The peril of ignoring analytics

[dave mcbride]

16 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said:

Went conservative because O was terrible? O marched ball down the field for 3 points on first possession- McD played his soft soft conservative zone from the very first play KC had the ball. What game were u watching? 

The Bills first drive ended in a long fg and the drive should have ended in an easy interception. They also had to convert a 4th down along the way. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by dave mcbride

[Malazan]

16 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said:

You have to love how concerned some folks are about policing the website to insure there is nothing posted that remotely touches on previous discussions. God forbid anything like the biggest Bills game in decades is continually discussed

 

We just don't appreciate that your need for attention leads you to post a thread about something already being discussed. Post your thoughts there. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

" the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works"

 

Super Bowl 25.

 

End of thread

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said:

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conservative form. I am not talking about the field goal decisions, although they were terrible and unsupported by analytics as well. What I am referring to here is the overall strategy he employed in this game.

 

Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy. Far more troubling is McD playing softest zone, force them to take lots of plays and lots of time to score. Of course, this strategy also keeps your offense on the sideline for a long time. It’s a strategy designed to shorten the game. It’s a strategy that prevents your O from producing a lot of points. 

 

Herein is the monumental failure. Mahomes has lost only 9 games in his career. The average score of the 9 teams that beat him was 36 points. The only way any team has beat him was to outscore him. McD employed the complete opposite of the only strategy that has ever been consistently successful v KC. Look, we would have probably lost anyway, but we did not go down swinging, because our head coach went with his gut, instead of the hard evidence that analytics provides. 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that "Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy."

 

Fine, where is the evidence that it never works. There is none, of course, since the word "never" makes your contention there obviously wrong. But let's pretend you'd said it in a reasonable manner, something like, "There is no evidence that teams that use the strategy of controlling the clock win at a higher rate." 

 

Where's the evidence for that? 'Cause I've search for about an hour now and I don't find anything. But hey, it's only an hour, I could definitely have missed something. You're totally sure of this, so you must have something.

 

Teach me, I'm willing to learn. Where do the analytics say this?

[Billl]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

The Bills first drive ended in a long fg and the drive should have ended in an easy interception. They also had to convert a 4th down along the way. 

Exactly.  It was a 10 play, 42 yard drive that needed a dropped INT and a 4th down conversion in order to kick he longest FG in Arrowhead postseason history.  Buffalo had to earn every yard on that drive.  Converting a 4th and 3 was hardly a given, and even if they did, there’s no guarantee the drive would have ended in anything better than a FG attempt.  Spagnuolo did a great job of tightening up in the red zone.

 

Its easy to say that McDermott should have done things differently given that we know the outcome of the game, but it seems wholly unlikely that going for it there or at the end of the half would have changed the outcome of the game.  Absolute best case scenario is that both drives end in TDs, and the Bills score 8 more points.  That changes nothing.  Worst case is Kansas City has a short field after the first drive, scores a TD rather than dropping that pass, and goes into halftime up 28-0 and receiving the second half kickoff.

 

The Bills were able to capitalize on a couple of unforced errors to take a 9 point lead before the Chiefs hit their stride.  Once that shifted, there wasn’t much that was going to change things.  Hell, the Texans were up 24-0 last year after a similar start before Kansas City scored TDs on 7 straight possessions, and their fans spent all offseason playing the what if game regarding coaching decisions.  Bill O’Brien is an idiot, but there was no button he was going to push that was going to stop that buzzsaw just like McDermott wasn’t going to use analytics to change the outcome of last week’s game.

 

Andy Reid has been building his team for 8 seasons now.  He’s got a QB playing as well as anyone in history, and that QB is surrounded by elite weapons.  What’s more is he’s got the best defense he’s had since he arrived in Kansas City coached by a guy who has won multiple championships as DC.  McDermott’s had 3 years.  He’s added his version of Mahomes and Hill, but he’s still missing a Kelce and a Chris Jones.  You don’t overcome that by coaching circles around your opponent, especially when the guy standing 55 1/2 yards away is Andy Reid.  The Bills still have some roster improvements to make before it’s a fair fight.

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

 

18 hours ago, WIDE LEFT said:

But history has proven you can’t make a great O like KC “inefficient”. When the only teams that have ever beaten Mahomes have averaged 36 points, it might be obvious to even somebody like u that u don’t beat this team in 13-10 games. Not happening- never has - pretty obvious to all but the oblivious

 

 

Hogwash. You say you "can't make a great O like KC "inefficient." That's pure nonsense. 

 

Was KC's great O efficient when they scored 23 against the Chargers this year? Or the 2nd time they played the Chargers when they only scored 21? Or 22 against the Broncos? Or 17 against the Falcons? In what Bizarro world is scoring 17 against Atlanta, who allowed an average of 25.9 PPG this year "efficient"? It's not. Or the 22 they scored against the Browns?

 

Or last year when they scored 13, 24, 24, 24, 23 and 23 points in games against, respectively, Indy, Houston, Green Bay, the Chargers, the Pats and the Broncos. Unsurprisingly, they lost 3 of those 6 games. Hold KC to lower points and you can beat them. And it's certainly not impossible to hold them to lower points.

