Breer: Influence of Analytics Will Increase Under McDermott

[GunnerBill]

 

You apparently didn't read the last sentence of my response. I also think you are grossly underestimating the level of "gut" coaching that still goes on.

I did read your last sentence and that was my initial point. Analytics done properly is an incredibly useful tool but part of the problem in the differences in understanding is the surface level numbers masquerading as analytics that don't build in the situational variables. I think teams get that much more than fans.

 

As for whether I grossly underestimate the gut coaching... I don't think it is that - as I said to Thurman I think it is more that the occassions when uninformed fans shout "analytics" to criticise a coach who the analytics would almost certainly support stand out to me much more vividly because I have this bug bear about anything with numbers being labelled "analytics". Analytics isn't using numbers it is actually interpreting them and the surface level stuff just doesn't do that.

Edited July 17, 2017 by GunnerBill

[C.Biscuit97]

I did read your last sentence and that was my initial point. Analytics done properly is an incredibly useful tool but part of the problem in the differences in understanding is the surface level numbers masquerading as analytics that don't build in the situational variables. I think teams get that much more than fans.

 

As for whether I grossly underestimate the gut coaching... I don't think it is that - as I said to Thurman I think it is more that the occassions when uninformed fans shout "analytics" to criticise a coach who the analytics would almost certainly support stand out to me much more vividly because I have this bug bear about anything with numbers being labelled "analytics". Analytics isn't using numbers it is actually interpreting them and the surface level stuff just doesn't do that.

Excellent point.

[GunnerBill]

I don't actually think eball and I are disagreeing that much at all.... just talking past each other a bit maybe.

[eball]

I don't actually think eball and I are disagreeing that much at all.... just talking past each other a bit maybe.

 

I think the main area in which we disagree is the extent to which today's head coaches are really utilizing analytics on game day. I believe most still coach by their gut during the course of the game because of the intense scrutiny of the position. There are only 16 games, so if one of these decisions supported by the algorithms doesn't pan out and the team loses, the coach may theoretically lose his job. For as many fans/reporters/etc. there are clamoring for teams to use data in their decision-making, there are just as many who would be the first to criticize a coach for not taking the old school, conservative approach.

 

I want to see a coach who isn't afraid to take chances supported by data, and then stand up in the postgame press conference and proudly state he isn't going to be swayed by short-term failure because he believes in the long-term viability of the data-driven process. Of course, you need an owner and GM who fully support this as well.

[CommonCents]

 

I think the main area in which we disagree is the extent to which today's head coaches are really utilizing analytics on game day. I believe most still coach by their gut during the course of the game because of the intense scrutiny of the position. There are only 16 games, so if one of these decisions supported by the algorithms doesn't pan out and the team loses, the coach may theoretically lose his job. For as many fans/reporters/etc. there are clamoring for teams to use data in their decision-making, there are just as many who would be the first to criticize a coach for not taking the old school, conservative approach.

 

I want to see a coach who isn't afraid to take chances supported by data, and then stand up in the postgame press conference and proudly state he isn't going to be swayed by short-term failure because he believes in the long-term viability of the data-driven process. Of course, you need an owner and GM who fully support this as well.

So you would support having a robotic approach to decision making using statistical probabilities? I wouldn't. Numbers don't tell the entire story. I'd take a coach with a feel for the game over one who is just looking at a spreadsheet.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

People are getting hung up too much on words.

 

Using math, namely statistics, and figuring out better ways to capture reality in the form of data, so it can be analyzed and drive conclusions as well as better decisions is what they are talking about doing.

 

And the practice is working it's way into every facet of our lives.

 

It's not some nebulous religion or a choice such as whether you want to be an iPhone or an android- It's simply our new reality.

 

"Using analytics more" simply means there will be more data based decision making.

 

There are certainly individuals who have brains that work a very similar way, speak with data and can collect and correlate massive amounts of data to make analytical decisions. Belichick may be a poster boy for this pattern.

