|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joe Judge, asked about how analytics factors into his 4th down decisions: "Analytics is just a tool ... You can look at a stat sheet all ya want. I promise ya if Excel was gonna win football games, Bill Gates would be killing it right now. But you've got to take those numbers as a tool and go ahead and factor in how your team's playing at the time and how the opponent is as well ... and also the flow of the game." |
But the you get to games aren't played on spreadsheets...once you get there, you're probably not dealing with someone who's very smart...
He's not the guy -- next...
No wonder Gettleman hired Judge. They are going to show everyone who wrong all these analytics geeks are.
Disagree, he is obfuscating. Changing the facts of the critique. He is trying to justify his on field decision making, by attacking the tool and not his judgement. He is being criticized for his judgement.
Your first sentence, encapsulates it all.
Quote:
However, i think everyone now is hyper-critical of every comment. There is nothing wrong with what he said in that quote. It makes perfect sense. Analytics is a tool. You need to take in to consideration the flow of the game and how teams are playing….isn’t that correct? If we were 2-1 that comment wouldn’t even be noticed.
Disagree, he is obfuscating. Changing the facts of the critique. He is trying to justify his on field decision making, by attacking the tool and not his judgement. He is being criticized for his judgement.
then he can come back and clarify. If he doesn't he's a loser. time to move on.
I better not see a punt when we are down 14 points to the chiefs early in the game because the 'flow' of the game will say you need to maximize your chance for points on every possession.
Shhhh.... the mob is out with their pitchforks. Be careful.
I feel like me and you are always on same page. That’s why I laugh at the analytics stuff, most of it is so obvious, but Judge just doesn’t have a clue so it’s more than necessary. Where it’s okay to go with your gut is when the decisions are marginal. His decision making is making no sense ion any level. It would be one thing if the offense was relying on explosive plays to score or move the ball, but it was the literal complete opposite. It’s frustrating and why he had us all balboozled last year, these decisions made sense, but it’s becoming clear that’s just who he is.
Joe Judge is a maroon. The sooner we get rid of him the better.
Quote:
However, i think everyone now is hyper-critical of every comment. There is nothing wrong with what he said in that quote. It makes perfect sense. Analytics is a tool. You need to take in to consideration the flow of the game and how teams are playing….isn’t that correct? If we were 2-1 that comment wouldn’t even be noticed.
Shhhh.... the mob is out with their pitchforks. Be careful.
If Judge undetstood gameflow at all, he wouldn’t be getting eviscerated. That’s the problem. We should really lean on the numbers because the guy can’t buy a clue right now.
Quote:
However, i think everyone now is hyper-critical of every comment. There is nothing wrong with what he said in that quote. It makes perfect sense. Analytics is a tool. You need to take in to consideration the flow of the game and how teams are playing….isn’t that correct? If we were 2-1 that comment wouldn’t even be noticed.
Shhhh.... the mob is out with their pitchforks. Be careful.
Sorry Dad I forget, we are not allowed to be rowdy. I mean everything Joe and Dave say is just totally lucid and logical. And remember we were so close to success, If only this happened and that happened hey we would by 2-1 or 9-7 last year. We are so close trust the process.
But, and this is important to note, we're not 2-1.
And if we win the Super Bowl- nobody will notice even more!!
"We hired four computer folks..." - ( New Window )
After he buys the team with his vacation money.
There is no way, based on what we have seen since the start of 2020, that he can feel good about his defense at the end of the half or the game and when the pressure is on for the other team to score. At no point have we SHUTDOWN anyone, in those moments, regardless of down, distance or field position. NEVER!!!
If he truly had a feel for what is going on then he must have known he needs his offense to score- hell that was proven the game before with our putrid late game play calling and result and ultimate loss (offsides or not, they should never have been in position to kick). How can he see that his DEFENSE was going to win this battle-with our best player and team leader on Defense out of the game???
Yeah, I get it, it's more nuanced, but it's also misguided because he's been making the same decision to punt on the opponent's side of the field, every game. Its an easy to make an excuse that there's other game flow considerations, but without further explanation, he's saying I knew better than the analytics. It hasn't worked out well once!
There is no way, based on what we have seen since the start of 2020, that he can feel good about his defense at the end of the half or the game and when the pressure is on for the other team to score. At no point have we SHUTDOWN anyone, in those moments, regardless of down, distance or field position. NEVER!!!
If he truly had a feel for what is going on then he must have known he needs his offense to score- hell that was proven the game before with our putrid late game play calling and result and ultimate loss (offsides or not, they should never have been in position to kick). How can he see that his DEFENSE was going to win this battle-with our best player and team leader on Defense out of the game???
Nobody is questioning his definition of what data provides, I think most of us are working adults in fields that would conclude so. I think the backlash, especially from me, is that he believes he is the smartest person in the room and that WE don't get it. He was being contrary, REAL, feeling his gut, in the truest sense, contrary to popular opinion cause he has been blessed by the football gods are the reporters (my god, defending reporters) are nothing more than baseless morons. I can't stand this guys obnoxiousness.
I would think the data would support teams fading out in those Thursday night games.
1-2 and 1-0 in the division is not the worse place to be.
Quote:
it is a tool and you do have to use it and your judgment and feel how your team is doing. What is wrong with that answer is he is either seeing something Nobody else is or he is going off what he HOPES it is or will be doing.
There is no way, based on what we have seen since the start of 2020, that he can feel good about his defense at the end of the half or the game and when the pressure is on for the other team to score. At no point have we SHUTDOWN anyone, in those moments, regardless of down, distance or field position. NEVER!!!
If he truly had a feel for what is going on then he must have known he needs his offense to score- hell that was proven the game before with our putrid late game play calling and result and ultimate loss (offsides or not, they should never have been in position to kick). How can he see that his DEFENSE was going to win this battle-with our best player and team leader on Defense out of the game???
Nobody is questioning his definition of what data provides, I think most of us are working adults in fields that would conclude so. I think the backlash, especially from me, is that he believes he is the smartest person in the room and that WE don't get it. He was being contrary, REAL, feeling his gut, in the truest sense, contrary to popular opinion cause he has been blessed by the football gods are the reporters (my god, defending reporters) are nothing more than baseless morons. I can't stand this guys obnoxiousness.
Ok, I get your point, but I think maybe you are missing mine- if he is going by his gut, what the HELL is his gut telling based on what he has seen over 19 games as HC of the NY Giants. Their Defense, even in wins, has failed to stop teams late in the half or the game- repeatedly. At no point could he say I just full expected my defense to stop them as they have done so often before. hell, it happened the previous week. If you are going by your gut then you know you HAVE to go for it!
My point is his answer at face value is fine but his reasoning is contradictory as his gut should have been telling him we need to go for it here.
I would think the data would support teams fading out in those Thursday night games.
1-2 and 1-0 in the division is not the worse place to be.
I agree with you. The whole time outs thing doesn't make sense at that part of the field as you are very unlikely to run much time off unless you get a first down and just running the way we did, the plays that were called left us very little chance on 3rd down. In fact, you might say it would have been better for us to run it again (this time DJ) than risk a tough pass, with pressure you know is coming and the chance that it goes incomplete and no timeout is needed.
The right play would have been to try and at least get the first down and you do that by threatening that you are actually trying to score there!
Just flagrantly wrong, we were over 50% on 3rd down up to that point even with a couple deep shots. I actually didn’t have a problem with the one step fade until it was clear we had NO intention going for it. It’s seriously clueless.
There’s times when I do disagree with the analytics about taking points (go off zero, when a fg puts you up an extra possession even if it says go for it - it’s an emotional game and I think that gets lost in the numbers sometimes) but to punt there was ridiculous. Last year the offense was mostly incompetent, it’s not anymore because we do have skill players. Shit I wouldn’t even had a problem spreading it out and running into a favorable box there. When you listen to him explain the rational behind it was ridiculous. He was banking on a 3 and out and essentially being put in the same exact situation. He’s playing a field position game that doesn’t exist anymore.
