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
Right now, the general consensus is that the only quarterbacks worthy of a first-round pick are Ohio State's Dwayne Haskins, Missouri's Drew Lock and maybe Duke's Daniel Jones. But there are three teams in the Top 10 that could be looking for a quarterback - the Giants (at 6), the Jaguars (7) and the Broncos (10) - and a few others who could trade up for a quarterback like the Dolphins (13) and Redskins (15).
Link - ( New Window )
There may not be a team more in the box than Jints Central. They love their box. It's warm, comfortable and predictable. And I think this a large reason for the wild inconsistency the last 25+ years...
Thought crossed my mind too. Disinformation campaign.
Quote:
The Giants' organization emphasizes conventional wisdom and inside-the-box thinking
Ha, I thought the same thing when I read this.
I don't think so. Young and Accorsi made numerous public comments on team size requirements by position for premium picks. Given that Gettleman was raised in that Giants' culture, and his numerous old school type comments on personnel, I would be shocked to see the Giants break from their past.
Also, for years, there are those out there who insist the Giants are using disinformation because no team would be so public in voicing their pre-draft preferences. And every year, we find out that it was no smoke.
The most recent example was Barkley.
Quote:
.
Also, for years, there are those out there who insist the Giants are using disinformation because no team would be so public in voicing their pre-draft preferences. And every year, we find out that it was no smoke.
The most recent example was Barkley.
The Giants are just extremely predictable because of these requirements and what they look for. If the New York Post would let me write the same article, which is obvious to any Giants fan, all of a sudden I'm a journalist.
You really are embarrassing. I mean, this is Jints Central. "The Waltons" of the NFL...
Quote:
.
I don't think so. Young and Accorsi made numerous public comments on team size requirements by position for premium picks. Given that Gettleman was raised in that Giants' culture, and his numerous old school type comments on personnel, I would be shocked to see the Giants break from their past.
Agreed.
Quote:
.
You really are embarrassing. I mean, this is Jints Central. "The Waltons" of the NFL...
That's why it's perfect. Took 90 something years to spring this trap
And they qualified thet by saying "they think", obviously keenly aware that's 1 inch shorter than Drew Brees. They definitely see the whole picture.
And by not commenting on arm strength or mobility, the brain trust is playing this very close to the vest. No leaks, excpet for Ralph.
Very shrewd front office. Great story by Ralph
I'm wondering that myself. What is his job? Isn't he a Jets beat writer now? Why is he all of a sudden getting sources from the Giants to openly talk about a QB that could potentially be our pick?
Say what you want about the lack of smokescreens which I agree about but when have we ever openly discussed not having a player valued at a certain spot? I cannot remember a time. Gettleman was very openly gushing over Barkley but never discredited any of the QBs leading many to think we could be taking a QB last year. This sounds like bullshit RV to me.
This "report" doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
In comment 14293617 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
.
I don't think so. Young and Accorsi made numerous public comments on team size requirements by position for premium picks. Given that Gettleman was raised in that Giants' culture, and his numerous old school type comments on personnel, I would be shocked to see the Giants break from their past.
Agreed.
Seconded.
Quote:
.
Also, for years, there are those out there who insist the Giants are using disinformation because no team would be so public in voicing their pre-draft preferences. And every year, we find out that it was no smoke.
The most recent example was Barkley.
Yeah. I recall being one of the folks that thought all the Barkley talk was smoke.
Boy, was I ever wrong.
It seems that the Giants don't use smoke signals. Therefore, it is pretty safe to conclude that, when it comes to the Giants, where there is smoke there is fire.
For better or worse, this is an organization that will eliminate (or severely downgrade) guys due to physical or mental issues.
We don't know if they would completely erase Murray from their draftboard.
Look at Jesse Armstead. The Giants admitted they drafted him even due to his lack of size and previous injury history because they value was too great in the 8th round.
I would argue that most NFL teams don't see Murray as the #6 overall pick.
I agree with poster above - what grade did the Giants have on Mayfield? That would be telling.
Well to be fair, which team keeps hitting on QB after QB? The Packers had Favre (who they traded for) and then Rodgers. Who else seamlessly moved from one great QB to the next through the draft in the past 20 years or so?
People are going to keep telling this kid he's too small and he will continue to prove them wrong. He was too small to play QB in the first place, then went on to be (statistically speaking) the greatest high school football player in history. Then he was too small to play D1 football and he went on to win the Heisman trophy. Now he's too small to play in the NFL or be a top 10 pick. At what point are people going to stop doubting him and accept the fact he's an absolutely exceptional quarterback?
I would argue that most NFL teams don't see Murray as the #6 overall pick.
I agree with poster above - what grade did the Giants have on Mayfield? That would be telling.
For me that is the most frustrating part of the Giants and the current situation. If the Browns take Barkley at 1 they probably pass on a talent like Mayfield because of "character concerns" or his lack of "ideal" height. It's a wide open game. These height concerns really aren't what they used to be.
I don't think Murray's issue is height, he is less than an inch shorter than Wilson. It's hard to see him avoiding upperbody injuries at his size. Things like broken collar bones and shoulder injuries.
Quote:
is a quarterback with high measurable, height, arm strength and leadership. He also generally stunk to high heaven... Other than Phil Sims and Eli Manning (in the best quarterback class since '84), how has that 'winning formula' played out?
Well to be fair, which team keeps hitting on QB after QB? The Packers had Favre (who they traded for) and then Rodgers. Who else seamlessly moved from one great QB to the next through the draft in the past 20 years or so?
Manning and Luck?
Reporters need clicks.
Quote:
.
Thought crossed my mind too. Disinformation campaign.
Yes, the Giants as an organization and Dave Gettleman in particular are well known for their well-honed skills in subterfuge.
Right - no one was able to predict Barkley last year, or McCaffrey in Carolina the year before.
His interest in McCaffrey was so obvious and so well documented that even PFT questioned whether it was a smokescreen because no GM would be that transparent in telegraphing their pick.
There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking. DG's football acumen and talent appraisal skills may be outstanding, but there is nothing in his history to suggest that he's particularly good at hiding his intentions. But if you want to believe that he's good at that simply because he's not Jerry Reese, have at it.
Quote:
Before combine and taking a look at him up close. This can be a close minded organization lacking in innovation.
For better or worse, this is an organization that will eliminate (or severely downgrade) guys due to physical or mental issues.
We don't know if they would completely erase Murray from their draftboard.
Look at Jesse Armstead. The Giants admitted they drafted him even due to his lack of size and previous injury history because they value was too great in the 8th round.
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
I hate to say it, but too many signs point to Jones as a target.
Manning Camp guy, Cutcliffe, loves Eli, prototype size per the Jints Central box, etc.
Quote:
but the question is if Murray drops significantly and is at or in range of our second round pick, do we pass on him then? Say if he and Jones are on the board at the top of round 2, are we seriously going to pick Jones ahead of him? That would be tough to take.
I hate to say it, but too many signs point to Jones as a target.
Manning Camp guy, Cutcliffe, loves Eli, prototype size per the Jints Central box, etc.
Yup.
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
Except for the fact that Gettleman said he changed a lot of stuff last year including how they evaluate and grade players. He said he stated that he learned some good things in Carolina and brought them over. He also said he was emphasizing more production than projection. So, that Lombardi tweet is bullshit to me. No offense defenderdawg. That isn't directed at you. I appreciate the info you bring.
If you read sources unaffiliated with the Giants you get the sense the way they are doing things isn't particularly well respected.
And they qualified thet by saying "they think", obviously keenly aware that's 1 inch shorter than Drew Brees. They definitely see the whole picture.
And by not commenting on arm strength or mobility, the brain trust is playing this very close to the vest. No leaks, excpet for Ralph.
Very shrewd front office. Great story by Ralph
He's 5'9
Avg height NFL dline: 6'5'
Avg height NFL oline: 6'4"
Avg height CFL dline: 6'4"
No Oklahoma starting O lineman was under 6'4"
Darren Sproles is 5'6" and has lasted 13 years yeah i get it not a QB but a playmaker is a playmaker....
I personally don't have that info but can we give Gettleman a little credit based off of last year? The guy had a great draft so if we were doing things the same way we did when Reese was here our draft would have sucked.
Too many people are lumping in the Giants of the last 7 years or so with what Gettleman did last year. I know you disagree with him not taking a QB last year but just because you disagree doesn't mean he was wrong in what he did. There can be more than one way of doing things.
Gettleman was in Carolina with Cam Newton so we know he liked a QB that can run around. He has said as much.
I agree with certain height/weight requirements are antiquated but I am fine if they think Murray is too small. I personally do with both height and weight and possible hand size like you mentioned. That shouldn't be looked at as a negative. It should be looked at as part of the process.
What people fail to realize is they want that homerun. They focus on the upside. Murray can change the game. Think about what him, Barkley, Beckham, and Engram can do. What a lot of people don't want to focus on is what if he isn't good in the NFL? He had a bunch of balls batted down against Alabama. In that game he wasn't great at all and his team really didn't have a shot but he put up numbers when the game was out of hand. What I am trying to say is that not every pick needs to be a homerun. To use that analogy, how many picks did Reese miss because he was going for the upside? Way too many. We struck out on way to many picks like Flowers, Apple, Austin, the JPP of TEs, and numerous other ones instead of getting better value. I am not saying that he needs to focus more on the floor of a player but the whole player needs to be evaluated and understand the risks associated with that player. Focus on the here and now and not necessarily what a player could be if x, y, and z work out.
Murray put up crazy stats but that isn't what makes a QB. Going through reads and progressions is huge and most QBs don't do this. They take off and run and too many Giants fans want that because they are so burnt out from our shitty OL that they think that is a top quality to have in a QB. It isnt. In fact, it shows when things aren't perfect more often than not that QB would rather run with it than go through his progressions. The odds of teaching a QB at the NFL level how to go through progressions and stand tall in the pocket are slim. That is something that has to be developed somewhere else especially nowadays when the NFL has limited practices and hitting.
So, long story short, I like you am not on the Murray bandwagon. However, I am not taking RV's take on anything Giants related as fact. I will also hope that the Giants factor in height and weight into any evaluation. It would be stupid not to. It just matters how much emphasis is put on it and how does that evaluation hold up. I hope that these scouts and Gettleman and company are constantly self-scouting their own process to how previous players were evaluated and how those grades hold up.
I don't want to make blanket statements on the Giants organization amd how they function when Gettleman clearly stated he had all the scouts on the phone and explained how things were changing. He fired Marc Ross and took over the draft. Year one was a success in that area. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt in year two before we lose our minds over a couple of comments that were reported from an asshole from unnamed sources.
Probably. Everyone knew that was likely the case. But there are always exceptions to the word "probably".
Quote:
In comment 14293663 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
is a quarterback with high measurable, height, arm strength and leadership. He also generally stunk to high heaven... Other than Phil Sims and Eli Manning (in the best quarterback class since '84), how has that 'winning formula' played out?
Well to be fair, which team keeps hitting on QB after QB? The Packers had Favre (who they traded for) and then Rodgers. Who else seamlessly moved from one great QB to the next through the draft in the past 20 years or so?
Manning and Luck?
Patriots Bledsoe -> Brady. And before Bledsoe there was only a 2 year gap before you get to Steve Grogan. They've been damn lucky.
Avg height NFL dline: 6'5'
Avg height NFL oline: 6'4"
Avg height CFL dline: 6'4"
No Oklahoma starting O lineman was under 6'4"
Darren Sproles is 5'6" and has lasted 13 years yeah i get it not a QB but a playmaker is a playmaker....
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
It's a great thing the league hasn't changed at all since then. If the Giants won't consider a player strictly because he isn't their ideal height then I am even more concerned about the future of this franchise.
And further, did this draft class do anything to positively impact the team's identity? We weren't a good running team, we weren't a good passing team. We didn't run block or pass block well. We didn't rush the passer well, and we didn't stop the run well. The QB we drafted was a disaster and mocked by the head coach. So where did one of the rookies come in and make a great impact?
If you want to look at a team we know had a great draft, go look at Indy. Their rookie offensive linemen changed the identity of their offense, and Leonard was one of the best defensive players in the entire league, let alone amongst the rookies. The Colts went from 4-12 to 10-6 in a year in part because of their draft class. THAT is a great draft.
Odds are, the Giants front office probably won't take Murray but I just wanted to point out that DG did buy into talent over size at least once.
It's a great thing the league hasn't changed at all since then. If the Giants won't consider a player strictly because he isn't their ideal height then I am even more concerned about the future of this franchise.
One would think the cases of people like Brees and Wilson would lead the Giants to be more open-minded even if they prefer a larger QB. Stagnation in thinking is a killer.
You remind me of a college studemt where everything is theory but until you actually get experience in a field you don't truly understand the nuances of practice.
You, like many, have stated what a horrendous job Reese did. Did you think Gettleman was going to come in day one, wave his dick around, and magically cure all of our issues? I didn't. This was always going to be a process. Did you want him to bat 1.000? Nobody does. So, you cannot have it both ways. If you cannot see the improvement that has taken place so far I don't know what to tell you.
You'd be better off just giving Gettleman some time before constantly saying the same thing over and over and over. We understand you would have done things different and have differing opinions on things. I used to really like your thoughts even if they were completely against the norm. But now it seems like you just like saying anything that goes against the grain. If you are so unhappy with how this franchise is run then just take a break and let it unfold. See what happens. Gettleman has earned that opportunity whether you agree with that or not.
I agree with you about Shurmur but he still gets a shot in my opinion. Constantly turning over staff is a guaranteed way to fail. The Giants have been the opposite for many years by sticking with people too long. But after McAdoo, getting rid of Shurmur without giving him a chance is not smart either.
Here is where we differ. When you see something you dont like you want to rid all pieces associated with it. Every tike a player is mentioned whether it is Eli, Beckham, Engram, JPP, or whoever, your answer is if we suck with them we can suck without them so we need ro get rid of them. Then you say the same about the coaches. You said the samw about our GM. You wanted the entire scouting department wiped away. That doesn't solve problems and that isn't a way to go about business with people. Some players or others you may be right with but that is almost always your take. When you wanted the entire scouting department gone taht was just ludicrous. Just becaise we had bad drafts doesn't mean they didn't do their job well. Their job is to evaluate players according to our grading system. The people don't need ro change, the system did. Gettleman did that to better results. You don't just throw away all that experience. The smarter way to handle that is to constantly evaluate your way of thinking and adapt and educate. Leadership is the key.
Criticizing me doesn't make the Giants any better. I'm sorry to hold a mirror up in front of the team, but I'm not going to pretend this isn't one of the worst teams in the NFL.
You want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Want to say Gettleman's doing a good job? Want to give Shurmur another shot? Go ahead. It doesn't change what's actually happening.
How is he like Vick? Murray is a far better passer than Vick and it's not close. Vick's completion percentage in college was 56% while Murray's was 67.4 %.
Criticizing me doesn't make the Giants any better. I'm sorry to hold a mirror up in front of the team, but I'm not going to pretend this isn't one of the worst teams in the NFL.
You want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Want to say Gettleman's doing a good job? Want to give Shurmur another shot? Go ahead. It doesn't change what's actually happening.
Criticize certain things as much as you want. We have sucked. I have criticized Shurmur as well. I wasn't crazy about the Stewart signing when it happened. There is plenty to criticize but if you cannot see that we are headed in the right direction then that is what you see and we obviously disagree.
1. You don't know the extent to which the system changed, if it did at all.
2. Gettleman got better results? How so? And better than whom?
3. Do the Giants seem like an organization that is constantly self-evaluating their way of thinking? Do they seem like they are adapting and educating themselves? I'd point you to Gettleman's draft comments about analytics as a reference.
4. Do you think the Giants' leadership is doing well? You think heaping blame on the previous regime by repeatedly referencing 3-13 is leadership? You think using the rookie backup QB as a punchline for the media is leadership?
Quote:
It's a great thing the league hasn't changed at all since then. If the Giants won't consider a player strictly because he isn't their ideal height then I am even more concerned about the future of this franchise.
One would think the cases of people like Brees and Wilson would lead the Giants to be more open-minded even if they prefer a larger QB. Stagnation in thinking is a killer.
And Mayfield just last year. The game is evolving and so do the Giants. Being stuck in this old way of thinking is detrimental to the future success of the team. I used to be against the mobile types but Murray is so talented that I would be thrilled if the Giants took him. He was outstanding despite focusing on two sports. Imagine how much better he will be now that he is focused solely on football. I expect him to show up to the combine close weighing over 200 lbs.
You VILL LEARNS TO ACCZEPT DIS!
She really wanted to see me bare chested!
And don’t ask Gettleman about analytics.
“Football is about watching film when they’re between the white lines,” Gettleman said. “You’ve got to be patient and you have to watch. And the other part of it is, you have to know what you are looking for.”
