So, I was on my way to work when I thought about 2011-2012 and how almost every team seemed like a potential playoff contender. Unless you were the Browns, the "Any Given Sunday" philosophy could be posited on any team.
Flashforward to 2019 and it feels anything but. You have some teams tanking, like the Dolphins, but then teams like the Giants who are taking 3-4 years to turn around the ship.
I'm starting to believe parity is dead in the NFL due to certain teams having an advantageous upper hand in the analytics departments, especially with utilizing talent compared to their salary cap hit. Before, teams would go through the cycle of being good for a few years and then see a downturn. Now, teams have figured out how to stockpile talent cheaply while paying their perennials superstars (See Dallas Cowboys).
Am I going crazy or does this seem at least somewhat the case?
The more I think about the Giants, the more I'm starting to realize this current NFL does not allow for quick turnarounds like before. Ten years ago, any team with a few good drafts could rise to the top. Now, it feels if you've had few bad years of drafting followed by good ones, you're less likely to be able to get out of the dumpster fire of the NFL.
That's how you trade Randy White for Craig Morton in 1975 or you draft a RB #2 in 2018.
The Eagles must thank the football gods every year that they get to compete in a division with the Mara's & Snyder.
I think it’s wide open this season. I could see 6-7 NFC teams in the Super Bowl, 3-4 on the AFC side.
That's how you trade Randy White for Craig Morton in 1975 or you draft a RB #2 in 2018.
The Eagles must thank the football gods every year that they get to compete in a division with the Mara's & Snyder.
The Giants have not been left behind. This is absurd. Reese drafted terribly, Gettleman has not.
It may take a few years (not many, the Eagles seemed to restock quickly) to stockpile talent once the cupboard is bare. But once that talent is stocked, the focus should be on continuing to develop and stockpile talent. The Giants did not do that well in the early 2010s through mid decade and it really shows. Whether DG is doing that and will continue to stockpile talent remains to be seen.
And that, to me, is in large part due to the economic model of today's game where it's mostly punitive - hard cap, limited rosters, limited practices, too many teams, Thursday games, London games, etc - and it's harder for teams to stay really good for longer periods of time.
(Exclude New England because they are an historical outlier).
More than any other sport, winning in the NFL is a function of the level of the people managing and coaching the players.
The quarterback is not the face of a franchise, IMO. It's the head coach.
When you are void of talent then it takes years to change it around.
The ones who are consistently out having solved that dilemma. Now a championship team takes a few more things.
That's how you trade Randy White for Craig Morton in 1975 or you draft a RB #2 in 2018.
The Eagles must thank the football gods every year that they get to compete in a division with the Mara's & Snyder.
So the Eagles are now looking down on the Giants? That is a pretty dumb statement to make when one team has won a Superbowl in every decade over the last 40 years and one has won one Superbowl.
I read somewhere on here the patriots have the same winning percentage in and out of their division. They are just a really good team
Only 3 of the 16 made it to the divisional round both years.
I would say that is parity - look back before free agency and you will see the a lot more duplicates.
The Pats have broken the mold of what is expected, but they are just one team.
I'd say the teams with the best algorithm over the past 5 years are the Patriots, The Eagles, the Chiefs, the Cowboys, the Seahawks, the Packers and the Saints.
Everybody else's system is somewhat less effective rendering them is a constant cycle of being horrid, less horrid, middling, to good, then back to horrid.
Makes me want to not watch anymore
so teams are tanking and trading their star players to pile money and draft choices to do quick rebuilds
so suddenly you have teams that are tanking intentionally
that never happened before in NFL where wins during a losing season were thought to help change culture of team
so teams are tanking and trading their star players to pile money and draft choices to do quick rebuilds
so suddenly you have teams that are tanking intentionally
that never happened before in NFL where wins during a losing season were thought to help change culture of team
It's not as bad as the NBA, but it's getting there - where having a franchise QB on his rookie deal is such a game changer that tanking is almost worth it. But the QB has to be good.
Sadly, I see Dak Prescott as the first case of market correction, where the Cowboys will make the correct decision to tell him to walk.
Quote:
with free agency there is now an ability to get good quickly
so teams are tanking and trading their star players to pile money and draft choices to do quick rebuilds
so suddenly you have teams that are tanking intentionally
that never happened before in NFL where wins during a losing season were thought to help change culture of team
It's not as bad as the NBA, but it's getting there - where having a franchise QB on his rookie deal is such a game changer that tanking is almost worth it. But the QB has to be good.
Sadly, I see Dak Prescott as the first case of market correction, where the Cowboys will make the correct decision to tell him to walk.
I can't see Dallas letting Dak walk. He won't get what he is demanding, but he will be paid by Dallas
That's how you trade Randy White for Craig Morton in 1975 or you draft a RB #2 in 2018.
The Eagles must thank the football gods every year that they get to compete in a division with the Mara's & Snyder.
There's a lot of noise around analytics and grading but that's a ways off (not impossible but it's not there).