Even last week after the pick, analytics people in booth would have told hi the same thing people at home saw, we had zero success running out of tight formations under center. People say that you can’t be critical don’t understand these guys experience the game differently on sidelines. What bothers me so much that it’s more understandable when the HC has to have his face buried in a playsheet for half the game and working with one side of the ball when the other side is on the field. It’s supposed to be one of the advantages of having a CEO type out there, but he’s made it into a disadvantage, but which is hard to swallow.
I predict these comments by Judge are going to be relived on BBI a good bit from now on.
Tate is trash, so can't really care much about that.. Mister PED should focus on himself.
That being said, blood is in the water..
Quote:
Otherwise this shit is going to get REAL ugly. Tate already talking about the conditioning on GMF.
Tate is trash, so can't really care much about that.. Mister PED should focus on himself.
That being said, blood is in the water..
Tate is another STFU has-been. What the hell is conditioning for players today with these jack shit day at the spa practices. They just sound stupid complaining about the ALREADY do nothing off season and in season practice feel good attendances they negotiated.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
You are missing the point. If he's talking about Excel, he might as well be typing on a fake computer
Quote:
all he is saying is that you need to take a 360 degree view of all decision and not factor into it just analytics, but the "flow" of the game and how your team is playing. How is this controversial in the least and I am a huge believer in analytics.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
Ignorant how?
From this point on whenever I am asked when I changed and stopped supporting the current direction of the Giants and jumped on the “complete overhaul” train…. I will say this moment.
I’m not kidding at all. I instantly went from thinking he was alright and deserved a chance to “fuck this guy and his anti-data (which is actually an anti information position - think about that he’s saying no to …. Information) pals … “
Quote:
In comment 15390690 Jarvis said:
Quote:
However, i think everyone now is hyper-critical of every comment. There is nothing wrong with what he said in that quote. It makes perfect sense. Analytics is a tool. You need to take in to consideration the flow of the game and how teams are playing….isn’t that correct? If we were 2-1 that comment wouldn’t even be noticed.
Shhhh.... the mob is out with their pitchforks. Be careful.
If Judge undetstood gameflow at all, he wouldn’t be getting eviscerated. That’s the problem. We should really lean on the numbers because the guy can’t buy a clue right now.
Right. Going for it from your opponents 39 instead of punting is one example.
Quote:
In comment 15390795 Essex said:
Quote:
all he is saying is that you need to take a 360 degree view of all decision and not factor into it just analytics, but the "flow" of the game and how your team is playing. How is this controversial in the least and I am a huge believer in analytics.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
Ignorant how?
His gut is not more important than data research. Bill Gates is another nerd put down, he doesn't respect the science. Screw Judge's instincts. The comment shows Judge doesn't know, what he doesn't know. Another example of Dunning Kruger.
We are screwed with this guy. He thinks like a dinosaur.
" But you've got to take those numbers as a tool and go ahead and factor in how your team's playing at the time and how the opponent is as well ... and also the flow of the game."
How is that controversial in the least. Analytics is a tool to give you a better and clearer view that has to be balanced against other factors as well. To say differently, is basically not to understand analytics. Now, of course, the main issue is Judge's inaiblity to use them as a tool and during the flow of the game, but nothing he said here is wrong.
Quote:
In comment 15390796 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15390795 Essex said:
Quote:
all he is saying is that you need to take a 360 degree view of all decision and not factor into it just analytics, but the "flow" of the game and how your team is playing. How is this controversial in the least and I am a huge believer in analytics.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
Ignorant how?
His gut is not more important than data research. Bill Gates is another nerd put down, he doesn't respect the science. Screw Judge's instincts. The comment shows Judge doesn't know, what he doesn't know. Another example of Dunning Kruger.
We are screwed with this guy. He thinks like a dinosaur.
So basically you have nothing?
He never said his gut was better than analytics, he said you have to measure the tool against live factors.
If your feel is off and you ignore basic statistics, you've doubled down on losing instead of at least hedging your bet.
" But you've got to take those numbers as a tool and go ahead and factor in how your team's playing at the time and how the opponent is as well ... and also the flow of the game."
How is that controversial in the least. Analytics is a tool to give you a better and clearer view that has to be balanced against other factors as well. To say differently, is basically not to understand analytics. Now, of course, the main issue is Judge's inaiblity to use them as a tool and during the flow of the game, but nothing he said here is wrong.
he's dismissive. today this is the most important question to answer and he has a shitty answer. screw him, so long.
Exactly. I think Judge has been awful and his use of analytics has been awful, but this comment would be non-controversial at a Data Scientist convention.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
And he's won as many NFL games as we have this year...
Quote:
In comment 15390803 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 15390796 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15390795 Essex said:
Quote:
all he is saying is that you need to take a 360 degree view of all decision and not factor into it just analytics, but the "flow" of the game and how your team is playing. How is this controversial in the least and I am a huge believer in analytics.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
Ignorant how?
His gut is not more important than data research. Bill Gates is another nerd put down, he doesn't respect the science. Screw Judge's instincts. The comment shows Judge doesn't know, what he doesn't know. Another example of Dunning Kruger.
We are screwed with this guy. He thinks like a dinosaur.
So basically you have nothing?
He never said his gut was better than analytics, he said you have to measure the tool against live factors.
He’s really bad at that part.
As a coach he has to trust his defense will get the stops. Giants are not winning anything without the Defense consistently getting off the field on 3rd downs.
Go back and look at the Giant Super Bowl winning teams. They got off the field on those critical 3rd and 4th downs.
I've pretty much started to measure the success of the Giants on that ability alone.
We have no way of knowing either that in practice the defense is killing it. So maybe in game he's confident in his defense.
The Giants CANNOT make calls in game being scared the defense isn't up to the task. Sure the Giants may win one of those games where they make that kind of decision but it's not a recipe for long term success. You are probably lose the locker room in the process too.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
You guys cant see the forest for the trees.
Quote:
And predictably the reaction is that he's outdated.
Exactly. I think Judge has been awful and his use of analytics has been awful, but this comment would be non-controversial at a Data Scientist convention.
you're just wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want. He is basically saying yea i get input from geeks on spreadsheets but i know better and do whatever i want. He sounds like a gigantic ignoramus. the whole point of data science is that it upends what you think you know. Judge doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Quote:
In comment 15390818 UberAlias said:
Quote:
And predictably the reaction is that he's outdated.
Exactly. I think Judge has been awful and his use of analytics has been awful, but this comment would be non-controversial at a Data Scientist convention.
you're just wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want. He is basically saying yea i get input from geeks on spreadsheets but i know better and do whatever i want. He sounds like a gigantic ignoramus. the whole point of data science is that it upends what you think you know. Judge doesn't know what he doesn't know.
As a coach he has to trust his defense will get the stops.
Trust and hope goes out the window when you want to win. John Harbaugh knew he had a better chance at winning by having his QB run for 3 yards to get a first down then punting and trusting his defense to stop Mahomes. He was proven right and the Ravens won. Judge would have punted and gave the ball back to Mahomes and he would have gave a cliché "you need to trust your defense to make plays".
Of course, it’s correct that judgement needs to applied to quantitative inputs. No one disputes that. But that ignores the tone Judge uses.
The other issue is that data science is crucial to practice, conditioning and scouting. The down and distance decisions are the Football Data 101 level of the whole enterprise.
Judges statement suggests that the down and decision data IS the Giants data science. Anyone else get that?
Quote:
In comment 15390822 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 15390818 UberAlias said:
Quote:
And predictably the reaction is that he's outdated.
Exactly. I think Judge has been awful and his use of analytics has been awful, but this comment would be non-controversial at a Data Scientist convention.
you're just wrong. You are free to be as wrong as you want. He is basically saying yea i get input from geeks on spreadsheets but i know better and do whatever i want. He sounds like a gigantic ignoramus. the whole point of data science is that it upends what you think you know. Judge doesn't know what he doesn't know.
"Judge doesn't know what he doesn't know." --I would bet any amount of money that Judge 100% knows what the stats say about the situation, and that you, in fact, are the one who doesn't.
* I think you mean "you're"
Of course, it’s correct that judgement needs to applied to quantitative inputs. No one disputes that. But that ignores the tone Judge uses.
