Bills analytics dept--focuses mostly on ticket pricing

[dave mcbride]

That's what I gathered from this excellent piece by Tim Graham. Brandon bloviates vaguely about a 'holistic' approach, but one definitely gets the sense from this piece that the current coach and GM don't put much stock in analytics and that Brandon's analytics guy focuses mostly on the business of selling the Bills to fans. http://bills.buffalonews.com/2016/06/12/a-dark-matter-secrecy-abounds-as-nfl-teams-tackle-analytics-challenge/

[machine gun kelly]

That is the Coach and GM's perspective, and Brandon does what he is very good agin marketing the team. It is impressive how he has regionalized the team, and maintained attendance in bad weather, of a non-playoff team, with a declining population, and not a high income city overall.

 

I've always like Brandon for his marketing abilities. I just never want him anywhere near football decisions. That's why I thought it was a good idea when he took over control of the Sabres too. He stays in his lane.

[eball]

The Bills haven't been successful enough to give them the benefit of the doubt in any aspect related to administration -- aside from ticket sales.

 

That said, the two areas noted in which the Bills have bucked analytic tenets -- trading up in the draft and building a "smashmouth" offense -- are interesting but not necessarily conclusive that the team doesn't value analytics.

 

Looking at the "smashmouth" part of it -- this was done largely because of no proven option at QB. Even the most analytic observer would say, I presume, that building a high-powered passing offense doesn't work without a legitimate player behind center. And although they have what appears to be a run-based attack they have accumulated a number of "big play" skill players on offense as well; it is hardly a "3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" attack. Roman is considered to be a creative mastermind in the run game. I think it's a poorly chosen example.

 

I agree that trading up is usually a bad idea. I also think Sammy is a HOF-potential player.

 

I thought that as the season progressed last year Rex seemed to do a better job with in-game management. We'll see what transpires this year.

[Fingon]

The Bills haven't been successful enough to give them the benefit of the doubt in any aspect related to administration -- aside from ticket sales.

 

That said, the two areas noted in which the Bills have bucked analytic tenets -- trading up in the draft and building a "smashmouth" offense -- are interesting but not necessarily conclusive that the team doesn't value analytics.

 

Looking at the "smashmouth" part of it -- this was done largely because of no proven option at QB. Even the most analytic observer would say, I presume, that building a high-powered passing offense doesn't work without a legitimate player behind center. And although they have what appears to be a run-based attack they have accumulated a number of "big play" skill players on offense as well; it is hardly a "3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" attack. Roman is considered to be a creative mastermind in the run game. I think it's a poorly chosen example.

 

I agree that trading up is usually a bad idea. I also think Sammy is a HOF-potential player.

 

I thought that as the season progressed last year Rex seemed to do a better job with in-game management. We'll see what transpires this year.

Wouldn't analytics tell you that a smashmouth football team is the way to build an offense? LBs are constantly getting smaller, to the point that perhaps the best run stopping LB in the league is jobless (Brandon Spikes). If there ever was an era to build a smashmouth offense it's this one. Teams are basically turning their LBs into safeties in order to stop the pass, so logic would dictate the run is the way to counter. Getting guys like Incognito in the phonebooth with some 225 pound linebacker is an advantage you can build an offense around, IMO.

[Kirby Jackson]

FWIW, when I worked in sports we were pretty early into analytics. We had a 4 people dedicated to it. They are all super smart (we turned down many Ivy League grads). The overwhelming majority of their work was on the business side. There is just so much more depth there.

 

The biggest development on the basketball side was technology. We had some scouting program that I remember that was super expensive but unbelievable. You could type something in like, "Harrison Barnes midrange jump shots, off the dribble, going left" and it splices together every play that met the criteria. You could pretty much assemble any look that you wanted. The analytics guys would compile this data for like players and compare. The scouts used it to identify strengths and weaknesses of particular players.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Kirby Jackson

[K-9]

The higher the draft pick, the lower the value? High draft picks are only valuable if you trade them? OK then.

 

Analytics may say that going for it on fourth and one at your own 30 works 70% of the time, but when it costs coaches their jobs or dashes playoff hopes for teams when it fails, applied mathematics goes out the window.

 

Too many moving parts and other variables on any given play for analytics to have real, lasting impact on game management.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kirby Jackson]

The higher the draft pick, the lower the value? High draft picks are only valuable if you trade them? OK then.

 

Analytics may say that going for it on fourth and one at your own 30 works 70% of the time, but when it costs coaches their jobs or dashes playoff hopes for teams when it fails, applied mathematics goes out the window.

 

Too many moving parts and other variables on any given play for analytics to have real, lasting impact on game management.