The two things that can be done are value based allocations of resources and probability-based playing calling.
The Pats and Eagles do both quite well.
Quote:
and teams like the Giants have been left behind. It it very much like the 1970's while the Cowboys were using computer programs to pick their players Wellington was hand writing scouting reports in composition books.
That's how you trade Randy White for Craig Morton in 1975 or you draft a RB #2 in 2018.
The Eagles must thank the football gods every year that they get to compete in a division with the Mara's & Snyder.
Are you saying the giants made a mistake drafting Barkley?
Please don't start that argument...AGAIN!!!
More than any other sport, winning in the NFL is a function of the level of the people managing and coaching the players.
Baseball disagrees....in fact, baseball is probably far ahead of the NFL.
Quote:
More than any other sport, winning in the NFL is a function of the level of the people managing and coaching the players.
Baseball disagrees....in fact, baseball is probably far ahead of the NFL.
Baseball is a completely different sport. I'm not sure what you're saying.
The Cowboys have drafted well and it shows on the field. The Eagles drafts are largely TBD as the guys aren't starters yet. There results on the field have been great, unfortunately.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14619037 Go Terps said:
Quote:
More than any other sport, winning in the NFL is a function of the level of the people managing and coaching the players.
Baseball disagrees....in fact, baseball is probably far ahead of the NFL.
Baseball is a completely different sport. I'm not sure what you're saying.
Baseball has always been about data and stats. The fact it is refined and faster just reflects the way the sport has always been.
Football has multiple factors that don’t fit nicely into stats.
There's a lot of noise around analytics and grading but that's a ways off (not impossible but it's not there).
The two things that can be done are value based allocations of resources and probability-based playing calling.
The Pats and Eagles do both quite well.
I think the big tragedy in the Giants falling behind here is that the Pats hires Ernie Adams in 2000. The Giants inhabit a city where technology has gone from “people are better” to computers as useful in assisting or even integral to a decision making process in a short time. Yann Lecun, head of Facebook AI, in NY at NYU. Slack opened their AI office here. Even google with their SV roots has a lot of presence in NY in the field. You see people talking about bringing in management consultants and yeah a lot of them recycle the same ideas. But integrating game theory into play calling the proper way? So you don’t butcher game situations like we still have this season, doesn’t even take an AI expert. It takes a literal warm body at any place doing legitimate data science. In another city you can make a stronger argument. Inexcusable in New York. There are thousands of people not even in tech, in finance that understand the concepts to correct these errors because they have been recently adopted after similar skepticism. The sam luddites can keep squawking it doesn’t change the fact that we are far from modern on this and don’t look like we have any intention to modernize. It’s gross.
I suspect in my personal p&l I spend more on data analysis and science than the Giants.
If you stopped acting like you know about what the Giants are doing with analytics and actually seen how analytics play a part, perhaps you wouldn't be a broken record that mocks things that just aren't true.
The Giants have been discussed about using analytics for roster construction, in attempting to maximize compensatory picks, and even for something you keep harping on - game theory.
You aren't going to like this truth, but the Giants have been looked at as making the most correct decisions on 4th down attempts and two point conversions based on the statistical analysis:
And yet there he was, sending his offense back onto the field in the final five minutes of the game with an eight-point deficit when conventional wisdom says to kick the PAT and trail by seven.
It's a move Shurmur wouldn't have made during his first stint as a head coach, with the 2011-12 Browns, when analytics were not nearly as popular in the NFL as they had become in MLB. "At one point, we all thought the world was flat, and then you learn," Shurmur said. "At one point, nobody would allow the players to drink water. In the old days, hydration wasn't an issue, or it wasn't a concern. Same thing. As we go forward, there's new things added to our game. Analytics is certainly part of that, intuition is the other."
I get that you act like you understand how much the giants use analytics - but in reality you seemingly continue to know jackshit, but loudly proclaim it every fucking chance you can. When will you finally stop??
There is ample evidence that the Giants have and continue to use analytics during their in-game process and not only in their roster-building strategy.
An analytical study pinpointed by Ben Baldwin on Twitter suggests the Giants were the most forward-thinking franchise in the NFL when it came to going for it on fourth down under head coach Pat Shurmur. The analytics dictate certain situations where the Giants and any other NFL offense should opt to go for it on fourth down. The Giants adhered to these analytics more than almost any NFL team in 2018.
Anyone that actually knows about this stuff just doesn’t have time for you anymore. I’m surprised McL wasted his time on you but in his defense you are just a massive jerk
the only question is why?
I'm guessing it is because you initially heard Gettleman mock them and made an ass out of yourself saying he shunned analytics.
The fact you think you carry weight after being so ignorant on the subject is just fucking rich.
Instead of calling people luddites and being smugly ignorant, why don't you produce evidence that shows they aren't employing analytics.
For a guy supposedly so intertwined in the business - it should be really easy - you fucking fraud.
If the Giants are employing a value-based resource allocation system, they need to fire who built it.
