Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Vacchiano claims Giants think Kyler Murray is...

Mike in St. Louis : 2/11/2019 4:13 pm
too small...

"A team source told SNY's Ralph Vacchiano that Oklahoma QB Kyler Murray is "probably a little too small" for the Giants.

The Giants "prefer to stick to the established measurables they have for a prototypical quarterback," Vacchiano notes. The Giants' organization emphasizes conventional wisdom and inside-the-box thinking, and they haven't started a quarterback that measures below 6-feet since 5-foot-11 Gary Wood went 0-6 in 1966. And "the philosophy hasn't changed all that much (in that over half-century timeframe)," Vacchiano confirms. 6-foot-3 Dwayne Haskins, 6-foot-4 Drew Lock, and 6-foot-5 Daniel Jones appear to be likelier candidates to succeed 6-foot-4 Eli Manning than 5-foot-9 Murray."

Source: SNY.com
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <<Prev | Show All |
...  
christian : 2/15/2019 8:06 pm : link
I have a different, outside, and hopefully more tempered perspective having built a number of programs and having a pretty decent network of connections directly in the industry.

I have never once in the engineering, program, product, or applied science level ever heard of or known anyone who has worked on a project for the New York Giants. The Giants have never presented at or showcased to an industry group I've been associated with, and have never been mentioned in any peer reviewed or referenced study. I've never known anyone recruited to or approached by an agency or vendor associated with the Giants.

Of course that's not to say they don't have a solid team. Being a huge Giants fan and knowing literally thousands of people in the industry and having hired teams and vetted many agencies in the field, I suspect I would have heard something. Maybe not.

But again, even if the Giants have a team of a hundred people, they suck at the basics.
RE: ...  
.McL. : 2/15/2019 8:10 pm : link
In comment 14297872 christian said:
Quote:
I have a different, outside, and hopefully more tempered perspective having built a number of programs and having a pretty decent network of connections directly in the industry.

I have never once in the engineering, program, product, or applied science level ever heard of or known anyone who has worked on a project for the New York Giants. The Giants have never presented at or showcased to an industry group I've been associated with, and have never been mentioned in any peer reviewed or referenced study. I've never known anyone recruited to or approached by an agency or vendor associated with the Giants.

Of course that's not to say they don't have a solid team. Being a huge Giants fan and knowing literally thousands of people in the industry and having hired teams and vetted many agencies in the field, I suspect I would have heard something. Maybe not.

But again, even if the Giants have a team of a hundred people, they suck at the basics.

+1
LOL
Wow..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/15/2019 10:28 pm : link
Quote:
What happens when you argue this point in 4 different threads with the same person and he keeps on acting like he has a point when he doesn't? Do you do it the same way again? Sounds like the definition of insanity. Have to try troll hunting in different ways


C'mon man. It still hasn't sunk in over 4 threads what my point was, has it? My point was very simple.

Gettleman doesn't shun analytics and implemented the department in Carolina. Full Stop.

It is why McL brings value to these discussions - he's not arguing that point. He's not being an ignorant cock.

He's claiming that the Giants may not be on the cutting edge of analytics, or which I don't think anyone is denying.

Let me say this very plainly since you think I speak in platitudes. Gettleman doesn't shun analytics and implemented a system in Carolina. Both points of which you claimed weren't true. That's it. I have not argued any other point on any of those 4 threads.

And your response? Numerous references to Luddites and eating farts. Spectacularly moronic.
I needed a luddite free weekend but let's review something  
NoGainDayne : 2/19/2019 1:28 pm : link
My evidence:

- Gettleman literally mocking the value of analytics publicly on a decision where it could really help

- The lack of presence of really any of the skills needed to build advanced analytical models in house

- No press on the Giants commitment or efficacy in analytics in the press and much more of this information on many other teams

- Most importantly the lack of seeing simple applied game theory on the field for the Giants (which is what brought me to speaking about this in the first place)

Your evidence

- One article which the above points really call into question

I started talking about farts and making fun of you in extreme ways because you have this seemingly steadfast loyalty to DG and the Giants despite very little evidence supporting your points.

What's more, you started calling me stupid assuming I didn't have any basis for my points before you even dug into my reasoning. You make fun of me for listing my credentials but a lot of that came out of you suggesting how could I possibly understand things that the GIANTS don't.

You get on me for jumping to conclusions but it is you who came at me with a lot of vigor and your bullying tendencies and I reacted by treating you with the same level of respect, somehow that makes me "pompous" and an asshole, funny coming form you a notorious asshole who just assumed I was coming at this uninformed when I was very informed and have read about this for years including the article you've harped on time and time again.

I never contested whether or not he hired engineers or went to the sloan conference, I contested that DG or the Giants have the kind of people that actually understand what it is possible with analytics and how to identify and bring in the RIGHT people to build these systems.

I like Christian's line about them potentially having vans of PhD's in the parking lot and still getting easy table stakes analytics / game theory things wrong. You can quote that article a billion times about Gettleman using advanced game theory but it isn't unreasonable for fans like me that understand game theory to say it doesn't matter what that article says.

There isn't proof but there is just a lot more evidence that Gettleman doesn't understand the capabilities or how to use / integrate analytics properly than he does.

I think there is an apples & oragnes thing here  
.McL. : 2/19/2019 6:46 pm : link
NGD, do you consider what Ty Siam is doing regarding player health/peak performance to be applied analytics?