Link - ( New Window )
“We’re gonna have what I call a philosophical and method shift on how we operate, yes,’’ Gettleman told The Post. “The philosophy is the way of looking at players, and the method is how we set up the draft board
. Under Reese and Ross, the Giants were often drawn to height-weight-speed prospects who too frequently went bust rather than boom. It is believed Gettleman will bring the emphasis back to production on the field — stressing passion, desire and mechanics rather than raw talent.
This will be reflected in how players are actually placed on the Giants’ draft board. Gettleman took a look at how the Panthers graded players, preferred that system to what he knew with the Giants, and retained it in Charlotte. Now he is bringing it to the Giants.
“Putting your focus on different things, the board is gonna look very different,’’ Gettleman said. “It’s actually something I learned in Carolina. There’s an old saying: Every man is my equal, in that I may learn from him. These guys taught me a different way of looking at it — not how to evaluate, not how to do it philosophically, but just a different way of setting up a board, and I think it’s terrific.’’
Gettleman would not get into specifics, but agreed the new draft board will more accurately display how an individual players’ grade relates to others on the board.
“It gives you not only a vertical view but also a horizontal view as well,’’ he said. “It allows you to really see the board, without giving anything up.’’
All NFL teams — other than the Patriots, not surprisingly — hire one of two scouting services, National Football Scouting or Blesto, to get a better handle on college juniors. The Giants are with Blesto. Teams usually assign one of their young, inexperienced scouts to these services, and one of Gettleman’s first jobs was as the Blesto scout for the Bills. When Gettleman got to Carolina, one of his first moves was to switch the Panthers from National to Blesto.
“You got to realize we’re all gonna go back to our roots,’’ he said.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
The people don't need ro change, the system did. Gettleman did that to better results. You don't just throw away all that experience. The smarter way to handle that is to constantly evaluate your way of thinking and adapt and educate. Leadership is the key.
1. You don't know the extent to which the system changed, if it did at all.
2. Gettleman got better results? How so? And better than whom?
3. Do the Giants seem like an organization that is constantly self-evaluating their way of thinking? Do they seem like they are adapting and educating themselves? I'd point you to Gettleman's draft comments about analytics as a reference.
4. Do you think the Giants' leadership is doing well? You think heaping blame on the previous regime by repeatedly referencing 3-13 is leadership? You think using the rookie backup QB as a punchline for the media is leadership?
1. Yes, I don't know the extent to which it has changed. I said that already since I am not in on the meetings. All I can go by is what Gettleman said.
2. Compare last draft to our last, I don't know, 8 drafts. Tell me it hasn't been way better.
3. Neither of us can answer that. I said that is the way I would do it. I would hope the Giants do that but do not know.
4. I think Gettleman and Shurmur have shown leadership. 100%. Gettleman has made some tough decisions and some stuff that would never have happened under Reese or probably Acorsi for that reason. Getting rid of JPP was something you wanted but that had an effect on this defense but it was necessary. He got rid of Marc Ross which would never happen if Gettleman wasn't here. He brought in guys to fix the culture and that happened. Shurmur has held this team together and got them playing better after a horrendous start. Yes, neither of us liked a lot pf what we saw but in terms of leadership he led these men.
Like I said, you see what you want like I see what I want. This team wasn't going to be flipped in one season. Imo, we are on the right path. You disagree. Imo, Shurmur and possibly Gettleman get 2 more years to see where they are at. I am in education and the rule of thumb is you need 3 years to truly evaluate a new program's effectiveness. You need a big enough sample size. Now that doesn't mean blindly leave that program alone because it'll never work or don't make adjustments but you need to implement it correctly. Imo, Gettleman has taken this team by the horns and is doing the right thing. I'm not saying he's perfect but he 100% is demonstrating the necessary leadership needed.
You know that is a ridiculous question. How would anybody outside the organization know that? And that isn't true. I answered the question by saying nobody knows that. Not sure what you are looking for.
If 3 years is what's needed, then explain the Colts. Explain the Eagles winning the Super Bowl in Pederson's second season. Or McVay getting to the Super Bowl in his second season. What about Matt Nagy taking Chicago to 12-4 in his first year? How about Anthony Lynn going 9-7 and 12-4 with the Chargers despite taking over a team that just moved to a new city and has played the equivalent of 10 or 11 road games each season? How about Mike Vrabel going 9-7 with the Titans in a tough division and dealing with a QB injury?
Those guys didn't seem to need the first 8 games of the season to get their offense to a representative NFL level. They also haven't needed 3 years to lead competitive teams.
You want to give Gettleman and Shurmur three years, that's fine. I suspect Mara might be of a like mind. I also suspect all three years will have been losing seasons, and we'll be starting this whole thing over at that point.
Agreed. But I don't think Jones makes it to the second round. I expect cluster drafting of OL, pass rushers, and LBs.
If 3 years is what's needed, then explain the Colts. Explain the Eagles winning the Super Bowl in Pederson's second season. Or McVay getting to the Super Bowl in his second season. What about Matt Nagy taking Chicago to 12-4 in his first year? How about Anthony Lynn going 9-7 and 12-4 with the Chargers despite taking over a team that just moved to a new city and has played the equivalent of 10 or 11 road games each season? How about Mike Vrabel going 9-7 with the Titans in a tough division and dealing with a QB injury?
Those guys didn't seem to need the first 8 games of the season to get their offense to a representative NFL level. They also haven't needed 3 years to lead competitive teams.
You want to give Gettleman and Shurmur three years, that's fine. I suspect Mara might be of a like mind. I also suspect all three years will have been losing seasons, and we'll be starting this whole thing over at that point.
Simple, those teams had more talent. Philly was loaded on their OL and DL. Indy has Luck so they did right by fixing that OL that was in better shaoe than our OL was in. The Rams had talent and Jeff Fisher was garbage.
Again, view things the way you want. That is your right. No need to go back amd forth over this. Did any other team have like 10 years of bad draftimg like we have had? It is going to take time to truly turn this team around.
It's easy to just heap the blame on Reese and McAdoo and overlook the job that was done in 2018 after they had been shown the door.
I spit out my beer reading that. LOL. Such a conservative organization. But nah, I'm not bitter or mad about missing the postseason 6 of the 7 last seasons...
I see this all the time in business. High or mid-level person(s) is let go and they become the easy go-to for blame on certain issues.
Sure, the Giants were bad again this year. But it can't be Gettleman/Shurmur. No, they inherited a mess and are doing yeomen's work to fix the mess left behind by McAdoo and Reese.
Despite the fact that there are early warning signs that this regime may not be any better than the prior...
It's easy to just heap the blame on Reese and McAdoo and overlook the job that was done in 2018 after they had been shown the door.
Reese and Ross deserve most of the blame. Their recent draft history and FA signings have been among the worst in football. When you miss out on two top 10 picks in a row you're in big trouble.
Isn’t it possible Reese left a mess of a roster and DG/Shurmur need to do a better job? Weird, I know.
I see this all the time in business. High or mid-level person(s) is let go and they become the easy go-to for blame on certain issues.
Sure, the Giants were bad again this year. But it can't be Gettleman/Shurmur. No, they inherited a mess and are doing yeomen's work to fix the mess left behind by McAdoo and Reese.
Despite the fact that there are early warning signs that this regime may not be any better than the prior...
Reese was a good scout, but he was a bad GM. Namely sticking with his butt buddy Marc Ross for so long. Notice how Marc Ross still has a job. His reputation is terrible throughout the league. He's known not only as inept, but the true career killer - lazy.
I challenge you to find a team that drafted worse than us in the last five years. Spoiler alert -I bet you can't that is how bad it is. 5 years of bad drafting absolutely guts a roster.
Bill Belichik took an 8-8 Pats teams and went 5-11 his first year building the team in his image. The Pats started 0-2 until Tom Brady came in and the rest is history. These things take time.
Despite the fact that there are early warning signs that this regime may not be any better than the prior...
There's a middle ground here. Gettleman and Shurmur have taken shit from several of you for every move. Go Terps is actually on record as saying they've done NOTHING good and points to the 5-11 record as why. If bw has given them credit, I'm not sure where.
So basically these two perpetual pessimists feel there's not a single positive, and don't even give credit for picking the rookie of the Year. And that's ignoring some of these nuggets of shit from one or both of them:
- Gettleman was hired as a yes man without any search for a GM at all
- Gettleman and Shurmur were hired with the mandate to build around Eli and not draft a QB
- Picking Barkley is a mistake even if he's the best player in the draft (and yes, that was said)
- The draft was a failure because of Barkley and the jury is still out on every other pick, including Hernandez and Hill
- Omameah's and Stewart's contracts weren't just terrible, they set the franchise back
There actually have to be some positives taken - and if you can't acknowledge that, then what's the point??
At this point, why keep watching the team?
Not to mention when you look at a player like Kyler Murray with such a huge potential performance delta. You'd really like to be able to think the process was deeper than this player is too short for the position.
These threads are fucking awesome.
These threads are fucking awesome.
It's necessary with Luddites about making the same points while ironically complaining about others "making the same points"
And it's funny that someone that is always talking about whether people are informed or not spends time arguing about things he has very little knowledge of.
It's so great to hear about the team "not quitting" when they looked awful in the only games that even remotely mattered in the 2nd half of the season (Eagles and Titans)
It's also great when the same people go on threads about players that have done terrible jobs like Stewart or Omameh and feel the need to make points like at least he cut him and he probably had character value that we can't assess.
Just like here. Hearing from a reporter that covers the team that your team is essentially stuck in the past isn't the time or place to come in and tell us how wrong those of us that are concerned are. You don't want to hear that about a team you root for, the place you work anything that you have a vested interest in.
It's also amazing when people just attack sources that don't align with their views.
If 3 years is what's needed, then explain the Colts. Explain the Eagles winning the Super Bowl in Pederson's second season. Or McVay getting to the Super Bowl in his second season. What about Matt Nagy taking Chicago to 12-4 in his first year? How about Anthony Lynn going 9-7 and 12-4 with the Chargers despite taking over a team that just moved to a new city and has played the equivalent of 10 or 11 road games each season? How about Mike Vrabel going 9-7 with the Titans in a tough division and dealing with a QB injury?
Those guys didn't seem to need the first 8 games of the season to get their offense to a representative NFL level. They also haven't needed 3 years to lead competitive teams.
You want to give Gettleman and Shurmur three years, that's fine. I suspect Mara might be of a like mind. I also suspect all three years will have been losing seasons, and we'll be starting this whole thing over at that point.
Each and every one of those teams was/is miles ahead of the Giants in terms of roster depth.
I've said this before: the 2015 Giants without Eli and Beckham were arguably one of the worst rosters in NFL history - certainly worse than the 2017 Browns. Landon Collins turned into a respectable player and the Giants acquired some free agents on defense but the roster at this point last year was not that much better than that 2015 roster.
Long story short - Gettleman could have a great offseason, improve this team a lot - and it might still finish 7-9 next year.
Just like here?? You mean the thread where a reporter talks about Murray likely being too small to be the Giants pick and that's spurs all sorts of criticism of Gettleman and Shurmur?
And your takeaway? That there's no deeper analysis than the player is too small, even though you have no fucking clue what the reasoning behind it is.
You mean a thread like this that causes all sorts of knee-jerk reactions?
Just like here - a thread that gives just one more platform to tell us how shitty Gettleman and Shurmur are, even though that isn't the point. Great example Captain Analytics
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
Please enlighten me as to how thoughts citing this as another reason for concern are more out of place than those suggesting we shouldn’t be concerned.
Quote:
Just like here. Hearing from a reporter that covers the team that your team is essentially stuck in the past isn't the time or place to come in and tell us how wrong those of us that are concerned are.
Just like here?? You mean the thread where a reporter talks about Murray likely being too small to be the Giants pick and that's spurs all sorts of criticism of Gettleman and Shurmur?
And your takeaway? That there's no deeper analysis than the player is too small, even though you have no fucking clue what the reasoning behind it is.
You mean a thread like this that causes all sorts of knee-jerk reactions?
Just like here - a thread that gives just one more platform to tell us how shitty Gettleman and Shurmur are, even though that isn't the point. Great example Captain Analytics
We both know that if the Giants do surprise everyone and take Murray the same people who bashed DG for "going all in with Eli" will turn around and bash him for taking a 5'9 QB in the first round.
. Under Reese and Ross, the Giants were often drawn to height-weight-speed prospects who too frequently went bust rather than boom. It is believed Gettleman will bring the emphasis back to production on the field — stressing passion, desire and mechanics rather than raw talent.
This will be reflected in how players are actually placed on the Giants’ draft board. Gettleman took a look at how the Panthers graded players, preferred that system to what he knew with the Giants, and retained it in Charlotte. Now he is bringing it to the Giants.
“Putting your focus on different things, the board is gonna look very different,’’ Gettleman said. “It’s actually something I learned in Carolina. There’s an old saying: Every man is my equal, in that I may learn from him. These guys taught me a different way of looking at it — not how to evaluate, not how to do it philosophically, but just a different way of setting up a board, and I think it’s terrific.’’
Gettleman would not get into specifics, but agreed the new draft board will more accurately display how an individual players’ grade relates to others on the board.
“It gives you not only a vertical view but also a horizontal view as well,’’ he said. “It allows you to really see the board, without giving anything up.’’
All NFL teams — other than the Patriots, not surprisingly — hire one of two scouting services, National Football Scouting or Blesto, to get a better handle on college juniors. The Giants are with Blesto. Teams usually assign one of their young, inexperienced scouts to these services, and one of Gettleman’s first jobs was as the Blesto scout for the Bills. When Gettleman got to Carolina, one of his first moves was to switch the Panthers from National to Blesto.
Gettleman hasn't changed anything I guess.
You don't want enlightenment. You want to believe Gettleman uses an abacus, steals analytics guy's lunch money and yells "get off my lawn" to nerds with spreadsheets.
As for the Barkley thing, that’s hilarious. So since most correctly Barkley to the giants that means what exactly? How can you stop people from predicting rain when it’s already cloudy out?
Gettleman also said he expected the team to be good this year. But that’s just like “what you have to say”
Couldn’t him saying he is changing things up also he “what you have to say”
He didn’t go into specifics and again he kept most of the staff in place so what do we have to go on other than his yammering mouth
The same yammering mouth that disregarded analytics and suggested Stewart hadn’t lost a step as supporting his point.
The Gettleman applogists also seem to get to decide if he’s telling the truth, if he’s joking, they even get to read his mind in the case of Stewart being a locker room signing or a spy as some have suggested. And him being fired and out of a job shouldn’t be held against him.
No, no. It’s the people that are taking what a reporter says at face value commenting on this new news that are out of line to talk about that on that thread. It’s you that is coming on the thread spouting old information and using it to support the same points you already held.
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
This is false. They've always been about size, but not speed. They're ok with big, slow linebackers.
Genuine question; when would it be appropriate to start bashing the team?
Is there a breaking point where the fans have a right to turn?
What was he supposed to say after one of the worst seasons in Giants history. “I’m just going to keep things mostly the same”
Again. The way the changeover happened and lack of turnover there is way more evidence that it remained the same than changed.
We also heard that this offseason they might expand the analytics department instead we get news like this.
Quote:
thing less out of the box than the Giants reported way of doing things is that this thread would serve mainly as a platform to bash them by the usual suspects.
Genuine question; when would it be appropriate to start bashing the team?
Is there a breaking point where the fans have a right to turn?
Aren't we past that point already?
What was he supposed to say after one of the worst seasons in Giants history. “I’m just going to keep things mostly the same”
Again. The way the changeover happened and lack of turnover there is way more evidence that it remained the same than changed.
We also heard that this offseason they might expand the analytics department instead we get news like this.
No change? - only 15 or 16 players remain from 2017. 70% change over in one season. Not sure what you call change but the average NFL turnover is about 30%.
I love it, maybe some misdirection from DG unlike constantly getting jumped Reese?
...the Giants organization is pimping Vacchiano to spread a false narrative that may give a team pause before trading up in front of the Giants to snag Kyler Murray.
IMO, Vacchiano's information is the first clue that the Giants are indeed targeting Murray and would fall all over themselves if he there's at #6.
The same yammering mouth that disregarded analytics and suggested Stewart hadn’t lost a step as supporting his point.
When Gettleman was hired, the draft preparation and scouting was already well down the road. That's why most of the staff was kept in place, but does that really matter?
Here's what you've done in the past several months:
- Latched onto a comment by Gettleman to then make the assertion he shuns analytics.
- When pointed out that Gettleman instituted an analytics team in Carolina, your response wasn't "Gee. I didn't know that", it was "Starting a team doesn't mean shit. He doesn't know what he's doing".
- When pointed out that Gettleman's assistant in Carolina, who became the GM in Buffalo also started an analytic team, your response wasn't "Gee, I didn't know that", it was "The guy they hired, knows nothing about analytics!", a claim made by looking at his LinkedIn profile. (And unfortunately, I'm not kidding about that)
Now, you are trying to state that Gettleman hasn't made any changes, despite an article that specifically outlines what changes he's made.
