| “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 )
IMO, it's a poker face most of the time. Why tip your hand?
IMO, it's a poker face most of the time. Why tip your hand?
Look the point is, it isn't extirpating when you look at the Giants staff and see no one with experience in higher math or computer science in academia or applied in the job world. Ideally you'd want both before and not just one of these people to form a team that can solve tough analytics challenges. It's not just what he says, it's also the people he seems to have around him supporting a lack of real buy in to the value.
what have I glossed over? My sole contribution to these threads has been to give a recap of what Gettleman did in Carolina.
"His entire attitude about analytics" might as well be shorthand for "My horseshit take on Gettleman is..."
Call me a luddite (which you've already done in a most uppity fashion), but I tend to think a guy who actually implemented an analytics department might care a wee bit about the topic and see value in it.
Marty Hurney, the GM before Gettleman in Carolina, employed one analyst who handled the cap, administrative duties, and market research to go along with analytics. Gettleman saw that as an area of improvement and created an actual department.
Your response to that is basically, "Great, but it doesn't show he knows anything about analytics or that he values analytics". You'd much rather hang onto words he spoke when being facetious.
If anyone is doing the glossing over - it is you. I'm not an expert on understanding if what the Panthers, Giants or Bills are doing is adequate. The bigger point - and one you should embrace - is neither do you.
Quote:
It's his entire attitude towards analytics that concerns me and others about Gettleman and you keep glossing over that.
what have I glossed over? My sole contribution to these threads has been to give a recap of what Gettleman did in Carolina.
"His entire attitude about analytics" might as well be shorthand for "My horseshit take on Gettleman is..."
Call me a luddite (which you've already done in a most uppity fashion), but I tend to think a guy who actually implemented an analytics department might care a wee bit about the topic and see value in it.
Marty Hurney, the GM before Gettleman in Carolina, employed one analyst who handled the cap, administrative duties, and market research to go along with analytics. Gettleman saw that as an area of improvement and created an actual department.
Your response to that is basically, "Great, but it doesn't show he knows anything about analytics or that he values analytics". You'd much rather hang onto words he spoke when being facetious.
If anyone is doing the glossing over - it is you. I'm not an expert on understanding if what the Panthers, Giants or Bills are doing is adequate. The bigger point - and one you should embrace - is neither do you.
Ok here is where you are wrong. I do know because there isn't a specific way to do it but frameworks that have been proven to work much better.
You need an open minded leader at the top who wants to breed a culture focused on quality of life and creativity (no evidence that Gettleman is this and some evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in higher mathmatics (no evidence of this and evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in computer science architecture of systems (no evidence of this and evidence of the contrary)
You need subject matter experts working closely with technical experts of these higher level skills and a mutual respect to the value brought to the table by both sides.
It's also helpful to have people on the team with product management backgrounds, familiarity with principles like agile development.
And again you can say I don't know they have these skills but the bottom line is if you go in a lot of organizations it's easy to find people with these skills on LinkedIn, that's why i'm using it. My comment is not to say unequivocally that people without these skills can't build effective systems but that it is way, way, way more likely that when you have see evidence that teams possess these skills and there are leaders that openly embrace technology and innovation you will build effective systems. (This is way different than simply "hiring developers" or making an IT consultant head of analytics)
Both involve the foremost user of analytics in football: BB
and both involve the NYGiants. And both involve the use of probability. and both illustrate why lifelong players and coaches slowly use some analytics but pay more attention to sports medicine ( every injury less or faster healed in an injury filled sport matters), roster pruning and motivation and overpaying for on field leadership factors
1) Its late in an important game ( a very very important game) against a QB who probability indicates does not make good decisions when the rush or blitz comes up the middle. His receiving corps is reduced by an injury such that the 5th WR/special teamer is out there.
Its such an important play that a non analytical poster on an anonymous message board screams: " wtf is Tyree doing out there?"
The games greatest user of probability and pre game analytics CORRECTLY calls for a blitz up the inner gaps and a safety to cover said 5th WR.
The QB eludes the very effective and deadly rush and blitz ( perhaps a 10% probability) and the 5th WR catches it on his helmet despite the defenders hand on the ball and does not fumble ( a .00005% probability).
Now that's the advantage of analytics. He made the analytically sound decisions that over time produce an edge ( just ask the Jets).