I can understand a position where one could say "no that is not what I mean by applied analytics". I can understand saying that is health management and is separate.

My guess is that for you, that is not considered to be applied analytics. correct?

One thing I might add, the process the Giants have regarding health management/peak performance started under Coughlin, somewhere around 2008. So Gettleman would have been here at the time, and probably saw some value in it. When he got to Carolina, I am guessing he instituted something similar.


McL  
English Alaister : 2/20/2019 6:57 am : link
I think this is one of the key things. Analytics is many things. Ty Siam may be well qualified to handle and process physiological data but less/not at all qualified to deal with a hugely complex talent evaluation model.

What I'd say about this is I have interacted with Deloitte or other top tier consultants most days for the past 20 years. I've managed serious spend on these guys (tens of millions a year for top investment banks and commodity companies). As with any industry, there's a huge variety amongst the resource pool from moderately capable in a narrow range to absolute rock stars. It is really difficult to spot the latter just from the CVs but what I find is those good ones are highly versatile, learn new skills incredibly quickly and hugely motivated to deliver.

Let's be clear though that no-one becomes an analytics expert overnight and for sure we need to be clear that machine learning, mathematical modelling or AI skills are very different and rare skills that I agree the Giants don't seem to have in house.

So should they? In the medium term I think so. Absolutely. Was it the most pressing problem Gettleman faced? Nope. He had to overhaul the scouting dept and coaching staff, get on the same page as his coach and fix a uniquely flawed strategy of fielding a statue QB with a terrible offensive line. So I can't fault DG for prioritizing.

In his shoes I would have kept analytics firmly on the back burner and done the basics (physiological data etc) and parked the hardcore stuff hoping that someone actually does a lot of the work for you and brings something resembling a mature, standard package to the market you can build off with some of the early adopter errors ironed out.

So I think for us to close the gap between us let's try and agree on the following.

1. Analytics can absolutely add value, across a range of different areas and we should attempt to catch up vs the rest of the league but it is trickier to apply than say baseball & basketball.

2. Some of those areas are easier and more mature than others. Even teams embracing analytics are doing stupid shit like drafting a non-generational running back #4 overall (looking at you Jacksonville) or managing the clock worse than your average Madden player (cough Andy Reid).

3. There are massive demands on people's time turning this ship around, scouting, investigating human beings, self-scouting, aligning the football strategy.

4. There is finite money

5. A poor analytics implementation is likely to deliver very little value. When it is done it should be done properly and maybe year 2 of DG's reign after the draft is a sensible time to kick this off.

Let me close with what I see as the value in analytics and why we shouldn't obsess with the how or the maths or the machine learning but with the fact that our team is thinking analytically.

I've forgotten some of the details of this story but if I remember it was the 1987 Giants - Redskins game in the playoffs for a superbowl trip. Belichek stays awake watching film for crazy amounts of hours with his staff and one of the quality control guys spots that (I think) Ricky Sanders doesn't put his mouthpiece in when he's not a route option in the playcall. The Giants then know they can jump other routes and amend the football strategy accordingly. We all know the outcome.

That to me is just a good example of the kind of stuff we should be looking to analyse automatically and teach machines to do for us. It does get done today though, quality control guys are obsessive about looking for these give aways and tendencies but wouldn't it make life easier to be able to see percentages etc as soon as the all-22 film is available and have a machine evaluate all of this in a few hours and you can constantly build up the scope.

Belichek may be ahead of the field now, he always has been.
^^^  
arcarsenal : 2/20/2019 9:13 am : link
Really good post.
English Alaister  
NoGainDayne : 2/20/2019 9:52 am : link
Brevity has never been my strong suit, but Iíll separate your earlier query into two parts, one that explains how Iíd build the system broadly and the expected costs and another that addresses what is a very good point about esoteric concepts (like leadership) that humans asses better than machines, that is until you teach the machine what you know. (This is what a lot of effective Wall St. systems have done)

Building the System Step by Step

1) A Play Type Forecaster Ė timeouts/time management with game theory. Feed in game scores and timestamp every play with amount of time left, quarter, down, distance and then start with something Iíd say as simple as timeout, run offensive play, FB, punt, run defensive play, FG block, punt block, punt return then 2-point conversion as well. Each of these will have a win probability associated with choosing that type in a vacuum.

2) Enhanced Situational Play Type Forecaster Ė 4th down conversions and improved efficacy of step 1 systems through increased sophistication from data on weather, players, match-ups, team stats.

3) Build Autoencoder Ė this would convert game film to machine learning signals, I think you could look at this is a very similar to Zebra data, but this is important for the longitude of training sets as video goes back much further than alternative data

4) Build initial models for complex problems - stats, injury, asset allocation, play suggestions and fan sentiment could all be built and provide some level of value at this point (Iíd use a combination of unstructured and reinforcement learning as well as an experimental framework for conditional ensembling)

5) Lay groundwork for meta models which combine inputs from step 4 like wins and profit

This could all be done in one year, step one a few months max, at the total cost of $.5M to $1M, now I am saying this with proprietary software Iíve built over that past almost decade, Iím not the only one with software like this but there are many pretenders too. I also think the spend that gets to 10ís of millions is essentially paying for highly paid data scientists to tinker with models, hyper-parameters, data structures and time series modifications when software is much better at doing this. Iíd also add that McL who is clearly knowledgeable is talking about building much bigger teams than I think are necessary. I would also keep the team to pure back end until results passed the eye test and software deployment became a much bigger need.