 

GO BILLS!!!

This is true, until someone is bold enough to follow the trends. The Steelers did it going for 2. Urban Meyer and Chip Kelly regularly do (and did) it at the college level. We are going to see it more and more going forward. The 1st people to dip their toes in the water will be those that are the safest in their jobs. As the sample size grows others will follow suit if the numbers support it.

[hondo in seattle]

I would take what Brandon says about analytics with a grain of salt.

 

TG mentioned that 6 teams refused to let him speak to their analytics guys. Secrecy is the rule right now.

[K-9]

This is true, until someone is bold enough to follow the trends. The Steelers did it going for 2. Urban Meyer and Chip Kelly regularly do (and did) it at the college level. We are going to see it more and more going forward. The 1st people to dip their toes in the water will be those that are the safest in their jobs. As the sample size grows others will follow suit if the numbers support it.

I don't know about that. How many teams have lost a game by failing on a two point conversion? How many times has it been the difference in winning? And I can't put much stock in college coaches bucking convention until I know they take the same risks vs. an Alabama, let's say, rather than the creampuff Cal-Poly Pamonas of the world. The disparity in sheer physical ability between the good and bad in college really skews things, IMO.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kirby Jackson]

I don't know about that. How many teams have lost a game by failing on a two point conversion? How many times has it been the difference in winning? And I can't put much stock in college coaches bucking convention until I know they take the same risks vs. an Alabama, let's say, rather than the creampuff Cal-Poly Pamonas of the world. The disparity in sheer physical ability between the good and bad in college really skews things, IMO.

 

GO BILLS!!!

It's safer for coaches to follow conventional thinking despite the facts that the numbers don't necessarily support it. There will be someone (or multiple someone's) with the support of ownership, that will follow the statistics. It will be someone safe in their job, and "new school" ownership (think Mark Cuban). Others are going to wait until the sample size is large enough to determine if it's right or wrong. You will see more teams going for 2 this year after a year of the longer extra points. Analytics has already completely changed the NBA. They are usually the 1st league to set the trends and everyone follows.

 

The Steelers converted 72.7% of their 2 point tries. The league extra point percentage last year was 94.2%. Historically the 2 point percentage has been right around 50%. It was 47.9% last year. If you score 1,000 times you will have 942 points based on the extra point and 958 going for 2 at league averages. If you took the extreme examples of the Steelers at 72.7% and 100% extra points, they would score 1454 points vs. 1,000 on the extra points. The sample size isn't large but if teams can get to roughly 52-53% on 2 point conversions it is going to become the norm. If they get to 52.5% on 2 vs. the league average of 94.2% on 1 you are talking 1050 points vs. 942 points on 1000 scores.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Kirby Jackson

[Hapless Bills Fan]

That's what I gathered from this excellent piece by Tim Graham. Brandon bloviates vaguely about a 'holistic' approach, but one definitely gets the sense from this piece that the current coach and GM don't put much stock in analytics and that Brandon's analytics guy focuses mostly on the business of selling the Bills to fans. http://bills.buffalonews.com/2016/06/12/a-dark-matter-secrecy-abounds-as-nfl-teams-tackle-analytics-challenge/

 

Very interesting piece, thanks for linking it Dave.

 

Favorite quote from the piece: “Analytics is, at its heart, just applied mathematics,” Baltimore Ravens offensive lineman and Canisius High grad John Urschel said in March at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Urschel is working on a mathematics doctorate at MIT. Gotta love a football lineman who is using the off-season to work on a doctorate at MIT.

 

I too, read through that piece and wondered, when he talked about throwing the Rosetta stone into lake Erie or using what served him well in 1990, was he talking about Rex? or when he quoted "a lot of owners are very comfortable making money and staying in the cycle of waiting for that franchise quarterback to come to them." was he talking about the late Ralph Wilson?

 

The fundamental contradiction that Graham fails to address is the tenet that teams are preserving secrecy around analytics that work, vs. the idea that the Bills are violating "universally accepted analytic truths" in some of the things they do.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Hopeful

[BarleyNY]

Great read. Thanks for linking it.

 

It does seem as though Rex and Whaley are relying on a much more old school approach overall. I see a lot of HCs and GMs going with what they know and are comfortable with - especially where high draft picks and high priced free agents are concerned. That's where their focus is. In those cases the analytics guys and scouts often get more say in lower round picks and lower tier FAs. I saw that repeatedly with the Browns, until this offseason.