 

One could argue that analytical people have used analytics their whole life in all they do. Computers simply make it accessible to everyone and can process a whole lot more information faster.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Over 28 years of fanhood

[eball]

So you would support having a robotic approach to decision making using statistical probabilities? I wouldn't. Numbers don't tell the entire story. I'd take a coach with a feel for the game over one who is just looking at a spreadsheet.

 

You're oversimplifying it. The best coaches do both, but they don't let emotion interfere with a decision that is strongly supported by the data.

[GunnerBill]

 

I think the main area in which we disagree is the extent to which today's head coaches are really utilizing analytics on game day. I believe most still coach by their gut during the course of the game because of the intense scrutiny of the position. There are only 16 games, so if one of these decisions supported by the algorithms doesn't pan out and the team loses, the coach may theoretically lose his job. For as many fans/reporters/etc. there are clamoring for teams to use data in their decision-making, there are just as many who would be the first to criticize a coach for not taking the old school, conservative approach.

 

Maybe. But teams are doing the scenario planning with their analytics guys now... so Head Coaches are not blind to the data on gamedays. Do some still just revert to gut and conventional wisdom in the heat of battle? Sure. But I think some coaches are making smarter decisions on things like 4th downs, 2 pointers, FGs and challenges now and I think the fact that most teams have guys actually doing analytics and not looking at over generalised surface level numbers helps.

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

It sounds like everyone in this thread is saying the same thing, differently. There's much more to analytics than just "situational football" data. The Bills started tracking players in camp a few years ago to see how much running they had done over a period of time, and would make decisions on rest based off of the data. Things like that would fall in the analytics category, I believe. I have no idea if they still do that, but if hey are adding to the department, I assume they will focus on things like that,as well as in game data.

 

As far as in game stuff goes, I think it make a lot of sense to utilize analytics, or any advantageous method that you can. But I think most people realize that it's definitely not so "cut and dry", and I don't think an NFL head coach will get to that level by simply using analytics to get ahead. As someone else said, sometimes you go off of gut feeling when you're offensive line is dominating a game and go for that 4th and short. Analytics takes a back seat to logic, and NFL coaches feel out a game, in several aspects. When your top wide out is playing on another level than the opponent all game, logic tells you to incorporate him into the game plan more as the game progresses (we all saw what happened when the Bills stopped targeting Sammy against KC a couple years ago, and how that turned out :/ ). Or if the opponent is showing weakness in certain areas as the game progresses, logic tells you to focus your attack on those areas more so than maybe the game plan had suggested going into the game. There's no spreadsheet for those kinds of things.

 

But it wouldn't hurt to have some data at hand to at least help you make a more educated decision in certain areas. I spoke with a college coach (Pioneer League) a couple of years ago about different things, and analytics was one of them. He started off by saying that a coach has about 5 seconds from the time the whistle blows to make a play call decision for the next play (in most scenarios). In a game where communication and organization play such an important role (and again, we all saw the negative side of that with the previous regime, although I don't think that was analytics driven as much as Rex being a bafoon and over thinking things), he didn't sound too fond of making decisions based more off of analytics, as opposed to gut feeling. His position was that successful coaches get to the level they are by making calculated decisions based on the way a game is "playing out", while also making calculated decisions based on the variables in play in a given situation. He told me that, aside from the "element of surprise" moments, a good coach knows when to take risks and when not to, and that too often coaches tend to overthink things when they feel like they need to win a "chess match", if that makes sense. They either gamble too much at the wrong moment, or are too conservative in the wrong moment, and that making a mistake in those moments often is the difference in a tight game. I never really got a defined answer from him, as it was a short snippet of our conversation and I wasn't too concerned about it at the time), but what I think he was telling me is that analytics can be helpful in some cases, but they cannot replace experience, and that a good coach makes decisions based off of "what he knows". A seasoned coach will have been through many of those crucial moments in games where you have to make a tough decision, and will remember the outcomes of those decisions and incorporate that into future decisions.

