K-9 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 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 Remember, we are talking 2.6 points earned after scoring a TD. Totally depends on the context of those 2.6 points. At this stage, I refuse to believe the success of their two point conversions has had any meaningful impact on the Steelers' success or lack there of. GO BILLS!!!
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 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. I read nothing that says Rex and Doug are old school. I read several things that seemed to suggest that the Bills go against the grain but that isn't saying it's so.
Mike in Horseheads Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 Tiny Tim is part of the Buffalo News vendetta against the Pegula's. Sully, Bucky and Timmy have circle jerks to see who can write the most damaging story.
jr1 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 the analytics department needs to get going on Dez Lewis bobblehead day
BarleyNY Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) I read nothing that says Rex and Doug are old school. I read several things that seemed to suggest that the Bills go against the grain but that isn't saying it's so. It sure seemed like that's what was alluded to in the article. And that fits what I've seen from both of them. For example, analytics and metrics based sites have rated their drafts and other personnel moves a lot less favorably than more traditional/old school sites. Edited June 12, 2016 by BarleyNY
vorpma Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 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. Very good post; makes sense! Tiny Tim is part of the Buffalo News vendetta against the Pegula's. Sully, Bucky and Timmy have circle jerks to see who can write the most damaging story. This is BS; please substantiate this "claim."
K-9 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 It sure seemed like that's what was alluded to in the article. And that fits what I've seen from both of them. For example, analytics and metrics based sites have rated their drafts and other personnel moves a lot less favorably than more traditional/old school sites. Would these be the same metrics-based sites that made the claim that the higher the draft pick, the lower the value? And that trading top picks is the only way to get value? Because when I read that quote from the analytics expert in the article, I was taken aback. Good luck convincing GMs of that new paradigm. GO BILLS!!!
Peter Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) Very good post; makes sense! This is BS; please substantiate this "claim." Try reading Sully and Bucky or watching the Sabres end of year press conference a few years ago. Read Bucky's timeless pieces on Kim Pegula or Sully's piece that our billionaire owner was just lucky in business. Have you lived somewhere that does not have access to the Internet? I do not believe TG has a vendetta. I do believe Harrington is biased. I always used to think Vic was solid. Since he has been back he has had a couple clunkers which lead me to believe he and/or the paper are reckless. Just my two cents. Edited June 12, 2016 by Peter
BarleyNY Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Would these be the same metrics-based sites that made the claim that the higher the draft pick, the lower the value? And that trading top picks is the only way to get value? Because when I read that quote from the analytics expert in the article, I was taken aback. Good luck convincing GMs of that new paradigm. GO BILLS!!! Yes, but that's a misleading statement. They don't dispute that you should be able to get a better player at a higher pick. They're arguement is that when all factors are taken into account - expected production, rookie and future contracts, risk and trade values of picks - that there's more VALUE at the end of round 1 than at the beginning. In fact, the sweet spot for value seems to be in day 2 of the draft. However - and it's a very big however - they'll be the first people to tell you that you can't build a team with nothing but 2nd and 3rd round picks. You'd have a poor team and a ton of cap space left over (and be well below the league spending minimum) if you did. You still need to spend capital - draft picks and cap space - on difference makers. Analytics not only tries to determine who those difference makers are, but it also tries to show a team where it can free up money to afford those players.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Try reading Sully and Bucky or watching the Sabres end of year press conference a few years ago. Read Bucky's timeless pieces on Kim Pegula or Sully's piece that our billionaire owner was just lucky in business. Have you lived somewhere that does not have access to the Internet? I do not believe TG has a vendetta. I do believe Harrington is biased. I always used to think Vic was solid. Since he has been back he has had a couple clunkers which lead me to believe he and/or the paper are reckless. Just my two cents. Don't forget the Bucky classic suggesting Kim Pegula should stick to picking the drapes instead of getting involved in running her teams.