 

More nonsense. You say "u don't beat this team in 13-10 games." Bullcrap. Indy beat them 19-13 last year. With Mahomes under center. Now, obviously, they couldn't have done that by limiting them to few effective drives, since you've said that's impossible. Wooooopsy! That's exactly what they did, holding the Chiefs to 9 effective drives, really ten but the tenth started 0:04 seconds before halftime deep in Indy territory and was a one kneel-down drive. Indy won that game doing precisely what you say can't work.

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, none of this is analytics, anymore than anything whatsoever you have said has. It's just sensible argument. 

 

So, again, where are the analytics that make all these great claims?

Edited February 1, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Billl]

13 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Hogwash. You say you "can't make a great O like KC "inefficient." That's pure nonsense. 

 

Was KC's great O efficient when they scored 23 against the Chargers this year? Or the 2nd time they played the Chargers when they only scored 21? Or 22 against the Broncos? Or 17 against the Falcons? In what Bizarro world is scoring 17 against Atlanta, who allowed an average of 25.9 PPG this year "efficient"? It's not. Or the 22 they scored against the Browns?

 

Or last year when they scored 13, 24, 24, 24, 23 and 23 points in games against, respectively, Indy, Houston, Green Bay, the Chargers, the Pats and the Broncos. Unsurprisingly, they lost 3 of those 6 games. Hold KC to lower points and you can beat them. And it's certainly not impossible to hold them to lower points.

 

More nonsense. You say "u don't beat this team in 13-10 games." Bullcrap. Indy beat them 19-13 last year. With Mahomes under center. Now, obviously, they couldn't have done that by limiting them to few effective drives, since you've said that's impossible. Wooooopsy! That's exactly what they did, holding the Chiefs to 9 effective drives, really ten but the tenth started 0:04 seconds before halftime deep in Indy territory and was a one kneel-down drive. Indy won that game doing precisely what you say can't work.

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, none of this is analytics, anymore than anything whatsoever you have said has. It's just sensible argument. 

 

So, again, where are the analytics that make all these great claims?

Lotta good points here.  If the Bills could have had Kansas City rest their starters in the AFCCG like they did in week 17 against the Chargers, that would have helped a lot.  If they could have convinced Reid not to play Mahomes and Hill and Fisher like those games last year, that would have been a master stroke.  How would you suggest McDermott go about that (speaking from an analytics standpoint, of course)?

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, RyanC883 said:

 

if MCD didn’t think the offense can convert the TD’s against the worst red zone defense he needs a new OC, and if he also thinks his soft zone D will stop KC’s offense at that point in the game he’s simply hoping.  

 

The Chiefs D has clearly been one of the best red zone D's in the playoffs. Do I wish the Bills would have scored a TD at the end of the half? Of freaking course. But I don't see McD taking 3 as a sign of him playing scared. I see that as McD reading the tempature of the game and seeing a shaky performance from the O against an aggressive D.

 

Going in down 9 at the half wasn't the nail in the coffin. The INT down 16 pretty much was though. We make it an 8 point game at the start of the 4th if we score there. But we'd have to get the 2 point conversion. And the 2 failed 2 point trys on 2 attempts are also pretty good evidence that McD wasn't wrong taking the fg's. 

 

I think McD goes for it on 4th right before the half and in the 3rd if he had more confidence in the O... If it were my choice, I would have run Yeldon on 3rd and 4th down in both of those goal to goal situations. But I don't blame him for taking 3. The worst possible outcome in that situation was getting stuffed on 4th down to end the half. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Motorin'

[blacklabel]

Despite the fact that we've seen the defense really shut down some opponents over the last few years, McDermott's scheme is designed to allow yards and move the sticks at times. They usually clamp down in the red zone and force a team to kick field goals. That may have been the strategy against KC. They may have thought, "They're going to get yards anyway so let's try and contain and then lock down as we get backed towards the red zone. Hold them to field goals or make them miss on 4th down and get the ball back." Sounds nice in theory but honestly KC can score on any given play. Because they're big stupid buttholes and I hate their stupid faces and their stupid Kermit the frog quarterback. I want both teams to lose the Super Bowl this year. 

[Richard Noggin]

There is no "analytics" in the OP. 

[Billl]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

The Chiefs D has clearly been one of the best red zone D's in the playoffs. Do I wish the Bills would have scored a TD at the end of the half? Of freaking course. But I don't see McD taking 3 as a sign of him playing scared. I see that as McD reading the tempature of the game and seeing a shaky performance from the O against an aggressive D.

 

Going in down 9 at the half wasn't the nail in the coffin. The INT down 16 pretty much was though. We make it an 8 point game at the start of the 4th if we score there. But we'd have to get the 2 point conversion. And the 2 failed 2 point trys on 2 attempts are also pretty good evidence that McD wasn't wrong taking the fg's. 

 

I think McD goes for it on 4th right before the half and in the 3rd if he had more confidence in the O... If it were my choice, I would have run Yeldon on 3rd and 4th down in both of those goal to goal situations. But I don't blame him for taking 3. The worst possible outcome in that situation was getting stuffed on 4th down to end the half. 