Maybe you should stick to drawing conclusions from LinkedIn profiles. It still sucks balls, but maybe it would be like throwing a cat a ball of yarn to keep them occupied for awhile.
...the Giants organization is pimping Vacchiano to spread a false narrative that may give a team pause before trading up in front of the Giants to snag Kyler Murray.
IMO, Vacchiano's information is the first clue that the Giants are indeed targeting Murray and would fall all over themselves if he there's at #6.
After years of being painfully transparent with their draft intentions, now the Giants (and Gettleman, who was just as transparent with Carolina) are running a disinformation campaign before the combine even happens?
It's amazing how much credit fans are willing to give the Giants FO when it suits their desired outcome. I know I was just as guilty of it last year when I was convinced that they were going to take a QB at #2 despite all evidence to the contrary.
Ok so good should we expect front office changes and hires this off-season? That would be great, I've said it would be great. Many times. Others have pointed out that you could very easily build out an anlytics process in parallel to your regular scouting process. Again, I will point out this Steelers hire as an example of a way that an organization can begin this commitment with one hire.
Here's what you've done in the past several months:
There are other reasons to suggest that Gettleman shuns analytics but here is another quote from Defenderdog
“Football is about watching film when they’re between the white lines,” Gettleman said. “You’ve got to be patient and you have to watch. And the other part of it is, you have to know what you are looking for.”
This is even after he started building the vaunted analytics program in Carolina you are talking about. Again, many other people and not just me have pointed out there is a difference between buying into the value of something and putting a little money behind it. There isn't a company in the world that doesn't have software developers now but there are many different attitudes towards those developers at the top.
Sean Harrington
Ty Siam
Here is a quote from Jeff Goldblum giving acting tips to Joey on Friends "Also, what you did was horizontal. Don't be afraid to explore the vertical. And don't learn the words. Let the words learn you.”
Gettleman's quote doesn't mean anything. Am I really to understand that the old scouting process made it difficult to compare players at the same position? That's how this quote could be interpreted if you would like to actually pretend it means anything and that seems insane to me.
The craziest part of your assertion is that you seemingly want to argue simultaneously that the problem is too hard to solve and having less qualified people staffed on our team is somehow a sufficient way to be competitive with teams moving forward in technology? Which one is it???
I'll just skip to the bottom and wonder what the fuck this pertains to?
Where have I ever said that the problem is too hard to solve or even draw comparisons to teams "moving forward with technology"??
Hell, you are the same dolt who claimed that most teams are using PFF's ratings as one analytical tool.
Again - my limited contribution has been to tell you that Gettleman, a man who shuns analytics, developed the analytics team in Carolina and mentored his former assistant GM to do the same in Buffalo. And when being shown that those two things happened, you aren't backtracking on the idea Gettleman shuns analytics, but you actually double-down on the ridiculous idea. Then you try to discredit that the analytics teams are worth anything for those two clubs.
Here's what you don't get. You went from saying Gettleman doesn't use analytics to trolling LinkedIn profiles to assert people are unqualified. You acted like an expert that Gettleman wasn't associated with analytics (based on a quote) and instead of acknowledging that you knew absolutely nothing about Carolina or Buffalo you shit all over them - and still don't have any fucking clue what those teams are doing!!
On top of that, when shown an excerpt of an article detailing changes Gettleman has made, you dismiss it, but still cling to a quote that mocked analytics as evidence he shuns them
Analytics is supposed to take data to make better decisions. You ignore data to make terrible decisions, yet are the supposed expert.
LOL
And you lost the debates on those threads yet you bring it up after as if you did or you had points.
Your summaries are terrible and that's why I had to write a lot to address them. Because they were awful and slanted entirely towards the points you wanted to make.
Like everything you write.
I'm done talking to you forever. Bye.
We will know the answer for sure in 4-5 years. If the Giants are still stumbling along and the Jets have unseated the Pats in the AFC East.......
Barkley's a great player and I'm glad to have him. I still think that taking Darnold will play better in the long run. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
NoGainDayne : 10:40 am : link : reply
it just wasn't impressive at all.
You claimed that Gettleman shunned analytics. You said he had done nothing with Carolina or NY. I had to actually post an article detailing what he did to refute it. Being in Carolina and having ties to the team, I knew that they had actually done stuff. That's how I entered this debate in the first place!!
But I'm glad to see that above you've stuck to posting LinkedIn profiles to try and support your position. Compelling evidence indeed!
And you lost the debates on those threads yet you bring it up after as if you did or you had points.
Your summaries are terrible and that's why I had to write a lot to address them. Because they were awful and slanted entirely towards the points you wanted to make.
Like everything you write.
I'm done talking to you forever. Bye.
Look, Gettleman is Fatman's guy. He's fully vested. He's mentioned that he has some ties to the team. Perhaps he has met him, likes him, and is glad he's here.
I don't doubt Gettleman has access to modern analytics/data. Whether he fully incorporates them into decision making would be my question. He seems like a guy who, at the end of the day, will ultimately rely on his gut instincts over data.
And I'm not "all-in" on Gettleman. I think is it patently absurd that the guy has been torn to shreds by people here since Day 1 - after a "sham" hire, and even the moves he's made that look very good are outright dismissed as being bad.
Quote:
Look, Gettleman is Fatman's guy. He's fully vested. He's mentioned that he has some ties to the team. Perhaps he has met him, likes him, and is glad he's here.
I don't doubt Gettleman has access to modern analytics/data. Whether he fully incorporates them into decision making would be my question. He seems like a guy who, at the end of the day, will ultimately rely on his gut instincts over data.
The point that I think is important and I've made time and time again is that everyone has access to modern analytics and data but access isn't the way you build for the future.
Integrating it into your decision making is only part of it as well. Almost every organization leveraging technology well has and has had a strong technology leader with knowledge of databases, advanced math, computer science, agile development / product management and principles of creative innovation like those espoused in the lean startup. Many, many companies even separate out their innovation areas because of people like Gettleman. There isn't any evidence we have people in the building with any of these skills let alone an assortment.
The other main component I've talked about is reinforcement learning and I've shared this article about Chess Centaurs building for the future on these problems, even something as simple a game theory problem like when to take timeouts is aided heavily by reinforcement learning. To fully leverage this takes years, years we are already behind where you first have to figure out ways to encode your qualitative decision making process before you can even start to compare it along side your quantitative one. This is undoubtedly what the hire I point out in Pittsburgh Kassam has been doing since 2014 and the Patriots have a large operation going with the right people in regards to this.
Me and other people with knowledge of analytics have struck at the staffing the Giants have as well as some of the things he says as a concerning amount of information that even if he sees the information he hasn't seemed to grasp what needs to go into getting an edge vs. seeing things that every other team has access to. No, nothing is ever definitive but there seems to be far, far more evidence that the Giants are behind in this regard and not doing much to catch up and get an edge than they even fully comprehend the process of what it will take to get there. And that's by far the most frightening part to me and should scare all of us fans.
Also not true
I think your math is off by a couple inches.
The result was 2 more wins, and as of now a half dozen or so clear longterm improvements; Barkley, Hernandez, Hill, Carter, and then Ogletree and Solder you'd be right to qualify given the salaries.
So is this confusing activity with accomplishment or slow improvement?
I'd say a very incomplete until this offseason where he likely won't get ~100M in guaranteed money to spend and 4 top 70 picks.
If he can land 6 more core players without the good hand he had last time around, that's something.
He had some softballs this offseason that don't indicate sophisticated analysis one way or another.
Reporters need clicks.
Don’t even bother. This shit has already grown wings around here.
Get the fuck over yourself. Seriously.
And further, did this draft class do anything to positively impact the team's identity? We weren't a good running team, we weren't a good passing team. We didn't run block or pass block well. We didn't rush the passer well, and we didn't stop the run well. The QB we drafted was a disaster and mocked by the head coach. So where did one of the rookies come in and make a great impact?
If you want to look at a team we know had a great draft, go look at Indy. Their rookie offensive linemen changed the identity of their offense, and Leonard was one of the best defensive players in the entire league, let alone amongst the rookies. The Colts went from 4-12 to 10-6 in a year in part because of their draft class. THAT is a great draft.
My god...... So if a team loses that automatically renders that same year’s draft as inconsequential or ineffective? Have you lost your fuckng mind?
Barkley and Hernandez and hill were terrific looking rookies. Fact. Carter was a solid rookie for where he was picked. Could Barkley, hill or Hernandez regress? Could they get hurt ? Of course! But right now those picks look terrific.
You’re trolling. I have no other explanation.
It really is old. I find myself feeling guilty after blasting opinions and or posters like i just did but I can’t help but get worked up. And I do value those same posters. I shouldn’t get that nasty.... I’ll leave it that.
PS the media is full of shit right now.
Quote:
Michael Lombardi (@mlombardiNFL)
2/11/19, 4:24 PM
The Giants have used the same grading system since George Young took over and in that system, they would have a hard time giving Murray a high grade. the system is designed to prevent the team from being small--its all about size and speed.
This is false. They've always been about size, but not speed. They're ok with big, slow linebackers.
Yet they drafted a smallish TE known for his athletic abilities more than size or strength.
Should I bold the part about game theory for emphasis, or are we going to continue to be barraged with shit about chess?
Everytime you open your yap about Gettleman it is like you're being intentionally obtuse:
and yet - you keep asserting others don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Brutal
I'd almost be less worried if the Giants didn't have a functioning data and analytical science team. That would at least excuse it.
The fact that the Giants don’t have anyone like that is extremely concerning. Even if he did do something legitimately differentiating in Carolina he should want to do the same thing in New York. And there is just zero evidence of that based on who works for the team and how he talks about it publicly.
We are talking about the Giants here. Not the Panthers. And regardless of what you are talking about if he was doing such a great job of mixing old and new school like you suggest he wouldn’t have been fired and he certainly wouldn’t have been out of a job for a year. Luddites seem to want to make the same points over and over, it’s very much in character for them.
It doesn’t matter that he got fired, it doesn’t matter that the Giants failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding in applied game theory in taking timeouts, it doesn’t matter that he insults analytics, it doesn’t matter that reporter said the giants haven’t really evolved their scouting, it doesn’t matter that the Giants scouting department staying almost entirely in tact supporting this, it doesn’t matter that the giants don’t have anyone on their staff who even has a demonstrated knowledge of databases let alone advanced math, systems architecture or any number of things you need to build an effective analytics program.
It only matters to certain luddites that someone hired some developers at their last job (it’s 2018, most company’s have developers) and a few of them went to Sloan which literally every team should go to.
The point has always been that there is a difference between someone making an attempt in the past at developing a program and a commitment today to developing a program that has a real edge. Which there just isn’t much evidence of right now with the Giants.
But luddites seem to want to try to move the argument around all the time when the only argument that matters is whether the Giants are commuting to this, myself and some of the other analytics professionals on this board have suggested this is not the case today.
Until luddites have some real evidence that the Giants really do intend to commit to technology that can make them leaders at some point in the future or at least close the gap they should really shut up and stop being the insufferable assholes they are.
Football Operations/Data Analytics
I don't know, sounds like an analytics guy to me
Gettleman was fired for not giving extensions to Thomas Davis and Olsen and he wasn't out of a job for a year, in fact it wasn't even 6 months. He was fired in July and hired in December.
For a guy who seems to espouse so much about what Gettleman doesn't do, you really just don't have a clue. Time and time again.
Luddites have been accused of this as well as twisting facts. Summmarizing previous conversations inaccurately is also something that luddites seem to love.
I’m sure luddites will continue to do this. This is what they have to resort to when the main point they are arguing, if the Giants have the right leader to ensure they don’t fall behind technologically they don’t have a lot of evidence for. Making excuses for why someone was fired or the timeline or whatever doesn’t change any of the other things listed or the most important fact that they demonstrated no knowledge of applied game theory in season and they don’t seem to have anyone on staff properly qualified to build these systems.
It is why you keep referencing the same few people over and over again. You know what they are doing and then extrapolate that to mean that the other teams aren't doing anything.
Once again - at one point in time, you said that Carolina was doing nothing for analytics because you were under the impression that Gettleman shunned them.
Hell, even in your insults, you seemingly don't know shit. You use the word Luddite incorrectly over and over again. And it is yet another thing that is likely lost on you.
I said to luddites many times on previous threads and I’ll repeat again every business uses analytics these days I would never argue the point that teams don’t use data. But there are differences that I have since highlighted many times about having a successful bs unsusessful analytics program while like I have suggested luddites latch onto certain things instead of focusing on the real points because all they want to do is put people down online.
Also I’m not even the only one that refers to Gettleman and his supporters as luddites anymore. It’s nice to annoy people that would seem to prefer if the Giants fell further and further behind other teams on technology than they already are.
There are others who refer to Gettleman supporters as "luddites"? Holy shit - you are making stuff up again!
You point blank said that Gettleman didn't use analytics in the aftermath of his comments. Again - that was the Genesis for me to enter this stupid banter. Basically, you have spent the past year slamming Gettleman for a comment he made about analytics and refused to back down. Now, you are labeling anyone who disagrees with that as a luddite? People who support the GM are opposed to new technology?
I'll stick with my insult of you being a pompous ass. It fits and is actually accurate.
Here you go using another luddite whack a mole tactic. I refute another point and out pops another luddite point to again try to undermine the whole argument we are talking about which is if the Giants are doing enough technologically which again you don't address.
But sure, let's keep playing luddite whack a mole.
“Football is about watching film when they’re between the white lines,” Gettleman said. “You’ve got to be patient and you have to watch. And the other part of it is, you have to know what you are looking for.”
That's a Gettleman quote posted earlier in this thread. He also has mocked analytics publicly yet you want to pretend i'm way off base to think that he might have invested in these things but still not leverage them. I want to reiterate when I first brought this up in a thread I gave very specific examples to show the lack of understanding of game theory and how if they couldn't even demonstrate that it shatters any confidence that they use any analytics at all. If they do, they really shouldn't be if they can't get simple game theory right and their staffing again, does not suggest they have anyone on it that comprehends game theory let alone how to apply it.
But you want to point to a quote telling me that our luddite GM understands how to leverage advanced game theory. Perhaps your point would be more valid and believable if we saw the Giants under his leadership grasp simple game theory. And as I've pointed out in the past http://https://edjsports.com/ sells this information so if our Chief Luddite in charge can't build a team to do this he should stop being such a luddite and simply buy it and use it and stop fucking this up right in front of our eyes.
Understand the difference between even paying for analytics and using them as a part of your decision making. Again the poor use of timeouts points to not using analytics no matter how many people in the building are generating them. There is evidence that we don't put the budget into them that other teams, which again points to an unwillingness to use them as you really need to generate quality ones to get use out of them and that takes time and resources beyond the talent we've invested in.
You see a team like the Patriots who have been doing very well making anlytics a key part of their process. There is plenty of evidence that they are not only not a key part of our process but we don't even have the right person in the building to start a discussion of when to use them or not, which pretty much means they are not being used.
But twist words luddite, that's what luddites do. Luddites love to lose arguments and try to rehash them pretending all these points weren't already made on different threads. Cherry picking information to serve their really poorly supported luddite theories. Nothing encapsulates your luddite cause quite like taking a sigular piece of information or part of a larger message and pretending like this invalidates the larger point that you continue to not address.
So yes luddite, continue to luddite away in your simple luddite world pretending you have actual legitimate points to make when you are just a sad troll that picks on people dumber than you. When you actually encounter someone that can debate you in the same fashion you treat others they are of course pompous. I've really just matched your debate style here luddite. No more, no less.
You've been shown time and again to spew incorrect facts and assumptions, so the best you can do is incorrectly use a term. Sort of fits the MO
Isn't it about time for you to list how qualified you are to speak on analytics again? That's next in the cycle of dumbassery, correct?
I proved all I needed to when I actually listed a full architecture for this problem. No need to puff up my credentials when I listed the blueprint online to actually do this which was confirmed to be valid approach by someone else in my field.
Luddite whack a mole it is! What other minor point will you move to next instead of addressing the main which is again that the Giants haven't demonstrated the kind of commitment to technology that many other teams have and that should scare you but it doesn't because you'd rather be smelling Gettleman's farts.
I hope proving my points about you and looking stupid is fun for you. This is definitely fun for me.
So this particular luddite as well as others that share his view that we should seemingly stand by and watch our favorite team fall behind on technology get to have their actions grouped together as one shitty unproductive point to take up.
Why does Gettleman need to even be defended so ardently in the first place? He has the job already. The team had another shitty season. We are picking 6th in the draft but 3 of those wins were against backup QBs and another 2 were against teams picking lower than us (one of them also a team picking lower than us with a 3rd string QB) Why such a deep need to defend this man and this team?
It's just because luddite Giant fans like the taste of Gettleman farts. It's the only logical conclusion to be drawn.
Get it? "too small for the Giants".
Nice meltdown, Captain Analytics.