Edited June 12, 2016 by BarleyNY

[K-9]

It's safer for coaches to follow conventional thinking despite the facts that the numbers don't necessarily support it. There will be someone (or multiple someone's) with the support of ownership, that will follow the statistics. It will be someone safe in their job, and "new school" ownership (think Mark Cuban). Others are going to wait until the sample size is large enough to determine if it's right or wrong. You will see more teams going for 2 this year after a year of the longer extra points. Analytics has already completely changed the NBA. They are usually the 1st league to set the trends and everyone follows.

 

The Steelers converted 72.7% of their 2 point tries. The league extra point percentage last year was 94.2%. Historically the 2 point percentage has been right around 50%. It was 47.9% last year. If you score 1,000 times you will have 942 points based on the extra point and 958 going for 2 at league averages. If you took the extreme examples of the Steelers at 72.7% and 100% extra points, they would score 1454 points vs. 1,000 on the extra points. The sample size isn't large but if teams can get to roughly 52-53% on 2 point conversions it is going to become the norm. If they get to 52.5% on 2 vs. the league average of 94.2% on 1 you are talking 1050 points vs. 942 points on 1000 scores.

Near as I can tell, the Steelers scored 42 total TDs last year. Even if they went for two on all of them and were successful 100% of the time, they would have added 42 points vs. a 100% PAT kick success rate over the course of the season. How much of an impact did that extra 2.6 pts per game have in their wins and losses? My guess is it's minimal. Conversely, did an unsuccessful 2 pt conversion attempt contribute to any losses? I honestly don't know.

 

How many years would it take for a team to score 1,000 times? Based on the Steeler's TD count last year, that would be approximately 25 years. I appreciate the math, but I don't see the relevance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[FireChan]

Near as I can tell, the Steelers scored 42 total TDs last year. Even if they went for two on all of them and were successful 100% of the time, they would have added 42 points vs. a 100% PAT kick success rate over the course of the season. How much of an impact did that extra 2.6 pts per game have in their wins and losses? My guess is it's minimal. Conversely, did an unsuccessful 2 pt conversion attempt contribute to any losses? I honestly don't know.

 

How many years would it take for a team to score 1,000 times? Based on the Steeler's TD count last year, that would be approximately 25 years. I appreciate the math, but I don't see the relevance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

If you try to break it down into points per game, it does seem minimal. But consider that you could 5.2 extra points in one game and zero in another to get the same average, and it gets a bit wider.

 

There's a reason these analytical guys get paid, and it's because the work is not a walk in the park. Can you imagine breaking down every successful 2pt conversion and its effect on the game? Not just the extra points added, but let's say going for 2 makes the opponent's last second FG attempt not good enough to win the game and they instead turnover on downs. There's more variables than just "points added."

 

Either way, the most common margin of victory in an NFL game is 3 points (since 2002). About 15% of games end this way. An added 5.2 points in every other game may be just enough to get a 9-7 golfing in January team to 10-6 and a Superbowl appearance.

[Kirby Jackson]

Near as I can tell, the Steelers scored 42 total TDs last year. Even if they went for two on all of them and were successful 100% of the time, they would have added 42 points vs. a 100% PAT kick success rate over the course of the season. How much of an impact did that extra 2.6 pts per game have in their wins and losses? My guess is it's minimal. Conversely, did an unsuccessful 2 pt conversion attempt contribute to any losses? I honestly don't know.

 

How many years would it take for a team to score 1,000 times? Based on the Steeler's TD count last year, that would be approximately 25 years. I appreciate the math, but I don't see the relevance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I didn't dig into the specifics. I tried to keep it high end. On the 11 TDs that the Steelers went for 2 they got 16 points. If they were 100% on the extra points that's 11. Those 5 points can be extremely valuable as FireChan explains above. They are an extreme example but if you use my relatively conservative numbers above you are getting about a 10% bump by going for 2. That is not insignificant.

 

Again, not everyone has the job security or support of ownership to raise the sample size. As the sample size grows if these trends hold true you are going to see more and more doing it (especially with the long extra points).

[K-9]

If you try to break it down into points per game, it does seem minimal. But consider that you could 5.2 extra points in one game and zero in another to get the same average, and it gets a bit wider.

 

There's a reason these analytical guys get paid, and it's because the work is not a walk in the park. Can you imagine breaking down every successful 2pt conversion and its effect on the game? Not just the extra points added, but let's say going for 2 makes the opponent's last second FG attempt not good enough to win the game and they instead turnover on downs. There's more variables than just "points added."

 

Either way, the most common margin of victory in an NFL game is 3 points (since 2002). About 15% of games end this way. An added 5.2 points in every other game may be just enough to get a 9-7 golfing in January team to 10-6 and a Superbowl appearance.