The other issue is that data science is crucial to practice, conditioning and scouting. The down and distance decisions are the Football Data 101 level of the whole enterprise.
Judges statement suggests that the down and decision data IS the Giants data science. Anyone else get that?
He might as well use his gut playing poker or blackjack as well.
Of course, it’s correct that judgement needs to applied to quantitative inputs. No one disputes that. But that ignores the tone Judge uses.
The other issue is that data science is crucial to practice, conditioning and scouting. The down and distance decisions are the Football Data 101 level of the whole enterprise.
Judges statement suggests that the down and decision data IS the Giants data science. Anyone else get that?
They are all feeling it. The losses, leaders like Gates and Martinez going down for the season in back to back weeks, big time drops by the Offense and Defense in crunch time.
These comments by Judge and the ones earlier in the week from Logan Ryan. Our two best communicators, both reflecting they are annoyed and suggesting the pressure is building.
Again, it's the same shit with DG, I don't care if he's sending a message or mad at the press or the fans or whatever. You don't get to suck like they have and be so dismissive of things that are working for other teams. If you are getting results? Dismiss whatever you want. Burn every computer in the building for all I care. But you can't perform like they have and talk like you have got it all figured out, cause you don't. And you are a fucking special teams coordinator who may have gotten elevated to fast and are drinking your own kool aid a little too much with a 6-13 record. He's in no position to be teaching any lessons to people that "overvalue analytics"
Maybe that’s part of the reason we have more yardage and time of possession than our opponents yet we’re 0-3. Maybe his “feel” for the game is less accurate than analytics.
No, sorry, it's not a throwaway. These aren't accidents. At best he is diminishing the work of his own people. At worst he doesn't even understand the significant software engineering that goes into building things that other teams are using that are much more than spreadsheets. It is quit possible that he gets spreadsheets because that's what he is comfortable using but it's not a throwaway. It is a glaring sign he actually doesn't get it.
Quote:
Judge's "tone" was for the people who overvalue analytics in football, which I am sure are many.
Again, it's the same shit with DG, I don't care if he's sending a message or mad at the press or the fans or whatever. You don't get to suck like they have and be so dismissive of things that are working for other teams. If you are getting results? Dismiss whatever you want. Burn every computer in the building for all I care. But you can't perform like they have and talk like you have got it all figured out, cause you don't. And you are a fucking special teams coordinator who may have gotten elevated to fast and are drinking your own kool aid a little too much with a 6-13 record. He's in no position to be teaching any lessons to people that "overvalue analytics"
But, he is not dismissing it. A lot of people overvalue analytics, people believe they provide an easy button to football.
Quote:
was a throwaway comment. do not take it so literally.
No, sorry, it's not a throwaway. These aren't accidents. At best he is diminishing the work of his own people. At worst he doesn't even understand the significant software engineering that goes into building things that other teams are using that are much more than spreadsheets. It is quit possible that he gets spreadsheets because that's what he is comfortable using but it's not a throwaway. It is a glaring sign he actually doesn't get it.
Perhaps he knows that his people actually know about analytics compared to people who think it is a big red button that fixes issues in football or makes having to make decisions go away.
Quote:
if he is talking about excel. He's not dealing with the right kind of technologists and talent. There are limitations for sure, but if he is talking about excel he doesn't understand what the real limitations of today are. The very mention of spreadsheets means I know there are massive limitations to what he is getting but it doesn't mean that at least some of those limitations can be dealt with by better software, technology and people
This statement is very lacking in some of the basics of data science. There a many up front decisions that go into the techniques necessary to solve problems. You don't throw massive computing into solving every data problem. There is hardly the need.
Yeah I'm not sure you need SPSS even for most of this stuff, although there really is no excuse for an NFL team not to have it.
This statement is very lacking in some of the basics of data science. There a many up front decisions that go into the techniques necessary to solve problems. You don't throw massive computing into solving every data problem. There is hardly the need.
I've been building complex AI pipelines for over 10 years as a leader and during the pandemic went back to school from intro to Python in November to programming my own deep learning algorithms by April. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why you think you understand it and I don't but don't come at me with that BS.
Quote:
if he is talking about excel. He's not dealing with the right kind of technologists and talent. There are limitations for sure, but if he is talking about excel he doesn't understand what the real limitations of today are. The very mention of spreadsheets means I know there are massive limitations to what he is getting but it doesn't mean that at least some of those limitations can be dealt with by better software, technology and people
This statement is very lacking in some of the basics of data science. There a many up front decisions that go into the techniques necessary to solve problems. You don't throw massive computing into solving every data problem. There is hardly the need.
No he isn’t. The statement Judge made is that analytics has serious limitations and is only a “tool”. Yes if we are talking Excel there are limitations, but there are far better “tools” than excel, which is the problem. In fact you can essentially model anything you want and pick out what is relevant with real tools. Not just make spreadsheets.
Quote:
In comment 15390857 crick n NC said:
Quote:
was a throwaway comment. do not take it so literally.
No, sorry, it's not a throwaway. These aren't accidents. At best he is diminishing the work of his own people. At worst he doesn't even understand the significant software engineering that goes into building things that other teams are using that are much more than spreadsheets. It is quit possible that he gets spreadsheets because that's what he is comfortable using but it's not a throwaway. It is a glaring sign he actually doesn't get it.
Perhaps he knows that his people actually know about analytics compared to people who think it is a big red button that fixes issues in football or makes having to make decisions go away.
It's not a big red button. But I'm quite confident that the Giants don't have the right people building these systems. And technology is about incremental improvement. And plenty of teams are seeing gains from it. Our staffing and they way they talk about this stuff doesn't suggest we have the right people, the results say we don't have the right people. Quit acting like this is some crazy idea that we don't. I'm over it and there is frankly more and more data supporting this point, that I've made for years. Why don't you do this. Can you explain to me the data we have that we do have the right people? That we are using the right technology?
the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted.
The outcome after the decision would be inconsequential to an "analytics disciple". The analytics are calculating the range of outcomes that occur after that decision is made. So even if a negative outcome occurred, a "disciple" would be comfortable with that decision. Your example being one of them.
They are not perfect, it is a tool. Only the biggest zealots on social media, who I also think can be obnoxious, would say otherwise. There are unquantifiable variables in every decision. There are times when you need to go against them. But at a certain point the math is so overwhelmingly in favor of one decision that there's no way for the intangibles to make up that ground. So in terms of them being a tool? He is right however his tone here is dismissive and his actions have indicated that he's either completely ignoring or has no idea how to leverage that tool. We saw it last year, I knew he would never be John Harbaugh here but there was some sound reasoning behind being a little more conservative then. They were basically white-knuckling it with a 2nd year QB in a new system on an abbreviated offseason with a disaster of an OL. I personally would have liked to see more aggression then but I understood why he was conservative. I was hoping we wouldn't be seeing what we saw the last two games this year though. Early season, your team has division winning and playoff aspirations. Back to back games where the Giants had control and elected to be cautious. He was playing for a one score game and that's what we got.
Quote:
In comment 15390874 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
In comment 15390857 crick n NC said:
Quote:
was a throwaway comment. do not take it so literally.
No, sorry, it's not a throwaway. These aren't accidents. At best he is diminishing the work of his own people. At worst he doesn't even understand the significant software engineering that goes into building things that other teams are using that are much more than spreadsheets. It is quit possible that he gets spreadsheets because that's what he is comfortable using but it's not a throwaway. It is a glaring sign he actually doesn't get it.
Perhaps he knows that his people actually know about analytics compared to people who think it is a big red button that fixes issues in football or makes having to make decisions go away.
It's not a big red button. But I'm quite confident that the Giants don't have the right people building these systems. And technology is about incremental improvement. And plenty of teams are seeing gains from it. Our staffing and they way they talk about this stuff doesn't suggest we have the right people, the results say we don't have the right people. Quit acting like this is some crazy idea that we don't. I'm over it and there is frankly more and more data supporting this point, that I've made for years. Why don't you do this. Can you explain to me the data we have that we do have the right people? That we are using the right technology?
I know it isn't a big red button, I didn't say it was. I have zero idea about the Giants analytic team, I never said I did know.