I've addressed all your points even as they increase in desperation. This is what luddites don't seem to grasp at any point. All I care about is that the Giants do something about their increasingly antiquated approach. I have a purpose and you don't. You just want to make fun of people online and have your face surgically attached to Gettleman's ass. Until last night it was quite unclear why you wanted to defend him so ardently without any real purpose, one of the many questions I've asked you that you haven't answered. Gladly as I searched for this answer it finally dawned on me. You just want to eat Gettleman farts.
Eat all the farts you want, good luddite, it is your prerogative but regardless of what you say about me I hope you know it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about here and your points have proven to be wrong time and time again. I will continue to point out that the Giants need to modernize until they do.
Excellent rebuttal, Captain Analytics!
5 references to luddite and two to eating farts.
Brave, BRAVE, sir luddite rolls into town. Talking down as he always does. Captain analytics you don't know anything! My fearless leader luddite sir Gettleman hired engineers at one point! He even sent them to the great sloan conference! You are stupid! What a hero sir luddite is, even though he is failing to grasp the incredibly simple point that if the Giants are failing to apply simple game theory concepts it doesn't really matter how many engineers someone has hired in the past or how many puff pieces he's smiled for. He also insults analytics and fails to show any ability to apply in his kingdom what the best leaders have been grasping for many years. That is the point that not enough people can point out for it hurts our kingdom in it's battles against other ones.
But no, it's the person that points out that our kingdom really should be on top of this is evil. What a noble man you are great luddite and eater of farts. We shall tell your story for generations!
I don't think it's being made up. If so, why the Giants as opposed to another team? I think the larger point is that you just don't want people saying this about your team and there seems be smoke around this issue. Probably at least a little fire going.
Lol arc, we've never had any problems. Not my goal to annoy you but I am making no bones about wanting to shame this organization into moving forward not that they read BBI but they do listen to fans and I don't think any fans should be pleased about the general strategy of the front office and it's relationship to new tech initiatives.
How much do you know about technology? Are you happy with the people on the Giants analytics team and their qualifications?
Holy shit. You really are a pompous fuck
I know we had a bunch of players running around with GPS devices attached to them in camp recently and it didn't seem to change anything.
I'd be more concerned if it were baseball. Analytics in football seem to still have a long way to go.
Is NE employing a more analytic approach than other teams are? I honestly don't know. Is there a clear line of demarcation where you can see that teams embracing a more analytic approach are seeing better results than others?
There's just tons of blanks here.
I think teams should always be open to anything that can present a potential advantage. But at the end of the day, I'm more concerned with the talent on the roster and the coaching. Ultimately, no one is going to be able to win without those things in place first.
Link - ( New Window )
Makes sense in terms of throwing a college sized football. He definitely gets through the ball very well.
I'm very curious to see him throw a pro-sized football at the Combine. Still think his hand size is going to be a big deal...
I really want to go for it with him. I love everything about his game. The size is a big deal, can’t ignore that, but I’m willing to take that risk.
Side note, it’s hilarious to read that breakdown and read comments about him being Vick 2.0.
Hand size is going to be a big deal. I'm still not sold on him panning out in the NFL, but if we're going to take any sort of risk, I'd take it on him. The talent is obviously undeniable.
I'm good with Haskins or Murray if we're taking a QB otherwise I want to go in a different direction. I wouldn't really be happy taking any of the other QB's in this class.
I’m gonna be mad if the giants ignore this kid. I’m on record, Murray will be a legit player in the nfl. I loved Wilson and mayfield.
Size really doesn’t matter when it comes to qbs, rbs and WRs. What matters is athletic ability, football smarts and the dude needs to be fucking crazy.
Agreed. Not that I’m defending jones or picking jones but people need to be aware that scouts and nfl teams don’t look for the same shit we might be looking at. Jones is likely going to endear himself to nfl scouts because he played and produced with little to no talent around him, along with the other attributes you touched on.
He doesn't seem like a NYG type QB - I'd hope that wasn't an actual line of thinking or reason for passing on him, though.
He doesn't seem like a NYG type QB - I'd hope that wasn't an actual line of thinking or reason for passing on him, though.
I'll be stunned if someone takes that leap and drafts a 5'9" QB in the top of the first round. There is too much data suggesting that size ultimately won't work. Not saying it can't, but it's a real stretch.
I predict by draft day, this new car smell-hype with Murray wears off some and he drops.
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
Kingsbury was just saying those “Murray at #1” comments because Tech was getting ready to play Oklahoma. Pure hype. And it’s being overplayed...(now watch AZ pick him #1, and trade Rosen).
Think about what you just wrote - if Murray is a legit 5’9”?!? I’ll bite, what’s a “legit” 5’9”?
There is only one GM who can get away with rolling the dice on KM. And that’s Belichick. Murray is the biggest draft risk in the history of the draft.
Quote:
Only takes one team to fall in love with the skillset.
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
Kingsbury was just saying those “Murray at #1” comments because Tech was getting ready to play Oklahoma. Pure hype. And it’s being overplayed...(now watch AZ pick him #1, and trade Rosen).
Think about what you just wrote - if Murray is a legit 5’9”?!? I’ll bite, what’s a “legit” 5’9”?
There is only one GM who can get away with rolling the dice on KM. And that’s Belichick. Murray is the biggest draft risk in the history of the draft.
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I guess my question would be...
Do we know how much the Giants are investing in analytics compared to other teams? Is that information even available, or are we really just basing everything off Gettleman's comment where he seemed to minimize them?
I don't know about all of the people they have working for them behind the scenes - it's just not something I've researched and I'm not even sure that info is all readily available anyway.
Even with the Patriots - it seems like it's really not certain just how reliant Bill actually IS on analytics. The conclusion the Merrimack piece drew was that their strategies seem to fall in line with analytics - but that's as far as they go. Experts just say that their strategies seem to align.
I do think the strategies themselves are smart - but most of them shouldn't need analytics to employ or figure out. For instance, what does cutting expensive players have to do with analytics? That's just basic team management stuff.
I am the type of person who thinks teams should always be exploring new avenues and leave no stone unturned - so, I'd be annoyed if the Giants were completely dismissing analytics entirely. Are they, though? That hasn't really been made clear as far as I can tell.
Quote:
But some points to your response
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I guess my question would be...
Do we know how much the Giants are investing in analytics compared to other teams? Is that information even available, or are we really just basing everything off Gettleman's comment where he seemed to minimize them?
I don't know about all of the people they have working for them behind the scenes - it's just not something I've researched and I'm not even sure that info is all readily available anyway.
Even with the Patriots - it seems like it's really not certain just how reliant Bill actually IS on analytics. The conclusion the Merrimack piece drew was that their strategies seem to fall in line with analytics - but that's as far as they go. Experts just say that their strategies seem to align.
I do think the strategies themselves are smart - but most of them shouldn't need analytics to employ or figure out. For instance, what does cutting expensive players have to do with analytics? That's just basic team management stuff.
I am the type of person who thinks teams should always be exploring new avenues and leave no stone unturned - so, I'd be annoyed if the Giants were completely dismissing analytics entirely. Are they, though? That hasn't really been made clear as far as I can tell.
The one area that I think NGD has a really strong point in particular is that, regardless of whether you subscribe to Gettleman being a strong believer in the value of analytics or not, I think you'd have to at least consider the idea that DG sitting at a press conference and mocking analytics while pretending to mash a keyboard is not a good look and that it would possibly deter strong analytic minds from wanting to work for someone who appears to dismiss the value of their work.
I believe that moment was a gaffe by Gettleman. How significant an error and whether it's representative of DG actually marginalizing analytics is obviously subject to debate.
It doesn't seem like it ultimately created any issue as far as employing that approach anyway.
Bill is also the "stats are for losers" guy.
So, how much does it really matter what's said in public? My guess is not much.
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
If a QB prospect is a "legit 6'" than that typically eases concerns. But there is nothing legit about 5'9" for an NFL QB. And it's funny how you say you you are okay at 5'9" but if he's 5'8", then that's a problem. ;)
I honestly do think Murray is the greatest risk - assuming he goes in the first round of the draft - ever. These are unchartered waters. A 5'9" QB with a very small frame being seriously considered with one of the highest picks. It goes against every conventional wisdom of what has worked in the NFL.
And at that level of investment, we are not talking project. We're talking someone who is expected to be a pro bowl caliber player. That is a huge risk. And if that team misses taking a player who goes against the grain of most physical metrics, that is a possible career killer.
Quote:
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
If a QB prospect is a "legit 6'" than that typically eases concerns. But there is nothing legit about 5'9" for an NFL QB. And it's funny how you say you you are okay at 5'9" but if he's 5'8", then that's a problem. ;)
I honestly do think Murray is the greatest risk - assuming he goes in the first round of the draft - ever. These are unchartered waters. A 5'9" QB with a very small frame being seriously considered with one of the highest picks. It goes against every conventional wisdom of what has worked in the NFL.
And at that level of investment, we are not talking project. We're talking someone who is expected to be a pro bowl caliber player. That is a huge risk. And if that team misses taking a player who goes against the grain of most physical metrics, that is a possible career killer.
Basically what I mean is - if he's the size we think he is now, I think I could talk myself into it.
If it turns out that he's even smaller than I think he is as it is, then at that point, I'd start to shy away.
I know 5'9" is an arbitrary cutoff - even that is still very short for an NFL QB. And even that that height, I would have my concerns.
I was one of the more vocal posters here when he declared about the size concerns - if anything, I was more on your side of the argument than anything else. I think it's a legitimate worry and can be problematic at the next level.
But - the talent is undeniable and exciting. I'd be lying if I didn't say the prospect of Murray/Barkley/Beckham/Engram didn't get me a little hyped up. That's a LOT of speed and a LOT of talent. We would be very difficult to defend if it worked.
I do think we'll be looking at more traditional passers, though - it's probably true that Murray won't be a guy NYG give serious consideration to.
It's the Dwayne Train for me.
My 17 year old son is the same size!!
Ironically enough, I was touting Murray's skills all during the college season. He was/is the most electrifying offensive player I think I have ever seen in D-1. His combination of passing skills - and they are advanced - and running/scrambling put him at a completely different level. And despite my disdain for B12 football, and the fact Murray played behind a great oline, I didn't hold any of that against him.
I'm more into the idea of Murray if he's there in the second round or later. But it doesn't look that way right now.
Bigger for sure but most will not be faster. And it isn't just speed, its how he uses his feet to move in the pocket and avoid contact on the run.
Again it can't be ignored but there's a lot of nuance at play here. If he weighs 190 do NFL teams think he can be just as effective at 200? What's his 3 cone (if he does one)? What's his 20 time (more important for him IMO)?
It's not the weight it's the frame. People can look vastly different at the same weight and height. When you look at Murray I see a guy who has a solid lower body frame, but his upper body jusst doesn't seem all that large. I wish we could get ankle and wrist measurements.
What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?
He won’t be converted to WR because he will be a top pick chosen to play QB. Maybe down the line if he proves he can’t be a franchise QB, but definitely not now.
As for analytics, I'm guessing they'll love Murray much like they loved Mayfield (though his long track record helped) and predicted he'd be the best QB in last year's class.
Everything I do now and everyone I met that builds complex AI systems like I do today thinks in probabilities. Luddites might even make fun of me for using LinkedIn or google as a source, but the fact remains that analytical people model outcomes of success for themselves. And people with the skills we need to make us competitive in these areas long term are not going to want to work for the Giants when they see what is out there on their staff and management vs. the other teams. It is much easier to see success for yourself in an organization that buys in when you are working with talented collaborators. That is even IF the current Giants leadership acknowledges that they do indeed need these people which there isn’t any evidence of.
So let’s dig in a little to what is out there when we google New York Giants analytics vs. New England Patriots analytics:
I’d like to zero in on Sean Harrington of the Patriots. This article is talking about a clever autoencoder that he invented, and I’m sure has advanced leaps and bounds since then. In laymen’s terms what Sean has done here is automated what PFF does and did it better because while different people might encode data differently with the same mandate a computer will not. Either way you don’t need something like an autoencoder without a developed reinforcement learning structure (notice that term is linked on the autoencoder wiki page, for a primer on applied reinforcement learning)
Now let’s take a look at the Giants with Ty Siam as the “rising star” in their department. (Sean Harrington’s LinkedIn for comparison) Siam has worked in the ancient art of “data analysis” and is endorsed for it, he doesn’t even show any knowledge of databases (which is just the way you move data around before you even start a machine learning process) This alone shows how different the staffing is on our teams today.
Now just a quick tour of the league, the Jacksonville Jaguars analytics google shows that the owner’s son was made SVP of analytics in 2012, a deep organizational buy in and there are lots of exciting initiatives in that search. Even a google of the Seattle Seahawks yields a deeper commitment and in an athletic article on the first page you see this quote. “Unlike the Giants, though, Seattle appears to take a rosier view of analytics. Each of the Seahawks' three post-draft press conferences…” Moral of the story, you can’t even do research on other teams analytics departments without the Giants being insulted for backwards thinking. If you google new York Giants analytics the first article compares the existing Giants approach to looking at the world as flat it of course mentions the Gettleman quote, as do other articles on the first page of the search. Not much positive out there on the Giants in this regard.
Unlike certain people on this board that want to be propaganda mouthpieces for the organization, I always do my research and both the image of the Giants and what this image most likely accurately reflects within the organization should be something that each and every fan wants this team to fix yesterday.
This article is saying the METS can be smarter than the Giants.
Met's shouldn't make Giants mistakes? - ( New Window )
I'm not dismissing "analytics", just questioning the constant barrage of accolades for anything the Pats do and how easy it is to duplicate. Its pretty funny.
I'm not dismissing "analytics", just questioning the constant barrage of accolades for anything the Pats do and how easy it is to duplicate. Its pretty funny.
There is a ton that can be learned from the Pats. Saying otherwise is like saying you couldn't run the West Coast Offense without Joe Montana and Bill Walsh.
If you want a good (though depressing for Giants fans) read, check out Mike Lombardi's "Gridiron Genius". Bill Belichick isn't doing this through wizardry and dark spells. There are aspects of what he does that can be studied and learned from. Does that mean it's possible to recreate the Pats' success? Probably not. But for a 5-11 team with miles of room for improvement there is a lot that could be applied and clearly is not.
Yes but this is the problem with this thinking and what the Giants actually did. Teams like the Pats and Eagles have had this programs for a decade plus. Many others for 5+ years. When the Giants conducted their GM search did they even bring in someone from the Pats? Eagles? From the Jags?
No. They went in the opposite direction and hired someone that produces headlines that make us look like we are living in the past and didn't even really do great diligence or information collection on other avenues.
You know what frequently is the enemy of progress? The difficulty of a problem. But you eat an elephant one bite at a time.
You can bring in someone that you've seen eat chickens before, and sure it shows that they can eat things. But no matter how many chickens they eat the elephant isn't going away.
One of my favorite stories from my time in AI was a prospective client, very large data provider. We did an MVP with them and I pitched to a room of 20 people. We told them our price for a go forward and we were told while they were impressed with our capabilities there was a big enough contingent in that room that "didn't know if they wanted to be in the analytics business." 3 years later they paid 500X what we were going to charge them to acquire a company.
Heads rolled for that. The people on the wrong side of that debate lambasted. The guy on this thread that said you have to invest in this for 5 years wasn't wrong. It might not pay dividends today or tomorrow but you have to pay the technology piper. It is coming, it's already here for many teams and there is ample evidence we are among the laggards here. Zebra data linked below, is not being leveraged for "data analysis" that Ty Siam is doing. Make no mistake about it this is needed for complex predictive modeling and game theory simulations by many teams.
It appears instead of trying to hasten our efforts to catch up we have people in and out of the organization minimizing this problem. I'm not even saying Gettleman isn't capable of bringing this team back to the playoffs in the next few years (although i'd place a higher probability on teams that have these analytics programs) but what I am saying is unless we change our course and bring in real technology leaders our performance over the next 10-15 years is going to be disappointing relative to the rest of the league.
Zebra Data - ( New Window )
It's beyond bizarre at this point.
This fucking guy literally determines what a person's competency is based on a LinkedIn profile!
Luddites might not place much stock in google searches or LinkedIn profiles but people that like to analyze information and build as complete of a picture about the job they want to take do. People that build advanced models like to collect whatever information is out there and what is out there does not put the Giants in a positive light.
Some of us like to back our points up with research and subject matter knowledge. Others of us like to make the same points over and over again, argue semantics and put our heads so far up GMs asses that it's hard to tell if they have original thoughts of their own.
You can use LinkedIn to get a sense of a job you want to take, then you might meet the person you researched and find it is absolutely not a person you want to work for or a company you don't want to join.
You still don't get it. You have based sweeping comments on the competency of people based on LinkedIn? You don't see that as being fucked up? I'm assuming you don't, since you not only keep posting the profiles, but use it as evidence of who is qualified and who isn't.
Luddites also never explain why when you google other teams vs. the Giants there are much more positive things written about their analytics programs.