I think the point on how valuable on this? Do you prioritize this? Itís tough to draw clear conclusions. In the case of the Saints game, down 12-7 at home completely blowing the creation of an extra possession for ourselves as we sat on timeouts when they had 1st and goal and more than enough time to score. (This wasnít our only blunder on clock management on the season, but it was our worst) can we really prioritize fixing other problems over something like that? Winning that game could have completely changed our season. Can we say definitively that the way we are approaching ďfixing these problemsĒ are right when the larger focus on traditional methods while de-prioritizing advanced team building analytics has seen us fall to the bottom of the league? And even last year with new management supposedly with skills assessing the trenches have us hand out some bad contracts in FA to the positions they needed to fix the most?

I do think itís hard to find the right tech people but that isnít an excuse not to start spending what is a paltry amount relative to the profitability of the organization on trying. Contract out a search team, tell them they can't interact with Gettleman or his staff for the first year or two if you are that concerned about his time. Resources are finite but I do believe the main thing that needs to be ďfixedĒ is that no matter how good our football people are now other teams have more diverse data to inform their decisions. While this isnít a definitive theory it canít be disregarded that a lot of these things we are trying to fix by largely the same methods could very well be symptom of the same problem which has to be fixed with the same commitment to technology that other teams have made already.
Part 2 predicting esoteric concepts  
NoGainDayne : 2/20/2019 9:54 am : link
Any system an intelligent tech leader would build should incorporate existing data that scouts have made as inputs and be assessed with great scrutiny as outputs before you even think of deploying. Letís breakdown the famous IT factor of a QB for a second. You could say you just need to be in the room with them or you could break apart that problem. What are scouts looking at that we can work on quantifying better? This would be my preliminary list but also, Iíd want to work side by side with a great scout after attacking the obvious myself.

Wins (controlled for strength of team, not difficult if you have a way to project every player with an autoencoder)

Comebacks (controlled for strength of team)

Interview teammates and coaches and analyze with natural language processing (NLP)

Ask them about leadership, have them write about leadership (NLP)
Analyze grades, classes

Analyze facial expressions, body language and that of teammates

Wonderlic, existing Q&A etc.

This is the worry for me, something like this is just a jumping off point and based on Ty Siamís LinkedIn there is a very low probability he can build systems that simply predict IT factor leveraging this data let alone nesting this solution within broader systems.

And this is also why the sooner you start the better, maybe you are not videotaping prospect interviews, maybe with players permission you want to start getting EKG or MRI readings while they speak to you. The most important thing is taking your first shot and figuring out what people might be capturing that the computers are not and that is purely iterative.

Whatís crazy about this, is this a random thought exercise based on what we perceive to be something you need humans for when itís possible that all this information is embedded in camera or Zebra data and you donít need to do this at all. There are most likely a wealth of other shortcomings that can be addressed. Thatís why people pay people like me to do what we do, you must know how to start as unstructured as possible and commit to a process of adding structures and data to attempt to improve and solve perceived shortcomings of the human end users. This can take up zero time of existing internal people, one dedicated scout could probably do the trick on this and you could hire them separately.

When it is ready to start rolling this stuff out to higher level people to start comparing to their decisions to the computer live for better reinforcement learning it may seem time consuming but itís the job of a good technology leader that by the time they put it in front of business people with limited time it is already in a place to teach them new ways to look at the problem, so the models are improving as well as the perspective of the decision makers.
Don't get me wrong  
.McL. : 2/22/2019 3:18 am : link
I was relating my experience in what I was doing for a large bank.

The scale is completely different, much smaller, for a football team.

Nowadays you don't need a datacenter, system admins, or DBAs, you can get all that from Amazon or Google or Oracle...

But you still need somebody to design your database, manager your data, build and maintain stuff to load the 2 dozen or so purchased data feeds that are purchased, load scouting reports. You need somebody to create models and analyze the results. You need somebody to do the software development of the model. As it grows and benefits are seen, more questions will come and the needs will spread out like tentacles. It won't take long before each branch has a person or two assigned to it. Before you know it you have 20 or so people. You will start off with maybe 5 or so, and maybe it takes 12 or 18 months for that to grow like that, but it will...

The other major point I want to make. I thought about EA's point about DG having higher priority things to do... However once last years draft was over, that was the time to start this process. What I was trying to say earlier is that if you hire the right person and give the a remit and freedom to pursue it, it doesn't take much of DG's time. DG won't understand what's happening anyway. He just has to hire somebody and say GO!
McL apologies for leaving you hanging on your last post  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 8:58 am : link
I thought about answering but some people aren't making points some people are just jerks. Austerity and loyalty shouldn't be viewed as opinions, tolerated politically, absolutely. But the views espoused by certain luddites along with the tone shouldn't be tolerated in a discussion for how to guide a billion dollar organization into the future. I think we both agree on that point primarily that this should be built yesterday and all the typical excuses are being thrown out there. The only thing i'm left wondering is if sometimes people intentionally hire developers or tech leaders that they know aren't good just to further the views they already want. Honestly, that's what scares me the most about Gettleman, he doesn't appear to be very benevolent or magnanimous I don't think he cares if he sets the team back because it is hard to prove behind the chorus of "you don't know what's going on in that building" and he gets his day in the sun.
You talk..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 9:08 am : link
about people not making points, but then you run with narratives that are fabricated:

Quote:
The only thing i'm left wondering is if sometimes people intentionally hire developers or tech leaders that they know aren't good just to further the views they already want. Honestly, that's what scares me the most about Gettleman


Do you realize how moronic that take is? That people are intentionally tanking on technology to discredit it?