Let me put this in simple terms. You point to this 4th down stuff. Taking timeouts and proper clock management is simpler game theory than 4th down conversions. Our team is basically doing exactly what you shouldn’t do with math haphazardly applying it to try to prove you understand something you don’t.
This is how it works.
First you understand the math behind expected points for clock management. (Which we haven’t demonstrated)
Then you can start tackling something like 4th down conversions and not just tables of what generally work. Things that factor in the weather, the players involved and gasp if you have someone that had mathematical skills beyond the basic ones demonstrated by us on the field and the qualifications of those in our front office you use physics and directional formulas like the force of the players on recent plays.
To review. The giants don’t show a grasp of the simple formulas and don’t have people on staff that reflect any of the proper qualifications to make more sophisticated quantitative assessments. So yeah, zero evidence of the point you are trying to make. Any jackass can tell you the expected value of a 4th and 2 conversion at the 50 yard line with a table of data, telling you that probability of Daniel Jones vs Eli Manning concerting that is what you hire real data people for.
Again, just google Sean Harrington. Someone the Patriots hired YEARS ago. He made an autoencoder that converts video to physics equations. You want to share puff pieces of Shurmur and Gettleman attempting to look intelligent. Hell Shurmur admitted he didn’t get shit until he started to look at the numbers last year. Going for it on 2 point conversions doesn’t make you a competent data science organization and you with your idiotic resolve to argue with people that know what they are talking about is truely astounding. Don’t you have dumber people you can bully online? I know what I’m talking about, you don’t.
A recent deep data study suggests pass coverage is more important to a team's overall pass defense than pass rush. PFF used data and analytics to make this assertion and it potentially flips a common accepted NFL roster-building process of finding pass rushers first. Within the study, PFF cites their overall value board and uses Giants' first-round pick (No. 30 overall) Deandre Baker as an example. PFF had a higher overall value grade on Baker than Clelin Ferrell -- a defensive end selected by the Oakland Raiders at No. 4 overall.
The entire data dive above is a must-read for any analytical NFL fan and here is a snippet from the conclusion of the piece, via Eric Eager and George Chahrouri:
"During the PFF era, teams with elite coverage (67th percentile or better) and a poor pass rush (33rd percentile or worse) win, on average, about a game and a half more than teams with the reverse construction."
In the first two offseasons of the Dave Gettleman-Pat Shurmur era, the Giants have made the shift in assets away from the defensive line and toward the secondary. Perhaps this shift was influenced by analytical studies like the one above -- created by Tyseer Siam -- the Giants' head of Football Operations/Data Analytics -- and his team. The shift was also largely due to a shift in the Giants' defensive scheme that was also at least somewhat influenced by analytics.
During the last two offseasons, the Giants have acquired five defensive backs who entered the NFL from 2017-2019. This group includes two first-round draft picks (Jabrill Peppers, Deandre Baker), an early third-rounder (Sam Beal, Supplemental Draft, 2018), an early fourth-rounder (Julian Love), and an early sixth-rounder (Corey Ballentine). The Giants also held on to veteran cornerback Janoris Jenkins -- the only defensive player from the 2016 free agent spending spree who wasn't traded at or prior to the 2018 trade deadline.
We are seeing several articles on the Giants employing analytics. In game theory and in roster construction. Two things NGD has claimed all along the team is lost in.
NoGainDayne : 10:25 pm : link : reply
system that could actually function in value based analytics would actually work when you questioned my perspective. Something I didn’t want to actually post but did because I thought it would shut you up, but you press on.
I press on because you keep claiming the Giants aren't using analytics. What the fuck does a full data architecture have to do with the fact you are completely wrong on that point?
How dense are you to not realize that has been my point all along?
The question is do we have the right people. And when we are stopping the clock with 1:35 against the Bucs vs running the clock down which is an extremely simple game theory answer we fucked up, then yes people are going to keep talking about the need to get the right people to solve this in the door no matter how many puff pieces you share.
I swear to god if someone posted an article saying DG wrote the algorithm that found the Higgs boson particle you’d be calling him a renaissance man instead of saying hey, maybe this wasn’t the guy with the qualifications to do this and this isn’t a real story. I think people probably thought you were intelligent before you went on this crusade to attack people like me but I assure you that is dying
Why don't you share anything about their lack of using analytics? I'll even give you time to troll through LinkedIn profiles.
Reasonable posters aren't going to mock my intelligence until you actually start exhibiting intelligence
The Giants, like any conservative entity, were probably slow adopters but there are signs that they're coming around.
Without hyperbole we’d all be dead.
Yeah clearly luddites post on message boards. That’s as ridiculous as your assertion that someone would suggest NFL teams don’t use analytics.
You have a tenuous grasp on the english language but hey. Why let that stop you from thrusting your opinion into a debate on technology that you have nothing to add to?
Having nothing of value to add to a discussion doesn’t stop you generally. So why should this be any different?
Maybe you should try opinions on play doh or sharing before you talk about complex data architectures of predictive value systems.