What about what I posted above when I googled the Seahawks analytics program the article went out of it's way to use the Giants as a bad example of a team embracing analytics.
Like Luddites always do they zero in on one specific part of an argument while failing to acknowledge that not only is that single point a huge nit but the rest of the argument still holds strong.
If you'll recall, Shurmur went for 2 against Atlanta in a spot where conventional wisdom says not to.
That was based on data and analytics. That data told him going for two there would increase the teams chances of winning by 15%. Something like 60% if the defense had been able to actually get the ball back - which they struggled with all year.
Again, he implies that he has the type of data you seem to be lamenting NYG being resistant towards here...
SI put out this article in 2017 regarding how all 32 teams handle analytics. Here's what they said about NYG...
It's strange, because it seems like what I am reading isn't jibing with what you're saying. You're kind of giving off the impression that NYG have Fred and Barney hammering out numbers on a giant boulder while all 31 other teams are working with the latest, cutting-edge tech. That's not the impression I'm getting.
It seems to me that way too much was made of a Dave Gettleman quote and that became a narrative that isn't even really true.
The Giants have had analytics people in place since before Gettleman was even here. Do you think he sent them all home and told them he doesn't believe in that junk?
Well, if you read what Shurmur said, that's clearly not the case.
Yes but it really doesn't do you much good, it's like lying on your resume.
Also there are services you can buy, yes Shurmur is using some things but it is really just a slice of what is available. It's like someone told him there is something out there that tells you whether to go for 2 or not and he is using that.
Timeouts are actually more simple than two point conversions from a game theory perspective yet Shurmur did seem to have the resources in place to get that right.
And also yes if you look at Ty Siam's qualifications vs. Sean Harrington's they are night and day. One has prior experience using tools like STATA and Excel and the other has a computer science degree, makes original autoencoding algorithms and has engineering experience at Raytheon and IBM.
If I were an expert in analytics, I'd put the probability that somebody who draws sweeping conclusions from Google and repeatedly uses the term Luddite and "smelling farts" as being competent at 0%
Captain Analytics!
Quote:
but couldn't an incompetent person hire a competent person to do an amazing LinkedIn profile for them?
Yes but it really doesn't do you much good, it's like lying on your resume.
You'd still have to waste your time vetting out all these so-called competent folks your analytics claimed were great prospects. (I'm not against analytics, they can be very useful.)
Even a 3rd grade teacher would laugh at that!
It's fun! Luddite Luddite Luddite!
If you have your choice of team to interview for and work for you will want a team with evidence of buy in.
I'm not saying this is the only basis for your determination but also if there is smoke there is fire. I'm sure interviewing with Ernie Adams vs. Gettleman in terms of your belief in the resources you get and how the information is going to be used is way more of a positive experience in the Patriots building.
No this isn't the only information available but it is more likely that you will A) want to take the interview with a team like the Pats and B) actually have a good experience in that interview that makes you want to take the job
Even a 3rd grade teacher would laugh at that!
Google searches are biased to some degree that will ultimately benefit Google's bottom line.
Are you sure you aren't trolling at this point?
You really are asserting that Google searches are giving you all the insight you need, and you're a supposed expert in the field?
The fuck you are
Also there are services you can buy, yes Shurmur is using some things but it is really just a slice of what is available. It's like someone told him there is something out there that tells you whether to go for 2 or not and he is using that.
Timeouts are actually more simple than two point conversions from a game theory perspective yet Shurmur did seem to have the resources in place to get that right.
And also yes if you look at Ty Siam's qualifications vs. Sean Harrington's they are night and day. One has prior experience using tools like STATA and Excel and the other has a computer science degree, makes original autoencoding algorithms and has engineering experience at Raytheon and IBM.
What are you basing your "perception around the league" stuff on? Google searches?
I'm guessing you're not actually in contact with people in the league, so... that's a shoddy claim at best.
Based on my limited research, I think I made a reasonably compelling case that while the Giants are certainly doing some things with analytics they are not applying broadly. They use it from managing player health things like hydration, electrolytes and measuring various other physical markers to try to improve peak performance. They are also clearly trying to use it for things like when to go for 2 points...
That the Giants are do not seem to be using it for, nor are they appropriately staffed to attempt it is to project positional value, and map past player performance to potential performance with the Giants. For example, the Patriots are way ahead in this area.
And that's just the point the great job they think he's doing to someone with real knowledge of technology could be thoroughly mediocre or even bad.
Beyond that, the results on the field do not speak to anyone doing a good job. This is the problem with what you continue to argue, if the Giants were doing well, maybe you'd have a point, but they are decidedly not doing well. Not only overall but again, when they are fucking up simple game theory applied to taking timeouts in game when this guy has been employed for 3 years it definitely suggests that he doesn't know how to apply simple game theory to building models, so what exact reason do we have to believe he is doing even a mediocre job?
The results on the field and the skills in his LinkedIn profile match the thesis that the Giants don't have the type of people in the building to implement software and math in a beneficial way. I am bringing this evidence to the table again, what is your evidence to the contrary?
Other than trying to attack my methods for information gathering or my qualifications which again fall short in their actual evidence vs. fruitless banter and bravado.
"Limited research," "seemingly," "looks like"...
These are all modifiers you use when you want to make a point but don't quite have the necessary information to prove it.
I need to see more than LinkedIn profile links before I mindlessly just believe that the Giants are rejecting analytics and don't want it to be a part of their way of doing things. That's basically the impression people are trying to give off here.
If you think they're not as far along as other teams - that's a different argument and hardly seems to warrant the diatribes and crusades here.
Quote:
searches that it's not just what Gettleman said, there is perception around the league that the Giants are behind.
Also there are services you can buy, yes Shurmur is using some things but it is really just a slice of what is available. It's like someone told him there is something out there that tells you whether to go for 2 or not and he is using that.
Timeouts are actually more simple than two point conversions from a game theory perspective yet Shurmur did seem to have the resources in place to get that right.
And also yes if you look at Ty Siam's qualifications vs. Sean Harrington's they are night and day. One has prior experience using tools like STATA and Excel and the other has a computer science degree, makes original autoencoding algorithms and has engineering experience at Raytheon and IBM.
What are you basing your "perception around the league" stuff on? Google searches?
I'm guessing you're not actually in contact with people in the league, so... that's a shoddy claim at best.
Arc, I've posted the articles and summaries but the fact remains if you google New York Giants analytics vs. many other teams there are a lot more positive things written about other teams. I do think if the Giants were doing a good job in this department the news coverage would be much more positive as it is with those other teams.
And let me just reiterate - my sole reason for posting on that thread was to refute the idea that Gettleman shunned analytics and DID NOTHING in Carolina.
I've never made the claim that the Giants were at the forefront of the league or that they can't improve - it was simply to say they are doing something - a point Captain analytics was refuting and then shifted the argument to LinkedIn qualifications to state that we had the wrong people in place
A lot of these points are reaches...
And enough with the fucking luddites stuff, dude - it's making me not want to even continue this conversation because it's that obnoxious. We get it...
Quote:
In comment 14296883 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
searches that it's not just what Gettleman said, there is perception around the league that the Giants are behind.
Also there are services you can buy, yes Shurmur is using some things but it is really just a slice of what is available. It's like someone told him there is something out there that tells you whether to go for 2 or not and he is using that.
Timeouts are actually more simple than two point conversions from a game theory perspective yet Shurmur did seem to have the resources in place to get that right.
And also yes if you look at Ty Siam's qualifications vs. Sean Harrington's they are night and day. One has prior experience using tools like STATA and Excel and the other has a computer science degree, makes original autoencoding algorithms and has engineering experience at Raytheon and IBM.
What are you basing your "perception around the league" stuff on? Google searches?
I'm guessing you're not actually in contact with people in the league, so... that's a shoddy claim at best.
Arc, I've posted the articles and summaries but the fact remains if you google New York Giants analytics vs. many other teams there are a lot more positive things written about other teams. I do think if the Giants were doing a good job in this department the news coverage would be much more positive as it is with those other teams.
This isn't evidence, I'm sorry.
A lot more positive things written about other teams than the Giants is your measuring stick?
I'll need better than that.
They've won 8 games in the last 2 years.
It's nothing more than that.
"Limited research," "seemingly," "looks like"...
These are all modifiers you use when you want to make a point but don't quite have the necessary information to prove it.
I need to see more than LinkedIn profile links before I mindlessly just believe that the Giants are rejecting analytics and don't want it to be a part of their way of doing things. That's basically the impression people are trying to give off here.
If you think they're not as far along as other teams - that's a different argument and hardly seems to warrant the diatribes and crusades here.
I use those limiters... Yes...
Perhaps the Giants have a super secret analytics department somewhere that nobody knows about. Highly unlikely but possible. So yes I use such verbiage, but don't mistake it for me making a weak point. In the thread I reference, I used such verbiage as well, but I was clear then that while the possibilities exist, I gave significant evidence that it was highly unlikely that the conclusion drawn were significantly off the mark.
The LinkedIn qualifications, Gettleman's comments, the more positive articles written about other teams they all coalesce to a story that the Giants are behind.
There are many teams that tell a more positive story and their executives outright praising analytics and their role in success.
I think it is also naive to expect this to change without the Giants adding new technical leadership. What exactly is your problem with saying you know what it would be a super positive thing if we made a high profile engineering hire and gave them resources?
They've won 8 games in the last 2 years.
It's nothing more than that.
There was plenty of press about Cleveland when they were worse than the Giants...
There is plenty of press about the Easgles before they became SB champions.
When I was looking I easily found press about Huston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and KC. THere were others as well, I just can't remember them all...
And the press goes back several years not just 1 or 2. The information about the Patriots goes all the way back to 1999!!!
Ask Sean Harrington, I am sure he has boiled it down to to a normal curve projecting his likelihood of success... But its all percentages.
I've said it on this thread and I'll say it again. My original point was the fact that they couldn't grasp the game theory in proper timeout usage did not reflect that they were leveraging analytics at all. (especially this information used in conjunction with what Gettleman said)
Now certain Luddites (and i'm talking about a fat Luddite and a British Luddite) both called me stupid for making this point. I reacted with aggression in kind and that's how we got where we are.
The fact remains that some luddites want to pretend like the way the Giants are approaching analytics isn't problematic and then there are some of us more informed in the understanding of the benefit of analytics and what is coming through the pipe data and technology wise that are in strong contention with that assertion. And those people might have taken issue with being called "stupid" when bringing it up.
This may be the very first time I find myself making any point counter to something he is is saying.
arc in general reflects my views almost exactly.
While he is still FMiC, I have noticed that he has become far less nasty over the past 8 months or so. Back then most posts he made was derisive towards somebody, and he was not provide much in the way of analysis.
His recent posts are much more interesting, thought provoking and based on a reasonable factual basis. His general position is far more team and especially front office friendly than my opinions though. The change probably has nothing to do with our interaction last spring, though I would like to think so ;).
It's not an easy thing for a lot of the old school guys to grasp. Even Sean Payton says he wishes he'd go with his own intuition more often rather than default to the data because he still doesn't totally trust it even if it's generally embraced it.
My impression is that NYG have indeed embraced analytics, but perhaps their department isn't quite as deep or extensive as others. Perhaps we're playing catch up. I wouldn't write any of that stuff off - it's just something that's difficult to quantify.
Even SI alluded to NYG being "quiet" about it despite being more "aggressive" behind the scenes back in 2017.
I would guess that certain teams have embraced this earlier than others - like NE - and most of the league is starting to play catch-up now.
Akin to MLB... I know the Yanks, Red Sox, and Astros in particular all place tons of emphasis on analytics and forward thinking data and those teams are ahead of a lot of others right now.
I've said earlier that I believe this is much more vital in baseball, but obviously I am in favor of the Giants using any data available to them to enhance their operation and increase their odds of success.
So, I don't necessarily think NYG are against employing analytics - obviously they aren't. Pat Shurmur said several times that they are using them. Are they behind the teams that are succeeding more than they are? That's certainly possible. I'd buy that.
But then, at that point, why is the ire directed at Gettleman?
It's not like he got here and scaled the analytics operations back or shut down the department. We seem to have just not been one of the teams at the forefront - which is true of the majority of the league.
Perhaps there are areas we could invest more in.
Bottom line - analytics are still relatively new in the NFL and a lot of people are still working with the data they're collecting to determine the most effective ways of applying it, using it as predictors, etc. - it's sort of a dangerous game to use the Patriots as examples for things because of how anomalous they really are.
I'd certainly hope that our people were constantly looking at what they do and looking to employ similarly successful strategies - but I think by now, it's safe to say most teams have probably done that or been doing it and there's just no way to replicate Bill and Tom.
It's not an easy thing for a lot of the old school guys to grasp. Even Sean Payton says he wishes he'd go with his own intuition more often rather than default to the data because he still doesn't totally trust it even if it's generally embraced it.
My impression is that NYG have indeed embraced analytics, but perhaps their department isn't quite as deep or extensive as others. Perhaps we're playing catch up. I wouldn't write any of that stuff off - it's just something that's difficult to quantify.
Even SI alluded to NYG being "quiet" about it despite being more "aggressive" behind the scenes back in 2017.
I would guess that certain teams have embraced this earlier than others - like NE - and most of the league is starting to play catch-up now.
Akin to MLB... I know the Yanks, Red Sox, and Astros in particular all place tons of emphasis on analytics and forward thinking data and those teams are ahead of a lot of others right now.
I've said earlier that I believe this is much more vital in baseball, but obviously I am in favor of the Giants using any data available to them to enhance their operation and increase their odds of success.
So, I don't necessarily think NYG are against employing analytics - obviously they aren't. Pat Shurmur said several times that they are using them. Are they behind the teams that are succeeding more than they are? That's certainly possible. I'd buy that.
But then, at that point, why is the ire directed at Gettleman?
It's not like he got here and scaled the analytics operations back or shut down the department. We seem to have just not been one of the teams at the forefront - which is true of the majority of the league.
Perhaps there are areas we could invest more in.
Bottom line - analytics are still relatively new in the NFL and a lot of people are still working with the data they're collecting to determine the most effective ways of applying it, using it as predictors, etc. - it's sort of a dangerous game to use the Patriots as examples for things because of how anomalous they really are.
I'd certainly hope that our people were constantly looking at what they do and looking to employ similarly successful strategies - but I think by now, it's safe to say most teams have probably done that or been doing it and there's just no way to replicate Bill and Tom.
I think the ire towards DG is based on his comments at the presser for the Barkley choice...
While it is clear that the Giants do use analytics, there is no doubt about that, it appears that they reject it as an aid for team building. Using as an aid for team building would be extremely complicated and involve an incredible number of variables. TO do it effectively, you need a staff of people, 20 on the low end, more likely about 30 - 40. There are teams where you can verify that they have such staffs. You can also find out the department leads for the staffs. They often involve people with advanced degrees in computer science, big data analysis, statistics, machine learning, and wall street type trading analysis.
That's the point about Ty Siam, he is the face of NYG analytics and his resume is weak at best. There is no technical staff to do software development, operate a data center, manage databases, or analyze the data. The Giants are not staffed appropriately to even attempt this sort of thing. So it appears they have no intention at this point in moving in that direction.
Many of us find this to be frustrating because we feel the team will make better personnel decisions if they did.
I go much farther than even that. VR technology should be used to get simulated reps. Hell the president installed such a system in the WH so he can play golf in the residence.... Why can't the Giants use something similar but designed for football!
Analysis can be done about play effectiveness, Sequencing plays, how best to isolate your most favorable matchups. I can go on forever in the ways in which technology can help the team.
But all of this requires serious technology leaders and staff. None of which the Giants have.
While he is still FMiC, I have noticed that he has become far less nasty over the past 8 months or so. Back then most posts he made was derisive towards somebody, and he was not provide much in the way of analysis.
His recent posts are much more interesting, thought provoking and based on a reasonable factual basis. His general position is far more team and especially front office friendly than my opinions though. The change probably has nothing to do with our interaction last spring, though I would like to think so ;).
Yeah perhaps if I was able to take a more measured approach originally I could have contributed to those efforts but I tend to respond equally disrespectfully when i'm called stupid and talked down to on a subject matter I've devoted a good deal of time to understanding and applying. The high road always works better though, you have done a better job of that in these debates than I. Honestly, there is an element to it where doing AI as a service for 6 years before my new venture I get to say things here in the confines of the internet that I can't say there.
Either way I've been on the board for a long time and don't have a lot of patience for bully's in general so there were multiple factors at play.
I do think it is good to keep in mind that we all have the same goal here the toughest thing for me to comprehend is why there is so much desire to trust the team and take them at face value despite recent difficulties and decidedly bad PR as it relates to analytics.
Rivera talked about 2015 being the first year Carolina really started to employ analytics - Gettleman was in Carolina then. So, this is his 2nd consecutive stop where analytics are being employed.
I have no idea what his plans are going forward, but I would assume the intention is to continue to scale it and not just leave it stagnant.
