Browns hire Jonah Hill....err Paul DePodesta as CSO
-
The funny part is I've actually skimmed that paper before and it's really pretty interesting to someone like me. Of course it's a tool, but what you said was just wrong unless again I missed a joke or something.
Also, I'd again hope you consider that statistical models can take into accounts literally thousands of variables with the programs we have nowadays. Nothing will ever replace the human element, but a computer and very smart people can sure as shit predict it pretty closely a lot of times.
What's funny is your defending analytics until it goes against something you believe to be common sense. So analytics is good as long as it supports your view. For the record I think it's crazy to never punt as well. The whole point was show analytics is only a tool to help make decisions not the sole reference in making them. I'm fine with hiring analytics people I just don't want to build a team using it as my main decision maker "like Haslam might". I fear that he's trying again to prove he's smarter than everyone in the league. Which can only end badly.
What's funny is your defending analytics until it goes against something you believe to be common sense. So analytics is good as long as it supports your view. For the record I think it's crazy to never punt as well. The whole point was show analytics is only a tool to help make decisions not the sole reference in making them. I'm fine with hiring analytics people I just don't want to build a team using it as my main decision maker "like Haslam might". I fear that he's trying again to prove he's smarter than everyone in the league. Which can only end badly.
What? I really don't understand what you're saying. Look, I don't look at the models these guys do. but for example I'm quite certain if the game is tied 0-0 in the first quarter and your team is facing a 4th and 20 from your own 5, the model would spit out a 99.9999% opinion to punt the ball. That would qualify in stats as "common sense"
I work with stats every day albeit in a way, way different field. I am biased which I admit, but I see where stats can heavily inform opinions in a positive manner all the time. It's crazy and doesn't make sense even to me sometimes, but we admit students that on paper shouldn't be in the program but excel. Who knows what Haslam is really thinking hiring these guys but you should resign yourself to the idea that stats and analysis will play heavily into decisions. Of course stats can be wrong, but the Browns certainly haven't gotten much right up until today right? Of course this stuff can't be the only way to make decisions, but it can really inform decisions. It'll be very, very interesting to see how it plays out because if the Brownies finally get a break it could be the start of a new wave of thinking in the game.
-
I think use of analytic's as a tool for talent evaluation is valuable in many businesses including obviously baseball and football. I think it has to be tempered and "massaged" if you will by common sense and experience. In our business of late we have used analytic's heavily in assessing new commercial hires. Unfortunately we use it somewhat in a vacuum with the final checks and balances (interviews) done by inexperienced folks. The results so far have been less than stellar.
I am hoping we soon add some very experienced strong football guys into the mix. It is going to be essential. I think if we do this may be a very exciting chapter in Browns history and maybe even finally an arrow up in our abysmal drafting history. I do however have concerns with the whole reporting structure.
-
I like the idea in theory. I'll reserve the right to shit on it if it fails in practice.
-
What's funny is your defending analytics until it goes against something you believe to be common sense. So analytics is good as long as it supports your view. For the record I think it's crazy to never punt as well. The whole point was show analytics is only a tool to help make decisions not the sole reference in making them. I'm fine with hiring analytics people I just don't want to build a team using it as my main decision maker "like Haslam might". I fear that he's trying again to prove he's smarter than everyone in the league. Which can only end badly.
What? I really don't understand what you're saying. Look, I don't look at the models these guys do. but for example I'm quite certain if the game is tied 0-0 in the first quarter and your team is facing a 4th and 20 from your own 5, the model would spit out a 99.9999% opinion to punt the ball. That would qualify in stats as "common sense"
I work with stats every day albeit in a way, way different field. I am biased which I admit, but I see where stats can heavily inform opinions in a positive manner all the time. It's crazy and doesn't make sense even to me sometimes, but we admit students that on paper shouldn't be in the program but excel. Who knows what Haslam is really thinking hiring these guys but you should resign yourself to the idea that stats and analysis will play heavily into decisions. Of course stats can be wrong, but the Browns certainly haven't gotten much right up until today right? Of course this stuff can't be the only way to make decisions, but it can really inform decisions. It'll be very, very interesting to see how it plays out because if the Brownies finally get a break it could be the start of a new wave of thinking in the game.