Another thread you tried to work analytics in and failed.
But you'll come away thinking you made a point.
Rinse and repeat.
The Giants, like any conservative entity, were probably slow adopters but there are signs that they're coming around.
This complaint I don't get. A lot of their in game decision making seems very analytics based and than half the board gets pissed at them for going for 2 down 8. Never going to make everyone happy.
And getting them to admit that error, even when producing evidence showing they are wrong, is both hilarious and really fucking sad - all at the same time.
I keep posting this for actual concern for the teams continued failed attempts to apply simple game theory concepts and the hope they will fix this.
You? My best guesses are a massive inferiority complex, a secret love affair with DG or the most likely. You are just a bombastic frustrated imbecile. Why do you enjoy being out of your element angry and without basis so much? Is this how you live your life? It’s gross
Don't take my word for it - there's a couple other posters that just chimed in wondering what the fuck you are babbling about.
It is like you just don't comprehend things very well.
I mean, if you really had your bearings, wouldn't you be taking a victory lap? You been supposedly posting this to make the team aware of their failings and the data suggests they are employing in-game analytics more and more
Shouldn't you be claiming you did it!!
Would still be really fucking delusional, but probably more hilarious than sad.......
We have the same analytics people on staff that we did under Reese. The same.
But we are supposed to trust one of your posts??
Bottom line - are you saying that other posters and other articles written about the Giants being better at implementing analytics is wrong?
Please tell us what you disagree with in this post:
AcesUp : 10:44 pm : link : reply
of their 2nd and long numbers, the Giants rank pretty highly in-game on the key analytic metrics. They throw a lot on first down, play aggressively with a lead and once again play aggressively in 4th down and 2 pt situations. From a front office perspective, there definitely appeared to be a shift towards value in the way they manipulated FA this year to keep their compensatory picks.
The Giants, like any conservative entity, were probably slow adopters but there are signs that they're coming around.
We have the same analytics people on staff that we did under Reese. The same.
Umm. No we don't. And this is a continued part of the problem. You try to claim you have insight on the team's staff and you continually get it wrong, whether it was Carolina or here.
Quote:
of their 2nd and long numbers, the Giants rank pretty highly in-game on the key analytic metrics. They throw a lot on first down, play aggressively with a lead and once again play aggressively in 4th down and 2 pt situations. From a front office perspective, there definitely appeared to be a shift towards value in the way they manipulated FA this year to keep their compensatory picks.
The Giants, like any conservative entity, were probably slow adopters but there are signs that they're coming around.
This complaint I don't get. A lot of their in game decision making seems very analytics based and than half the board gets pissed at them for going for 2 down 8. Never going to make everyone happy.
They only get pissed when it doesn't convert. We made a 4th and 2 vs the Redskins on the first drive which nobody talks about because it worked. Turned 3 into 7 on the first drive in a situation that the old NFL doesn't think twice about before trotting out the FG unit.
You can go for 2 all you want but if you don’t understand the probability of going for 2 against one team vs another you are just applying generalized math equations without the people with the qualifications to actually calculate them, which there is zero evidence that the Giants have on staff.
You are telling me that the Giants are firing a bunch of bullets and I am saying well yeah, the other teams have trained snipers with the proper qualifications. I mean sure their is evidence they are firing the guns but based on the actually on field performance there is a lot more evidence that they randomly firing in the air than knowing what it takes to hit the targets.
In-game performance won't always correlate to the decision-making especially in the short run. You want them to do the right math and make the decisions based on that. That's what they seemingly are doing
It is like making the right decision in poker. Sometimes you do and still lose a hand or get knocked out of a tournament, but in the long run, the math is what delivers profit.
that's just a basic principle of statistics, and analytics, and you're trying to correlate results with actions.
To go into my bag of often used phrases - it is fucking ponderous.
In poker in a 70/30 hand it is just that not our jackass coach and front office can’t make the right decisions with simple software solutions
You can go for 2 all you want but if you don’t understand the probability of going for 2 against one team vs another you are just applying generalized math equations without the people with the qualifications to actually calculate them, which there is zero evidence that the Giants have on staff.
You are telling me that the Giants are firing a bunch of bullets and I am saying well yeah, the other teams have trained snipers with the proper qualifications. I mean sure their is evidence they are firing the guns but based on the actually on field performance there is a lot more evidence that they randomly firing in the air than knowing what it takes to hit the targets.
You can have all the analytics you want, but if you do not have the players to take advantage of the analytics, you have less of a chance to succeed.
The Giants problems are from an exceedingly young inexperienced players occupying many positions and exceedingly marginal players at many other spots. You can have the most beautiful game plan ever written, but if you don't have the talent in place to execute the plan it will likely fail.
I'm guessing you're missing the irony in that, Chief?
Sometimes they work in your favor but over the longitudinal view they do not. On field performance, we’ve been awful for a while now, probabilities not working in our favor overall for sure
A specific example?? No. It's almost midnight and my brain isn't a fucking computer.