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Yes, but that's a misleading statement. They don't dispute that you should be able to get a better player at a higher pick. They're arguement is that when all factors are taken into account - expected production, rookie and future contracts, risk and trade values of picks - that there's more VALUE at the end of round 1 than at the beginning. In fact, the sweet spot for value seems to be in day 2 of the draft. However - and it's a very big however - they'll be the first people to tell you that you can't build a team with nothing but 2nd and 3rd round picks. You'd have a poor team and a ton of cap space left over (and be well below the league spending minimum) if you did. You still need to spend capital - draft picks and cap space - on difference makers. Analytics not only tries to determine who those difference makers are, but it also tries to show a team where it can free up money to afford those players. this. but it takes innovators and people with conviction to accept new paradigms. eventually the new becomes standard and the laggards are miles behind while losing to all the innovators in the meantime. from the article, it seems the paradigm shift has occurred in the majority of the league i think the investment analogy is especially apt. the bills appear to be trying to time the market. make the big score by gambling. but in that model you need to time the market top AND the market bottom. any analyst worth his salt will tell you that's very unlikely. yet like losing investors that play this high risk game, the bills continue to believe that they are special. they can beat the odds. they can't. it's called statistics.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) I mentioned it earlier but watch how the NBA has adopted analytics. They are certainly a few years ahead. How many more 3's are shot now vs.10 years ago? How effective is the triangle offense? How many "stretch 4's" and "stretch 5's" existed in 2000? How many guys play just 1 position? The game is completely different than it has been at any point in its history. The numbers supported these theories. Teams were being built this way and winning. Now it's what you have to do to win. You are seeing it in baseball too with pitching match ups and the evolution of the shift. Those were born out of analytics. Edited June 13, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
FireChan Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 I mentioned it earlier but watch how the NBA has adopted analytics. They are certainly a few years ahead. How many more 3's are shot now vs.10 years ago? How effective is the triangle offense? How many "stretch 4's" and "stretch 5's" existed in 2000? How many guys play just 1 position? The game is completely different than it has been at any point in its history. The numbers supported these theories. Teams were being built this way and winning. Now it's what you have to do to win. You are seeing it in baseball too with pitching match ups and the evolution of the shift. Those were born out of analytics. The Rockets are the most analytical team in the NBA and they stink.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 The Rockets are the most analytical team in the NBA and they stink.Yeah, Dork Elvis is kind of an idiot. He was on board early but there are a lot of teams that live by it. What's really happened is that the sample size got large enough to convince everyone that the numbers were right. The same in baseball. Even non-analytical teams have adopted practices born out of analytics. Everyone is in search of guys that can play (and defend) multiple positions. In baseball the shift is the norm now. It will happen in the NFL too but the sample size isn't there yet. The late adopters are still a few years away.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 The Rockets are the most analytical team in the NBA and they stink. there are good analysts and bad analysts. just as there are good mutual funds and bad ones. the fact that some suck doesn't make the entire model invalid.
NoSaint Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 The Rockets are the most analytical team in the NBA and they stink. I don't think anyone's claiming that being the most into analytics means you are either the best at using them or most successful
BuffaloBill Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Analytics are useful for breaking conventional fallacies of thought. People believe stuff on the basis of myth without understanding why.
FireChan Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 I don't think anyone's claiming that being the most into analytics means you are either the best at using them or most successful I was just playing DA for Kirby really.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 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/ I don't buy that analytics is the end all be all but should be a part of drafting, FA and some on field decisions. I'm starting to think nothing changes as long as Russ is there. If Rex doesn't win Pegs needs to CLEAN house and start over with non Ralph management. Edited June 13, 2016 by Buffalo Barbarian
Kirby Jackson Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I thought that this was at least somewhat relevant: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/16203896/pittsburgh-steelers-quarterback-ben-roethlisberger-wants-team-attempt-2-point-conversion-every-touchdown
Recommended Posts