See we actually can agree.
I’m warming up to the idea.
If not, then he used the tool wrong.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
The decision to punt and go conservative on the final possession against WFT were both way way worse.
If not, then he used the tool wrong.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
a reasonable response that I can get behind. It is absolutely possible Judge does not believe in analytics.
Quote:
the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted.
The outcome after the decision would be inconsequential to an "analytics disciple". The analytics are calculating the range of outcomes that occur after that decision is made. So even if a negative outcome occurred, a "disciple" would be comfortable with that decision. Your example being one of them.
They are not perfect, it is a tool. Only the biggest zealots on social media, who I also think can be obnoxious, would say otherwise. There are unquantifiable variables in every decision. There are times when you need to go against them. But at a certain point the math is so overwhelmingly in favor of one decision that there's no way for the intangibles to make up that ground. So in terms of them being a tool? He is right however his tone here is dismissive and his actions have indicated that he's either completely ignoring or has no idea how to leverage that tool. We saw it last year, I knew he would never be John Harbaugh here but there was some sound reasoning behind being a little more conservative then. They were basically white-knuckling it with a 2nd year QB in a new system on an abbreviated offseason with a disaster of an OL. I personally would have liked to see more aggression then but I understood why he was conservative. I was hoping we wouldn't be seeing what we saw the last two games this year though. Early season, your team has division winning and playoff aspirations. Back to back games where the Giants had control and elected to be cautious. He was playing for a one score game and that's what we got.
Aces, I agree with so much of what you said. Well put.
I see analytics as important to the game and important to coaching, but not a gospel. From my vantage point, Judge should have gone for it instead of punting on the 39, but I fully understand the other side of coin...I just would have made a different call there.
I cannot say that his tone was dismissive as I did not hear the comment, but overall I agree with Joe Judge's comment. It's a tool, it's not everything. And honestly, If I was a HC in this league, I would be really tired of being asked my opinion on analytics and their use.
Quote:
The people who are troubled by this, myself included, are reading into it.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
a reasonable response that I can get behind. It is absolutely possible Judge does not believe in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
That's exactly the opposite of what analytics "disciples" believe. In fact it's precisely where they would deviate from Judge's decision.
1) Judge's decision (as he explained) was predicated on forcing Atlanta to punt and getting the ball back in good field position. Unfortunately for Judge, the Giants defensive statistics over the first 18.5 games of his career don't back that up. In 2020, the Giants defense allowed an average of 6.6 plays per drive, which tied for the worst in the NFL, and 34 yards per drive. This year, it's 6.9 plays and 38 yards.
Atlanta's possession from their own 5: 6 plays, 32 yards.
2) One are where the Giants defense excelled was in forcing FGs in the red zone. They were 2nd in the league on a percentage basis of holding their opponent out of the end zone once they entered the red zone.
Conclusion: Even an unsuccessful try on 4th down wouldn't have been a terrible result. The Falcons could still have punted, and while the field position wouldn't have been good, it was still a 7-6 game. A Falcons FG makes the deficit 10-6 in the 3rd quarter - hardly insurmountable. Even a Falcons TD only brings the deficit to 14-6, a one score game with more than a full quarter to play.
Conversely, success on 4th down at minimum puts the squarely in FG range for an extremely accurate kicker. Reasonably, you'd expect at least a 9-7 lead at the conclusion of the drive, with a TD obviously another possibility.
Quote:
In comment 15390906 Jerry in_DC said:
Quote:
The people who are troubled by this, myself included, are reading into it.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
a reasonable response that I can get behind. It is absolutely possible Judge does not believe in analytics.
Doesn't believe in it, even though he told us that they use them, and explained how? Are we saying he lied?
I did not word it properly. Coaches believe in analytics more than others. Doug Pederson is Mr. Analytic. I would say he believes in analytics maybe more than other coaches, possibly our own.
Quote:
Does Joe Judge know the projected win probabilities of going for it vs. not going for it? Can he walk us through why he think those probabilities are incorrect in that situation?
If not, then he used the tool wrong.
Yes, he knows, and he even said it. People just don't bother to read or just ignore anything that doesn't fit into their simplistic view of 'ANALYTICS = GOOD' and 'Anything inconsistent with 100% dependence on data for football decision making = outdated and inferior. What Judge said was "But you've got to take those numbers as a tool and go ahead and factor in how your team's playing at the time and how the opponent is as well.." clearly states that the analytic is big part of the process, the starting point, in fact.
I read the tweet. I don't see him demonstrate an understanding of the data. Merely asserting you use it doesn't mean anything.
I'm fine deviating from the numbers if you have sufficient reason for it.
Quote:
Does Joe Judge know the projected win probabilities of going for it vs. not going for it? Can he walk us through why he think those probabilities are incorrect in that situation?
If not, then he used the tool wrong.
Yes, he knows, and he even said it. People just don't bother to read or just ignore anything that doesn't fit into their simplistic view of 'ANALYTICS = GOOD' and 'Anything inconsistent with 100% dependence on data for football decision making = outdated and inferior. What Judge said was "But you've got to take those numbers as a tool and go ahead and factor in how your team's playing at the time and how the opponent is as well.." clearly states that the analytic is big part of the process, the starting point, in fact.
See I agree with the statement, but Judge has shown no ability to understand the gameflow aspect of it. You don't go against overwhelming numbers unless there is some reasoning behind it. We were over 50% on 3rd down including some deep shots into the mix that fell incomplete, you have an allstar kicker, and yet he choose to punt, why? A three and out? With a defense that consistently plays soft and gives up yards? And even then you are looking at getting the ball most likely on the other side of the field because there were a lot of ifs in his thought process.
That's the problem, he just plays these things out in his mind with perfect execution, we did do a good job on the punt, but theres also a much higher than non zero chance it goes out the endzone. Average would be ten, so lets say they are punting from the 15 after a 3 and out, you are now starting on the other side of the field. It's indefensible. Cowardly punt rating 99.96% of all punts since 1999. That might make sense if your team can't even pick up a first down, but we were good on 3rd down up until that point even with some deep shots.
So the argument here is that smart football teams start at 1 and go right to 3, skipping 2. Is that it?
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
If electronic strike zones are so good we wouldn’t need umpires. Doug Peterson won a Super Bowl basing essentially every 4th down decision on analytics. And no one is arguing there isn’t value to coaching. I don’t know of anyone asking for analytics to design coverages..
Quote:
Then we could replace HCs with computers and AI, and we'd theoretically be a lot better off.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
If electronic strike zones are so good we wouldn’t need umpires. Doug Peterson won a Super Bowl basing essentially every 4th down decision on analytics. And no one is arguing there isn’t value to coaching. I don’t know of anyone asking for analytics to design coverages..
Do we know how much of a factor his 4th down decisions based on analytics helped his team win the super bowl?
So the argument here is that smart football teams start at 1 and go right to 3, skipping 2. Is that it?
Definitely not. I'm just not sure he actually had the data.
The Ravens apparently give Harbaugh the data real time. Does Judge have that data readily available? I think he might be lying, bluntly. I'm questioning that as well as his judgement on #2.
I think this is spot on.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
Quote:
In comment 15390825 Emil said:
Quote:
Then we could replace HCs with computers and AI, and we'd theoretically be a lot better off.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
If electronic strike zones are so good we wouldn’t need umpires. Doug Peterson won a Super Bowl basing essentially every 4th down decision on analytics. And no one is arguing there isn’t value to coaching. I don’t know of anyone asking for analytics to design coverages..
Do we know how much of a factor his 4th down decisions based on analytics helped his team win the super bowl?
It was assumed based on the adjusted win percentage based on going for it be punting. I believe there were articles written on it at the time.
Quote:
In comment 15390825 Emil said:
Quote:
Then we could replace HCs with computers and AI, and we'd theoretically be a lot better off.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
If electronic strike zones are so good we wouldn’t need umpires. Doug Peterson won a Super Bowl basing essentially every 4th down decision on analytics. And no one is arguing there isn’t value to coaching. I don’t know of anyone asking for analytics to design coverages..
Do we know how much of a factor his 4th down decisions based on analytics helped his team win the super bowl?