You're oversimplifying it. The best coaches do both, but they don't let emotion interfere with a decision that is strongly supported by the data.

Yeah, it's a fine mixture. Good coaches know how to balance.

 

Billichik was mentioned earlier. One thing that I think coaches like him and Carroll do is "feel out" the officiating crew. This may be a bit different of an example, as opposed to situational football stuff, but they tend to push the limits of the crew earlier in games to see what knd if game they'll be calling. Once they get an idea of what is being tolerated, they adjust their aggression is some aspects in order to ride the thin line of what's a penalty and what's not on that day. That's good observation on their part, but I also assume that part of it is analytic driven. The coaches and analytics department can see how frequently an officiating crew throws flags on average, as well as games where they've officiated your team specifically in the past, and use that as a guideline going into each particular game.

 

"Analytics" is much more than meets the eye, than what the typical detractors seem to realize. It's certainly not as definitive as it is in baseball or hockey, but useful nonetheless.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[GunnerBill]

It sounds like everyone in this thread is saying the same thing, differently.

 

Yea I think when we have got into it there is not much disagreement. Analytics can work in football and teams still need to get better at using it... but it is often much more complex than in some other sports because of the variables at play.

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

Yea I think when we have got into it there is not much disagreement. Analytics can work in football and teams still need to get better at using it... but it is often much more complex than in some other sports because of the variables at play.

 

Exactly. Now, it's just a matter of who they plan to hire, what exactly the focus will be, and will we see or notice an difference in strategy as a result.

[billykaykay]

 

 

IMHO most of them don't do it because if they go for it and don't make it there'll be a massive firestorm aimed at the head coach, whereas if he goes conservative, no firestorm because he's doing what the conventional wisdom has long championed. So even if the analytics, both general and situation-specific say go for it, most teams still won't.

This. I remember a game back when Wade was coaching against the NYG. The Giants were abusing our D all game but nevertheless we were winning & with the ball with about a minute to go. At midfield on a 4th & 1, he, rightfully in my opinion, went for it knowing in his gut that if he punted, the Giants would just do as they had done all game & win it at the end. The play failed & the Giants , using the short field, scored the winning FG.

The press and many fans not only derided Wade the next day but for weeks after. I think that analytics would probably have confirmed Wade's " gut " decision that was based on how this particular game was going.

[Steve Billieve]

Seems like everyone is focused on game time decisions with regards to analytics, but this is almost certainly its least useful function at least for now. Obviously the more complex the system (22 guys on the field) the less useful measurable numbers will be, but there are lots of things that are much much simpler. If you look at things like cap management or position depth your dealing with areas that have always required some semblance of analytics, and don't have too many variables or nuances to consider. I think the next big step for analytics in the NFL will come from its use in college scouting.

[Steve Billieve]

You don't need an analytics department to tell you numbers suggest coaches should go for it more on 4th down. Coaches already know that and analysts are looking for things that aren't known. No ones hiring anyone to sit down and crunch 4th down numbers we've already crunched em. All this means is there will now be a guy in the room whose job it is to look at different numbers and have a numbers perspective.

[Saxum]

 

Bashes analytics and then points to the exact type of thing that typical coaches do not do, but analytics supports. Funny.

 

Maybe he hates analytics but loves anal-ytics?

That has nothing to do with analytics. I wouldn't look at some numbers. You go for it because you believe in your offense.

 

Coaches are too conservative and unwilling to go out on a limb. That has nothing to do with analytics.

 

Guaranteed 5 year contracts may make them more aggressive early years.

 

I don't know if it's the most overrated thing ever. Maybe you should ask Ernie Adams?

 

Analysts do not always need to cheat to get job done but it helps to fudge numbers....

[NoSaint]

Honest question: have you ever played or coached, especially past high school? Again, I said it has a role but not nearly as big as some what to make it to be.