And that's basically the rope you're hanging yourself with. You've already stood by the stance Gettleman shuns analytics, and once presented with facts that he doesn't, you now have to take a completely ridiculous angle that he likely hired bad tech guys.

Look man, the training room in both Carolina AND the Giants have been tracking nutritional data and using GPS data for understanding fatigue and efficiency of player movement for several years. There are many layers to what is being tracked. the debate should center around whether or not the data is being used correctly - not that it is being done incompetently on purpose.

But cue more nonsense about luddites and eating farts.

For all the bluster about people not makming points, your rants on luddites and eating farts is some of the most stupid shit posted on BBI. And that's fucking hard to do.
Hasn't he conceded the part about nutrition and workout tracking?  
Gatorade Dunk : 2/22/2019 9:23 am : link
Nevermind the fact that it hasn't seemed to translate to fewer injuries anyway, it certainly doesn't eliminate the leap you'd have to make to just assume that means that Gettleman has installed anything resembling a best-in-class analytics team at either of the franchises where he's been GM.

Nutrition and workout data is basically the absolute minimum required to check the box of "has an analytics department." I have no idea how anyone can use that to laud Gettleman or to suggest that he's actually embracing analytics. Especially when he very publicly mocked people using a data-based approach to evaluating talent and roster construction.
I've seen people literally sabotage data  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 9:24 am : link
so no, I wouldn't put anything beyond people trying to maintain or get power within an organization.

And I said I wonder. Here you go mis-classifying things very straightforward things I said again. I can't believe you are still calling me a moron. You are the one that has found yourself in the center of these debates without much knowledge of analytics.
As for the technical points  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 9:28 am : link
I think a lot of what you are referring to don't currently need the human attention of the systems you've built but i'm going to lay out how I think about it generally and how I approach it please let me know if I am overlooking things in your view.

I got out of the automated machine learning game about a year ago because of programs like Google's Auto ML and C3. I know one of the primary developers of their platform and the projects they do and the scale of what it can do is truely a wow moment. I did a short code walk and the magnitude of what they have put in modules of the data science process is staggering. But to speak in specifics about what you are talking about hiring for and what I know factually can be done in an applied finance setting.

Design a database - we have automated a lot of this and have admin software to verify the computer has done this correctly. We read in info on columns to figure out if they are strings, what kind of decimal to store numbers as etc. Most primary keys we can identify just by reading in the relevant data sets unless you go across data providers but even then its one a one off. Anything from an API or CSV we just read into Google Big Query and then store model / feature / ensemble metadata in a cloud database which makes heavy lifting requests to big query based on what is being used to solve the optimization problem or goal state.

Manage Data - We have a fairly exhaustive feature engineering system where we create many different kinds of versions of a column like a moving average, % difference etc. and our newest tech that I can't go into because it can actually explore an infinite number of time series intelligibly. Also it's pretty easy to just run anomaly detection like % 0, % null and flags for extreme deltas in summary stats which we both use for this purpose and as binary variables in our learning.

Models and Results Analysis - We use about 20 different algorithms and have them explore within logical hyper parameter plains. Sometimes we just constrain training times if our results are super rushed but otherwise certain numbers of layers, trees, etc. I always monitor what is being built, we also have ways to ensure diversity not just sheer numbers. Depending on what we are trying to solve or optimize for we will layer information coalescing systems on top of this base.

This is where we use most of our human labor and why I'm always talking about building your own data in reference to this problem, using this metadata creation and experimentation machine to figure out what parts of the problem we aren't grasping and then try to turn qualitative approach into additional data or module structures that can feed into the problems we are trying to solve like the IT factor module for QBs I described above.

Are there pain points that you were referring to that I didn't address in these roles you are describing? I am genuinely always interested to hear people's approaches to these things what we've built was pretty much purely out of doing many of these projects and automating our pain points
Gatorade..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 9:30 am : link
those systems actually pre-date Gettleman in NY:

Quote:
Nutrition and workout data is basically the absolute minimum required to check the box of "has an analytics department." I have no idea how anyone can use that to laud Gettleman or to suggest that he's actually embracing analytics. Especially when he very publicly mocked people using a data-based approach to evaluating talent and roster construction.


I'm not lauding him for his analytics work. Again - I came onto the initial analytics threads to simply show that he implemented a department in Carolina that didn't exist prior to refute the idea he shuns analytics and sees no value in them.

My visibility to NFL teams is mainly contained to the training room. So I'm only passing along that the Panthers and Giants have had metrics that they measure in the training room. And actually, the Giants were ahead of the Panthers there. The GM before Gettleman, Marty Hurney, didn't have any analytics in place. Gettleman brought that aspect to Carolina. The Giants had been doing it for years.