It was assumed based on the adjusted win percentage based on going for it vs. punting. I believe there were articles written on it at the time.
Quote:
In comment 15390934 uconn18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15390825 Emil said:
Quote:
Then we could replace HCs with computers and AI, and we'd theoretically be a lot better off.
Data and probability is only part of the equation. Other variables (momentum, weather, individual matchups, the right play call) are not adequately captured in analytics.
I agree with Judge and have zero issue with what he said. Sure, I did not want him to punt at the 39 yard line, certainly not the call I would have made, but the analytics disciples seem to think it was a foregone conclusion the Defense would have achieved a three and out had the Giants not converted. Perhaps Judge was thinking, if the Giants offense did not get the first down, the Falcons were roughly 25 yards away from a scoring opportunity (maybe a Patterson screen pass away...) in a game where points where at a premium.
Here is some probability, if a team starts with the ball at their own 40 yard line (yes I am rounding up one yard) they have a 50-50 chance of scoring. I am assuming that is a chance Judge did not want to take. You can counter and say that Riley Dixon is not a good directional kicker (and I agree, but I blame DG for keeping him around). Judge has to use the players he has.
Analytics are just a tool. It's not an almighty philosophy of coaching.
If electronic strike zones are so good we wouldn’t need umpires. Doug Peterson won a Super Bowl basing essentially every 4th down decision on analytics. And no one is arguing there isn’t value to coaching. I don’t know of anyone asking for analytics to design coverages..
Do we know how much of a factor his 4th down decisions based on analytics helped his team win the super bowl?
It was assumed based on the adjusted win percentage based on going for it be punting. I believe there were articles written on it at the time.
Thanks.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
A big rift? Then why in the world hire JJ in the first place if you don’t trust him? It doesn’t make sense.
Agreed. You do have to earn snarkiness... ;)
I'm actually not surprised at this, btw. Judge is revealing more and more he's a full-blooded old schooler. Which makes me think that's why Mara and DG hired him...
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
A big rift? Then why in the world hire JJ in the first place if you don’t trust him? It doesn’t make sense.
Gettleman didn't hire Judge. Mara did.
I don't think Gettleman and Judge are operating in lock step. Too much of what is going on with personnel and general decision making doesn't make any sense.
Smells like an organization in complete chaos.
Exactly!
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
Joe Judge is driving the bus off a cliff right before our eyes. He is as lost as his team right now. The Giants need to win this week to restore some faith in the program because it is quickly going into a death spiral.
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
A big rift? Then why in the world hire JJ in the first place if you don’t trust him? It doesn’t make sense.
Gettleman didn't hire Judge. Mara did.
I don't think Gettleman and Judge are operating in lock step. Too much of what is going on with personnel and general decision making doesn't make any sense.
Smells like an organization in complete chaos.
If what you’re saying is true, then this team is truly the pits. Complete disconnect between the coaches and management. It’s very likely true given the record and drafting this past decade
Some people (and I'm not saying you Family Progtitioner) need a Looney Tunes style anvil to fall on their heads.
one might argue that modern coaches should be agile and adept at learning from their mistakes, not the type who will keep bashing their heads against the wall before something breaks.
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
I highly doubt Judge would be OK with anything close to tanking a season based off his PC after the Eagles tank job last year alone.
one might argue that modern coaches should be agile and adept at learning from their mistakes, not the type who will keep bashing their heads against the wall before something breaks.
This.
I hear what you’re saying. They’re awful with no relief in sight. I’m just in denial that they’re this dysfunctional
Quote:
In comment 15390966 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
I highly doubt Judge would be OK with anything close to tanking a season based off his PC after the Eagles tank job last year alone.
I don't think he's trying to lose (tanking). But if they do lose, it's not the worst thing for him.
Quote:
In comment 15391003 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 15390966 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
I highly doubt Judge would be OK with anything close to tanking a season based off his PC after the Eagles tank job last year alone.
I don't think he's trying to lose (tanking). But if they do lose, it's not the worst thing for him.
It's that even when their GM is issuing public apologies they are talking about him as a "visionary" in private. It's a refusal to do any real house cleaning at the top despite years of failure and a descent to the bottom of the league. The PROBLEM is all of this sucking hasn't really humbled them. Joe Judge is 6-13, he's proven literally nothing as a head coach, him talking like this is just a glaring sign that he may in fact not be a reformer of an antiquated culture but a proponent
I get the frustration with Judge but I think a lot of it has to do with the frustrations of the last decade of losing and it boiling over onto him. He's a young, first time HC, there's going to be growing pains and a learning curve, no matter what he's said to this point. Belichick didn't exactly conquer the world from the get go and even released the hometown hero in Kosar in I want to say his second or third season of coaching after Kosar went off script against what BB wanted done (throwing a bomb for TD in blowout loss vs taking a knee).
I think it was the 3rd season BB went to playoffs with Browns, but first seasons were 6-10 and I want to say 5-11? I'd like to see Judge get at least 3-4 seasons and hopefully a say in the next GM and OC (should things continue to go south here) before just dismissing him.
And if our organization is this resistant to simple, easy to understand, obvious applications of basic math....if there any chance they're deploying anything that is actually advanced. There is a big world of awesome technology and analysis out there. Organizations can gain huge advantages- actually more like a huge number of small advantages. I could hypothesize about what smart teams could be doing- id have no way of really knowing- but it sure doesn't seem like the Giants are doing much of it
Quote:
In comment 15391036 bigblue5611 said:
Quote:
In comment 15391003 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 15390966 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
I highly doubt Judge would be OK with anything close to tanking a season based off his PC after the Eagles tank job last year alone.
I don't think he's trying to lose (tanking). But if they do lose, it's not the worst thing for him.
It is if it costs him his job,
And it should IMO. However, I would be shocked (pleasantly) if the new GM comes in a cleans house if this shit show continues. I think Judge will get one more year since they signed him for 5 years.
And if our organization is this resistant to simple, easy to understand, obvious applications of basic math....if there any chance they're deploying anything that is actually advanced. There is a big world of awesome technology and analysis out there. Organizations can gain huge advantages- actually more like a huge number of small advantages. I could hypothesize about what smart teams could be doing- id have no way of really knowing- but it sure doesn't seem like the Giants are doing much of it
This is a good point, Jerry. I think you're onto something that Judge could be parroting some of the stuff he's hearing internally, when in fact, he should be doing the exact opposite. After all, what better way to ingratiate yourself with your bosses when you're on the hot seat than to publicly tout the same philosophies they have?
Problem is, they're all wrong and everyone can see it except them.
It's that even when their GM is issuing public apologies they are talking about him as a "visionary" in private. It's a refusal to do any real house cleaning at the top despite years of failure and a descent to the bottom of the league. The PROBLEM is all of this sucking hasn't really humbled them. Joe Judge is 6-13, he's proven literally nothing as a head coach, him talking like this is just a glaring sign that he may in fact not be a reformer of an antiquated culture but a proponent
Crap, this was the post I meant to be agreeing with, above.
Your post was good too, Jerry!
I’ll quote a very, very new school guy, Bill Cowher: “The only time you're finished in this business is when you think you know it all.”
I don't want the Giants to lose games either, but I'm a realist - the best thing long term is for them to lose as many games as possible this year. This year was lost before it started.
<The rest of the table groans>
Now, if you're counting and know a lot of low cards are left in the shoe.....
I don't want the Giants to lose games either, but I'm a realist - the best thing long term is for them to lose as many games as possible this year. This year was lost before it started.
I get what you're saying, but if Judge is as smart as some of us still think he is, I'd think he would know that if the losses piled up and shit really hit the fan that he's not guaranteed another year. I think he knows he needs to do what he can this year and despite what he says to the media, maybe you're right and he and DG aren't completely on the same page. If that is the case, then I would say he needs at least 4 years to include two with the new GM to see the direction things head, no?
Judge has had a very big say in this roster the last two years so I am not sure where all this disconnect talk stems from.
He may not believe in Jones as a QB but he needs to get more out of this team to pick the next one if it comes to that. Win some games maybe you should not. He already was a big factor in WFT loss. Let's see if he can get 4 division wins.