You've been watching the Andy Reid coach football for the last 2 decades though right? You're so dug in that you won't conceed that Andy Reid is garbage at clock management?
I'd also add, the discussions regarding 'analytics' supporting certain patterns of decision making by the Giants speaks nothing to the underlying decision making driving that decision, which is what I'm curious about. Shurmur might just naturally be aggressive in certain situations more than most coaches that lead to those results. Again, I'm not sure why looking at the resumes of guys allegedly leading the analytics efforts is frowned upon. Data science is a hard skill set to learn and master. Comparing the NYG 'analytics roster' to the Pats/Steelers/Eagles (for example) seems like an easy (but admittedly potentially flawed) way to see how deep the Giants are in verse their competitors.
I'm not a pom pom guy either, there are areas where the current coaching staff and FO are and have been failing IMO. I'm also under no delusion that they've been torch bearers in the recent wave of analytics...but there are some signs of life there if you bother to look.
It is pretty hard to convince me that DG adheres to analytics since he A) eschewed them publicly then B) drafted a RB with the 2nd pick of the draft.
But I was happy he finally selected a QB at #6 this year to get the rebuild underway. That's a plus. But he stuck with his aging QB too long, so there's that.
Sometimes they work in your favor but over the longitudinal view they do not. On field performance, we’ve been awful for a while now, probabilities not working in our favor overall for sure
C'mon man. Being awful on the field is due to a multitude of factors, such as drafting terribly and having a below average OL.
How in the hell does that relate to probabilities? If we make the correct decisions and fail - it isn't the decision itself that is always the root cause. What analytics people are saying is that by the math, the Giants are making sound decisions in-game. I'll repost this even though you'll ignore it:
Adherence to math and getting the right result are two different things. You either know that and willingly ignore it or you don't know that.
Neither is a good look.
What I've advocated for time and time again is that the Giants bring in someone that has experience engineering predictive systems, with education in math or deep experience in computer science and/or software engineering.
To you and Aces point i'm not arguing with the Giants attempting to integrate analytics i'm saying that if you are going to do it you should have top people ingrained in your organizations leadership with the proper experience. There isn't even any evidence that Gettleman is open minded enough to new ideas that if they hired someone it would work but back to why in a practical sense the above quote doesn't matter.
Again, the Giants don't show they have the game theory understanding to handle simple clock management but the 4th down or 2 pt conversions are more complex game theory than timeout usage. Haven't built these models but have thought through the proper architectures but a lot of 4th down math leans towards the fact that short yardage conversions are high % plays but this isn't in a vacuum. I'd rank conversion success and variables to raise the probability of that conversion in the following order of likelihood convert at higher rates.
1) Strong offensive line
2) Mobile QB
3) Talented RB
4) TE's with strong blocking AND receiving skills
5) Big physical WRs
Now reviewing this list, in terms of what the Giants were dealing with last year i'd say we were fairly weak in everything but the 3rd most important factor.
This is why employing and having more advanced models that like i'm saying again, the Pats clearly have someone making auto-encoding algorithms that turns video into physics equations that can be used in machine learning. That's an even better way to figure out the probability of conversion success the general force players play with and that force / change in force on recent plays. We can't even get basic software engineering to get clock management right.
In summation all this quote proves is we have people without the proper qualifications attempting to apply data that you need a TEAM of more qualified people to scratch the surface on how to apply properly in individual situations.
You know what is the funniest / stupidest part of this? You continually shit on PFF despite the fact that i've pointed out they have many people with the proper qualifications to pull off these kinds of calculations. You talk about how individual teams don't like the grades, guess what? I promise you the Giants aren't grading every player on every team on every play which is pretty much a fundamental step in starting an effective predictive system. Sure the teams have the calls but the fact that PFF doesn't have the play calls they still are trying to make a system that functions in light of that and it takes time to keep iterating and improving on that. The Giants are more than late in starting the process in earnest with a real technologist thinking about integrating software and advanced math into practical decision making.
You don't understand how this works. And it appears that the Giants don't either. And my biggest point is unlike say Kansas City where there might only be a few people that understand these systems and how to build them NYC is LITTERED with these people and we still don't have software to solve the SIMPLE problems like clock management.
Quote:
An analytical study pinpointed by Ben Baldwin on Twitter suggests the Giants were the most forward-thinking franchise in the NFL when it came to going for it on fourth down under head coach Pat Shurmur. The analytics dictate certain situations where the Giants and any other NFL offense should opt to go for it on fourth down. The Giants adhered to these analytics more than almost any NFL team in 2018.
What I've advocated for time and time again is that the Giants bring in someone that has experience engineering predictive systems, with education in math or deep experience in computer science and/or software engineering.
To you and Aces point i'm not arguing with the Giants attempting to integrate analytics i'm saying that if you are going to do it you should have top people ingrained in your organizations leadership with the proper experience. There isn't even any evidence that Gettleman is open minded enough to new ideas that if they hired someone it would work but back to why in a practical sense the above quote doesn't matter.