But that's also football in a microcosm. Do I get a better blitzer or add another analyst?
2) The games best user of analytics is at his specialty: defensive analytics and probability:
"Don't let Nicks or Cruz get open"
Right call. Analytically sound call.
Pass goes to a guy with a 50% drop rate who runs only one route effectively and drops into a 12 inch by 12 inch window 50 yards downfield and he keeps his feet in bounds.
Whats more important? an effective 3rd WR or adding a PHD in math to tell you its more important to cover Cruz and Nicks? ( which we all knew and know).
What we dont know is if the cascading effect of dropping players one year early in exchange for future draft picks eventually got them Malcolm Butler or another of their endless line of small tough slot receiver like an Edelman.
To me, future performance probabilities from current talent is the place where the best teams stay competitive 7 out of 10 years. This is where Seattle as a dynasty fell to the Patriots...one small talent edge gained from years of mid roster churn based on cold hard decisions.
And of course Seattle kept too much of their talent on roster too long.
Fun sidebar but I think good posters have now hashed it past utility. Thanks all
Hahaha
I mean we all agree the point of integrating analytics is to gain competitive advantage??
So why talk about it?
We are well served to remember that all these guys feed to the mainstream audience and not the much smaller set of semi obsessed fans reading every tea leaf that you might find 365 on BBI.
Derek Jeter was interviewed by regulation before and after every spring training game and regular and playoff game for 18 years. None of us remember a single thing he said. It was not his job to say things to the fans. That's what all these guys are aiming for.
You need an open minded leader at the top who wants to breed a culture focused on quality of life and creativity (no evidence that Gettleman is this and some evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in higher mathmatics (no evidence of this and evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in computer science architecture of systems (no evidence of this and evidence of the contrary)
And while you said this above, you most certainly did state that people aren't building effective systems, and you did that solely by looking at the qualifications you could dig up through Google or LinkedIn
What is bizarre to me is that you seemingly don't see the failings in that type of exercise.
Where you've said there's "no evidence: of this - I'd posture it is because you either are dismissing it or frankly don't know any better.
The mere fact that Gettleman implemented an analytic department should indicate he's open minded about the concept. But in your words, him doing that is "no evidence". But info from LinkedIn is "evidence".
And you think it is a sound argument.
I mean we all agree the point of integrating analytics is to gain competitive advantage??
So why talk about it?
We are well served to remember that all these guys feed to the mainstream audience and not the much smaller set of semi obsessed fans reading every tea leaf that you might find 365 on BBI.
Derek Jeter was interviewed by regulation before and after every spring training game and regular and playoff game for 18 years. None of us remember a single thing he said. It was not his job to say things to the fans. That's what all these guys are aiming for.
I don't completely agree with this. In the thread I linked I shared the article below. While I don't think it behooves anyone say share their code or exactly how their systems work in order to recruit the best engineering talent you are much more likely to do so with prestige to your project and casting a wide net ala showing what you are working on at a conference like MIT Sloan. The best analytics programs draw attention even if we don't know exactly how they work. I'm not suggesting this will happen any time soon in football but a lot of tech recruiting is done by making available the code for older versions of software and seeing who has good ideas about it's implementation or expansion.
I brought up Sean Harrington's autoencoding algorithm. This is something every team should have and takes a skilled programmer to pull off. This is just a framework to develop the right data set obviously but you do have to walk before you can run.
Pats Sean Harrington and Analytics - ( New Window )
You got me there, Chief.
Serious question. Does it make a difference if a team chooses to hire on staff analytics professionals or if they decide to contract with a firm which provides said services? What are the corporate advantages/disadvantages to both approaches?
Thanks in advance.
Quote:
that companies that have actually built successful systems have people with certain qualifications (on Linkedin) that the Giants don't seem to posses I can't help you. No one can.
Serious question. Does it make a difference if a team chooses to hire on staff analytics professionals or if they decide to contract with a firm which provides said services? What are the corporate advantages/disadvantages to both approaches?
Thanks in advance.
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Ernie Adams, the team's longtime "football research director" ...
Nobody talks to Adams. Despite all that has been written about him, no one, at least in the media, has a firm grasp on what he does. One former employee on Belichick's old Cleveland Browns staff believed Adams studied the tendencies of referees, among other responsibilities. ...