It's like Gruden - he ripped analytics earlier in the year, and then quoted PFF data later on - proving that they are indeed looking at it and utilizing it. These old school guys just don't like change. It's like Clint Hurdle in Pittsburgh - Huntington told him they were going to move in a direction that embraced analytics and that he was only going to be able to stay on board if he was willing to adapt and change.
He was resistant to it at first, but eventually learned to understand the value and work with the front office in terms of employing more new-school thinking.
It's actually why they went after Russell Martin years ago - data they had showed that he was one of the best pitch framers in baseball and got a higher percentage of borderline pitches/balls called strikes and that the increase of strike calls had a specific long-term value making him a worthwhile investment.
I'm getting off track here - but you get the idea.
It's sort of a scramble right now. I think teams are collecting data faster than they can figure out how to even effectively employ all of it - this is all happening on the fly.
Regardless - I'm not against anything that involves expanding the way the Giants view things. I just don't necessarily think they're as resistant to moving in this direction as perhaps they're being made out to be here.
If this is an arms race is isn't very smart to be on record insulting the very people you need to bring into the fold for said arms race.
It isn't just that Gettleman said that either, he really doesn't seem like he has the personality to make people feel empowered in the way that technical people like to feel. The best engineers I know tend to think differently than "business" people and while I think those strengths and weaknesses go hand and hand it is important first and foremost that the more complex needs and different work styles are paid with respect. I think this article on "straders" or traders who code outlines it well. There are reasons that there are areas of GS now that don't have a dress code or strict work hours. Good code is written with patience, an open mind and an outlook that doesn't look at things in a binary way. This goes doubly for applying the information generated from that code.
Gettleman very much seems like a my way or the highway kind of guy who makes up his own mind and does not empower the people around him. The public information that we've outlined on this would suggest that other teams are much friendlier to analytics and a culture of innovation and there isn't really any evidence to the contrary provided by anyone about the team or Gettleman.
While i'll admit that this doesn't constitute proof it certainly points to the Giants having more of a problem than a solution.
At one point, I thought there was an agreement that NOBODY knows for sure how the Giants are equipped to use analytics. Now we've reverted back to all the "evidence" being provided through exhaustive Google searches and LinkedIn profiles.
I think this goes again to a different way that technical minds think. Part of the open source movement is collaboration but the other part is to see what people can build with your code in order to recruit them or expand their ideas. Google makes tensor flow available not just out of the goodness of their heart and a belief in community.
The fact that the Giants might have a "secret operation" actually speaks more to a backwards way of thinking than something that should be looked at positively.
You don't want to give away the farm and google is never ever going to put their best stuff out there but the fact remains if you want to recruit you need something to draw people in show you have something exciting to work on in addition to the right culture.
The bottom line is if there is any team that should be most concerned about secrecy it's the Patriots as they appear to be ahead of the pack not only in what is written about but the results on the field.
Everyone talks about how BB is the best but did anyone stop to think that his partnership with Ernie Adams may be inextricably intertwined with that?
The previous GM, Marty Hurney DIDN'T use analytics, so I was shocked when it was postured that Gettleman shunned them too. If posted this snippet numerous times:
An organization that previously had no formal analytics department now does, BECAUSE OF GETTLEMAN! Now, how he set up the department has been ripped to shreds by Captain Analytics because it completely refuted his point that Carolina was doing nothing.
I half believe he did a Google search that showed Carolina doing nothing under Hurney and he just assumed it had still been the case.
I have said numerous times I don't know what the Giants are doing. I've never even postured that they are somehow leading the charge. I only was drawn into the discussion because of an outright lie that to this day, still hasn't been retracted.
Owners talk to each other. I'd also think by now he isn't going to forgo a tool that is very likely to give his team an advantage.
If Gettleman is such a wiz in integrating advanced game theory. Why were the Giants so bad at taking timeouts this year and increasing their win probability when opportunities presented?
Again, taking timeouts properly are a very simple concept in applied game theory.
This was the crux of my comment and the logic behind it. I don't care what was written about time in Carolina if we can't apply simple game theory today how much did he really learn? Why does this article matter when us as Giants fans can't see the results of successful simple applied game theory on the field?
This was always my point. It doesn't matter what is said about the quality of your work if the actualization of your systems are bad both in individual situations and the macro success of the team.
You've noted above that Kansas City utilizes analytics. Why does Andy Reid waste them? Why is the use of timeouts Sean McVay's biggest area he's questioned on?
You harp on data being collected for years and then wonder how a first year GM hasn't made it so the coach is infallible on taking timeouts?
Do you ever listen to the arguments you present? That you still stand by Google research as a way to determine things, I'm going to guess you don't.
Your comment was very direct and straightforward. Gettleman shuns analytics and did not employ them in Carolina or the Giants.
You are the one making things up Luddite.
But I actually think Andy Reid is an interesting game theory case because the way he uses them aren’t as black and white poorly as say letting the saints run the clock almost completely down at the half when they have a fist and goal and we have 3 timeouts.
Again, didn’t bring up KC but last I read an article on him it was more early in his career that it’s a problem. Will research more tomorrow though I’m done for tonight.
Give me an example of Andy Reid using timeouts this year that is as bad as the situation I just named.
Maybe find a couple because I’m prepared to raise you a few in the case of Shurmur.
Give me an example of Andy Reid using timeouts this year that is as bad as the situation I just named.
Maybe find a couple because I’m prepared to raise you a few in the case of Shurmur.
Serious question: What do you think FMiC's point is?
I ask because you call for him to provide evidence, and it seems clear to me that he's done that to support his point. And he also seems to be clearly only making one main point with you.
I'll give you a clue about his point -- it has nothing to do with Shurmur (or timeouts or anything else Shurmur has done).
Rivera talked about 2015 being the first year Carolina really started to employ analytics - Gettleman was in Carolina then. So, this is his 2nd consecutive stop where analytics are being employed.
I have no idea what his plans are going forward, but I would assume the intention is to continue to scale it and not just leave it stagnant.
It's like Gruden - he ripped analytics earlier in the year, and then quoted PFF data later on - proving that they are indeed looking at it and utilizing it. These old school guys just don't like change. It's like Clint Hurdle in Pittsburgh - Huntington told him they were going to move in a direction that embraced analytics and that he was only going to be able to stay on board if he was willing to adapt and change.
He was resistant to it at first, but eventually learned to understand the value and work with the front office in terms of employing more new-school thinking.
It's actually why they went after Russell Martin years ago - data they had showed that he was one of the best pitch framers in baseball and got a higher percentage of borderline pitches/balls called strikes and that the increase of strike calls had a specific long-term value making him a worthwhile investment.
I'm getting off track here - but you get the idea.
It's sort of a scramble right now. I think teams are collecting data faster than they can figure out how to even effectively employ all of it - this is all happening on the fly.
Regardless - I'm not against anything that involves expanding the way the Giants view things. I just don't necessarily think they're as resistant to moving in this direction as perhaps they're being made out to be here.
So here is the thing...
Are you going to start day 1 with a 30 - 40 person staff... No of course not.
But you have to bring in leadership folks who have a vision, and know how to implement that vision. My last job, I ran a 60+ person software development team at a large back building portfolio performance and analytic products for us to provide to customers. When I started it, there was a mish mash of stuff, no vision, and a bunch of unhappy customers. I met with our business people and with some key customers and developed a vision within 2 or 3 weeks, and plan in 4. It took me another 4 to get approvals, by 12 weeks I had 20 people in place and working on my designs. By 20 weeks, the team was up to 32. Within 10 months we delivered the first major product and were starting on the next. At the end of 15 months my team had grown to over 50 working on 3 separate projects. As the project rolled out we needed a few more support engineers so the team grew a bit more. The point of that story is that yes, it takes some time to get going, but it doesn't take years... 1 year should be more than enough time to put serious power behind such an effort. Mind you, I consider the analytic engines we were building to bear significant resemblance to what the Giants would need. Granted we were supporting hundreds of customers not just one... And my team was just the part of the story, there were business operations and analytic teams, tech operations, DBAs, network support, PMO staff, business testers, joint customer testers, 1st and 2nd tier production support, etc, etc, etc. Altogether we probably had 200+ people working to deliver our products. Most of that team was built from scratch within 15 months. The Giants being a single customer probably don't need as large or complex a team.
If I were so inclined (I'm not at the moment I am building my own startup), but the Giants could hire me and I could do for them what I have done in the past, and have a real tech staff humming along in 8 to 10 months.
To sum it up, if there is a will, there is a way.
What platitudes are contained in that above breakdown??
NoGainDayne : 7:34 pm : link : reply
Why don’t you present evidence for your point instead of just speaking in platitudes like always.
A few posts up, I said, "Let's be clear on this". So, follow along with me here - my point is that Gettleman does not shun analytics and actually implemented the analytic program in Carolina.
You are too busy misusing the term Luddite hundreds of times to get your head out of your ass to realize this.
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 résumés 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.
What platitudes are contained in that above breakdown??
Quote:
Why don’t we try this Luddite.
NoGainDayne : 7:34 pm : link : reply
Why don’t you present evidence for your point instead of just speaking in platitudes like always.
A few posts up, I said, "Let's be clear on this". So, follow along with me here - my point is that Gettleman does not shun analytics and actually implemented the analytic program in Carolina.
You are too busy misusing the term Luddite hundreds of times to get your head out of your ass to realize this.
I agree with you that DG employs analytics... But, as I have stated in the past, all the evidence is that he has a narrow view of what analytics are valuable.
That's unfortunate in my view. The Giants may be able to build themselves up to a strong team again under Gettleman, but the will fall further behind in this, and I believe that its an unsustainable model.
And then narrowing it down on Draft Day...
Calling the Giants allocation of resources last offseason rough is putting it mildly. Objectively, you shouldn't be paying old, shot players starter money. The math models don't give you a break for "culture." I also don't believe any risk probability analysis would point to paying an average historical performer at year 8,9,10 a record salary. Remember resource allocation isn't about predicting performance, it's about value.
Football is a difficult not impossible game to predict and model. There are some baseline gimmes, time management, time out management, down and distance decisions, etc. should come directly from the playbook. The Giants playbook on these suck. These should be mastered. There should be no ambiguity. This is table stakes.
Football is the next frontier in sports data, because it will be fun and profitable. The tech and math is there, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Assignments are finite, plays are finite, success is measurable, failure is measurable. With the right human, experiential, and observational data, predictive models aren't some fantasy. And it's not cost prohibitive, CERN operates 6 months on the Barca payroll. The Giants can predict if a lineman is slowing with age or the optimal depth for a linebacker in zone coverage in their budget.
Again, the Giants could have vans of PHDs in the parking lot -- but no way they are listening to them. They wouldn't suck so much at the value and easy stuff if they were.
They were also poor in utilizing personnel. On another thread I broke down how poorly they used Barkley as a receiver... He was not nearly as effective as his talent would indicate that he should be.
You can knock what NoGainDayne is saying, but the proof is in the pudding - there is no indication that the Giants have any awareness of analytics. And it's backed up by the words of the GM.
(To the cadence of wheel of fortune) SCALE…THAT…LUDDITE
That’s right everyone, Hi, I’m Dan in the Springs and I’m the host of Scale that Luddite. Where the winner is always logic and reason and the loser eats Dave Gettleman’s farts. We have two contestants today Fat Luddite (FL) and NoGainDayne (NGD)
FL: Thanks Dan, so happy to be here. I always think I win no matter how much of a loser I am but this game is amazing for me. I just love to eat Gettleman farts, so much.
NGD: While I do love tormenting Luddites this has ended up taking a lot more of my time than I originally intended.
Dan: Good good, now onto the game! On a scale from Henry David Thoreau to Andrew Ng where do you think your opponent rates Dave Gettleman on the Luddite scale?
FL: Ted Kaczynski
Dan: BAM and we are off to the races! Wow aggressive there FL. Famous hater of technology here. Also a murderer, you really don’t think NGD likes Gettleman very much do you?
NGD: Marc Benioff
Dan: Interesting. Technology visionary despite the non-technical backgroun…
FL: ***interrupting*** GETTLEMAN MANAGED BY SOME ACCOUNTS AS MANY AS 5 DEVELOPERS IN CAROLINA!!!
Dan: Yes, yes, we get it. You love Gettleman. Let’s move on. Where do you rate Gettleman?
FL: Bob Iger, can’t forget how much Gettleman loves film guys, he loves it, LOVES IT. And he’s no slouch on technology. Did I mention they said at his prior job he knew game theory? You know he’s hired developers, right? Perhaps you’ve heard of the Sloan conference?
NGD: Julie Wainwright, Pets.com CEO. Shown far too much faith despite being late to the party and displaying no real understanding on what it takes to succeed in the tech space
Dan: I think we have our winner. Julie Wainwright is much closer. All the resources in the world but just doesn’t seem to get it, the most famous example being mocking the people he needs to help him do his job better going forward and becoming the counter example to teams that embrace analytics. Do you know that one writer even pointed out the fact that the METS had the opportunity to be smarter than the Giants on this? Learn from their mistakes? Brutal, just brutal. We even reached Kaczynski for comment from ADX Florence "not a good look" he says. And that’s our game folks.
FL: Hooray!! Shower me in farts. I am literally available to play this game any time.
Dan: Sadly I fear this won’t be the last time you play.
NGD: ***slinks off a little impressed by the unrelenting support but mostly just disheartened that John Mara most likely shares FL’s feelings***
Meltdown complete
Me :"I'll take pompous morons for $200, Alex"
Alex: "This moron once stated that Dave Gettleman shuns analytics and doesn't use them"
Me: "NoGaynDayne"
Alex: "Ohh, I'm sooory. It's that prolific moron NoGainDayne". You used a "y" instead.
Yes. Why indeed......
(To the cadence of wheel of fortune) SCALE…THAT…LUDDITE
That’s right everyone, Hi, I’m Dan in the Springs and I’m the host of Scale that Luddite. Where the winner is always logic and reason and the loser eats Dave Gettleman’s farts. We have two contestants today Fat Luddite (FL) and NoGainDayne (NGD)
FL: Thanks Dan, so happy to be here. I always think I win no matter how much of a loser I am but this game is amazing for me. I just love to eat Gettleman farts, so much.
NGD: While I do love tormenting Luddites this has ended up taking a lot more of my time than I originally intended.
Dan: Good good, now onto the game! On a scale from Henry David Thoreau to Andrew Ng where do you think your opponent rates Dave Gettleman on the Luddite scale?
FL: Ted Kaczynski
Dan: BAM and we are off to the races! Wow aggressive there FL. Famous hater of technology here. Also a murderer, you really don’t think NGD likes Gettleman very much do you?
NGD: Marc Benioff
Dan: Interesting. Technology visionary despite the non-technical backgroun…
FL: ***interrupting*** GETTLEMAN MANAGED BY SOME ACCOUNTS AS MANY AS 5 DEVELOPERS IN CAROLINA!!!
Dan: Yes, yes, we get it. You love Gettleman. Let’s move on. Where do you rate Gettleman?
FL: Bob Iger, can’t forget how much Gettleman loves film guys, he loves it, LOVES IT. And he’s no slouch on technology. Did I mention they said at his prior job he knew game theory? You know he’s hired developers, right? Perhaps you’ve heard of the Sloan conference?
NGD: Julie Wainwright, Pets.com CEO. Shown far too much faith despite being late to the party and displaying no real understanding on what it takes to succeed in the tech space
Dan: I think we have our winner. Julie Wainwright is much closer. All the resources in the world but just doesn’t seem to get it, the most famous example being mocking the people he needs to help him do his job better going forward and becoming the counter example to teams that embrace analytics. Do you know that one writer even pointed out the fact that the METS had the opportunity to be smarter than the Giants on this? Learn from their mistakes? Brutal, just brutal. We even reached Kaczynski for comment from ADX Florence "not a good look" he says. And that’s our game folks.
FL: Hooray!! Shower me in farts. I am literally available to play this game any time.
Dan: Sadly I fear this won’t be the last time you play.
NGD: ***slinks off a little impressed by the unrelenting support but mostly just disheartened that John Mara most likely shares FL’s feelings***
Get some help man. You have a serious issue.
They were also poor in utilizing personnel. On another thread I broke down how poorly they used Barkley as a receiver... He was not nearly as effective as his talent would indicate that he should be.
You can knock what NoGainDayne is saying, but the proof is in the pudding - there is no indication that the Giants have any awareness of analytics. And it's backed up by the words of the GM.
This supposes that utilizing analytics = success.
Not true.
The Jaguars are case in point. They're doing all of the things people here want the Giants to do with their analytics department and it led them to Blake Bortles under center yet again and a terrible, losing season. They were just as bad as we were.
This time last year, everyone was lauding them.
Things change fast in this league.
You're a strange cat, my man.
Me :"I'll take pompous morons for $200, Alex"
Alex: "This moron once stated that Dave Gettleman shuns analytics and doesn't use them"
Me: "NoGaynDayne"
Alex: "Ohh, I'm sooory. It's that prolific moron NoGainDayne". You used a "y" instead.
