Analytics | Page 3 | Barking Hard

Analytics

I'm not worried as much about the salary cap "Moneyball" crossover as there is a mountain of difference between the economics of franchises in MLB and the NFL. Plus, I'm pretty confident the cap analysts that teams have been using in the NFL these past 20 years are pretty damn used to being "analytics" driven.

Doesn't mean we won't be an outlier with the money we have invested in 2 receivers. I fully expect some decisions will have to be made there longer "ish" term.
 
PlaygroundLegend said:
My biggest fear on the analytics push is that.. from what Ive read.. analytics doesnt like things such as having BOTH a Landry and A Beckham Jr. On the team together. Salary cap wise.

I want both damnit.
Click to expand...

that is a comment taken from the 'baseball' context.

The thing that is most misunderstood is that 'moneyball' was done in the context of inequality of resources in baseball, where there are financial haves (Yankess, RedSox, etc) and the have nots (Oakland, Minnesota, etc). In order to compete, the have nots used analytics in a way to optimize the amount of talent within a limited budget. they couldn't 'afford' to have 2 guys in the same role with max contracts.

In the NFL, it is totally different. Everyone has the exact same budget. You can afford multiple max contracts, and you base who gets them on talent level and ability to improve the team. In the case of Landry/OBJ, it is proven that what 2 top end WR's are on the field, you typically increase your odds of scoring and scoring fast (as long as the QB is good). So no, analytics would NOT be against having them both.

More importantly though, as I said in another thread, is the fact that analytics can be and is used for so much more.

There isn't a guy on this board (or anywhere for that matter) that doesn't look at the 'measurables' at the combine. Hell, that is the entire purpose of the combine. Many on this board put a lot of stock in those, others not as much (I am of the latter). Manufactured data often fails to line up with on-the-field performance. BUT...data has been collected for over 10 years now via GPS chips in the helmets/shoulder pads/football that allow a good analyst to not only show 'playing speed' (40 yd dash) of a player, but also 'live cutting' (3 cone), response rate, angles taken, etc...way too many data points for a 'person' to place into a comprehensive picture of the player. Combine all that, and it is possible to see why a guy that runs a 4.6 seems to get to the ball carrier faster and closer to the LOS than a guy running a 4.3. Combine those findings with the 'technique' and 'intangibles' gained from professional scouting, and your ability to hit on good players increases...hence the 'late round' success of teams like NE where Belichick has used it for decades.

As for plays...think of this:
You are the coach, and you know that you ran an RPO to the left when in 11's 20 times this year and are successful. Your analytics team tells you 70% of the time. Awesome...lets call that play, it will work. The team you play this week plays wide 9's on D. Against wide 9's you have run the play 6 times...with a success rate of only 50%...and never for more than 5 yards. Add in the analytics team is able to tell you that this particular team has faced RPO Left in 11's 30 times...with a successful defense (less than 2 yds) in 90% of the plays.

Coach goes from what he KNOWS (successful when running RPO Lt in 11's) to what is reality...they are going to get blown up if they run that play this week...thanks to analytics. That is a SUPER BASIC scenario....they get way deeper, like which players are on the field, down and distance, location on the field, grass vs turf...all that and more are put into the analytics to give the coach THE BEST INFORMATION. He can still run the play...but he does it realizing he has about a 10% chance of success.
 
Everybody has the same cap and everybody uses it. How you use it is the key... and people say a lot of shit over and over until it becomes truth-ey.

Analytics is a fancy way to say "facts." Scientific truths, as specific and immediate as you wanna get. is it better to run or pass on first down in this specific situation against this specific defense? Should I sign an expensive guard like Thune? An expensive LB like Littleton? Should I dump out on Vernon and replace him with a cheaper, younger edge?

I heard SVP say an edge is "the second most important player on an NFL team." But is that true? It sounds good but is it real? Do teams that apply the most pressure and get the most sacks win the most? Does it really correlate?

I don't know. Could be there's absolutely zero correlation. It's worth knowing rather than just assuming.

It's getting more and more obvious: The best teams have the best QBs, sure. But the best teams are also the smartest teams. I wanna be a smart team.
 
DawgFan said:
Look at the team that year...it was in tear down mode, and we did. Tore it all the way down. We are NOT in that mode any longer, so it won't happen.

but, let's ignore that basic premise because it doesn't support the value of analytics...which has a shit ton more application than just budget.
Click to expand...

I know you and several others are huge fans and are incredibly biased on the subject of analytics and some may even hang their hats on it. However if you aren't taking into consideration the human element in your analytics, you would be just as guilty and incompetent as Depodesta and the Haslams if you are discounting the human element while relying solely on analytics. Of course I know you take the human element into consideration so this is not directed negatively toward you persay, but there are many who don't, and will fail because of it. In this instance we are talking about Depodesta and Haslam. In fact, using analytics, I would venture to say that analytics say Haslam and Depodesta will fail based on their collective past performances......
 