Adams left a job as an analyst and trader on Wall Street to join Belichick's Cleveland Browns in the early 90s, ...
Nearly 30 years later, Sean Harrington turned down Google to join Belichick's Patriots.
Harrington holds the distinct job title of Senior Software Engineer in the Patriots player personnel department (which otherwise is comprised of pro and college scouts). Many teams employ analytics specialists or software developers. Based on a review of media guides across the NFL, Harrington is the only engineer working in player personnel in the entire league.
...
On choosing the Patriots over Google, Harrington wrote, "It was a difficult decision, but I felt that I had an opportunity to make a larger impact working for the Patriots, along with aligning my passion for football with my profession as a Software Engineer."
So what exactly does he do?
On GitHub, an open-source website where developers around the world share ideas, Harrington wrote that he runs a "software team" for the Patriots, conducting "all sorts of Machine Learning and Analytics Jobs for the coaching staff, scouting department, training staff, and IT department."
Said Ben Leiken, a former classmate in the Tufts computer science department: "My understanding is that he's basically working on software tools that help with player evaluation. He's kind of changed the way they do things and increased the efficiency of their processes."
Harrington is particularly busy during NFL Draft season, ... Harrington travels to Indianapolis for the NFL Combine each February and "gathers a lot of data on players"
[/quote]
In other words a large staff of people with real credentials and experience...
The Giants have...
Ty Siam, an expert on Health Care Operations...
I will leave the judgements to you!
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Thanks for your candid response. I enjoy this discussion with you.
One thing I learned from leading a fairly large tech integration project for one of the world's largest banks is that you have to be careful when building solutions using internal engineers that they don't become too wed to their own solutions. This is not a minimal risk. I agree that developing in-house solutions can lead to certain advantages but can also lead to limitations compared to outsourcing, especially with solutions in their infantile stages.
I like how far this discussion has moved though - from one where we definitively know that DG has no use for analytics to perhaps the model embraced by the Giants is not a preferred one. Some of the claims made earlier on this thread and others were pretty far-reaching and perhaps at-best, premature. Thanks to all the posters for their hard work in keeping a civil discussion, especially to Bill2 who always does a good job of educating many of us.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
I felt I went into enough depth regarding Ty Siam's bio earlier. And no, there is nothing in it about data analysis regarding healthcare. Its about hospital operations...
I can find 0 evidence of any other members of the Giants engaged in data analytics. Believe me I have looked... I have tried googling various possibilities and came up with bubkis... The best I have seen is
No mention of a department or anything more significant than Ty Siam.
Whereas, with little effort in googling, all kinds of stuff pops up for the Patriots... And the backgrounds of the folks involved seam much more appropriate. A former Analytics based trader, and a computer scientist running a department developing AI software.
Try googling it yourself. Its a stark contrast.
Generally where there is smoke there is fire. There is a lot more smoke around Patriot analytics than Giant analytics.
Could just be semantics, but the actual original quote from the SI article was a tad bit different which could actually mean something (or admittedly, may not).
2) Brady is aging
Which factor most correlates to the future probability of Patriot dominance over the next five years?
Should they triple their investment in analytics or package some draft picks to move up to perhaps be in position to a maybe good QB? Or does probability tell us they are most likely fucked over the next five years relative to the past.
As a person who now makes a living capturing IP around new edge analytics...nothing bothers me more than advocating force fits of the new.
Right now without any analytics I can assure you that the worlds most advanced model would tell us that new talent at C and RT and ER would most probably make the largest difference from current to a better future so good scouting and careful interviewing and metric comparisons of OL prospects is the analytically sound way forward. But cross checking by visual inspection of game tapes against good opponents is very important as well. You know, the stuff Knute Rockne did.
Does a computer programmer who builds the kind of selection model Ford had in 1976 to cross tab and weight factors across candidates really need to come from the Phd pool at Cal Tech - or do we need confidence that DG might package 2 5ths for a 4th to add the right OL talent?
Which is the prime key in football? Willingness to make unpopular and inexplicable but probability sound decisions over a decade to gain small talent edges or sophisticated linkedin pages and publications of stuff really good analytics/CS guys do as side projects?
This is a test of the first step in using good analytics...knowing its limits and what matters most in building a business.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
Couple of things...