Again, the Giants don't show they have the game theory understanding to handle simple clock management but the 4th down or 2 pt conversions are more complex game theory than timeout usage. Haven't built these models but have thought through the proper architectures but a lot of 4th down math leans towards the fact that short yardage conversions are high % plays but this isn't in a vacuum. I'd rank conversion success and variables to raise the probability of that conversion in the following order of likelihood convert at higher rates.
1) Strong offensive line
2) Mobile QB
3) Talented RB
4) TE's with strong blocking AND receiving skills
5) Big physical WRs
Now reviewing this list, in terms of what the Giants were dealing with last year i'd say we were fairly weak in everything but the 3rd most important factor.
This is why employing and having more advanced models that like i'm saying again, the Pats clearly have someone making auto-encoding algorithms that turns video into physics equations that can be used in machine learning. That's an even better way to figure out the probability of conversion success the general force players play with and that force / change in force on recent plays. We can't even get basic software engineering to get clock management right.
In summation all this quote proves is we have people without the proper qualifications attempting to apply data that you need a TEAM of more qualified people to scratch the surface on how to apply properly in individual situations.
You know what is the funniest / stupidest part of this? You continually shit on PFF despite the fact that i've pointed out they have many people with the proper qualifications to pull off these kinds of calculations. You talk about how individual teams don't like the grades, guess what? I promise you the Giants aren't grading every player on every team on every play which is pretty much a fundamental step in starting an effective predictive system. Sure the teams have the calls but the fact that PFF doesn't have the play calls they still are trying to make a system that functions in light of that and it takes time to keep iterating and improving on that. The Giants are more than late in starting the process in earnest with a real technologist thinking about integrating software and advanced math into practical decision making.
You don't understand how this works. And it appears that the Giants don't either. And my biggest point is unlike say Kansas City where there might only be a few people that understand these systems and how to build them NYC is LITTERED with these people and we still don't have software to solve the SIMPLE problems like clock management.
you're describing every team in the NFL other than the Patriots and the Eagles. We are only a few years away from every team employing an analytics coach who either stands next to the HC or is up in the booth advising on time outs, 2-pt conversions, field position, win probability, etc etc. It is inevitable.
Fans talk shit necause they don't have to make the calls themselves.
Fans talk shit necause they don't have to make the calls themselves.
maybe so but most HCs and GMs are also ill-equipped for what is coming. Ex-jocks are generally not what you want running a team when the science, math and analytics takes over. The best HCs of the last 30 years, Walsh and Belichick are more scientists than jocks. It will soon be time to take the reigns away from ex-players who don't have the intellectual capacity for the change coming and recruit and train geniuses instead.
You know what really is the stupidest part of this? PFF's Player ratings go against almost everything analytics stands for.
- Subjective analysis
- Unqualified reviewers
- Questionable methodology
They aren't doing calculations!! They are subjectively grading a player each down and are doing such a poor job at it, they oftentimes aren't even directionally correct.
How can you be a supposed analytics "expert" and put weight into PFF? It is mind-boggling. It's like a scientist believing the Earth is flat.
Quote:
You know what is the funniest / stupidest part of this? You continually shit on PFF despite the fact that i've pointed out they have many people with the proper qualifications to pull off these kinds of calculations. You talk about how individual teams don't like the grades, guess what? I promise you the Giants aren't grading every player on every team on every play which is pretty much a fundamental step in starting an effective predictive system.
You know what really is the stupidest part of this? PFF's Player ratings go against almost everything analytics stands for.
- Subjective analysis
- Unqualified reviewers
- Questionable methodology
They aren't doing calculations!! They are subjectively grading a player each down and are doing such a poor job at it, they oftentimes aren't even directionally correct.
How can you be a supposed analytics "expert" and put weight into PFF? It is mind-boggling. It's like a scientist believing the Earth is flat.
from what i know about PFF they are analytically inclined but they aren't the beginning and end of analytics. They are trying to remake player evaluations mapping every play and pouring those figures into advanced models. That is very much an analytical approach. But they may not have the best approach or there may be a lot to critique about it. Just because they are imperfect doesn't mean they are not in the realm of analytics. It is not binary like that.
no they are not.
if you can do better i would encourage you to enter the business. There is a fortune to be made.
if you are correct, that they aren't qualified to grade film, that is an awfully easy thing to fix. It doesn't in any way speak to their business model. They just need to adjust their grading system or hire better graders. It has nothing to do with their business model. If you feel you know better I would urge you to enter the business. There is a lot of money to be made.
It's not a con to attempt to come up with better metrics and analytics for sports. The same exact things were said about Bill James and as it turns out he revolutionized the sport . He should be given his own wing in the Hall of Fame. And coaches, executives and fans alike vilified him as a con man throughout the 80s and 90s.
If PFF really wanted credibility instead of serving as stat porn for fans deluded into thinking they are getting fed statistics they would partner with the NFL, sit down with the teams and grade film with the necessary knowledge to do such a thing.