If you care to break down every Steeler game from last year to determine the true impact of their electing to go for two more than any other team, I'd be interested. If they blew out a team by 30 points, for instance, I doubt very much any two point conversion made in that game was instrumental to the victory.

 

Until an analytics report indicates to coaches the true impact of two point conversions on wins and losses, it won't really matter.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I didn't dig into the specifics. I tried to keep it high end. On the 11 TDs that the Steelers went for 2 they got 16 points. If they were 100% on the extra points that's 11. Those 5 points can be extremely valuable as FireChan explains above. They are an extreme example but if you use my relatively conservative numbers above you are getting about a 10% bump by going for 2. That is not insignificant.

 

Again, not everyone has the job security or support of ownership to raise the sample size. As the sample size grows if these trends hold true you are going to see more and more doing it (especially with the long extra points).

I appreciate all the work you did on this, Kirby. It's good food for thought.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[FireChan]

If you care to break down every Steeler game from last year to determine the true impact of their electing to go for two more than any other team, I'd be interested. If they blew out a team by 30 points, for instance, I doubt very much any two point conversion made in that game was instrumental to the victory.

 

Until an analytics report indicates to coaches the true impact of two point conversions on wins and losses, it won't really matter.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I appreciate all the work you did on this, Kirby. It's good food for thought.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Hah, that's what I was trying to say with "There's a reason these analytical guys get paid, and it's because the work is not a walk in the park. Can you imagine breaking down every successful 2pt conversion and its effect on the game?" That's a ton of work. If some NFL team kicks me a few bucks, then I'd be interested.

[NoSaint]

Near as I can tell, the Steelers scored 42 total TDs last year. Even if they went for two on all of them and were successful 100% of the time, they would have added 42 points vs. a 100% PAT kick success rate over the course of the season. How much of an impact did that extra 2.6 pts per game have in their wins and losses? My guess is it's minimal. Conversely, did an unsuccessful 2 pt conversion attempt contribute to any losses? I honestly don't know.

 

How many years would it take for a team to score 1,000 times? Based on the Steeler's TD count last year, that would be approximately 25 years. I appreciate the math, but I don't see the relevance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

2.6 ppg is pretty substantial- I'd bet the correlation of a 2.6 ppg swing in point differential to wins would be quite noticeable

[yungmack]

First off, compliments to TG for a rarity by Buffalo media: a story in depth in which complicated ideas are clearly explained and from which I learned things I didn't know.

 

Secondly, the possible shortcomings in analytics is revealed by the data on Carolina. If I understand it correctly, the data shows that Carolina made it to the SB but shouldn't have if the analytics was infallible which reminds me of that old saw, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin'eyes." I once met an American couple in France who set out touring the Cote du Rhone wine countryside using GPS. The device took them on the correct highway then onto a country road then onto a narrow dirt lane and finally down into a no-path field where they became enmeshed in brambles and had to be towed out. I asked why they kept going when they could see the mess they were getting into and the guy said, "Because that's what the GPS was telling them to do."

[birdog1960]

First off, compliments to TG for a rarity by Buffalo media: a story in depth in which complicated ideas are clearly explained and from which I learned things I didn't know.

 

Secondly, the possible shortcomings in analytics is revealed by the data on Carolina. If I understand it correctly, the data shows that Carolina made it to the SB but shouldn't have if the analytics was infallible which reminds me of that old saw, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin'eyes." I once met an American couple in France who set out touring the Cote du Rhone wine countryside using GPS. The device took them on the correct highway then onto a country road then onto a narrow dirt lane and finally down into a no-path field where they became enmeshed in brambles and had to be towed out. I asked why they kept going when they could see the mess they were getting into and the guy said, "Because that's what the GPS was telling them to do."

i don't think it says that at all

 

he Carolina Panthers ranked first in rushing attempts, and Cam Newton ran most among quarterbacks. The Panthers went to the Super Bowl, but Football Outsiders ranked them the NFL’s second-most efficient defense. The Bills’ defense ranked 24th.

The first Football Outsiders essay, written by founder Aaron Schatz in July 2003, refuted the long-held belief an offense must establish the run: “There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game,” Schatz wrote. Victorious teams in today’s NFL generally end a game with solid rushing stats because they were winning and working on the clock.

i think it says carolina won in a large part because of a good defense that let them run out the clock often.

the rules buffalo is accused of breaking are apparently core, established principles among respected analysts. will they sometimes be wrong? of course, but more often than not they'll be right. the bills repeatedly seem to think they're better at guessing when the core principles will be wrong than anyone else. and they have been repeatedly wrong. from brandon's comments, they are no closer to smartening up.

Edited June 12, 2016 by birdog1960