Sean Harrington is a computer scientist with a background in Machine Learning. For folk not in the field, machine learning is ALL about data analytics and statistical analysis.
Ernie Adams was not a stock broker... He was an analytics based trader. Again, a distinction that may not be readily apparent to those not familiar with the field. Trader is not equal to a Stock Broker, a Stock Broker is more of a salesman, a Trader is far more analytical. A world of difference.
Their one line bios would be
Sean Harrington - Machine Learning expert
Ernie Adams - Securities Analytics and trading expert
+ known to have a significant team
vs.
Ty Siam - Hospital Operations expert...
no information available on other team members
Sorry, that's just the facts. I think they speak for themselves which team puts an emphasis on it and which doesn't.
All evidence to the contrary, perhaps the Giants do have some super secret analytics department churning away... Even so, is Ty Siam the right guy to be leading it? His bio doesn't speak to it. If I were hiring for the job and got his resume, he wouldn't get an interview. But hey, I might be wrong. It won't be the first time.
Quote:
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Thanks for your candid response. I enjoy this discussion with you.
One thing I learned from leading a fairly large tech integration project for one of the world's largest banks is that you have to be careful when building solutions using internal engineers that they don't become too wed to their own solutions. This is not a minimal risk. I agree that developing in-house solutions can lead to certain advantages but can also lead to limitations compared to outsourcing, especially with solutions in their infantile stages.
I like how far this discussion has moved though - from one where we definitively know that DG has no use for analytics to perhaps the model embraced by the Giants is not a preferred one. Some of the claims made earlier on this thread and others were pretty far-reaching and perhaps at-best, premature. Thanks to all the posters for their hard work in keeping a civil discussion, especially to Bill2 who always does a good job of educating many of us.
I completely agree with you RE: a bank. I worked on a problem involving trade forecasting with one of the worlds largest banks for years. There is a problem that I encounter consistently as a consultant where internal engineers are given too much power and are faced with a lose / lose situation where if they sign on something from an outside party they lose power if it's good or potentially replaces them in some ways and if it's bad they validated something that isn't good reflecting poorly on them.
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation. My main area of expertise is finance but I have implemented classification systems in the health arena as well and the organizations that see the most success and make the most progress with analytical systems are those with leaders that embrace the idea that there shouldn't be a power struggle or combative process, there isn't right and wrong, better or worse. There is only a search for the best information possible because outcomes are all probabilistic anyway. Especially when you look at how the quantum world operates.
I am glad where the discussion went as well. I do find it frustrating to see too much support for old ways of doing things, especially in the face of poor results. But it is also not all about the results and the best way to ensure you have the best systems and information in place is an organization that distributes power to people with an array of skill sets and backgrounds and I don't think there is enough evidence that the Giants do that.
- A leadership team which asks for more rigor
- the time and solid play of the product on the field before applying the slow accumulation of analytical based advantages.
- If you suck on talent the probability edges of better decisions can be crude until you have a platform to apply advantage in a sport of 90 diverse possibilities that average about 4 years of play and one major injury during that time.
In truth analytics would dictate trading Cruz the day after his first day rehabbing for a 6thslot two years down the road. Think the fan base would root for an organization like that? The sport of football is very bounded by analytic busting paradigms
Quote:
The Giants are quiet about it, but they consider Ty Siam to be a rising star in the field. Jerry Reese is a proponent
Could just be semantics, but the actual original quote from the SI article was a tad bit different which could actually mean something (or admittedly, may not).
Quote:
analyst Tyseer Siam is considered a rising star in the field. GM Jerry Reese is considered a proponent
.
Fair enough, I was quoting from memory...
2) Brady is aging
Which factor most correlates to the future probability of Patriot dominance over the next five years?
Should they triple their investment in analytics or package some draft picks to move up to perhaps be in position to a maybe good QB? Or does probability tell us they are most likely fucked over the next five years relative to the past.
As a person who now makes a living capturing IP around new edge analytics...nothing bothers me more than advocating force fits of the new.
Right now without any analytics I can assure you that the worlds most advanced model would tell us that new talent at C and RT and ER would most probably make the largest difference from current to a better future so good scouting and careful interviewing and metric comparisons of OL prospects is the analytically sound way forward. But cross checking by visual inspection of game tapes against good opponents is very important as well. You know, the stuff Knute Rockne did.