 

Belichick uses his gut from 30 years of coaching more than numbers, imo. He is willing to take more chances than most head coaches.

 

Chip Kelly loved analytics. But he loved them so much he ignored things like varying the pace so your defense doesn't completely wear out.

To the BB comment -- you can't separate his "gut" from his meticulous study of situations. He's making better choices because he's better prepared.

 

To the Kelly one- that would be garbage use of stats if you ignore things like wear and tear due to pace in your analysis. There are BAD analytics too.

[Thurman#1]

 

Yea of course to some extent that is true. It just grates on me when I see twitter reactions to coaches who the analytics would support getting hammered for ignoring analytics. Particular bug bear of mine I suppose so I tend to notice those situations more, they stand out to me.

 

 

I see what you mean.

 

What bothers me most is the ultra-conservative moves that analytics wouldn't support. Marrone used to consistently punt on 4th and short from juuuuuuuuuuust barely outside field goal range. Even late in games when we were down. Used to drive me nuts.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

This. I remember a game back when Wade was coaching against the NYG. The Giants were abusing our D all game but nevertheless we were winning & with the ball with about a minute to go. At midfield on a 4th & 1, he, rightfully in my opinion, went for it knowing in his gut that if he punted, the Giants would just do as they had done all game & win it at the end. The play failed & the Giants , using the short field, scored the winning FG.

The press and many fans not only derided Wade the next day but for weeks after. I think that analytics would probably have confirmed Wade's " gut " decision that was based on how this particular game was going.

 

 

I remember that play too, BKK.

 

I liked that decision but most fans didn't.

You don't need an analytics department to tell you numbers suggest coaches should go for it more on 4th down. Coaches already know that and analysts are looking for things that aren't known. No ones hiring anyone to sit down and crunch 4th down numbers we've already crunched em. All this means is there will now be a guy in the room whose job it is to look at different numbers and have a numbers perspective.

 

 

Yeah, they already know that. But the reason they know that is that the analytics said so. They said so probably ten years ago, but it was still analytics. So yeah, those particular numbers are too simple now, but there are tons of variations and the numbers are still being crunched, every week, in a ton of different ways, from which players with which body compositions need what in their smoothies to when should players be taken out in uncompetitive games to when you should go for two knowing your own kickers extra point kick percentages might have a slightly different answer than a guy with a significantly higher or lower percentage.

 

There are a a million questions and a million variables and they haven't even scraped the surface yet. But they will.

So you would support having a robotic approach to decision making using statistical probabilities? I wouldn't. Numbers don't tell the entire story. I'd take a coach with a feel for the game over one who is just looking at a spreadsheet.

 

 

Come on, man, nobody's saying to completely eliminate the gut. Analytics just feed into your decision with good, relevant information. They don't 100% make it for you. Nobody is saying that.

[C.Biscuit97]

To the BB comment -- you can't separate his "gut" from his meticulous study of situations. He's making better choices because he's better prepared.

 

To the Kelly one- that would be garbage use of stats if you ignore things like wear and tear due to pace in your analysis. There are BAD analytics too.

And it's a million times easier to make decisions when you have the best qb ever.

 

Analytics has a role in the NFL but it's not making or breaking teams. Talent and coaching will always make the biggest difference.

[Thurman#1]

And it's a million times easier to make decisions when you have the best qb ever.

 

Analytics has a role in the NFL but it's not making or breaking teams. Talent and coaching will always make the biggest difference.

 

 

Coaching and analytics isn't separate. The best coaches use analytics, formally and informally, on a constant basis.

 

And yeah, talent is huge. But analytics can also make a difference in getting bigger talent. For example, the Pats have been consciously attempting for years to gather as many draft picks as possible. They then sometimes trade them and sometimes use them, but they gather as many as they can. One example is how they've been consciously using the rules to get extra comp picks since well before the Belichick era. And it was a comp pick that was used to pick Brady.

 

So yeah, having Brady helps. But getting Brady came about partly as a result of using analytics in smart ways.