But that's just one small area of data that's being collected. Again - just another instance of data being gathered, which is why I said the larger debate is what is being done with the data.
For all the "lies" you call me out on  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 9:41 am : link
Quote:
I came onto the initial analytics threads to simply show that he implemented a department in Carolina that didn't exist prior to refute the idea he shuns analytics and sees no value in them.


Here is a huge one that goes into your luddite pattern of mis-characterizing things. How many times when I suggested he needed to be more invested in things like team construction and play analysis analytics did you say things like "you don't know what's really going on behind closed doors" and suggesting that his disciples that hire IT professionals to run analytics might also have programs that address those concerns. Things you insist on despite him literally making fun of the idea of those programs.

That's why I came to the conclusion that you must like smelling Gettleman farts. Because you continued to suggest that there very well might be advanced analytics going on despite very little evidence to support you point.

You back off that now to save face but the fact remains you charged into this debate without any kind of tangible knowledge of applied advanced analytics and argued with people that do.
RE: Gatorade..  
Gatorade Dunk : 2/22/2019 9:42 am : link
In comment 14303066 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
those systems actually pre-date Gettleman in NY:



Quote:


Nutrition and workout data is basically the absolute minimum required to check the box of "has an analytics department." I have no idea how anyone can use that to laud Gettleman or to suggest that he's actually embracing analytics. Especially when he very publicly mocked people using a data-based approach to evaluating talent and roster construction.



I'm not lauding him for his analytics work. Again - I came onto the initial analytics threads to simply show that he implemented a department in Carolina that didn't exist prior to refute the idea he shuns analytics and sees no value in them.

My visibility to NFL teams is mainly contained to the training room. So I'm only passing along that the Panthers and Giants have had metrics that they measure in the training room. And actually, the Giants were ahead of the Panthers there. The GM before Gettleman, Marty Hurney, didn't have any analytics in place. Gettleman brought that aspect to Carolina. The Giants had been doing it for years.

But that's just one small area of data that's being collected. Again - just another instance of data being gathered, which is why I said the larger debate is what is being done with the data.

Ultimately, I think both sides are right here, or at least there is room for both sides to be right - Gettleman (and the Giants, by extension) can simultaneously be open to some analytics (training/fitness/nutrition) and not pay enough attention (or flat out devalue) other analytics. It doesn't have to be binary, that someone is either a data junkie or a luddite, and the characterization as such definitely derailed this debate even when good points were being made.

The results seem to suggest that there is plenty of room for improvement, and some of Gettleman's personnel moves do appear at times to be grounded in the old school eyeball test more so than data. I think, as fans, we should hope that the front office continues to invest in the analytics side of the business. It doesn't have to replace the previous methodology; it can supplement it. More information is (almost) always a good thing.
Stop..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 9:51 am : link
mischaracterizing what I've said:

Quote:
That's why I came to the conclusion that you must like smelling Gettleman farts. Because you continued to suggest that there very well might be advanced analytics going on despite very little evidence to support you point.

You back off that now to save face but the fact remains you charged into this debate without any kind of tangible knowledge of applied advanced analytics and argued with people that do.


I've not backed off anything, because I've never asserted ANYTHING about advanced analytics. For the umpteenth time - this is what I've posted:

Quote:
the Panthers have been forward-thinking in integrating the information with coaching and scouting, despite being an organization that has two guys with old-school rťsumťs running the show: head coach Ron Rivera and GM Dave Gettleman. The Panthers have adopted advanced game theory, evident in the way they've approached fourth down, and they also dispatch 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.


That's it. I made no claims about the extent of the analytics. Simply that they existed! An actual viewpoint that you said wasn't true!. There's backing off here - but it is you doing it, all while lobbying moronic insults.

Gatorade summed it up perfectly, and my stance actually agrees with him - that having analytics is a good thing and I hope that the Giants are doing their best in that regard. I've never made any claims about the Giants expertise in analytics or anything about advanced analytics, so spare me the bullshit. But then again - I haven't mined peoples LinkedIn profiles.

Your rants against Luddites are hysterical because tehy derive from one main post - that Gettleman implemented an analytic department in Carolina. Period.
Oh god your favorite blurb  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 10:31 am : link
you should put that on your luddite crest.

This is the problem, you talk about Gettleman as if he understands game theory and you use that quote as support yet as many other than me have pointed out we are not even seeing simple game theory applied on the field.

And this is the larger point about you not understanding analytics. The points you so proudly attempt to make lack real basis when you are able to see it with the perspective of someone that really understands advanced analytics.
so now we need Stephen Hawking  
UConn4523 : 2/22/2019 10:36 am : link
as GM?

You are so over the top with this Game Theory talk that its laughable. But carry on, your posts are definitely entertaining.
The Eagles have advanced game theory at the tips of their fingers  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 10:41 am : link
see this New York times article. Don't think they have Stephen Hawking employed last I checked...

But i'm glad you find how far we've fallen behind entertaining. I don't.


Eagles and Advanced Analytics New York Times - ( New Window )
I find your posts entertaining  
UConn4523 : 2/22/2019 10:43 am : link
your inability to read is great, makes me laugh.

As for the Giants, I have no desire to stand on a soap box and scream about game theory for days. You seem to enjoy it though, so keep up the good work!
RE: I find your posts entertaining  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 10:48 am : link
In comment 14303184 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
your inability to read is great, makes me laugh.