Also, the Chiefs were getting the second half kickoff.  With the FG, worst case scenario is that Buffalo is down 16 points the next time they touch the ball.  That’s not great, but it’s still within two scores.  If the Bills get stuffed and the Chiefs get a TD to start the second half, it’s a 19 point game before you see the ball again.  The game would effectively be over before the first Bills possession of the half.  I don’t know that there’s a right or wrong answer in that situation, but if the conversion attempts are any indication the FG was probably the right call.

[KollegeStudnet]

Every year we have advanced. So, trust the process 

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

The Bills defense couldn’t stop anything in that first half.... playing for the FG down 21-9 on 4th and 3 from KCs 6 was the nail in the coffin.

 

The Bills weren’t holding the Chiefs to ineffective drives. They were scoring at will. Pitch and catch down the field. 

 

 

So your point is that our offense was spectacular? That we could have outscored them if only we hadn't run so much?

 

Could you real quick point out where I said that our defense performed well against KC? No? Well, if you're not going to say anything related to what I said, that's fine, but don't reply to me.

 

You don't reply to a guy and then pretend he said something he didn't.

 

We didn't have a "nail in the coffin." They were simply better than us in every phase of the game except STs.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, Billl said:

Lotta good points here.  If the Bills could have had Kansas City rest their starters in the AFCCG like they did in week 17 against the Chargers, that would have helped a lot.  If they could have convinced Reid not to play Mahomes and Hill and Fisher like those games last year, that would have been a master stroke.  How would you suggest McDermott go about that (speaking from an analytics standpoint, of course)?

 

 

Do you ever read posts you reply to? Overall, I'd suggest it, and it's obvious you didn't here.

 

For the third time, I said that I did NOT use any analytics, nor did the OP, or you.

 

And you have an excellent point about the Chargers game in Week 17 ... but um, how about the other six games I mentioned?  Nothing whatsoever? Zippety? You know, the six games where Mahomes did play where the Chiefs were also held to 24 points or less? In these last two years?

 

Anything to say about them? Zilch? Zippo? Diddly? Even the slightest crumb?

 

Even a flyspeck about the fact that in their six losses the past two years, in four of them they scored 13, 24, 24 and 21? Yeah, that last one Mahomes didn't play, but did he in the other three? Because if he did, that means that of their six losses, in four they were held to 24 and below and in both of the other two they were held to an unspectacular - for them - 32?

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Even if you throw out the non-Mahomes game, the majority of their losses came by holding them to 24 or less.

[HardyBoy]

23 hours ago, NewEra said:

Oh yeah, my bad.  I suppose you were looking for one of those threads about analytics that contains zero analytics.  You hit the mother load here!!  Enjoy!

 

Haha, that's true, the contents left a bit to be desired for sure.

 

I know it's a balancing act, and it's not me wanting quick twitter like threads. I like long form articles and will read through pages of a thread to get caught up, it's just that a really long general thread isn't something I'm going to click on and do that with...also my threshold seems to be about four pages to get into a thread, unless it's a thread where it's more of an informational thread and I can jump to the end to get caught up on latest news.

 

Again, I get it's a balancing act and I think we largely do a really nice job of it here. I get the other side of it, where people are having a discussion and don't want everyone going to 10 different places to have that discussion and suddenly nobody is in the main thread anymore.

[Billl]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Do you ever read posts you reply to? Overall, I'd suggest it, and it's obvious you didn't here.

 

For the third time, I said that I did NOT use any analytics, nor did the OP, or you.

 

And you have an excellent point about the Chargers game in Week 17 ... but um, how about the other six games I mentioned?  Nothing whatsoever? Zippety? You know, the six games where Mahomes did play where the Chiefs were also held to 24 points or less? In these last two years?

 

Anything to say about them? Zilch? Zippo? Diddly? Even the slightest crumb?

 

Even a flyspeck about the fact that in their six losses the past two years, in four of them they scored 13, 24, 24 and 21? Yeah, that last one Mahomes didn't play, but did he in the other three? Because if he did, that means that of their six losses, in four they were held to 24 and below and in both of the other two they were held to an unspectacular - for them - 32?

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Even if you throw out the non-Mahomes game, the majority of their losses came by holding them to 24 or less.

Wow.  Would have thought that the fact you got caught using a game where KC rested its starters would’ve humbled you a touch, but you decided to double down instead.  
 

I literally referenced having both starting WRs and the LT out like they did in the Colts game.  Did that stop you?  Nope.  You went on some childish rant about how I didn’t read nor address your points.  (Spoiler alert...I did).  You continue to reference games where major pieces of the team were out with injuries as blueprints to follow as if opposing coaches can somehow devise a strategy around praying for injuries.

 

The 4 games you referenced:

Colts:  Both starting WRs and LT were out.  13 points

Texans:  One starting WR and LT were out.  Still scored 24

Packers:  Starting LT and STARTING QB were out.  Still scored 24

Chargers:  Literally played backups the entire game.  Still scored 21

 

So you’re basically talking about 2 games in the past 3 seasons that Mahomes played and Kansas City still scored 24 points in one of them without their LT and both starting WRs.  Fabulous insight, thanks.