Judge has had a very big say in this roster the last two years so I am not sure where all this disconnect talk stems from.
He may not believe in Jones as a QB but he needs to get more out of this team to pick the next one if it comes to that. Win some games maybe you should not. He already was a big factor in WFT loss. Let's see if he can get 4 division wins.
I've had this similar argument with friends of mine, I think DG gets the players his coaches want. I think this was very evident when the Giants D was effectively Arizona East when Betcher was here.
Quote:
But he isn't a fool - he knows this is one of the worst rosters in the NFL and that he and Graham are completely undermanned on Sundays. He knows Gettleman is an abysmal failure and on his way out. He may just be thinking "I've got Mara in my pocket right now. If I can just ride out this idiot Gettleman's tenure I can fire Garrett and shape the roster the way I want with a GM that I will have more influence over."
I don't want the Giants to lose games either, but I'm a realist - the best thing long term is for them to lose as many games as possible this year. This year was lost before it started.
I get what you're saying, but if Judge is as smart as some of us still think he is, I'd think he would know that if the losses piled up and shit really hit the fan that he's not guaranteed another year. I think he knows he needs to do what he can this year and despite what he says to the media, maybe you're right and he and DG aren't completely on the same page. If that is the case, then I would say he needs at least 4 years to include two with the new GM to see the direction things head, no?
I'm not sure Mara fires him even if they go 0-17 (which they won't).
I like Judge but will absolutely admit he's been poor this year, and I don't like the comment on analytics. I also didn't like his approach to preseason reps for the starters.
He isn't perfect, but I keep coming back to a basic truth: the roster completely sucks. The only player that is really, really good is the kicker. The rest of it is a joke. That has to be playing into some of the decision making we're seeing on Sunday.
Quote:
In comment 15391090 Go Terps said:
Quote:
But he isn't a fool - he knows this is one of the worst rosters in the NFL and that he and Graham are completely undermanned on Sundays. He knows Gettleman is an abysmal failure and on his way out. He may just be thinking "I've got Mara in my pocket right now. If I can just ride out this idiot Gettleman's tenure I can fire Garrett and shape the roster the way I want with a GM that I will have more influence over."
I don't want the Giants to lose games either, but I'm a realist - the best thing long term is for them to lose as many games as possible this year. This year was lost before it started.
I get what you're saying, but if Judge is as smart as some of us still think he is, I'd think he would know that if the losses piled up and shit really hit the fan that he's not guaranteed another year. I think he knows he needs to do what he can this year and despite what he says to the media, maybe you're right and he and DG aren't completely on the same page. If that is the case, then I would say he needs at least 4 years to include two with the new GM to see the direction things head, no?
I'm not sure Mara fires him even if they go 0-17 (which they won't).
I like Judge but will absolutely admit he's been poor this year, and I don't like the comment on analytics. I also didn't like his approach to preseason reps for the starters.
He isn't perfect, but I keep coming back to a basic truth: the roster completely sucks. The only player that is really, really good is the kicker. The rest of it is a joke. That has to be playing into some of the decision making we're seeing on Sunday.
I agree, I don't think he's going anywhere barring something unforeseen like a locker room mutiny. I didn't have issue with his comment on analytics. I think they should play a part, but I think they also have to be taken into context of how the game is going at that point in time.
Judge has certainly had his head scratching moments this year, but I'm going to chalk that up to him learning on the job so to speak since this is his first ever HC gig. If I recall correctly, BB said Judge was one of, if not the only one, who he never had to look over his shoulder for anything. Also as I said earlier, BB didn't light the world on fire when he was with the Browns to start off. Took a few years for them to get to playoffs and even missed them the following year with a sub .500 record.
I think it’s the sentiment that he believes that he values analytics appropriately. As an 0-3 team which would be either 2-1 or 1-2 if analytics were valued more by the team, that comes across as stubborn to a fault.
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Nobody will "follow the analytics" as often as the analytics experts would like, and I don't think anybody is expecting that.
What we're expecting is a basic understanding of when a situation OVERWHELMINGLY supports one course of action over any perceived "game flow" gut feelings.
Here's when it's acceptable to punt on 4th-and-4 from your opponents' 39:
1) End of the half
2) End of the game
Not in the middle of the 3rd quarter because you want to play field position in the September breeze.
Quote:
In comment 15390955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The biggest possible indicator isn't this quote... it's that Jason Garrett is his offensive coordinator.
Personally I think there's a big rift between Judge/Graham and the front office. I think Garrett being foisted on them by Mara is a sign of that.
I'm also wondering if Judge is ok with this season going completely in the shitter because he knows he's safer than Gettleman and Garrett.
I don't want Judge as HC if he is ok with a bad season. I doubt he'll coach long if that is his approach.
I'm not saying he's ok with a bad season. I'm saying he knows he's saddled with an incompetent GM and a fool for an owner. He knows Gettleman's leash is much shorter than his own. Winning with Gettleman's pathetic roster is impossible - so wait him out.
We might as well be speculating about this shit because the football certainly isn't worth discussing.
He chose to come here under Gettleman, so he's tied to him. A new GM would probably want his own coach. And if we're hiring a new GM based on his willingness to work with Judge ...
Moreover, what's Judge done to earn a chance beyond this year? He has the same record Shurmur has at this point, and is showing terrible on field decision making. Plus the special teams - his ace - aren't special. If we're tossing Gettleman (and I hope we're also tossing Chris Mara and Tim McDonnell), we may as well toss Judge too.
Quote:
"The analytics guys will tell you that I don’t follow the analytics nearly enough,” Harbaugh said. "They’ll tell you that I go by my gut way more than I go by the analytics, and I do because of the flow of the game, the feel of the game, situations you’ve been in."
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Nobody will "follow the analytics" as often as the analytics experts would like, and I don't think anybody is expecting that.
What we're expecting is a basic understanding of when a situation OVERWHELMINGLY supports one course of action over any perceived "game flow" gut feelings.
Here's when it's acceptable to punt on 4th-and-4 from your opponents' 39:
1) End of the half
2) End of the game
Not in the middle of the 3rd quarter because you want to play field position in the September breeze.
Trust me, I hated that decision. Feel free to shit on it all you want.
I’m only talking about the specific quote.
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
That's what it is, the Bill Gates/Excel spreadsheet line coming on the heels of some very questionable decisions. It has shades of DG computer hands that turned into a meme and Barkley's current stock has never been lower. Viscerally I had a very negative reaction because it feels like they're not learning from any of these mistakes. It's being overblown but I think there's a very justified reaction. Judge needs to be better here - both in usage of these tools and how he reads a room.
Now I get it, there’s no one “right”’way to call a football game. But Judge lost the game so maybe outcome probability analytics should start to figure into his decision data points. I’m not killing him here, not entirely at least. But what the successful and experienced NFL HCs all agree on is that outcome probability should figure into in game decision making. A lot of NFL teams have outcome probability piped into their headsets. I hope Judge knows this. I’m not certain that he does. But he certainly should.
Quote:
"The analytics guys will tell you that I don’t follow the analytics nearly enough,” Harbaugh said. "They’ll tell you that I go by my gut way more than I go by the analytics, and I do because of the flow of the game, the feel of the game, situations you’ve been in."
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Nobody will "follow the analytics" as often as the analytics experts would like, and I don't think anybody is expecting that.
What we're expecting is a basic understanding of when a situation OVERWHELMINGLY supports one course of action over any perceived "game flow" gut feelings.
Here's when it's acceptable to punt on 4th-and-4 from your opponents' 39:
1) End of the half
2) End of the game
Not in the middle of the 3rd quarter because you want to play field position in the September breeze.
Has to be very demoralizing to the players with some of the decisions taking place thus far. This is when the extra laps in practice start becoming a issue.
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Harbaugh's demonstrated his adherence to analytics and the Ravens organization has been subject to multiple articles detailing their usage of them.
I 100% agree judgement can overrule the numbers. But you need a fact pattern to support your deviation to have a good process. I don't think Judge showed that on Sunday or with his answer here.