Does a computer programmer who builds the kind of selection model Ford had in 1976 to cross tab and weight factors across candidates really need to come from the Phd pool at Cal Tech - or do we need confidence that DG might package 2 5ths for a 4th to add the right OL talent?
Which is the prime key in football? Willingness to make unpopular and inexplicable but probability sound decisions over a decade to gain small talent edges or sophisticated linkedin pages and publications of stuff really good analytics/CS guys do as side projects?
This is a test of the first step in using good analytics...knowing its limits and what matters most in building a business.
Well there is another point I've addressed which is game theory on timeout calls. Don't you think given how poor Shurmur has been in this department this season we should be putting better information in front of him leveraging simple game theory and computer science?
I'm forming my second company now and filing my 3rd joint invention patent for data analysis systems with a major university. This one is a broad based signal interpretation framework with a prominent math professor. I know the field very well myself. I don't think throwing money at a problem or thinking you can predict everything is a good idea. But don't you think having a strong "CTO" in any organization which has access to the types of data that the NFL does is a good idea?
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
- A leadership team which asks for more rigor
- the time and solid play of the product on the field before applying the slow accumulation of analytical based advantages.
- If you suck on talent the probability edges of better decisions can be crude until you have a platform to apply advantage in a sport of 90 diverse possibilities that average about 4 years of play and one major injury during that time.
In truth analytics would dictate trading Cruz the day after his first day rehabbing for a 6thslot two years down the road. Think the fan base would root for an organization like that? The sport of football is very bounded by analytic busting paradigms
Bill, I agree that analytics is built up over time... However there are large databases both in the public domain and available for sale, regarding all aspects of football. Plus there are many questions that can be asked that will lead to fact based decisions.
All such decisions are based on probabilites, not on sure knowledge of the result. We are all familiar with "Past performance, does not guarantee future performance". However if you have built up good models, it does provide an edge that will translate to wins. I think we can agree on that.
Yes you are right, fan bases have emotional attachements to players like Cruz and Manning. At the end of the day, the fact will speak for themselves. The decisions are still human. Maybe its better for business to keep Cruz and keep the fanbase happy. At the end of the day its a business, and the emotional reaction of the fanbase plays into the profitability of any decision. The data may say decision A is best for wins, but decision B is best for the business. Guess which decision gets made!
Will the Patiots decline when Brady is no more... For sure... Will they decline when BB leaves, absolutely. However, if they stick to the framework of decisions provided by the best analytics they can muster, the probabilities are that they will rise again sooner than other teams that don't have such a framework, and remain in contention longer. And that's the point, its all about the probabilities. Play the probabilities long enough and you will come out ahead. People argue with me saying that there isn't just one way to build a team into a winner... Sure I agree with that. But as you eloquently stated, analytics provide the path to the highest probability of success, which for the Giants for now is to find a C, RT, ER and a QB. But I also agree that the team has so many needs that there are many paths right now, and the difference is probably just nuance. Later, as a team gets closer, those nuances become more significant.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
And yes, I was being snarky in my original post of the comparison. I'm surprised that was lost on you of all people.
Snark aside... I think the point remains valid, the evidence that is available suggests that the Giants do not put as much emphasis on analytics as other teams, such as the Patriots.
Quote:
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
It's not just how he deals with the media in that one interview or even his pattern of dealing with the media this way.
He has a reputation for being divisive with players and even his superior.
Someone on BBI shared a story, I don't know the thread off the top of my head but when he was hired about him being very disrespectful towards someone that works for him.
Do you think he is not a gruff person in general? Do you really not think there is evidence of this?
Don't you think the fact that he was fired despite his talents (that I won't argue with) and didn't have another job suggest he might have some personality deficiencies?
I think there was a time when people accepted personality deficiencies of talented people as a cost of doing business but I think there has been a big backlash against this especially with technologists.
Quote:
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
Dan, I would say that the public attitude certainly leads to questions about his commitment to technology.
Further research on the topic, which is not conclusive, but suggests that there is a lack of rigor in implementation of technology to gain such an advantage.
Taken together, these fact tend to support the narrative that the Giants and Gettleman do not have much faith in technology as an aid to decision making.