What they are doing now isn't just useless, it can't even serve a basis for future analysis. Pouring bad data into future predictive models nullifies any credibility.
he claims the Giants don't have the right people to do analytical calculations, but in the next breath, he claims that PFF does have the right people with the right credentials.
So what does he do? He ignores the information about the Giants utilizing analytics for in-game decisions, yet regales the board about PFF doing things the right way. and stands by the ratings process.
If PFF really wanted credibility instead of serving as stat porn for fans deluded into thinking they are getting fed statistics they would partner with the NFL, sit down with the teams and grade film with the necessary knowledge to do such a thing.
What they are doing now isn't just useless, it can't even serve a basis for future analysis. Pouring bad data into future predictive models nullifies any credibility.
yea.. you may be right. i have found some of their stuff confusing and bewildering but i admit i have not done a deep dive into what they are doing. But the idea of improving how players are analyzed/graded on a per play basis is excellent and whether PFF masters it or it falls to someone else, it is inevitable. Football needs to close the gap on baseball. It is easy to analyze every single play in a baseball game. Football is more confusing so there is no model yet to do it.
It's the appearance of credibility they're after.
he claims the Giants don't have the right people to do analytical calculations, but in the next breath, he claims that PFF does have the right people with the right credentials.
So what does he do? He ignores the information about the Giants utilizing analytics for in-game decisions, yet regales the board about PFF doing things the right way. and stands by the ratings process.
All we know for now is that analytics in football is in its infancy and the only people who seem to know what they're doing work for the Patriots and the Eagles. Beyond that I don't think we can say much with any certainty.
he claims the Giants don't have the right people to do analytical calculations, but in the next breath, he claims that PFF does have the right people with the right credentials.
So what does he do? He ignores the information about the Giants utilizing analytics for in-game decisions, yet regales the board about PFF doing things the right way. and stands by the ratings process.
Per my post you just don't really comprehend how these systems work or what their foundations are on.
You have where the Giants are.
1. No evidence of having anyone with advanced mathematics, computer science or software development skills.
2. Where some NFL teams are (some of these hires and Github libraries, the Giants don't have a github libarry)
3. Hybrid system like PFF where larger teams of people with the skills of #1 combine with a system like grading players
4. Purely quantitative system from converting film to physics equations or ZEBRA data
Now what you are failing to understand is a value based or outcome analysis systems could actually benefit from using data from kinds 3 and 4 because like i've said many times people and machines see different things and you can actually benefit from uniting the process and putting as much information of these different views in the hands of smart people.
Now you are trying to pretend like anything that touches subjective inputs is useless in machine learning? What dense person you are. Analyst estimates and price are valuable inputs in quantitative analysis and complex finance modeling EXACTLY because human input is layered in and it provides different signaling than pure data. Both are helpful.
2 sigma even got stopped from giving analysts surveys to basically layer in their personalities in addition to the data they provided to further signal off the estimates they gave.
You don't know anything about data analysis really yet you've also made yourself the arbiter of what is legitimate data and isn't? Give me a break, you know very little and continue to prove that
and walks were not considered important and they scoffed at OBP, for just about 20 years.
Quote:
PFF is a barometer to show just how dug in NoGainDayne is to his rant on analytics.
he claims the Giants don't have the right people to do analytical calculations, but in the next breath, he claims that PFF does have the right people with the right credentials.
So what does he do? He ignores the information about the Giants utilizing analytics for in-game decisions, yet regales the board about PFF doing things the right way. and stands by the ratings process.
Per my post you just don't really comprehend how these systems work or what their foundations are on.
You have where the Giants are.
1. No evidence of having anyone with advanced mathematics, computer science or software development skills.
2. Where some NFL teams are (some of these hires and Github libraries, the Giants don't have a github libarry)
3. Hybrid system like PFF where larger teams of people with the skills of #1 combine with a system like grading players
4. Purely quantitative system from converting film to physics equations or ZEBRA data
Now what you are failing to understand is a value based or outcome analysis systems could actually benefit from using data from kinds 3 and 4 because like i've said many times people and machines see different things and you can actually benefit from uniting the process and putting as much information of these different views in the hands of smart people.
Now you are trying to pretend like anything that touches subjective inputs is useless in machine learning? What dense person you are. Analyst estimates and price are valuable inputs in quantitative analysis and complex finance modeling EXACTLY because human input is layered in and it provides different signaling than pure data. Both are helpful.
2 sigma even got stopped from giving analysts surveys to basically layer in their personalities in addition to the data they provided to further signal off the estimates they gave.
You don't know anything about data analysis really yet you've also made yourself the arbiter of what is legitimate data and isn't? Give me a break, you know very little and continue to prove that
i think you can make your point without the derogatory tone. Subjective inputs on a play brings the fielding numbers like range factor to mind. I believe they were useful. And i think subjective determinations on a per play basis could be useful as well. Though they would need to be standardized. And yes integration with advanced next gen NFL metrics which are not subjective would seem to be a useful way forward.
