framework for what they want to know. That drives questioning and subordinates downstream to realize that unless they get into the numbers they cant be of interest to the top guys or be in on the top decisions.
Billy Beane went to analytics decades before Cashman or Epstein (and baseball is infinitely easier to analyze). According to Cashman the time he first looked into analytics to the time the organization adopted them from top to bottom in their decisions - took many years of change management with guys used to experiential learning.
Thats the piece I dont know. Imho, consistent analytical frameworks for tough decisions, not available sophisticated correlations, neural nets and AI agent infused probabilities are the hallmark of an organization using "analytics" instead of hunches
I would also remind us all that when any organization is doing very well or very poorly is often when they do not use analytics. They dont have good choices. This is my point about last year and this for the NY Giants. When you dont have an OL ( especially a LT) and there are not many available FA or top 2 round choices...how much advanced analytics does it take to get the top two you can with the cap available in FA?
As for signs...some of you wont like this answer but oddly enough here are signs of an analytical framwork at work:
Rememeber when BB traded Richard Sherman? and then others and then did not resign or even offer FA at open positions? Remember all the trades of vets for future draft picks?
OK...all that observable decision making has to be based on a view he adopted akin to setting a kind of DCF number on the future performance of his players and then playing the probability of maximizing talent and depth under the cap over the long term.
Thats a sign of a team making decisions based on an analytical framework and not on emotion or fan considerations or this year vs the long term. Cold hearted analytic driven decisions.
The inflection point is slowly greater adherence to the outcomes that only a cold analytical approach could support
We don't want sophisticated analytics. We want decisions now based on analytical probabilities in the future. That's an analytical organization
Ok now...who just traded Snacks and Apple for future picks at positions we "need" this year? and dropped Flowers? and did not panic and over offer Pugh and Richburg
Oh shit. A counterfactual to the preferred narrative... what do we do? Claim we can mind read based on an oft-hand comment to the media?
Now are there other examples I cant connect to adherence to analytics...but to me...those decisions (plus shopping Jenkins for a number and pulling it back when we did not get our number) were the first ones I have seen in years not based on emotion or feelings...but based on likely future value.
Sorry for the long winded answer...but to summarize:
1) We want hard assessments about likely future value (which is devotion to an analytical approach to the portfolio of talent) much more than we want QBRversion5 derived by fractal analysis of each QB's Brownian motion (joke)
.
2) Cant assume the on staff additions mean much. I point out that demanding certain statistical comparisons for each different position in every scouting report is more a sign of progress than the math backgrounds of guys labeled analysts.
3) Unpopular drops and trades for future assets a year or two early is one of the biggest signs of an organizations growing appreciation that hard analysis trumps emotion.
food for thought
I agree with your assessment that decision need to be made unemotionally and based on the cold hard math. But, making those decisions on the math is not necessarily formulaic. You have to ask the right questions of the data. Asking the right questions is as much art and experience as is it science.
Equating Gettleman's moves regarding Harrison, Apple, Flowers, Omameh, Richburgh and Pugh are anything more than football common sense (which I will grant Gettleman, certainly by miles over Reese) is a reach. Harrison is on the wrong side of 30 and showing signs of breaking down, Apple has had issues here since day 1, Omameh was his own signing that simply sucked, Flowers sucked, we have all seen enough of Richburgh and Pugh to have predicted the results seen by SF and Ariz...
I don't see any strong evidence of analytics at work yet.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
I would go much further with technology than just game theory.
The team should be making broad use of virtual reality. Given the limited amount of reps players can get in practice. We should be designing game situations and have players react to the virtual reality presentation of these game situations. There are even VR suits that can provide physical feedback as well. Imagine the reps that can be achieved, especially by QBs... But even linemen can take a stance and react to players, and stunts. THe whole line can work together in a single simulation. VR technology should be used with coaches as well along with game theory to simulate test play design. This stuff is expensive, but can be immensely valuable with the current CBA.