I almost responded...and then saw your last half of your comment. Let me just say, any professional analytics person KNOWS that human element is part of the equation, and relies heavily on that to provide a BASIS for the analytics.

It is not the job of the data to IDENTIFY the player, but help to differentiate. Not the job to write the gameplan, but to inform the writer. Not the job to outline the practice, but to optimize it.

Analytics is always used as an ADD ON to what people are already doing. Providing a depth of information that cannot be attained merely with the naked eye.

DePo, a master of analytics, is fully aware. I think we are confusing a full tear down with analytics...the only part of that time analytics would have played was the value of the draft picks.
 
This whole process has been really fascinating, reveals a ton about NFL media and fandom both nationally and locally. Nationally, you can watch Allbright and Mina Kimes and Breer and others jumping up and down (in the good way) about Stefanski. Same for "new media" types like Sobleski, Burns, and others.

It's not ALL age and education, some people are what they are from the beginning, in either direction. But it mostly lays out like you'd expect, younger and more educated meaning more open to new ideas. Older and less educated, you see some wild takes on what "analytics" might mean, like just short of "death panels."

Analytics are interesting in football as is, the league that dragged way behind on marijuana, among many other things. But it's very clear that the best teams take it the most seriously, want the most information, as Stefanski put it. Don't live in their fear.

But the Browns are becoming a test case for open integration of analytic methods, baseball's "collaborative organization." Frankly, I'd rather be the front-edge team rather than a Gettlemen.
 
I'm pretty sure Paul Brown used, perhaps his own, "analytics" in designing the modern forward pass. No one called it that back then, but he was using logic and numbers to bolster his intuition.

Its not like God came to him in a dream and said, "Paul, you must cease with this endless handing of the football from player to player. I gave birds wings for a reason. Look to the air!".
 
Shep said:
Smart people have been basing decisions on the best analysis of the best intel for a very long time now. Totally agree, DF.
Click to expand...

I saw a tweet that was something along the lines of, "Don't mistake dislike of DePodesta for dislike of analytics."

Literally nobody is asking the Browns to remove analytics from the organization. You're just arguing with yourself.

We repeatedly hear about how analytics is a helpful tool to make an informed decision, yet the actions of the organization currently suggest that analytics is moving from being A tool to being THE tool.

People love to point out that analytics is important to New England but where does it fit if you pulled a power ranking of their organization? Below the GM. Below the head coach. Because it is a tool at their disposal.

If you did a power ranking of our organization? It's DePodesta sitting at the top. Far more sway than Stefanski. Far more sway than the GM (When DePodesta picks whoever he chooses thumbup ) and directly in the owner's ear.

I mean, we just fronted him for a press conference along side Haslam and Stefanski. For twenty minutes. Had no issue taking a cheap shot at the fans in laughing at them and saying they've got a warped view of what analytics is. He then openly stated that it's helpful in determing "Who we're going to draft or what we're going to call on 3rd & 8."

Big fucking emphasis on that line considering they had literally just denied that the analytics team would not be involved with weekly game planning.

Across the entire spectrum of questioning from coaching decisions, to football decisions, to scouting. At no stage was something not his area or specialty. When directly asked what his role was, he deflected. Said it was about having a shared vision and sticking to it. That's not a position description. And I think that's specifically because public pressure to fire him would be insurmountable if we ever found out just how involved in everything he is.

"As a group I make sure we're aligned and on the same page."

Great fucking job he's doing. Dude has overseen more infighting than the WWE.

"My charge is not to watch tape and say, 'Oh, man, this guy's got great feet.' We've got scouts who are way better and way more qualified than I am to do that. But when we come down to make a selection, it is my role to say, 'Okay, are we making a decision here that actually aligns with our way and does it make sense?'"

Sounds pretty fucking suspiciously like he's got a huge say in determination of who aligns and who doesn't. Sounds like a fucking cult. I believe Stephen King has comprehensively covered the special individuals who align. That bald dude told Danny that his grandmother called it aligning.

But he acknowledged he's involved in game-planning. In scouting. In the draft. In free agency. In hiring. In everything.

Stop trying to pretend that people just hate analytics. Or, like Paul attempted, that people just don't understand it. Analytics isn't the issue. He is.
 
brownsdownunder said:
Great fucking job he's doing. Dude has overseen more infighting than the WWE.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you are assuming a lot. I don't know how much influence DePodesta actually has in the organization. But I certainly don't think he should be held responsible for the power grabs by Brown and Dorsey. As for him running the interviews, who else do you think should have done it? After the departures of Dorsey and Kitchens, somebody has to do it. So why not use a data guy in a data role.

Neither you nor I know what his recommendations to Brown and Dorsey were. All we really know is the decisions that they made (influenced or not) and also that they both made power grabs and are no longer around.

The funny thing is that it appears that Haslam tends to get rid of people who make power grabs and, for some strange reason, this guy that you insist is a power grabber is still around.
 
Contrary to popular belief...his job is not analytics. He was a GM for the Dodgers (yeah, I know, baseball). GM is GM. He has the knowledge of how to run a team, hire personnel, and have a team vision.
 