Yes. Why indeed......
Uh, you are supposed to answer in question form, FatMan.
Somehow a meltdown consists of seemingly all the people in the know about analytics agree with me over you. And here comes the classic Luddite misdirection that you’ve tried over and over again. Misncharacterizing what has happened.
If you haven’t figured it out by now let me fill you in. No one should respect you because you just like to bully people that you think your are smarter then. But you are just a POS.
My game show did not involve a freak out of any kind I just enjoy making fun of Luddites as much as possible.
I’m just enjoying the world of your largely baseless Gettleman worship come crashing down on your stupid head. It seems very hard for you to accept that you don’t really have much basis so I’m trying some abstract ways.
Sadly none of them work. You are never going to acknowledge that you came charging into this calling me stupid repeating the same things and never having a point to refute what I’m saying with any real basis . Now I’m pompous? I suppose I’d prefer that to stupid like you call everyone else who disagrees with you and something you’ve had to shift to as your bravado unravels.
But of course as Luddites will continue to try to pick apart things to make themselves feel better instead of accepting they have beeen wrong the whole time. You clearly can’t help it, it’s the code that runs on your basic OS.
Anyway I’m out of strange ways to make fun of you for now but I’m sure you’ll give me more material soon.
I don't ever remember his posts/tone being this weird.
To Christian’s point the data that exists for this now can predict these data systems but it doesn’t mean it’s easy to build them. By all accounts the Patriots have been building theirs for almost 20 years. The Eagles maybe longer.
This is a when not an if thing. And if you are just starting when basically many other teams have proven unequivocally that it works you are too late.
Did you read the article on chess centaurs I shared? Even if the Giants finally get with it and hire the right people they are still behind on the reinforcement learning data set and falling further behind even if they hired the best coders in the world they would be dealing with inferior data than those teams that have been using reinforcement learning for all this time.
Also I like that I’m weird.
Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted. ~ Martin Luther King
Might as well stop being a Giants fan, the Pats stole all those good hackers from MIT. There is no hope for the Giants because they are behind the curve.
This isn't a dip your toe into the water, or hire a few guys here and there. It's a full on dept that has to really evolve with a plan and vision behind it. Doesn't look like the Giants at the surface level have attracted the top personnel or invested the time into it as the top teams have. I agree that they 100% should though.
This is just part of the deal. Some teams are at the forefront, others are going to have to catch up. If the Giants are in the latter category, so be it.
Analytics in football are a very wide and far encompassing term - it can cover all sorts of areas from personnel to in-game strategy, to player health/peak-performance.
Some of you guys are attempting to make a black/white issue out of something with countless variables in a field where we're not even completely privy to everything the Giants are actually doing.
There's a lot of assumption in this debate which leads to faulty logic and incomplete comparisons.
A lot of these posts are reading more like frustrated fans than anything else, if we're being honest. It's almost like... "just do something! Anything!"
The Jags announced this big partnership with Tech Mahindra last year - they've been employing analytics since at least 2013 and still wound up with Blake Bortles playing behind a line with TWO Giants rejects and a 5 win season.
They've been no better than us in that time period.
Analytics are a great tool, and I'm sure it benefits teams to have as much data and information as possible - but we're moving into territory where this is becoming "teams that employ extensive analytics = great, everyone else = bad"
Let's not simplify it to that degree because it's doing a major disservice to the basis of the discussion. it goes FAR beyond that.
I imagine about 100 percent of the league has some form of an analytics department at this point.
You are right that the mere presence of analytics doesn't add value, and that the term itself is way overused in sports and other ventures. But I do wonder, in the case of the Jaguars and other teams, about how often GMs and VPs actually listen and make decisions based on analytical recommendations. I imagine that an analytical team could pretty easily make the case not to draft Mr. 3.3 ypc Fournette in the top 5, but is someone like Coughlin going to listen to a 20-something nerd fresh out of Stanford?
To Christian’s point the data that exists for this now can predict these data systems but it doesn’t mean it’s easy to build them. By all accounts the Patriots have been building theirs for almost 20 years. The Eagles maybe longer.
This is a when not an if thing. And if you are just starting when basically many other teams have proven unequivocally that it works you are too late.
Did you read the article on chess centaurs I shared? Even if the Giants finally get with it and hire the right people they are still behind on the reinforcement learning data set and falling further behind even if they hired the best coders in the world they would be dealing with inferior data than those teams that have been using reinforcement learning for all this time.
Also I like that I’m weird.
Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted. ~ Martin Luther King
You clearly have very little understanding of reinforcement learning outside of this one article you read. There's too much open-ended complexity and a lack of a good simulation environment for it to be useful in the context of an NFL game. Data sets aren't the bottleneck...
It's a real shame that we decided to not hire a GM that didn't want to make a strong commitment to analytics but it is really as simple as hiring someone with an understanding of how to build software and strong math skills to make sure we aren't all sitting around here 5 years from now saying we should have done this 5 years ago.
McL said it, i'll say it too. I could have something that could start answering the tough questions built in a year. The easy ones like time / clock management in a few months max. I'm not even saying that we are super unique either.
There isn't really any good reason not to other than rejecting the idea that advanced analytics isn't going to change football in the way it's changing every other industry and that's really a negligent thought as a business owner.
Every business generating as much as the Giants with the kind of data that is being produced should have a strong CTO with knowledge of predictive analytics in the building.
Let’s start with talent identification & recruitment. Here, I believe the Giants should have a capable front office analytics dept…I think analytics is a great way of challenging preconceived notions and group think. I would absolutely use it for that. I would not use it as the primary input to decision-making. My scouts would be key. Here are my concerns with analytics in talent identification…It doesn’t reflect chemistry, leadership or potential well, the sample sizes are much smaller than baseball, there’s so much data you can generally torture it into confessing what you want (copyright Bill2!). I also question if there’s value in blazing the trail or being a follower. It will take a lot of costly mistakes to get the learnings…especially on things like machine learning that are very immature. Think about what goes into analyzing one CB on one play. What’s his leverage? What’s his cushion? What was the scheme calling for? How much safety help did he get? What was the quality of the throw? The down and distance> Things the human brain processes very swiftly but are actually very tricky to code for reliably and require a ton of data points to cover.
Regarding strategy, time management and health management I think the benefits are a lot clearer. The data is much more easily measured, more easily applied and should be basics but let’s be honest, there’s no silver bullet to these things because no-one wants to put the maths guys in charge. Andy Reid is one of the biggest advocates for analytics in the NFL. He is also a famously bad caller of timeouts. Atlanta are huge proponents of analytics, yet Mike Smith was allowed to be the worst user of timeouts the league has arguably ever seen. Let’s not cover them losing a superbowl where basically they could have knelt on every play at a certain point. ARC does a great job discussing the Jags. So I think my point here is that there’s a bunch of value in doing the work but only if you put it in to action effectively, which there is some evidence Shurmur is doing in a limited range. However, let’s be honest, his timeouts were atrocious in 2018, especially the first half.
Overall then I’d characterize my approach to analytics as someone prepared to embrace it very much in some areas and cautiously in others where there are real barriers to implementation and risks of costly learnings. If someone wants to actually lay out how we mitigate those concerns, get the bang for the buck without impacting the available time of the key guys during the season then I’m all ears. Can we just try to keep our responses to less than 3 volumes and a teeny bit sane. Thanks in advance.
STFU, luddite.
This doesn't have to be one or the other.
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
Quote:
on how to argue something in a completely unlikeable fashion that drives people away from supporting your point.
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
Let’s start with talent identification & recruitment. Here, I believe the Giants should have a capable front office analytics dept…I think analytics is a great way of challenging preconceived notions and group think. I would absolutely use it for that. I would not use it as the primary input to decision-making. My scouts would be key. Here are my concerns with analytics in talent identification…It doesn’t reflect chemistry, leadership or potential well, the sample sizes are much smaller than baseball, there’s so much data you can generally torture it into confessing what you want (copyright Bill2!). I also question if there’s value in blazing the trail or being a follower. It will take a lot of costly mistakes to get the learnings…especially on things like machine learning that are very immature. Think about what goes into analyzing one CB on one play. What’s his leverage? What’s his cushion? What was the scheme calling for? How much safety help did he get? What was the quality of the throw? The down and distance> Things the human brain processes very swiftly but are actually very tricky to code for reliably and require a ton of data points to cover.
Regarding strategy, time management and health management I think the benefits are a lot clearer. The data is much more easily measured, more easily applied and should be basics but let’s be honest, there’s no silver bullet to these things because no-one wants to put the maths guys in charge. Andy Reid is one of the biggest advocates for analytics in the NFL. He is also a famously bad caller of timeouts. Atlanta are huge proponents of analytics, yet Mike Smith was allowed to be the worst user of timeouts the league has arguably ever seen. Let’s not cover them losing a superbowl where basically they could have knelt on every play at a certain point. ARC does a great job discussing the Jags. So I think my point here is that there’s a bunch of value in doing the work but only if you put it in to action effectively, which there is some evidence Shurmur is doing in a limited range. However, let’s be honest, his timeouts were atrocious in 2018, especially the first half.
Overall then I’d characterize my approach to analytics as someone prepared to embrace it very much in some areas and cautiously in others where there are real barriers to implementation and risks of costly learnings. If someone wants to actually lay out how we mitigate those concerns, get the bang for the buck without impacting the available time of the key guys during the season then I’m all ears. Can we just try to keep our responses to less than 3 volumes and a teeny bit sane. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for this. I'm more than happy to have a measured discussion on it. Think we got off on the wrong foot when more than a few people called me stupid for suggesting it was possible for the Giants to do better with this. I will definitely have a response for you soon. For my part I apologize for being too nasty about this on other threads.
Quote:
it’s a long term investment that everyone is going to have to makensooner or later.
To Christian’s point the data that exists for this now can predict these data systems but it doesn’t mean it’s easy to build them. By all accounts the Patriots have been building theirs for almost 20 years. The Eagles maybe longer.
This is a when not an if thing. And if you are just starting when basically many other teams have proven unequivocally that it works you are too late.
Did you read the article on chess centaurs I shared? Even if the Giants finally get with it and hire the right people they are still behind on the reinforcement learning data set and falling further behind even if they hired the best coders in the world they would be dealing with inferior data than those teams that have been using reinforcement learning for all this time.
Also I like that I’m weird.
Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted. ~ Martin Luther King
You clearly have very little understanding of reinforcement learning outside of this one article you read. There's too much open-ended complexity and a lack of a good simulation environment for it to be useful in the context of an NFL game. Data sets aren't the bottleneck...
Ummmm. I've been talking about needing to set up a good learning environment with good outcome analysis. The more time you have to train the agents and add to their complexity the better they will be.
And i'm not sure what you are talking about with lack of a good simulation environment? You can run simulations of past games. Feed in Zebra data, build an autoencoder like the Patriots have to deepen the longitude of training set with film. (among many other traditional data sets that you'd expect) So you have even 2 different data trees, film models, your Zebra + film vs. pure film models and you can also compare them against the human agent outcomes. Especially with the autoencoders built from film you build a pretty deep set to find the play calling agents which maximize win total and ultimately Superbowl victories. You can even build in structures to let them manage the cap / resource allocation (by creating a database of graded contracts $/performance) in the off-season in their pursuit of calling more successful plays maybe you want to separate them into funnels, probably you'd try both though. Ideally like in the article I shared you start showing the human "players" the recommendations and seeing what they decide on with that information, that's the holy grail data set that I am advocating we get to as soon as possible.
I also strongly believe that the best probabilistic models are built on top of the metadata on simulations from the reinforcement learning agents, as well as unsupervised and supervised methodologies if we are getting greedy. These goal state optomizers can even feed into larger goal state optimizations. The success outcome and resource allocation could feed into fan sentiment and pricing strategy to feed into profit.
I actually have filed two patents and am about to get my third jointly with a large university with a prominent professor in one of the top applied math schools in the world. The new one is on mass signal interpretation and model verification. The ones we've filed, one of them is for an original approach to multi-agent frameworks and goal state orientation and the earlier one for automated feature engineering, hyper-parameter tuning and an evolving neural network feedback loop. We published on ENNs two years before Sentient wrote about them.
Quote:
In comment 14297458 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
on how to argue something in a completely unlikeable fashion that drives people away from supporting your point.
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
Here is the difference between some of the people arguing my side (that the Giants need to improve their tech commitment yesterday) and the luddites. The luddites are arguing with very limited facts and information supporting their side to needlessly defend a regime that is already in place. The Giants are already doing this with their support or not.
The other side would like to see change in the organization that could really do a lot to help us field more competitive teams going forward and it would certainly help if more fans acknowledged this was a problem instead of pretending it wasn't.
Owners talk to each other. I'd also think by now he isn't going to forgo a tool that is very likely to give his team an advantage.
They DO use analytics, at least nominally. The issue, IMO, is whether they know what questions they're using analytics to answer, and whether they're dedicating enough resources to do so effectively. We'll probably never know about the former - that's proprietary after all - but to the degree that org charts are even semi-public, the Giants' analytics team does seem a bit thin on headcount.
The other side would like to see change in the organization that could really do a lot to help us field more competitive teams going forward and it would certainly help if more fans acknowledged this was a problem instead of pretending it wasn't.
How will fans acknowledging this issue help?
Quote:
The other side would like to see change in the organization that could really do a lot to help us field more competitive teams going forward and it would certainly help if more fans acknowledged this was a problem instead of pretending it wasn't.
How will fans acknowledging this issue help?
The Mara's certainly have a pulse on the fans, it's important to them. The more that it becomes accepted around the fan base that this is something that needs to be addressed the more they hear about it (as a pure theoretical numbers game) the higher their headline risk of not addressing it and the higher chance they will.
Again even if they just bring in a strong CTO type that is in the draft war room, interjecting about what the models are saying, has a real voice. That's the start.
The early value a strong predictive analytics program isn't even answering the tough questions, it's interjecting a different perspective that might re-frame debates. When the debates are re-framed and the shortcomings of the models called out, you figure out what people are seeing that the models aren't find a way to encode that information and it becomes a virtuous cycle of improvement.
The problem you've run into multiple times is NOT what you suggest here. Many people (including myself) can agree that perhaps the Giants can do better in analytics.
The problem is that you have made assertions to the positive about the level of analytics the Giants have made as though you actually know it. You've used "evidence" that includes a single line stated and possibly taken out of context from a press conference, what you could find on Google, what sportswriters say, and what people's LinkedIn profiles say about them (not even their actual resumes).
You have stated that this is ample evidence to support your conclusions. Many people disagree with you on whether that is ample or evidence.
To further complicate your situation, you've taken to labeling those who disagree with you as luddites, which is an absolute mischaracterization of their viewpoints and arguments.
Let’s start with talent identification & recruitment. Here, I believe the Giants should have a capable front office analytics dept…I think analytics is a great way of challenging preconceived notions and group think. I would absolutely use it for that. I would not use it as the primary input to decision-making. My scouts would be key. Here are my concerns with analytics in talent identification…It doesn’t reflect chemistry, leadership or potential well, the sample sizes are much smaller than baseball, there’s so much data you can generally torture it into confessing what you want (copyright Bill2!). I also question if there’s value in blazing the trail or being a follower. It will take a lot of costly mistakes to get the learnings…especially on things like machine learning that are very immature. Think about what goes into analyzing one CB on one play. What’s his leverage? What’s his cushion? What was the scheme calling for? How much safety help did he get? What was the quality of the throw? The down and distance> Things the human brain processes very swiftly but are actually very tricky to code for reliably and require a ton of data points to cover.
Regarding strategy, time management and health management I think the benefits are a lot clearer. The data is much more easily measured, more easily applied and should be basics but let’s be honest, there’s no silver bullet to these things because no-one wants to put the maths guys in charge. Andy Reid is one of the biggest advocates for analytics in the NFL. He is also a famously bad caller of timeouts. Atlanta are huge proponents of analytics, yet Mike Smith was allowed to be the worst user of timeouts the league has arguably ever seen. Let’s not cover them losing a superbowl where basically they could have knelt on every play at a certain point. ARC does a great job discussing the Jags. So I think my point here is that there’s a bunch of value in doing the work but only if you put it in to action effectively, which there is some evidence Shurmur is doing in a limited range. However, let’s be honest, his timeouts were atrocious in 2018, especially the first half.
Overall then I’d characterize my approach to analytics as someone prepared to embrace it very much in some areas and cautiously in others where there are real barriers to implementation and risks of costly learnings. If someone wants to actually lay out how we mitigate those concerns, get the bang for the buck without impacting the available time of the key guys during the season then I’m all ears. Can we just try to keep our responses to less than 3 volumes and a teeny bit sane. Thanks in advance.
Generally speaking I agree with thispoint of view.