Quote:
"The analytics guys will tell you that I don’t follow the analytics nearly enough,” Harbaugh said. "They’ll tell you that I go by my gut way more than I go by the analytics, and I do because of the flow of the game, the feel of the game, situations you’ve been in."
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Harbaugh's demonstrated his adherence to analytics and the Ravens organization has been subject to multiple articles detailing their usage of them.
I 100% agree judgement can overrule the numbers. But you need a fact pattern to support your deviation to have a good process. I don't think Judge showed that on Sunday or with his answer here.
Maybe this is all overblown, but the phrasing is important (at least in the context of the discussion).
When Harbaugh says it that way he's saying -- there are analytics guys in the building, he probably knows them, and has had conversations with them. It implies that he's explored the analytics and rejects them at times. (For me, it also comes off as bit coy as if maybe he's using it more than you thing).
Judge with his spreadsheets don't win games comment sounds dismissive without even considering the details. It's arrogant, and it's really kind of clownish. I mean, of course spreadsheets don't win games.
Is this parsing it too much? Maybe. But for me, personally, I would not have had the same reaction to the words Harbaugh spoke that I did to what Judge said.
1) Elite performance - quirky, genius, even lovable in some senses
2) Good performance - tolerable, "rub some people the wrong way"
3) Bad or worse performance - out of touch, jerk
To those that say there is "nothing wrong with this" again, context matters. There are legitimate questions as to if JJ or anyone in the organization even understand where technology can make their lives easier and where it SHOULD be a suggestion. No one is telling Joe Judge to just let a computer make all his decisions, but he's responding like that. If a pilot is flying into a lot of turbulence and not using autopilot and someone asks them, like hey, why aren't you letting the autopilot do that a little more? You seem to be hitting turbulence that the auto pilot is helping other pilots avoid. There are a lot of perfectly good answers to that, I think anyone would be like. Well what? Maybe I'll just go to sleep and stop flying the planes? Should we just let Siri fly all the planes? (It's actually kind of funny here and again reflects he doesn't really understand software development, Bill Gates is making decisions on Software which is then used for other things, he's not interpreting the outputs as suggested)
The point in both examples isn't that the suggestion that this stuff is smarter than JJ, it's actually the opposite, that he should be using his high powered mind on problems he's better suited to solve and if he actually had good technologists near him they'd be able to make it clear when it's a judgement call and something that's well enough figured out that he should just let the tech autopilot that decision for him. Using the autopilot doesn't mean you just blindly follow it either, again, literally no one is suggesting that.
That's what good technology does, helps take easier work off your plate and free up more mental capacity for more complicated problems better suited to human cognition. The Giants are clearly dealing with lesser tools AND making more work for themselves.
I agree with this post. McVay got to the Supe with a QB1 very similar to DJ8. There’s holes on this roster, especially the O-line (though even there AT is absolutely a legit LT1). You need at least a great HC (New Orleans, LAR) or a great QB1 (Packers) and if you both you’re in fat city. The Giants don’t have a great HC and they don’t have a great QB1. But this doesn’t mean the entire roster is dreck. It ain’t great, but I do think a legit top half HC would get this team to .500.
Both defenses were tired as it is a TNG. Only have a two point lead with a FG. WFT drove down the field in a few plays the previous drive. Your DL is gassed and have not been getting any pressure.
Here is the really big one. WFT has two very big and talented DT's and our interior OL lost its Center and now has two players playing who have been with the team two weeks.
So what is the decision in a moment to win the game. Let's give it to SB up the middle two times. That was a perfect situation to break a tendency and have a special play.
So analytics did not lose this division game imo. Coaching scared and truthfully not very smart in the decision-making process.
Quote:
complete garbage commentary. Yes, there are holes, and yes, DG need to be shown the door given how many really high picks he has had. However, the team is unprepared and it's painfully obvious to me that with just marginally better coaching, the team is easily 2-1, maybe 3-0.
I agree with this post. McVay got to the Supe with a QB1 very similar to DJ8. There’s holes on this roster, especially the O-line (though even there AT is absolutely a legit LT1). You need at least a great HC (New Orleans, LAR) or a great QB1 (Packers) and if you both you’re in fat city. The Giants don’t have a great HC and they don’t have a great QB1. But this doesn’t mean the entire roster is dreck. It ain’t great, but I do think a legit top half HC would get this team to .500.
and what does it tell you when McVay proactively seeks to replace Goff?
Quote:
In comment 15390803 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 15390796 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15390795 Essex said:
Quote:
all he is saying is that you need to take a 360 degree view of all decision and not factor into it just analytics, but the "flow" of the game and how your team is playing. How is this controversial in the least and I am a huge believer in analytics.
The comment is enormously ignorant. He should either backtrack or get the hell out of here.
Ignorant how?
His gut is not more important than data research. Bill Gates is another nerd put down, he doesn't respect the science. Screw Judge's instincts. The comment shows Judge doesn't know, what he doesn't know. Another example of Dunning Kruger.
We are screwed with this guy. He thinks like a dinosaur.
So basically you have nothing?
He never said his gut was better than analytics, he said you have to measure the tool against live factors.
You're right, he didn't explicitly say that his gut was better than analytics. But his coaching decisions have defied probabilities often enough that he didn't need to say the quiet part out loud.
yea, I hate when math doesn't work. So annoying.
Quote:
In comment 15390906 Jerry in_DC said:
Quote:
The people who are troubled by this, myself included, are reading into it.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
a reasonable response that I can get behind. It is absolutely possible Judge does not believe in analytics.
Doesn't believe in it, even though he told us that they use them, and explained how? Are we saying he lied?
I doubt he lied. I think it's far more likely that the Giants' (and Judge's) definition of "analytics" may be a bit behind the curve, and/or that he just has a bit too much comfort in overruling significant probability gaps.
Quote:
In comment 15390918 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 15390906 Jerry in_DC said:
Quote:
The people who are troubled by this, myself included, are reading into it.
Because that middle part - games aren't won on spreadsheets- is EXACTLY what people who ignore/ dislike analytics say.
And its obviously complete horse shit nonsense. Its a really dumb thing to say, and possibly a window into his worldview.
a reasonable response that I can get behind. It is absolutely possible Judge does not believe in analytics.
Doesn't believe in it, even though he told us that they use them, and explained how? Are we saying he lied?
I doubt he lied. I think it's far more likely that the Giants' (and Judge's) definition of "analytics" may be a bit behind the curve, and/or that he just has a bit too much comfort in overruling significant probability gaps.
Or how about he ran his mouth beyond his head, and he's basically a meat head, so that's what came out.
So you pass the ball then. We know Garrett has tons of plays with button hooks in them....
Quote:
you analytics devotees are all in on analytics until it doesn't work.
yea, I hate when math doesn't work. So annoying.
There are 3 types of people in this world: People who know how statistics and numbers work; and people who don't.
They need to start getting basic fundamental decisions right first. This team has needed to put together a functioning OL for a decade now and has not done it. They have needed 2 edge rushers since JPP was traded and have not done it. If they are going to play a 3-4 they need better linebackers. They also need better play at QB, whether that comes from Jones or somebody else, it has to come from somewhere.
These are the same issues year after year after year, and they are never addressed. They go an spend all their money on a bunch of bright shiny objects that are useless without the fundamental pieces in place.
The level of incompetency of the people running the Giants is astonishing. No amount of analytics will make up for that level of abject stupidity.
Absolutely.
They need to start getting basic fundamental decisions right first. This team has needed to put together a functioning OL for a decade now and has not done it. They have needed 2 edge rushers since JPP was traded and have not done it. If they are going to play a 3-4 they need better linebackers. They also need better play at QB, whether that comes from Jones or somebody else, it has to come from somewhere.
These are the same issues year after year after year, and they are never addressed. They go an spend all their money on a bunch of bright shiny objects that are useless without the fundamental pieces in place.
The level of incompetency of the people running the Giants is astonishing. No amount of analytics will make up for that level of abject stupidity.
Their management style can best be described as *glacial*. It takes four years to figure out if our QB can play football. Where's the urgency? Meanwhile rosters around the NFL are being remade.
They are the very opposite of what New York is famous for.