It's not analytics, it's not real filmwork, it's not anything of value.
And it is telling that PFF is used by the majority of the teams (I believe 20+) for quantitative data.
How many use their ratings? Zero.
I know Sneakers understands this - others seemingly do not, but subjectivity isn't PFF's sin.
Combining subjectivity with unqualified reviewers, using a flawed methodology is their sin.
And it is a gigantic one. But the guy who supposedly knows analytics doesn't get that.
Do you understand they integrate subjective information?
Or are you disputing if they are useful in machine learning?
It isn't solely subjectivity in dispute. It is the combination with a flawed methodology and unqualified reviewers and operating with incomplete and incorrectly interpreted data.
Not only is the data better in doing price estimates, but the analysts are trained and considered experts in their field.
Now maybe you ignore points because you are too stupid to grasp them or you do it intentionally because you can't run roughshod over them in trying to praise PFF.
Neither one is a good look - but you do it over and over again.
Can you immediately become a price analyst by signing up on a website without any qualifications needed?
And I hope we were both wrong about Daniel Jones...
Can you immediately become a price analyst by signing up on a website without any qualifications needed?
this sounds so much like the model employed by Stats Inc 30 years ago. They hired barely qualified people, and by hired I mean didn't pay, to sit in the press box and do advanced charting of baseball games. My buddy would call me from the press box in the Big O as he charted games and then I would get calls from some bean counter there asking me who called me. But it's the same model. The point is, I think though, is that they are doing it, and if they modify and refine their practices they will become a big player in something that is inevitable.
Strategic moves are transparent when they happen. A player's responsibility is apparent. You don't have an endless array of formations. You don't have audibles.
A guy thows a ball, another one attempts to hit it and fielders attempt to catch it.
Data is much more straightforward and crisper. It is a matter of charting things, not making significant subjective decision.
Strategic moves are transparent when they happen. A player's responsibility is apparent. You don't have an endless array of formations. You don't have audibles.
A guy thows a ball, another one attempts to hit it and fielders attempt to catch it.
Data is much more straightforward and crisper. It is a matter of charting things, not making significant subjective decision.
Oh yes this is totally true. Baseball is essentially a game of binaries. But I would say two things. 1) Just because football isn't binary like baseball doesn't mean charting every play isn't useful and won't eventually yield a system or series of metrics that are better than what we have today, because what we have today is essentially garbage. 2) Baseball moved onto more complicated and subjective metrics such as range factor and other fielding metrics. Those were considered useful enough that the entire sabermetrics community accepted the conclusion that Derek Jeter was a lousy shortstop. That was based entirely on subjective inputs on a per play basis and it was accepted as truth. And I would bet the inputs were done by people no more qualified than the folks PFF employs. All this is to say that PFF may or may not be doing a good job, I just havent done the deep dive, but it could turn into something useful, even essential. I wouldn't dismiss their effort out of hand. Analytics needs to revolutionize football. Better data, better metrics, better thinking. And right now this is one of the only games in town.
Building a data driven org is not about following a punch card, it's not about having staff, it's not about "doing analytics."
The primary questions I ask when building a program 1) are you willing to fail 2) are you willing to hurt feelings.
If an org isn't willing to do those two things game over.
The second series is 1) are willing to let analysis guide all investment 2) are you willing to let data guide all operations. Again if the answer is no game over.
I've followed football keenly the last 10 or so years from a data perspective -- my feelings on the brand names are well known in the data field. Scoring player performance will take the next step in predictive motion analysis (play execution). That will be a step up from predictive scenario analysis (play calls) which isn't impossible now and is much more interesting than situational analysis (more on this later). And much easier is resource allocation analysis.
Doing some of this and calling it a day is a false sense of security and frankly more dangerous than doing nothing. If you follow a chart of what to do in scenario X, but don't know what to do against Y, you might as well go with your gut.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the Giants going for 2 points or passing more. That's kindergarten. They need to understand what plays are likely to succeed based on their roster. Following a punch card is "doing" analytics.
Same goes for investment. Like I posted above, I'd love to spar with the analyst who said Manning, Solder, Jenkings, and frankly Barkle fit a value-based investment system.
Employing thoughtful analysis then needs to be backed by results. If your models predict success, and you suck, self assess.
A ball travels a specific distance at a specific velocity. A batter pulls a curveball a specific % of the time. The right term is "charted", because a baseball play can be easily placed into a chart and categorized.
PFF's player ratings don't do that. They are trying to ascertain success or failure without knowing the assignment or the objective. They aren't charting plays - they are grading them - and that's where the significant difference comes into play
A ball travels a specific distance at a specific velocity. A batter pulls a curveball a specific % of the time. The right term is "charted", because a baseball play can be easily placed into a chart and categorized.
PFF's player ratings don't do that. They are trying to ascertain success or failure without knowing the assignment or the objective. They aren't charting plays - they are grading them - and that's where the significant difference comes into play
gotcha.. yes that does seem like a weird methodology.
George Box