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.
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