As for the Giants, I have no desire to stand on a soap box and scream about game theory for days. You seem to enjoy it though, so keep up the good work!


It's funny that your lack of understanding the larger points that I am trying to make means I can't read or if you actually read the article I shared and comprehended it (again funny how you talk about my reading skills) you would be equally concerned.

EA has actually come back to have a substantive debate about this so he's no longer a luddite in my book. Maybe you can take his place!
i'm haven't commented at all on your content  
UConn4523 : 2/22/2019 10:52 am : link
other than making a snarky comment about Stephen Hawking. I'm more making fun of how far and long you are willing to go to prove a point and in doing so, completely ignoring other things that don't 100% mirror your view point.

I stopped reading your long diatribe posts a while ago. It just gets tiresome to keep reading the same things over and over. What exactly are you trying to prove and if you actually do turn me (or anyone else) to see the light, what will then happen?
LOL..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 10:54 am : link
Dude. Why do you keep missing the point?

Quote:
This is the problem, you talk about Gettleman as if he understands game theory and you use that quote as support yet as many other than me have pointed out we are not even seeing simple game theory applied on the field.


I don't talk about Gettleman understanding anything. Those aren't even my words - they are from an article detailing what each team was doing for analytics. THEY are saying he and Rivera implemented game theory in their approach to 4th downs.

Again - for those the dense who can't parse what my message is:

I use that quote for one specific reason only - to show that Gettleman implemented an analytics department in Carolina.

Why have I had to re-emphasize this over and over again, and why are you failing to comprehend this very basic point?
I mean a lot of this stuff with believe it or not  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 11:01 am : link
like writing mock game shows, I am having fun with.

My only real goal is at least here that is an accepted fact that we don't have the right people in place to be technology leaders we need to be a successful franchise the next 10-15 years.

Let's look at this as a game theory problem.

If Mara interacts with 1,000 fans a year and 100 of them are concerned about the direction of advanced analytics or at least mention it there is some probability that he does something about it.

Now let's say if this number grew to 200 or 300. This certainly increases the probability that he does something maybe by 2X or 3X, this might even be an exponential function based on what might be viewed as the acceleration of these requests or even as they say approach a critical mass of 50%.

Hell if these threads even convince 1 person that writes him to mention this I would have considered this a success from a game theory perspective.
LOL Luddite  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 11:09 am : link
if you don't see how putting forth a quote over and over again that other people have presented evidence against being accurate as it relates to what is going on inside the Giants building is annoying, I don't know what to tell you.

This is where the fart smelling comes from. The lengths you go to be on these threads and to protect the supposition that Gettleman might be the wrong leader as it relates to the long term future of the team is astounding. It really is like a teachers pet that wants to constantly kiss the ass of a teacher, he's already in charge and you aren't really bringing any new information to the table other than the fact that you like him. We know that.
LOL..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 11:16 am : link
Yet another reference to Luddite!

Quote:
LOL Luddite
NoGainDayne : 11:09 am : link : reply
if you don't see how putting forth a quote over and over again that other people have presented evidence against being accurate as it relates to what is going on inside the Giants building is annoying


It wasn't even a quote about the Giants. It was about Carolina!! I never made any claims about what was going on with the Giants.

You really fucking suck at reading comprehension.
this thread is just too uppity for me  
UConn4523 : 2/22/2019 11:19 am : link
.
Ok Luddite another tour de force performance for you  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 11:25 am : link
that was one of my points the whole time, that it doesn't matter what he did in Carolina. So yes congratulations you've helped my point while insulting my reading comprehension.
Sigh..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 2/22/2019 11:28 am : link
LOL.

Ponderous.
I don't think your point was ever unclear  
NoGainDayne : 2/22/2019 12:13 pm : link
What exactly do you believe is the value of this point?
RE: RE: Gatorade..  
.McL. : 2/22/2019 3:51 pm : link
In comment 14303089 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14303066 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Ultimately, I think both sides are right here, or at least there is room for both sides to be right - Gettleman (and the Giants, by extension) can simultaneously be open to some analytics (training/fitness/nutrition) and not pay enough attention (or flat out devalue) other analytics. It doesn't have to be binary, that someone is either a data junkie or a luddite, and the characterization as such definitely derailed this debate even when good points were being made.

The results seem to suggest that there is plenty of room for improvement, and some of Gettleman's personnel moves do appear at times to be grounded in the old school eyeball test more so than data. I think, as fans, we should hope that the front office continues to invest in the analytics side of the business. It doesn't have to replace the previous methodology; it can supplement it. More information is (almost) always a good thing.

Thanks GD for capturing where I was planning to go. I think NGD considers the training/fitness/nutrition stuff to be such a low bar as to not count. Whereas FMiC counts it.

If we want to have a reasonable debate on the subjust I think it behooves us to say...

"OTHER THAN FOR TRAINING/FITNESS/NUTRITION, AND SOME SIMPLE GAME THEORY DECISIONS LIKE WHEN TO GO FOR 2 OR GO FOR IT ON 4th DOWN, Gettleman's attitude towards technology/analytics is..."

My Opinion is:

Other than for training/fitness/nutrition and some simple game theory decisions like when to go for 2 or go for it on 4th down, Gettleman's attitude towards technology/analytics is that he doesn't believe in it, and has no intention of employing it for team building, deeper game theory decisions (i.e. play calling, matchups...), virtual reps, etc. I could be wrong, and he might surprise me by starting something, but I seriously doubt it. If he were interested I think he would have already started, and we would see some evidence of it.