Brownsfan said:
It seems to me that you are assuming a lot. I don't know how much influence DePodesta actually has in the organization. But I certainly don't think he should be held responsible for the power grabs by Brown and Dorsey. As for him running the interviews, who else do you think should have done it? After the departures of Dorsey and Kitchens, somebody has to do it. So why not use a data guy in a data role.

Neither you nor I know what his recommendations to Brown and Dorsey were. All we really know is the decisions that they made (influenced or not) and also that they both made power grabs and are no longer around.

The funny thing is that it appears that Haslam tends to get rid of people who make power grabs and, for some strange reason, this guy that you insist is a power grabber is still around.
Click to expand...

I would have used someone that wasnt involved last year at all.
 
PlaygroundLegend said:
I would have used someone that wasnt involved last year at all.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond last year. DePodesta's history with the Browns has been one of significant failure.

Instead, he launches an 'objective, thorough' search just that so happens to land the guy he wanted last time around. The same 'objective, thorough' search is about to bring in a GM who was in Cleveland and directly under DePodesta.

That's just coincidence. But hiring Kitchens? Obviously a power play. :eyeroll:
 
I want to go back to some of the bashing of analytics access to gaming.

Everyone here will agree that Hue Jackson is NOT an analytics guy...at least not someone who professes it openly...but here is an article from a few years ago with Hue talking analytics:

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2016/12/hue_jackson_sheds_light_on_how.html

"Analytics tells you that if you defer, you have a good chance to have one more possession than the other team does throughout the game," Jackson said.

The man Jackson leans on to aid in making these decisions is football research analyst David Giuliani.

"We give him projects. We give him projects, and we give him things to do," Jackson said. "There is a lot of different information that he brings me. Some of it is really important and some of it, with my football expertise, I go a different way, but again, it is there."

Jackson doesn't have this information from Giuliani at his fingertips during games, at least not literally. It's not on his playsheet. He is able to communicate with the analytics team during games, though, and Giuliani offers him analysis on decisions that were made in certain situations when he meets with Jackson, usually on Fridays. Jackson said that most of Giuliani's analysis is paired with game tape, something he appreciates.

"It is an analytics piece that deals with the National Football League and all the different scenarios that have happened throughout the league," Jackson said.

Jackson, who has been working in football at some level since the late '80s, also admitted that there are simply certain things that he won't budge on.

"You have to be open, but there are certain things that when you go through it, you are like 'No, that just does not fit,'" he said. "You may see it differently. Just because this says that does not mean that is right for you or right for your football team."

In the end, the goal is for Jackson and his staff to have as much information as possible when they make decisions in the throes of a game.

"The important thing is that he is bringing different thought processes to me that I have not thought of that way," Jackson said. "That helps. How can we gain an extra possession? How can we do this a little bit better? How can we do that better? I think that is truly what it is all about - how can you be at your best when you are playing a game, coaching a game or whatever it is."
Click to expand...

The line I emphasized....Holy F'n SHIT!!! Hue had an analytics guy WITH A HEADPHONE ON DURING THE GAMES. He also HAD A FRIDAY MEETING to go over strategies and watch tapes.

DAMN, I THOUGHT THIS SHIT NEVER HAPPENS IN THE NFL.
 
brownsdownunder said:
Half as much as you.

You can't tell me I'm making assumptions prior to continuing with your suggestion that Dorsey knowingly tried to make the team worse as a power play.

banghead
Click to expand...

I never said that Dorsey tried to make the team worse as a power play. I am sure he thought Kitchens would win. But he did want control (power). How can you doubt that when he refused to take a step back and relinquish some of his control (power) when Kitchens failed?
 
brownsdownunder said:
It goes beyond last year. DePodesta's history with the Browns has been one of significant failure.
Click to expand...
That's a tough assertion to support. In fairness, any assertions of failure toward anyone on Haslam's staff is hard to substantiate. We're all just theorizing here working from half-truths from the media and the end results.

What we do know is that Haslam has retained Depodesta and continues to see him as a valuable member of his leadership team. Two ways to see that:

One: Depodesta is part of the problem and his input/role led to many/all of the poor decisions over the past couple years.

Two: Depodesta has been supplying information and analysis to help inform the actual decision makers. Some of the information has been helpful, some not so much, some likely flawed, and some perhaps outright ignored.

Each seems viable as "Chief Strategy Officer" never rung as a title with a ton of tactical decision making power. Perhaps the strategic approach he's suggested hasn't been adhered to? Maybe he actually has some value in helping to establish the 20,000 foot view (the big plan), reporting on and evaluating execution against that plan, and providing analytical insights to the tactical decision makers (GM/HC). He described his role as much yesterday.
 
i think DePodesta gets a bad wrap. if anything would the browns be in a better place if they would have taken his recommendations for coach?

its been out there that hes liked mcdermott, matt nagy and stefanski. instead the browns got hue jackson and freddie kitchens. MDC and nagy have both made the playoffs so ..........
 
Back
Top Bottom