Quote:
In comment 15391153 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:
Quote:
"The analytics guys will tell you that I don’t follow the analytics nearly enough,” Harbaugh said. "They’ll tell you that I go by my gut way more than I go by the analytics, and I do because of the flow of the game, the feel of the game, situations you’ve been in."
This was from 2019, coming from the so called "Prince of Analytics" in Harbaugh. This is very similar to what Judge said.
I'm no longer on the Judge bandwagon and I see his flaws as an in-game coach clearer and clearer by the week, however I think these comments are being overblown. The Bill Gates line is unnecessary and overly defensive but I don't think he said anything particularly wrong.
Nobody will "follow the analytics" as often as the analytics experts would like, and I don't think anybody is expecting that.
What we're expecting is a basic understanding of when a situation OVERWHELMINGLY supports one course of action over any perceived "game flow" gut feelings.
Here's when it's acceptable to punt on 4th-and-4 from your opponents' 39:
1) End of the half
2) End of the game
Not in the middle of the 3rd quarter because you want to play field position in the September breeze.
Trust me, I hated that decision. Feel free to shit on it all you want.
I’m only talking about the specific quote.
But that decision is context for the quote. It's an example of choosing intuition over probability, and it very much illustrates Judge's willingness to ignore the overwhelmingly most favorable win probability, and the second most favorable win probability, and instead to choose an option that - statistically - has a negative win probability. The actual outcome of the decision is irrelevant at that point; it's a lack of basic understanding of the value of predictive analysis that is frustrating.
It's one thing to incorporate anecdotal factors when the probabilities are within some reasonable range - and that range itself is something that can be altered based on some of those anecdotal factors, too. It's completely different to repeatedly make decisions that defy probability entirely and statistically decrease your likelihood of winning. That's not someone who is incorporating analytics into their decision-making. It's someone who gets a practice report printed out from Excel and thinks they're on the cutting edge, and an organization that thinks that passes for data science in 2021.
The real tragedy that they wouldn't know because they don't create a culture or know how to seek out talented technologists is that good technology reflects the cultures and embeds uniquely within it. That is actually kind of my concern with JJ, and I expressed it when he was hired. I think he could just be saying like "they have technology that does this in New England" and just knowing the outputs and even the inputs isn't really enough. That tech was actually built symbiotically with specific people in the org.
You have to make a lot of choices when you are working with predictive data. Often times you will build the infrastructure for an output like say, should I go for it on 4th down? Or even what type of play should I run? You might ask that larger question and get results that tell you, the models can't predict that problem. But that is just the start of the journey really and I fear without a good technology leader with attitudes like this they probably are willing to say "well the model doesn't know" well sometimes you have to chunk a problem. You might want to give it a subset of plays, or train different models for 4th and 1 vs. 4th and 2. Different ones for different teams. It is possible that the people in New England built special features (variables) that JJ never had any visibility into, after all that's not his job.
It's really kind of funny actually. The Giants are all incredulous about the mere suggestion that technology could teach their big football brains anything about their complicated game! But it's their pride that actually has them suggesting the opposite. That people without the proper training in technology could not only build complicated systems but innovate. That a 70 year old man who uses statistical terms he clearly doesn't understand is also a "visionary" in analytics.
The insecurity is really actually kind of sad at an organizational level. People that resist being aided by technology this much are often the ones who are most concerned about being exposed that it knows more than them. People that understand and have real confidence in their value don't fear this stuff they are excited by it.
If you actually are threatened enough by math to act like people are suggesting it should take your job or you feel the need to mock it, it says a lot more about the fragility of your ego. These people aren't even smart enough to understand that responding in these ways isn't even a display of confidence, it's quite the opposite. And THAT is what's so disheartening about this stuff. It's not that it's unacceptable for anyone to talk like this, it just displays a complete lack of understanding of the kind of performance you need to back this kind of talk.
Quote:
In comment 15391352 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
you analytics devotees are all in on analytics until it doesn't work.
yea, I hate when math doesn't work. So annoying.
There are 3 types of people in this world: People who know how statistics and numbers work; and people who don't.
That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand the binary system, and those who don't."
Maybe he will now because he looks like a moron.
he's a young guy, I thought we were getting an advanced thinker who was open minded.
No, instead we got a throwback zealot. They're the worst. They're worse than old geezers, they think they're honoring some bond or tradition by acting like old men with old man values.
I'm done with this joker.
We know that he has made multiple decisions that fly in the face of probability to enough of an extent that it suggests that either he's not being provided accurate data, or that he is significantly more confident in his own intuition than he is in the calculated probabilities for those decisions.
And we don't need to be privy to his thinking to know the probabilities associated with the options that have been available to him and to observe the choices that he's made with those options at his disposal.
There is always wiggle room within the decision tree to incorporate influential environmental factors, and the weight you might place on those factors is variable as well - for example, you might have data that suggests that it's 99% safe for you to drive your car around the block in your neighborhood. But you would rightfully throw that data out in the middle of a blizzard, and choose common sense instead.
But that's not what we're observing. This is a willful dismissal of probability. And, IMO, it's starting to shape itself into a bit of a trend. Whether it's challenging plays that can't be challenged, or punting in a clear go-for-it scenario, or expressing defensiveness about using data science, there appears to either be an "I know better than you" vibe happening here, or Judge is just in over his head.
I know that I don't have enough data personally to determine which of those choices is more likely to be true.
Late to the thread but that cracked me up. Great moment in the movie and apt here depending on your pov.
Judge was supposed to teach them something, not the other way around.
Maybe the problem is his feel rather than going by the flow of the game. Which is a problem, but a different problem.
Shows no aggressiveness, courage, or faith in his players.
I'm guessing all the players feel they should be 2-1 and some blame him and his gutless in-game decisions for their record.
But look at this article:
https://medium.com/the-spekboom/how-math-and-data-science-made-liverpool-the-best-team-on-the-planet-a72d50b325
"...if you read between the press lines and try to reverse engineer some of the reasons why Liverpool is punching above their financial weight there is a good tech story."
"Maybe all this modeling and emphasis on data takes the romance out, but it’s good to know stuff if you are going to punch above your weight."
And even so, 2 years later, you see this:
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2021/03/liverpool-become-first-club-to-use-revolutionary-new-stats-analysis/
"Liverpool‘s hierarchy savour the use of quantifiable data in all they do, from transfers to matchday preparation and across the business side of the club...
"The use of data alone is not enough to gain a competitive edge as it’s the ability to interpret it, which the Reds have long prioritised as shown by the work from the likes of Michael Edwards and Ian Graham – director of research.
"And having already revolutionised the approach in football analytics by having a four-man research team, Liverpool are looking to take the next step with StatsBomb 360, as reported by Sky Sports."
And this is with one of the more passionate, player-management/relationship-oriented coaches out there in Jurgen Klopp.
The expectation is that our entire world will be turned upside down by a more intelligent being(s) that we created. This is what the best minds in AI are saying.
But ok.. Joe Judge thinks it's spreadsheets.
for more on how AI is about to upend our world, check the first 35 minutes of this video.
If you don't think analytics and AI will completely revolutionize football, along with our world, you are not paying attention.
Scary Smart: The Future of AI Video with author Mo Gawdat - ( New Window )
Yes, please do. Colin Cowherd is known for his very well crafted opinions and insight.
Technology is a tool. The way JJ answered it is if he doesn't understand it and quite frankly stated the obvious. Another analogy.
Imagine the machine gun just arrived and you asked a general why they were not using their machine gun in situations other generals were.
"Well, I'm not going to just use my machine gun all the time, you need to look at the battle and see"
It's like yeah duh. I wasn't suggesting that, I asked the question because it looks like you don't know how to use it as well as the other people not because I thought you should be randomly firing bullets into the crowd all the time. I think we should all know that and you going in that direction makes you look insecure and uninformed.
The Giants act and talk like technology / analytics is a burden or obligation which is the glaring sign that they don't have anyone in that building that truly understand them. They are a weapon for smart individuals to wield in the right situations. And that's why I mentioned a machine gun, that's true for ALL technology. They are so stuck in the past they don't even seem to understand the basics of interacting with new tech.