As I said before, maybe the Giants are super secretive about it. Maybe there is more than meets the eye. If there was, I think there would be more smoke around it... Like people on staff with unclear responsibilities, and whom the organization refuses to speak about. There is just such a pattern with the Patriots. Maybe the Giants are better at hiding it than the Patriots. Or maybe, the lack of smoke, suggests that there is no hidden fire.
That's a good thing! That kind of analytics is easily derived, and numerous articles about when to go for 2, or when to go on 4th down with all sorts of analytics have been written. It doesn't take a crack team of analysts to come up with that one. But its a positive sign at least.
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
I think that's where Ernie Adams comes in. It doesn't appear we have an equivalent to him in our organization. Someone with a trading background would be great IMO.
He has a reputation for being divisive with players and even his superior.
Someone on BBI shared a story, I don't know the thread off the top of my head but when he was hired about him being very disrespectful towards someone that works for him.
Do you think he is not a gruff person in general? Do you really not think there is evidence of this?
Don't you think the fact that he was fired despite his talents (that I won't argue with) and didn't have another job suggest he might have some personality deficiencies?
I think there was a time when people accepted personality deficiencies of talented people as a cost of doing business but I think there has been a big backlash against this especially with technologists.
I have no idea what his personality is like. Never met the guy, but far more importantly, I never worked with him.
My thinking is that he absolutely works well with people who value logical/critical thinking, and that he's not afraid to make cold/hard decisions if that's what is best for the business in his view.
My evidence for that is based on how many years he stayed with the Giants and how he was hired back. People who are difficult to work with tend not to be hired back. I discount significantly the noise from his ending in CAR due to the information provided differences with ownership.
I could definitely be wrong, but that's how I see it.
The fact that he didn't have another job when fired doesn't mean much to me - he went a total of 5 months and 11 days without a job in an industry where openings during that period (July-Dec) are extremely rare.
Whether he actually has a personality deficiency is beyond my ability to determine. I will say that lots of very effective people (Bill Belichick comes to mind) have personality deficiencies but are absolutely the right people for their position.
I sure wouldn't want an overly sensitive personality making critical business/financial/personnel decisions.
I want one who is well-respected but direct and honest and who makes those decisions based on their experience and the best available information available.
Nothing I've heard about DG suggests he is outside that description.
what do the Mara advisors from Goldman do?
And again, if it looked like there was more buy in based on staffing and results on the field (especially as they relate to a lack of understanding of simple game theory concepts) we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
Agreed, somebody has to take the lead, in researching, accepting and providing critical thinking in how to apply technology to make the team better.
That said, I don't have an "Instaface" account, nor an Instagram, nor twitter. I haven't used facebook in years, and even when I did it was minimal. I don't find that social media technologies improve my life. I'm an old fart... LOL
However, I have been more than willing to embrace technologies that I feel to impact my life. I have built a number of SmartHome features into my house, and I love that stuff.
Because I have a relationship with and personal knowledge of the situation, I'll give some insight on the Panthers (and by extension, the Bills).
The working environment in Carolina had been toxic for many years, mainly driven by the erratic behavior of Jerry Richardson. Ever since his heart transplant, the behavior became more and more inconsistent. He would go long stretches of not influencing football decisions, then demand to be involved in a flurry of them. He fired one son from the team and the other son left on his own after failing to rein in his father. He protected Marty Hurney while having some episodes of drunken behavior because those events also involved Richardson.
Through it all - Gettleman was a steady influence in the organization. So was Ron Rivera. The two of them basically held everything together. Gettleman took a guy who worked his way up the Panthers org from an entry level position to increasing responsibilities under his wing, Brandon Beane. Beane was actually the interim GM for a period of time - and ended up taking the Permanent GM role in Buffalo. Beane was going to leave the org and leave football because of the turmoil in Carolina. His background is in communications and was going to go in that direction. He stayed because of Gettleman. Looks at him as a mentor and father figure and Gettleman saw the talent in him and recommended him for the job in Buffalo.
In the face of an erratic owner, Gettleman kept his patience and did his job. He let go of popular players and had solid, if unspectacular drafts. He had every intention of even remaining patient when confronted with the issue of Thomas Davis and Greg Olson. He stood up to Richardson and figured that would be it - and he was let go.
the impact of him being let go is that many felt it was a final straw of Richardson losing it. It isn't just a coincidence that information came out about Richardson's transgressions after Gettleman left. There is still a lot of respect for Gettleman in that organization. There's a lot of respect for Gettleman around the league.