In addition, from what I have read, the opinion above seems to be the general consensus from all parties.
.  
Bill2 : 2/22/2019 7:48 pm : link
What are the most important differentiators between most very successful technologists and most guys who work in technology? ( the exception is really brilliant and creative types)

1) Lack of contempt for others


2) Basic Change management skills and interpersonal relationship skills 101


3) Not mixing speculation and assertion when advocating adherence to fact based analysis


4) Humility


5) Listening


6) Effectively meeting people where they are


7) Asking the right questions


Model that
Thread needs to be deleted  
Jimmy Googs : 2/22/2019 9:12 pm : link
for boredom.

Or being just too ponderous...
Some  
NoGainDayne : 2/23/2019 2:59 pm : link


But look at the forum if you will. In a place when someone can call someone stupid for what should be viewed objectively as valid disappointment and critique that same forum allows for absurdity.

Iím happy to communicate with those on their level and meet them as youíve said.

Sometimes you meet in the mud. And if the preferred language is troll a learned gentleman can speak troll as well.

I actually asked you once maybe 10 years ago how you stayed level and your response was not all the time.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an a
Oops pressed send a little early  
NoGainDayne : 2/23/2019 3:03 pm : link
Some people have some sentimentality around a guy who is rude to people all the time and has been around. I donít share it but understand the sentiment.

But look at the forum if you will. In a place when someone can call someone stupid for what should be viewed objectively as valid disappointment and critique that same forum allows for absurdity.

Iím happy to communicate with those on their level and meet them as youíve said.

Sometimes you meet in the mud. And if the preferred language is troll a learned gentleman can speak troll as well.

I actually asked you once maybe 10 years ago how you stayed level and your response was not all the time.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
.  
Bill2 : 2/23/2019 4:17 pm : link
I didnt take sides or focus on that round and round ...its not of interest and I noticed it but did not read it. That kind of spark circle can happen to all of us over this and that.

That note aside, I do agree with some good thoughts in your last post.
Bill, we've got to meet at some point this year.  
yatqb : 2/23/2019 4:27 pm : link
How's the family? I'm expecting good news from my oldest daughter soon! (While working in healthy policy in VT, she completed her Master's at Dartmouth, so now has time on her hands to make me a grandpa...let's hope!)

Regards, Yat
Hey Yat  
Bill2 : 2/23/2019 6:19 pm : link
I will email you tomorrow?
Very interesting points raised over several  
BlueLou'sBack : 2/28/2019 4:52 am : link
rounds of "debate" by .Mcl and NGD.

Thank you both very much for raising the bar of the discussion about the Giants' use - or rather probable lack of us - of modern analytics and data collection and mining in their overall operations.

One can easily imagine that it's been a sizable part of where the Giants have fallen behind their peers like the Eagles and Patriots over the past decade or two. Hopefully it's any area into which DG will at least consider strategic investigation.
I'm glad we could actually get through this  
NoGainDayne : 2/28/2019 1:23 pm : link
with some posters asking what I feel are the right relevant questions.

I am also genuinely happy to hear that Gettleman seems open to Murray contrary to what the reporter might have said but the veracity of either thing is always up for debate.

And where I started on this thread is important to detail, Murray and this draft specifically is an interesting one. I think we all have our own analysis stories as it relates to any information and there is no substitutes for "seeing it all" which is why logging film hours is something that Gettlman has that I could never hope to match him on. But you also have to see what computers can do as logging an almost an infinite amount of more hours on an almost limitless amount of information. We just have to help them infer and connect in ways that they don't understand. In addition to computing hardware advances I think AI moving into the hands of practical business people vs. pure scientists is a big reason why we see it working a lot more.

For me Murray passes the eyeball test completely and i'd love to have him but my personal analytics story tells me something about that. I took Russel Wilson off my draft board for the BBI mock, really I didn't even "scout" him because like many I saw too many QBs like Charlie Ward, Crouch or Troy Smith not really make it to the NFL. Mayfield I had some doubts about his maturity but loved him and thought he could be an NFL player, I didn't really want to argue with anyone last year (I know, shocking) but I did this sanity test for myself.

Since the famous 1998 here are the pro bowl hit rates (total drafted / players who made at least 1 pro bowl) less than or equal to the following heights for all 7 rounds

18.44% -- 77
16.55% -- 76
15.69% -- 75
12.77% -- 74
23.53% -- 73
33.33% -- 72
50.00% -- 71

and now just the first 3 rounds

35.63% -- 77
34.92% -- 76
31.82% -- 75
33.33% -- 74
44.44% -- 73
50.00% -- 72
100.00% -- 71

Weight is also pretty interesting, 7 rounds

18.50% -- 275
18.46% -- 250
17.68% -- 240
18.00% -- 230
14.93% -- 220
12.50% -- 210

3 rounds

35.00% -- 275
35.42% -- 250
34.48% -- 240
35.21% -- 230
37.50% -- 220
40.00% -- 210

Now this falls well short of a complete analysis and the sample sizes are dangerously small on the low end but it would seem to support the idea that if you can put up stats as a little guy and aren't depending on the option for those stats your chances of being good in the NFL are actually higher than the general population.