My point is that trying to make fact based decisions precedes asking questions to help make better fact based decisions which leads to more use of analytics.
My point is that is much more desirable then loads of sophisticated sounding factoids and the same sloppy non fact based decision making based on projected future performance return on cap dollars.
We both agree that Reese did not make hard or fact based decisions.
I am not convinced that analytics as I practice it and have seen it practiced is as applicable or "sophisticatable" in football as it is to other sports and other industries. I think the analysis of say an at bat is a lot mathmatically easier than the very loose confidence intervals of any correlation and causality found in a football play.
Good talking to you
Quote:
I go into details in other points in the thread I shared but I think the timeout problems that Shurmur has could be easily corrected with some game theory and software engineering. Now I don't think these have right or wrong outcomes all the time but there are some cases this year where Shurmur clearly made the wrong decision from a game theory perspective.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
I would go much further with technology than just game theory.
The team should be making broad use of virtual reality. Given the limited amount of reps players can get in practice. We should be designing game situations and have players react to the virtual reality presentation of these game situations. There are even VR suits that can provide physical feedback as well. Imagine the reps that can be achieved, especially by QBs... But even linemen can take a stance and react to players, and stunts. THe whole line can work together in a single simulation. VR technology should be used with coaches as well along with game theory to simulate test play design. This stuff is expensive, but can be immensely valuable with the current CBA.
We are in complete agreement on that. I'm just saying they have to crawl before they can fly. I also think inputs from body suits as well as nutrition, sleep, average speed etc. should be used in game to help guide playing time. And live camera data can be used to know when to exploit certain matchups in game.
Also player ROI forecasts in terms of contract structuring, team construction / asset allocation can be considered much more broadly in terms of what players say (interviews, social media) their demeanor and other variables that are becoming increasingly easy to track.
My point is that trying to make fact based decisions precedes asking questions to help make better fact based decisions which leads to more use of analytics.
My point is that is much more desirable then loads of sophisticated sounding factoids and the same sloppy non fact based decision making based on projected future performance return on cap dollars.
We both agree that Reese did not make hard or fact based decisions.
I am not convinced that analytics as I practice it and have seen it practiced is as applicable or "sophisticatable" in football as it is to other sports and other industries. I think the analysis of say an at bat is a lot mathmatically easier than the very loose confidence intervals of any correlation and causality found in a football play.
Good talking to you
I think we can all agree that analytics can't be used in football the way it is in baseball.
However, analytics can be of immense value in game theory and scouting other teams. Understanding tendencies, and ways of exploiting other teams. It can be of immense value in roster construction, from making those decisions to cut bait a year early rather than a year late. Or assigning proper value to FA, or finding players that have proven they can fit certain roles and fill those roles economically. Scouting both at the college level and at the pro level. You need statistics on player longevity, productivity, injury history, nutritional and workout history and behaviors, intellect, and a ton more variables to be able to ask the right questions. Then there are also play by play statistics which can reveal all kinds of wisdom if you ask the right questions. In football its about asking the right questions, and long term models. In baseball its about individual players and matchups.
I don’t see how this would turn while Eli is here. The Manning era here is over. Until it is acknowledged that the Coughlin/Manning era is completely over, we aren’t trending up.
This was from an article shortly after Gettleman was hired. These are just the facts I posted, that were then called into question by NGD because Gettleman is d68 years old and just because you implement a department doesn't mean it is worthwhile. But I've yet to see evidence posted of how it wasn't worthwhile, but then again - he might not yet have sifted through LinkedIn and the qualifications of the team members.....
That does not mean it's easy to get an organization to believe in it from top to the bottom scouts who made their living "seeing things".
imho, the hardest thing in sports management is to find guys who look long term and look past the popularity of short term decisions.
this is especially true in a sport where the length of ROI service likely from a wrong or right assessment of a talent is short and easily wiped out by 53 other variables and injuries.
Being unsentimental and using probability instead of human colored hunches still does not payoff as easily in a sport rigged to the mean and rife with mistake ridden human intervention by third party referees as it does in other sports where pure talent correlates more cleanly with eventual success.
net, net we appear to be making more unsentimental decisions to trade current bets for future chances before it's too late. we appear to be adding to the things we consider valuable like team make up. we appear to be changing the process and the inputs into the scouting to draft room process.
these approaches pay off and are far more easy to see when the team is not so desperate for talent that it has to take what it can at the offering price. like it did this past year.
all imo
It's why analytics don't apply as strongly to the sport as Bill2 is pointing out here.
It really isn't.
Quote:
Carolina is older school in their setup—director of team administration Rob Rogers, who manages the cap, oversees analytics, and the club pulls from services like PFF. But the Panthers are now forward-thinking in integrating the information with coaching and scouting, despite being an organization that has two guys with old-school résumés running the show: head coach Ron Rivera (who has bought into fourth-down theory) and GM Dave Gettleman (who dispatches two employees to the Sloan Conference every year). The team has worked to develop its own system in-house with a staff that includes two full-time analysts, three full-time developers and three others with analytics prominent among their duties.
This was from an article shortly after Gettleman was hired. These are just the facts I posted, that were then called into question by NGD because Gettleman is d68 years old and just because you implement a department doesn't mean it is worthwhile. But I've yet to see evidence posted of how it wasn't worthwhile, but then again - he might not yet have sifted through LinkedIn and the qualifications of the team members.....
I never said that it wasn't worthwhile in Carolina, not did I say you were wrong. I never found the article you reference. I went looking. When I googled Gettleman Carolina Analytics, I came up with several articles where Gettleman was questioned about it, and he quickly brushed it off.
THat said, its good that he was interested in developing an analytics dept. in Carolina. It seems that they had a lot more folks involved that what the Giants have right now. Also part of the key to good analytics is asking the right questions, and posing them in such a way to be able to do effective analysis. This is truly the hardest part, and it requires experience and creative minds. Without it, you don't get much useful information. SO the fact that he initiated analytics is good, but who was staffed to it and what they got out of it is as much if not more important. I see no way to judge that, except by results.
Right now I am neutral on Gettleman, I see some good some not so good. But its one year, and in his position he gets the benefit of the doubt for 2 or 3 more.
His response to the factual information that Gettleman installed a department in Carolina and Brandon Beane(Gettleman's assistant GM in Carolina) installed one in Buffalo was to say that installing a team means nothing.
He then googled the head of analytics in Buffalo to say the guy didn't have a LinkedIn page and had a career in IT which made him unworthy of handling the job.
And he supposedly said all of this eloquently.
His response to the factual information that Gettleman installed a department in Carolina and Brandon Beane(Gettleman's assistant GM in Carolina) installed one in Buffalo was to say that installing a team means nothing.
He then googled the head of analytics in Buffalo to say the guy didn't have a LinkedIn page and had a career in IT which made him unworthy of handling the job.
And he supposedly said all of this eloquently.
Fair enough...
Bill2 and I are largely in agreement that analytics has a place. Its not the same as baseball or even basketball, but it has a place. I think, football requires larger datasets and more generalized questions. The questions are more about team structuring and ROI of players and contracts.
I also believe that technology should be playing a much much larger role in football than it does right now. Virtual Reality to gain more "reps" for players and coaches, game theory, simulations etc... When it comes to technology, Football is still 25 - 30 years behind the state of the art. When you are running billion dollar enterprises, it always pays to find innovative ways to integrate technology.
One flippant comment has been extrapolated to mean that Gettleman hates analytics and shuns any statistical information. and it has taken on a life of its own.
One flippant comment has been extrapolated to mean that Gettleman hates analytics and shuns any statistical information. and it has taken on a life of its own.
You are ignoring the fact the McL already said on this thread that it wasn't just one comment and his opinion about Gettleman's lack of buy in to analytics comes over the course of different interviews.
It's his entire attitude towards analytics that concerns me and others about Gettleman and you keep glossing over that.