One question I have is why does there appear to be so little respect for him from our very own fans? The way he's discussed around here is that he was hired to be a puppet and has done nothing well. It is bizarre. Adding the whole topic that he's old and hates analytics just piles on.
You can start by the ridiculous way in which he was hired.
So the way a person is hired, out of their own control, speaks to the respect they've earned over an entire career?
If everything else had gone exactly as it has, but Gettleman was the hire after a protracted search, you'd still be bitching about him and floating the ridiculous strategy of carrying 3 mobile QB's on any thread where it would fit.
Quote:
One question I have is why does there appear to be so little respect for him from our very own fans? The way he's discussed around here is that he was hired to be a puppet and has done nothing well. It is bizarre. Adding the whole topic that he's old and hates analytics just piles on.
You can start by the ridiculous way in which he was hired.
Haha. So because the Giants wanted him and didn't go through a process you don't personally approve of, its now "ridiculous".
I say this a lot but I value many of your posts and you actually provide good insights to defend your stances. But this one is just bizarre. FO hirings are made based on merit and relationship building all the time, not everything is done through responding to an Indeed ad and asking the candidate to come meet for the first time.
Why would we expect that Dave Gettleman, who came in the door shaking a fist and talking about kicking ass, purging the roster of the previous GM's players, then proceeded to fail at free agency and crank out a 5-6 win year, why would we think fans would respond positively there if we don't even respect people who had legitimate success here?
There's plenty to not like about what the current GM did this year. Hell the current GM back-tracked on his own decisions to his credit.
And hiring the former GM to help replace the current GM, and the former GM recommending his old employee to be the new GM -- is highly unorthodox in any business.
1) Military Industrial Complex
2) Politics
3) Law enforcement
4) Automotive
5) Entertainment
It's the combination that I think forms legitimate gripes here and by conduit legitimate gripes with Gettleman and the people running things.
You can talk about what Gettleman did in Carolina until your blue in the face and we can debate how key it was to success or failure but the other point I've made is how rapidly changing these technologies and the data inputs are and as of now it does not look like we have the staff who is properly keyed in to implement the best technologies in a fast paced and changing environment.
You read articles coming out of Philly or Seattle or Kansas City or New England and there just seems to be a buy in that doesn't exist here. You are quibbling here because we are over emphasizing outright comments against analytics even if they are jokes but this falls way short of leadership talking up the value and how it is already being implemented with success.
Fatman, you are clearly too close to Gettleman to be objective. I don't have some ax to grind with him. I find the data on the front office, their record of success and the way they discuss (or not discuss analytics) to be troubling. You just keep taking the tact of trust me, these guys know what they are doing.
Why should us as fans believe this?
It's the combination that I think forms legitimate gripes here and by conduit legitimate gripes with Gettleman and the people running things.
You can talk about what Gettleman did in Carolina until your blue in the face and we can debate how key it was to success or failure but the other point I've made is how rapidly changing these technologies and the data inputs are and as of now it does not look like we have the staff who is properly keyed in to implement the best technologies in a fast paced and changing environment.
You read articles coming out of Philly or Seattle or Kansas City or New England and there just seems to be a buy in that doesn't exist here. You are quibbling here because we are over emphasizing outright comments against analytics even if they are jokes but this falls way short of leadership talking up the value and how it is already being implemented with success.
Fatman, you are clearly too close to Gettleman to be objective. I don't have some ax to grind with him. I find the data on the front office, their record of success and the way they discuss (or not discuss analytics) to be troubling. You just keep taking the tact of trust me, these guys know what they are doing.
Why should us as fans believe this?
Why should we trust you that you know that they don't know what they are doing when you don't know exactly what they are doing?
1. Hire Ernie Accorsi as a consultant
2. Interview Gettleman, Marc Ross (who by most accounts is an incompetent, lazy jerk), Kevin Abrams, and AFTER those guys they spoke to Louis Riddick...the one guy in the entire process without deep ties to the organization.
3. Hire Gettleman with Abrams as his right hand being groomed to replace him.
Where's the outside voice? Where's the self-evaluation after years of poor football? Even if you're going to hire Gettleman, you can learn a lot by interviewing some fresh faces.
Instead, the Giants power structure lives in an echo chamber.