I will point out that Machine Learning is by no means immature. I was involved with machine learning techniques and algorithms back in the 80s. From a computer science perspective, the techniques and algorithms are quite mature. It has only come to the current forefront in the past decade or so because we now have the computing power to make those algorithms worthwhile.
That said, the dichotomy you draw between player health/peak performance& game management (the easier stuff) vs. player evaluation & recruitment (the harder stuff) is accurate. For sure get the easy stuff going first, that's table stakes. The thing about the harder stuff though is that the benefits are not always obvious. The benefits are about helping to make higher percentage decisions. No decision, no matter how much data reinforces it is 100% guaranteed to work.
I don't know if the decision to draft Bortles was driven by any analytics or just desperation to get a QB. And if there were analytics behind, were the right variable being analyzed? No idea. Even if there were analytics on the right variables, you only get an indicator that says you have an (x)% better chance of building a superbowl contender with this pick. The pick can still go wrong. Frankly, I don't see an analytics based approach that would lead to the Bortles pick, I think there was enough in the data to steer away from that one, but what do I know.
Using one failure to discredit an analytics approach is incorrect thinking about it. Any tool that helps you to make the higher percentage decisions is a good tool. Not using a tool that improves your decision making is straight up a bad thing.
Given the revenues of a football team, the cost of building up a decent analytics department is table scraps... There is no reason not to do it. And the sooner you start, the sooner you start building up Intellectual Property on what works and what doesn't. That IP can take years to build up, and the longer you wait, the harder it is to catch up. Other teams are not going to share their IP, the IP is not doing to land in the public domain since it is so highly specialized. It comes down to a black and white decision, only limited use of analytics for the easy stuff and reject it for the harder stuff, or jump in with both feet and do both.
What fans say the Giants reject analytics, what they are really saying is that the Giants are rejecting analytics for the harder stuff. Everybody is doing the easy stuff, so that gets discounted. Fans who are critical of the Giants decision making and know something about computer science and data analysis are frustrated because we know their is a tool out there that can help with those decisions, and that tool is being rejected for specifically those decisions.
Quote:
Think we got off on the wrong foot when more than a few people called me stupid for suggesting it was possible for the Giants to do better with this. I will definitely have a response for you soon. For my part I apologize for being too nasty about this on other threads.
The problem you've run into multiple times is NOT what you suggest here. Many people (including myself) can agree that perhaps the Giants can do better in analytics.
The problem is that you have made assertions to the positive about the level of analytics the Giants have made as though you actually know it. You've used "evidence" that includes a single line stated and possibly taken out of context from a press conference, what you could find on Google, what sportswriters say, and what people's LinkedIn profiles say about them (not even their actual resumes).
You have stated that this is ample evidence to support your conclusions. Many people disagree with you on whether that is ample or evidence.
To further complicate your situation, you've taken to labeling those who disagree with you as luddites, which is an absolute mischaracterization of their viewpoints and arguments.
No there is much more evidence as to what the Giants are using analytics for. THere are articles where the team has said they use it for peak performance and health management. I think it is safe to assume that they use it from some in game management like when to go for it on 4th or when to go for 2...
Teams that are using it for player evaluation and talent acquisition have much larger departments than the Giants have. All the evidence out there shows that the Giants have 1 guy who has a specialty in the health industry doing their analytics (which goes in line with the fact they use analytics for health and peak performance). When researching other teams, its easy to find out that they have larger departments although the size is not readily available it is referred to as "teams" of computer professionals. And the leaders of these teams have strong backgrounds in field such as computer science, machine learning, big data, statistical analysis and often investment analysis. The Giants have none of that. Without such skills it would be impossible for the team to delve into the player evaluation & talent acquisition side of analytics.
The on field results have been poor. And there has been zero change in our analytics personnel so it is hard to argue the competence of our staff on that note.
Regardless, the timeout and time management blunders in conjunction with the evidence we found is what makes some of us believe it's a strong argument.
You can post articles about Gettleman understanding advanced game theory as much as you want but when we fail to see simple game theory applied in the games we watch it certainly makes the argument that we aren't committing enough or the right resources stronger than the converse.
When the results on the field are so poor it is incredibly irritating for people to ignore this other evidence. Even the Jags their fan base can say that there is a commitment towards building technology for the future even if the results aren't there now.
Do you really think it is too much to ask for either good performance on the field or a clear commitment to evolving the approach in a rapidly changing tech environment?
Honestly my fear is that they fix the simple game theory stuff this season and never address the team construction things and we find ourselves badly behind on that because voices that are so loud now without any evidence on the low hanging fruit that shows we have the right tech people.
I guess my last question is why is it such a problem to want a company in 2019 that makes billions to have a plan as it relates to technology with more visibility? Why do the people suggesting this deserve ire?
That's what I've been reacting to, my increasing frustration that those of us that want this need to be called stupid or lambasted generally.
NoGainDayne said:
The biggest thing that we've gone round and round about relates to determining the disposition of the Giants towards analytics. An assertion has been made that they are NOT supportive of analytics. Over time it appears that assertion has softened, but I think what remains is an attitude of certainty about how the Giants are currently approaching the use of data in all of their football operations.
For someone like me it is puzzling how you can say with certainty that there has been zero change. First of all, it is most likely (imo) that the Giants recognized their limitations in this area and determined (as has been their M.O. in the past) to contract OUTSIDE the organization with people who are best qualified to help.
How would any of us possibly know if they are using the same or different people/methods than they were in years past? It seems really out there to suggest WITH CERTAINTY that zero changes have been made.
Furthermore, the analysis of abilities based on LinkedIn seems ludicrous to me. If you checked my LinkedIn profile you would see NOTHING that I've been working on for the past 6-8 years. My skills have completely evolved and yet I prefer NOT to update my resume or profile. Why? I already have the job I want.
While it may be very likely that those named by the Giants as overseeing analytics are not skilled enough to start up and run an intensive analytics department, it is very possible that the skills needed by the front office in terms of understanding the findings/analysis of said department and communicating it well to those who make decisions. Truth be told, a skill that is highly prized (and needed) is the ability to tactfully navigate between those who do deep analytical work and those who execute in operations. There seems to be ample evidence that not all people who are at the forefront of this technology are excellent diplomats in relating to those who run a football team.
You can post articles about Gettleman understanding advanced game theory as much as you want but when we fail to see simple game theory applied in the games we watch it certainly makes the argument that we aren't committing enough or the right resources stronger than the converse.
You are correct that poor results are strong evidence that things are working, but off the mark (imo) to use such an incredibly small sample set to come to that conclusion. IMO newly hired football leaders need time to reverse course when it comes to how the team performs. It is very possible that DG and all the front office is unhappy with PS's performance and that if it continues, there will be a change. Isn't that just as likely a conclusion as one that suggests the Giants have no ability to use game theory to develop strategies in such simple situations?
Do you really think it is too much to ask for either good performance on the field or a clear commitment to evolving the approach in a rapidly changing tech environment?
Honestly my fear is that they fix the simple game theory stuff this season and never address the team construction things and we find ourselves badly behind on that because voices that are so loud now without any evidence on the low hanging fruit that shows we have the right tech people.
It's one thing to be frustrated with results (we all are) or to have a fear of something. I think most Giants fans have similar if not identical fears. It's entirely another to draw conclusions about cause and promote them as proven based on evidence when that evidence is not clear to everyone.
Heck, if you took the approach from the start that all of your assertions were your opinion instead of presenting them as evidence-backed facts, I never would have involved myself in these discussions. I am not in a position to argue against analytics, nor am I in a position to provide evidence to support any claims about the level of investment the Giants have. I am super-curious about it though, so I took the time to read through a HUGE thread where you claimed to have left ample evidence and didn't find anything that rose to the level I would allow a HS student to use to back a claim.
It's not a problem to want the Giants to have a plan for tech. Not sure I agree that it should have a high-level of visibility. Maybe because I'm not trying to make a living in that field?
I don't think anyone who wants this deserves ire either.
This is why I asked you yesterday to focus on FMiC's main point - it seems you look beyond the idea that what is evidence enough for you is NOT evidence enough for everyone else, and instead turn this into something it hasn't been - an argument for or against analytics.
Well done.
1) I think this is just where we believe different things. For me not having a strong technology leader, having a leader speak out against analytics, your "rising star" not having advanced math or software experience (and yes people can learn things but it's definitely pretty hard in a full time job and Sean Harrington for example probably had what looks to be 7 years of computer science and software engineering work head start on Ty Siam), poor applied game theory demonstration, advocating secrecy (I've explained on this thread why this is a backwards way of thinking), other teams having good press and public leadership embracing analytics. That to me constitutes a negligent attitude a non-supportive attitude in general of the types of inroads you need to make compete in a large and quickly changing technological industry. We just disagree on this, I feel others with knowledge of analytics other than you agree with me but I don't think this position should have ever been called stupid.
2) I just really disagree that you should have time to get the timeout thing right. I think Christian spoke very well on this above. Not hard to hire someone whose job it is to talk to Shurmur about these probabilities. The Eagles clearly do it for much more complex things. Fact is the talent in New York is wildly better than Philly or many other cities to this should be even less of an excuse.
3) When I said zero change I meant zero public change. We've outlined the merits of having internal vs. external people and I think the points I made about needing to build our own data sets are extremely salient. If you hire outside talent you not only essentially making the intellectual capital of your team available to others for purchase but you run the risk of being extorted for money or sent back to the stone age.
4) I think your burden of proof is unrealistically high and while we are throwing insults like HS student around. There were more than a few people who appreciated the evidence and research I put into that post. If you are so confident that what you are doing is better you aren't afraid to put out old stuff to pull in talent. Every successful tech enterprise does this including the Patriots. Nobody is asking the Giants to put their code in a public git. If you aren't talking it is way, way more likely that you don't have anything to talk about or people want to research than you are ahead of the curve. Not wanting to talk about what you do screams of a fear that you might have only had "one good idea" people invest in you, people hire you, etc. if they believe you have had ideas that other people don't and will continue to do so.
Not only do the folks in the software development and tech industry look at linked in. There are other places that probably carry more weight. For example, I have found the GitHub repositories of various people working on analytics for other teams. GitHub is a place where people can manage their source code. Things that are not protected IP can made publicly available. Companies today will often look to an individual's GitHub repo for evidence of their prowess with a specific tech or sub field. Furthermore they look for a continuous history, not just recent updates, so not keeping GitHub up to date really hurts candidates unlike LinkedIn. On GitHub people may not say exactly what they are working on, but they will usually say for whom they are working. Contractors will name the client company. There is nobody that I can find that has a GitHub repo that mentions the Giants. There are literally hundreds of mentions of other teams. Its easy to find people who've worked for the Patriots, Browns, Panthers, Eagles and Chiefs. In fact, the vast majority of teams can be found referenced in GitHub... The only mention of Giants is the SF Giants, not the NY Giants.
If there were contractors doing this sort of thing for the Giants, reporters would ferret it out. Perhaps not the details, but that it does exist.
Furthermore, the idea of using contractors or outside experts for anything involving true IP is a very BAD idea. No team would want the knowledge gained by working on their proprietary models to be taken to another team. Any agency worth their salt would market this expertise to other teams if they had it. SO I believe that it is highly unlikely that ANY team will outsource any of their models, algorithms or data analysis.
For someone like me it is puzzling how you can say with certainty that there has been zero change. First of all, it is most likely (imo) that the Giants recognized their limitations in this area and determined (as has been their M.O. in the past) to contract OUTSIDE the organization with people who are best qualified to help.
How would any of us possibly know if they are using the same or different people/methods than they were in years past? It seems really out there to suggest WITH CERTAINTY that zero changes have been made.
Furthermore, the analysis of abilities based on LinkedIn seems ludicrous to me. If you checked my LinkedIn profile you would see NOTHING that I've been working on for the past 6-8 years. My skills have completely evolved and yet I prefer NOT to update my resume or profile. Why? I already have the job I want.
While it may be very likely that those named by the Giants as overseeing analytics are not skilled enough to start up and run an intensive analytics department, it is very possible that the skills needed by the front office in terms of understanding the findings/analysis of said department and communicating it well to those who make decisions. Truth be told, a skill that is highly prized (and needed) is the ability to tactfully navigate between those who do deep analytical work and those who execute in operations. There seems to be ample evidence that not all people who are at the forefront of this technology are excellent diplomats in relating to those who run a football team.
Dorgan - you are in the coaching field if I remember correctly yes? I would think you have a deep connection to the traditions. Understandable. And there seems to be a bunch of pitchforks out with people being like. We want proof, proof! But not much evidence supporting your cause other than pointing out that we might not know the absolute complete picture about what is going on behind closed doors.
Instead of fighting us might it be nice that we all agree that it would be nice to get these answers from the team? I don't think people are grasping that I would be very happy to be wrong here, if there was a secret skunksworks of ex google engineers working in the basement. It's just very unlikely and hardly a reason to assume that maybe it is time that fans agree that this is addressed publicly in some way. I just think it is very very hard to hide that stuff. How do you keep those interviews quiet? Are these people not allowed to leave the building? Talk to their friends?
It seems like many would really just prefer to see a world that we are in good hands despite our franchise looking objectively pretty bad right now.
I do have many years experience working with technical contractors. Among other things, I was a project manager for a large U.S. bank (the largest in the U.S. at the time) on a major technical initiative which won me a major company award (awarded once a year to a single employee out of >120,000). I know about what gets shared publicly and how to create contracts (and often more importantly relationships) that ensure silence. The supposition reporters can and will ferret out the truth is acceptable to me, given enough time and interest in the topic. I expect that some day the truth will be revealed and it may prove to be very embarrassing for the Giants. To this point however, reporters have been shooting blanks at the topic.
I will say that the comments on your findings on GitHub are very, very interesting (far more interesting than what was presented earlier as ample evidence) and significantly strengthen the claims made, but still (imo) cannot be considered conclusive.
There is evidence that has been presented before (which I am unwilling to research again) that contract work is being done for NFL franchises. I believe that is far more likely than the alternative narrative - that the Giants eschew any tech advantages and are stuck in the realm of spreadsheets and the like.
Bottom line is this: The arguments I've made both past and present relate to how much evidence is necessary for one to make significant claims. I see no point or need to debate it further. If you are hurt by how people react to you may I suggest you temper your assertions in the future by stating your opinions less as fact and more as insights, as qualified as they may be.
Peace to you - may the Giants figure this thing out so we can start winning championships again.
I do value civility when it is afforded to me.
Bottom line is this: The arguments I've made both past and present relate to how much evidence is necessary for one to make significant claims. I see no point or need to debate it further. If you are hurt by how people react to you may I suggest you temper your assertions in the future by stating your opinions less as fact and more as insights, as qualified as they may be.
I have certainly never complained, nor do I feel hurt, about how anybody has treated me on this particular subject. Neither have I stated unequivocally that the Giants eschew analytics. Quite the contrary, it is my opinion that they do use them but in a limited capacity. We also know that every team buys data, that is certainly worthwhile outsourcing. No need to collect that data yourself when it can be bought for cheaper. However, no team in the league is going to want their proprietary models escaping, those will be closely guarded in house just like every investment company guards theirs. Outside contractors get nowhere near that IP. As those models mature, teams will realize that they need specialized data points to further their predictive capabilities. This will likely be data that is not readily available and will have to be gathered by the team. Again, this is not an activity that the team would want to be outsourced. They don't want other teams to know what data points they deem important.
Given that you work generally in tech for the financial industry, these should be concepts with which you are familiar.
The fact that the team's list of employees (which is public information, though not everybody's function is public) does not include anybody with an appropriate background is pretty strong evidence in my opinion. FYI, in another thread a few weeks ago, I and a few others went through the list of employees that had no clear function (only about 10 or so people) and searched out their work history (most turned out to be secretaries, some no info was available).
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.
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
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.
- 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 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.
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.
Building the System Step by Step
1) A Play Type Forecaster – 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 I’d 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 – 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 – 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 (I’d 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 I’ve built over that past almost decade, I’m not the only one with software like this but there are many pretenders too. I also think the spend that gets to 10’s 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. I’d 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? It’s 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 wasn’t 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 “fixing these problems” 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 it’s hard to find the right tech people but that isn’t 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 “fixed” is that no matter how good our football people are now other teams have more diverse data to inform their decisions. While this isn’t a definitive theory it can’t 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.
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 Siam’s 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.
What’s crazy about this, is this a random thought exercise based on what we perceive to be something you need humans for when it’s possible that all this information is embedded in camera or Zebra data and you don’t need to do this at all. There are most likely a wealth of other shortcomings that can be addressed. That’s 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 it’s 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
You are so over the top with this Game Theory talk that its laughable. But carry on, your posts are definitely entertaining.
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 )
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!
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Ponderous.
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.
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
Or being just too ponderous...
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.
I’m happy to communicate with those on their level and meet them as you’ve 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
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.
I’m happy to communicate with those on their level and meet them as you’ve 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.
That note aside, I do agree with some good thoughts in your last post.
Regards, Yat
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 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.
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
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.
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?
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'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.