But there is another part of my analytics story, it wasn't just height that led me to knock Wilson, it was injuries. RG3 and to a lesser extent Vick made the Pro Bowl but wear and tear got to them. (Now it's quite annoying that I seem to see an overlap in enthusiastic Barkley supporters and rejection of shorter slighter players when RBs on the whole are more impacted by these hits but let's leave that to the side for now)

What kinds of models would you need to effectively evaluate this kind of information and not knee jerk to saying Murray is like Russel Wilson (which admittedly he looks like to me based on what I know of their mental makeups) or Vick

Probability of X number of games played

Probability of X number of pro bowls

You can use analytics of markers mental makeup as I discussed above, combined with stats to at least give you an interesting objective perspective not colored by your personal analytics story. These are easier forecasts because you can use binary values. You really need to see the probabilities distributions of being good vs. not playing anymore to have an informed discussion on this using many data sets I have no access to. I have little doubt that Ernie Adams has put these kinds of things in front of his decision makers for years and they have gotten better and better as the tech team has expanded with more skilled mathematicians and computer scientists.

But what do we really care about? Not these models per se, they are intermediate markers for harder questions like what will their stats be over the next 10 years in total? Where you can start looping in models like the IT factor one I discussed above. Like with Haskins, he doesn't do anything wrong, but it does make me super uncomfortable that he couldn't beat out J. T. Barrett. Again, we need to look at stats like number of years played and who else is on the roster with him to effectively measure these kinds of things. I was never ready to fault Mayfield for losing his competition with Mahomes. Jeez, talk about the wrong place at the wrong time.

Moral of the story is especially after the height / weigh in today Gettleman should be making these decisions with more information than just the traditional means and it is problematic that neither him nor the Mara's seem to care about this fact or remedying it ASAP.




Wanted to put hand size here as well  
NoGainDayne : 2/28/2019 4:30 pm : link

Since 1998 here are the pro bowl hit rates (total drafted / players who made at least 1 pro bowl) less than or equal to the following hand sizes for all 7 rounds

18.82% -- 10.50
18.99% -- 10.25
18.29% -- 10.00
17.69% -- 9.75
19.79% -- 9.50
14.52% -- 9.25

3 rounds

34.38% -- 10.50
34.41% -- 10.25
33.73% -- 10.00
33.85% -- 9.75
38.30% -- 9.50
30.77% -- 9.25

Interesting to note Goff and Mahomes are both in that bottom bucket. I can slice and dice this data set pretty easily for QBs if people are curious about other things
NGD - before someone else jumps on you,  
BlueLou'sBack : 2/28/2019 6:41 pm : link
I'd like to point out your "hit rate" definition must be the inverse of what you explained above (or %s less than 100 make no sense.)

It must be the sum (of player who have made 1 or more pro bowls) / sum (total of drafted players)

Otherwise the % would all be greater than 100%.

Personally, I'd suggest starting with a bunch of physical measurements and performance measurements and do a PCA (principal components analysis) with the data of say "multiple pro bowl selections" to steer me hopefully to the more significant data points.

Which I am certain some teams have done, and that's why the 40 yard dash remains a crucial parameter for some positions.
If you don't realize that JT Barett is a perfict fit for what Ohio St  
Zeke's Alibi : 2/28/2019 8:45 pm : link
runs and that is why he didn't beat him out than you must not watch a lot of college football.
It's just the 1 year starter at QB debate  
NoGainDayne : 2/28/2019 9:01 pm : link
i'm not comfortable with the statistics behind not winning it for more than one year in general.

I'd say anecdotally that i'd overlook Mahomes but the idea is that the machine learning can account for that in the data of relative skill.

Perfect for what they did is incredibly qualitative. Why couldn't Haskins play like he did this year last year? Wouldn't that have been better?
I personally find value in NGD's theories  
Jim in Forest Hills : 3/1/2019 8:16 am : link
part of which stems that I don't live in that world and would like to hear more about it, especially as it relates to the Giants. I wish we could have more discussion on the actual matter instead of this useless back and forth with people just stuck in trenches (both sides). I really enjoyed the McL, NGD, christian posts. I think FMiC would actually be a great contributor to these threads if he weren't so intent on attacking. Many others simply jump on the pile with almost no sense of themselves like a mob.
RE: .  
Jim in Forest Hills : 3/1/2019 8:18 am : link
In comment 14304512 Bill2 said:
Quote:
I didnt take sides or focus on that round and round ...its not of interest and I noticed it but did not read it. That kind of spark circle can happen to all of us over this and that.

That note aside, I do agree with some good thoughts in your last post.


And Bill, your insights here would be great, instead your posts are about regulating posting behavior. Just shouldn't have to be like that.
I don't think there is much more to say  
NoGainDayne : 3/1/2019 6:02 pm : link
on this one until next season. I think it is worth continuing to see what our leaders say and look for clues if their thinking towards analytics is shifting. It is something that is becoming more and more a topic of conversation so we will see.

I'm hoping we see some better timeout usage this next year, and a more outside hope is that we bring in someone with the computer science / mathematical pedigree you need to start building these systems in earnest.

Otherwise I just think as fans we need to be talking to other fans about this and making sure if we have another bad season and/or are looking for a new GM our ownership cannot ignore the need to make a more progressive choice.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner