|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Which teams are among the top five most analytically advanced? 1. Baltimore Ravens (23) 2. Cleveland Browns (20) 3. Philadelphia Eagles (18) T4. Buffalo Bills (7) T4. San Francisco 49ers (7) T6. Minnesota Vikings (6) T6. Seattle Seahawks (6) T8. Indianapolis Colts (5) T8. Los Angeles Rams (5) T8. New England Patriots (5) T11. Dallas Cowboys (4) T11. Miami Dolphins (4) T11. New York Giants (4) |
| Quote: |
| Which team is the least analytically advanced? 1. Washington Football Team (6) 2. Tennessee Titans (5) T3. Cincinnati Bengals (3) T3. New York Giants (3) |
I get it, but it's a helluva easier to make that decision when you have a cheetah at QB.
If results matter, which is the ultimate end game of analytics, then we simply can't be in the top five.
Quote:
The Giants were maybe the most stratified team in the survey, receiving four votes as one of the five most analytically advanced teams in the NFL and three votes as the least advanced.
If results matter, which is the ultimate end game of analytics, then we simply can't be in the top five.
Quote:
The Giants were maybe the most stratified team in the survey, receiving four votes as one of the five most analytically advanced teams in the NFL and three votes as the least advanced.
If results matter, which is the ultimate end game of analytics, then we simply can't be in the top five.
Why can't you make the right decision analytically even if it doesn't work? It still comes down to execution, no?
Granted this is Judge's first year, so 2020 doesn't apply, but I find it a very difficult sell to claim we are one of the five best analytically advanced teams based on what's occurred on the field the past decade.
It just doesn't pass the sniff test...
I guess the argument is we'd be 0-48 the last three years without analytics... ;)
Why can't you make the right decision analytically even if it doesn't work? It still comes down to execution, no?
Really? I mean, there is a pretty robust list of examples where the play-calling based on specific situations has been pretty poor.
True - execution is crucial. But you want to execute the right play at the right time.
Quote:
in these two games. That alone should tell you everything.
People said you were gone. Hello Terps.
Hi there. I won't post all that much. But if I don't vent over this bullshit somewhere I'm going to be sending my buddies 10000 word texts a couple times a week and they don't need that.
Quote:
Why can't you make the right decision analytically even if it doesn't work? It still comes down to execution, no?
Really? I mean, there is a pretty robust list of examples where the play-calling based on specific situations has been pretty poor.
True - execution is crucial. But you want to execute the right play at the right time.
I get what you're saying, but many times all we know is what we see. So I guess what I'm getting at is if were executed better or the way it was drawn up, it then looks better vs how it ultimately came out...if I'm making sense. I agree there's some head scratchers out there, but I think many times it can come down to simple execution and who is outplaying who (O vs D).
"There is a large spectrum of analytics work being done. You've got [a staffer on another team] with a Ph.D. And then you've got folks with analytics titles and they're ... not Ph.D.s," said one person. "There really is such a disparity in technical capabilities."
A lot of focus is put on the fact that DG built an analytics system in Carolina, but it's not a binary thing. Quality matters, technical capabilities matter. And the fact that he doesn't even understand how to properly use the word outlier doesn't say much about his ability usher in a system that relies heavily on math.
My point also always was that as bad as the Giants have been and having one of the best tech talent pools in the world, there isn't any reason they shouldn't be one of the leaders. Much is made of the 49ers turnaround and how it could be just around the corner for the Giants but while it might have seemed sudden to some, the 49ers made a huge commitment to analytics at a time the Giants turned to their past they made efforts to take big steps forward.
Should ownership be investing in this type of program? Of course. Are they already? We don't know. It takes time to put together that type of expert staff and they are taking a 200 million dollar loss with no fans and all this year so maybe there's a delay.
Should ownership be investing in this type of program? Of course. Are they already? We don't know. It takes time to put together that type of expert staff and they are taking a 200 million dollar loss with no fans and all this year so maybe there's a delay.
The Giants started doing that while Coughlin was here. They have been doing a lot of things, but since they have been losing we all see what impression this has left.
And if you try to say otherwise, we know what the retort is - "Well, then why are they still losing??" We'll see if those same individuals praise Cleveland for the work they are doing......
Quote:
I think the Giants are improving in this area under Judge.
Should ownership be investing in this type of program? Of course. Are they already? We don't know. It takes time to put together that type of expert staff and they are taking a 200 million dollar loss with no fans and all this year so maybe there's a delay.
The Giants started doing that while Coughlin was here. They have been doing a lot of things, but since they have been losing we all see what impression this has left.
And if you try to say otherwise, we know what the retort is - "Well, then why are they still losing??" We'll see if those same individuals praise Cleveland for the work they are doing......
Hey idiot, I know math and facts aren't really your things but if you didn't notice. The 8 teams above the Giants represent 5/6 Super Bowl participants and have a combined 193-125-2 record over the last two complete seasons 2018-2019. You would single out the Browns. The one team on that list under .500. You are such a joke
i think the whole analytics thing is about 20% useful info and 80% blowhard bullshit...
in the end the team that goes out and smacks the other team in the teeth will probably win.
i think the whole analytics thing is about 20% useful info and 80% blowhard bullshit...
in the end the team that goes out and smacks the other team in the teeth will probably win.
I think it's good to use data to guide decision making, I am not sure why anyone would be against it. Although, analytics is becoming a religion where people will go out of their to fight for it without thought. Data is behind, things change, people find new ways to do certain things better where there isn't any data for that specific approach. Data can be good as long as we aren't slaves to it.
The Giants started doing that while Coughlin was here. They have been doing a lot of things, but since they have been losing we all see what impression this has left.
And if you try to say otherwise, we know what the retort is - "Well, then why are they still losing??" We'll see if those same individuals praise Cleveland for the work they are doing......
Doing "a lot of things" and doing those things well (or right) are certainly different.
It's one thing to collect a lot of data. It's another thing to know how to translate it, coordinate it, and then implement it effectively.
There is a lot of respect around the league for Andrew Berry and his forward thinking...
Why would that tell all there is to know (exaggeration)?
If analytics says to not run on 2nd and 10, I am guessing defenses know this too.
Quote:
In comment 14983567 jsuds said:
Quote:
I think the Giants are improving in this area under Judge.
Should ownership be investing in this type of program? Of course. Are they already? We don't know. It takes time to put together that type of expert staff and they are taking a 200 million dollar loss with no fans and all this year so maybe there's a delay.
The Giants started doing that while Coughlin was here. They have been doing a lot of things, but since they have been losing we all see what impression this has left.
And if you try to say otherwise, we know what the retort is - "Well, then why are they still losing??" We'll see if those same individuals praise Cleveland for the work they are doing......
Hey idiot, I know math and facts aren't really your things but if you didn't notice. The 8 teams above the Giants represent 5/6 Super Bowl participants and have a combined 193-125-2 record over the last two complete seasons 2018-2019. You would single out the Browns. The one team on that list under .500. You are such a joke
WTF kind of response is that?? You are one of the people continually saying the Giants have done nothing or little and point to the results as proof.
"Math and facts"?? Hehe
And this is the post that hits the nail on the head regarding the survey.
I've consistently talked about two things.
1. Results on the field
2. Technical qualifications
The Giants have had someone in charge of their analytics operation for 5 years, maybe the worst period in team history. This person recently got a promotion and I guess more people hired under him? He has very underwhelming technical qualifications and experience for his position.
You are the one that constantly tries to twist my words into saying they were doing nothing. When I've repeated time and time again that even a pivot table is analytics, no one would suggest they were doing literally nothing. I was questioning the quality and I and others provided a lot of evidence as to why we questioned it.
You point to things like an old article about DG setting up an analytics system earlier. I've heard him called a "pioneer" by someone associated with the team. I'm sure he set up something, but the fact that he doesn't even understand what an outlier is doesn't speak to the quality of anything he sets up really. Among other things he's done and said. (His refusal to trade down despite incredibly statistical arguments in favor of this is a prime example) Ignoring RB data and picking Saquon 2nd is another. He admitted as much this past offseason, that he overlooked this area.
Why do you come here to continue to make terrible points?
You see Gettleman called a pioneer and instead of using that as a positive data point, you reject it. And you say you are a man of logic. The fuck you are.
A simple question: Why does the idea that the Giants aren't terrible at analytics threaten you??
Maybe because you'd rather appear right (and continually post your resume when called a poseur) rather than come to grips with the fact that you have been off base for awhile now. I'll leave you with this. Buffalo is on that list. Who implemented their analytics system??
Exactly. Just as Zeke pointed out above.
Confirmation bias lives on!!!
And I hold Alastair in high regard. He's from the UK - where PFF originated!!
They seem very content to be mediocre, which is not really a good way to catch up to the top teams.
Seems some don't even view them as mediocre.
And no this doesn't change anything. No one is relying on this as the sole basis for their opinion. It's combined with other research to form opinions.
My point has always been they could be doing a lot more and I was nothing but 100% correct about that. You two were in the, they are doing plenty camp, they have the right people, etc.
And that continues to be the basis of contention.
You take these little pot shots all the time but on this debate you were on the wrong side of it. And other than complete hyperbole like suggesting I've said teams do zero analytics, something I've logically refuted many times, that's all you've got. Stupid little pot shots.
You ever see that South Park episode in the future? Where insteads of religion they fight over their "science".
That is essentially what could be happening in this survey. Which would explain why you have the massive discrepancy of the Giants simultaenously having a near top 10 rating for top 5 advaned team in NFL and being the actual worst.
How many times have I had to reproduce that quote before it sinks in? A man of logic sure has a fucked-up memory recall.
And that continues to be the basis of contention.
What exactly have I been wrong about? This idea that i'd suggest anyone doesn't do analytics at all is insane. No one would suggest that, to anyone that isn't trying to be a contentious asshole it was abundantly clear I was talking about quality and I was very clearly right to question the quality.
Quote:
Of a bunch of analytics proponents (and Let's be fair there is value here but not in slavish regard) taking a non-analytical input tremendously seriously is just hilarious. It is as flawed an input to a scientific process as I could think of.
You ever see that South Park episode in the future? Where insteads of religion they fight over their "science".
That is essentially what could be happening in this survey. Which would explain why you have the massive discrepancy of the Giants simultaenously having a near top 10 rating for top 5 advaned team in NFL and being the actual worst.
Zeke - it seemingly aligns to how many posters think the Giants are doing a good job improving the team, but are actually doing the worst.
Maybe because you'd rather appear right (and continually post your resume when called a poseur) rather than come to grips with the fact that you have been off base for awhile now. I'll leave you with this. Buffalo is on that list. Who implemented their analytics system??
You're kidding, right?
The elevation of the Bills Analytics Dept was the hiring of Luis Guilamo. Guy has a B.S. in electrical engineering and computer engineering and an MBA. His background is in business intelligence and IT.
So where is any mention of Gettleman in the article below? And all of his outstanding work...
No Mention of Gettleman's work? - ( New Window )
There's a lot of mention of Brandon Beane though. Wonder who mentored him??
That seems to clearly suggest Ole Dave put everything together and now the Bills are reaping the dividends.
Yet, the article seems to suggest they really started to build it out in 2018.
My bad...
This is exactly what I wrote:
My point being to NGD is a guy who "shunned analytics" implemented the program in Carolina and his protege established a system in Buffalo when he arrived there.
And I'll repeat that NGD used Gettleman's mockery of analytics in a press conference to use it as evidence he shunned them and didn't use them in Carolina. He continues to put more value in words over actions.
There's a lot of mention of Brandon Beane though. Wonder who mentored him??
On player evaluation/scouting or analytics?
Sports medicine and sports science?
In-game tendencies and play calling?
Player evaluation week to week?
When to sign guys, when to let them walk?
Cap allocation by position and by player?
Scouting and drafting?
Coach evaluation year to year?
Given how many areas could be influenced by analytics, it would be easy to be strong in some areas and weak in others.
We longtime Giants fans know that the organization is very softhearted toward longtime staffers and ex-players. We love that when it's "Once a Giant, always a Giant," and we hear that they're taking care of a onetime player who's fallen on hard times. But we hate it when it's cronyism in the scouting, front office and other departments, and the team falls behind the competition because they won't let guys go. From the outside, it looks like both are true, and it looks like that will continue to be the case as long as the current generation of Maras runs things.
I think that given the choice of the Giants way or the best way, they'll choose the Giants way. Fortunately for us, the Giants way isn't a complete catastrophe, the way it was in the 1970s. But measured by success on the field, it hasn't been a good way for a long time.
Quote:
In comment 14983519 Go Terps said:
Quote:
in these two games. That alone should tell you everything.
People said you were gone. Hello Terps.
Hi there. I won't post all that much. But if I don't vent over this bullshit somewhere I'm going to be sending my buddies 10000 word texts a couple times a week and they don't need that.
I appreciate the contrarian views in a deep sea of group think. Do your thing buddy.
What is the quality of the analytics he set up in Carolina and New York? What did he learn?
The declining value of RBs is one of the most fundamental and famous points for analytics systems.
Another one is the value of trading down.
He takes a RB #2, has never traded down, how is that not shunning analytics? He's shunning the concepts.
When I spoke up I saw the Giants bungling basic timeout usage, which is such a simple concept any advanced game management system would understand timeouts in it's earliest days, it's the most basic football math.
How could you not question the quality of a system that doesn't seem to understand and APPLY the basic concepts that many in the analytics field agree on? Isn't rejecting or not showing you can effectively apply concepts others have a form of shunning?
What's more, he mocks people in the field publicly typing on a fake QB when asked the obvious question about him seemingly rejecting conventional wisdom people that have advanced the conversation. That's the point i've made, the Giants had 3 people rate them in the bottom of the league, analytics professionals in the NFL. That perception matters. It matters when you are trying to hire talent. As the article talks about technical capabilities, those with the most talent in areas that are needed for advanced analytics have a great many options. Do you think they want to work for someone that mocks their field?
You can invest in something and still shun the information it produces. You can invest in something and lack commitment to it, the kind of commitment you need to be successful in it. It's not just the mockery, it's that combined with his actions and the results on the field. You might thing shun is too strong, but he certainly was a lot closer to that than being the embracer you make him out to be. People that embrace innovation don't really find themselves apologizing for not paying more attention to it.
It's truly amazing how you still want to draw attention to yourself in this conversation because your position is so unbelievably dumb. But like a pet or child that misbehaves you don't seem to care if you attract positive or negative attention.