What? I really don't understand what you're saying. Look, I don't look at the models these guys do. but for example I'm quite certain if the game is tied 0-0 in the first quarter and your team is facing a 4th and 20 from your own 5, the model would spit out a 99.9999% opinion to punt the ball. That would qualify in stats as "common sense"
I work with stats every day albeit in a way, way different field. I am biased which I admit, but I see where stats can heavily inform opinions in a positive manner all the time. It's crazy and doesn't make sense even to me sometimes, but we admit students that on paper shouldn't be in the program but excel. Who knows what Haslam is really thinking hiring these guys but you should resign yourself to the idea that stats and analysis will play heavily into decisions. Of course stats can be wrong, but the Browns certainly haven't gotten much right up until today right? Of course this stuff can't be the only way to make decisions, but it can really inform decisions. It'll be very, very interesting to see how it plays out because if the Brownies finally get a break it could be the start of a new wave of thinking in the game.
I agree with you in that common sense would say to punt, but that's not really the way it's figured in this point of view. It's more of an expected points situation. And that's where things get wacky, but yet also sort of... make sense?
In the most basic of rationality, the further in your own territory you are, the higher chance the other team has to score off of your punt. For instance, punting from your own 5 would give the opposing team better field position than, say, punting from your own 35. Better field position then leads to a higher expected point value for the other team.
Add in the fact that punting yields an expected return of 0 points for you, where going for it yields an expected return of > 0 points, and you can see why the case can be made to never punt...and why it would actually make less sense to punt the further in your territory you get backed up.
This is just one situation of how analytics can be completely skewed.
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Oakland A's haven't won squat under Billy Bean.
Unless you count division pennants...
OK, so, tell us why. Not a name I know.
Price is the Mets' prized 3rd baseman.
Jimmy is about as corporate as it gets......and Id say he's trying to build what most would call a consensus decision making team...
Ill add that if Jimmy is in any way a part of the group...being owner and the boss.... he will pollute the integrity of the system and prevent true consensus from occurring.....(can he let them do their thing....alone????)
So.....lots of words here....sorry bout that....but I think by hearing Jimmys words....a consensus is what he prefers and he's REALLY trying to pick people who have the lack of ego, along with the intellect and patience and maturity to operate this kind of system.....
Really good summaries... I'll take a stab at pulling them together.
The trick is to drive consensus without tipping the scale one way or another. But there are two roles that are incapable of doing this: the boss (Haslam) and a key stakeholder (Sashi)... and I don't give a shit what the latter's ego level is.
Only a skilled mediator/facilitator with no skin in the game can drive consensus. Who is this guy in this org? It could have, maybe should have, been Sashi, but he was given a direct report who is a key player, The Scoutmaster.
And Haslam just made it worse IMO...
Yesterday he set up Sashi to be his "strategic guy"... praised him for his strategic approach, ability to develop strategy, etc., etc. Sashi and strategy were mentioned together at least three times in Jimmah's presser.
Today? Haslam names Podesta to be Chief Strategy Officer... and makes him direct report #4 to boot. Odd title for "the metrics guy"... and an even stranger Org Chart addition for an Owner/President who seemed unwilling to intervene between 2 of his 3 direct reports in the prior org.
How does he not pollute the process?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I'm hopeful this works but the analytics say we'll be here again in two years.
-
What? I really don't understand what you're saying. Look, I don't look at the models these guys do. but for example I'm quite certain if the game is tied 0-0 in the first quarter and your team is facing a 4th and 20 from your own 5, the model would spit out a 99.9999% opinion to punt the ball. That would qualify in stats as "common sense"
I work with stats every day albeit in a way, way different field. I am biased which I admit, but I see where stats can heavily inform opinions in a positive manner all the time. It's crazy and doesn't make sense even to me sometimes, but we admit students that on paper shouldn't be in the program but excel. Who knows what Haslam is really thinking hiring these guys but you should resign yourself to the idea that stats and analysis will play heavily into decisions. Of course stats can be wrong, but the Browns certainly haven't gotten much right up until today right? Of course this stuff can't be the only way to make decisions, but it can really inform decisions. It'll be very, very interesting to see how it plays out because if the Brownies finally get a break it could be the start of a new wave of thinking in the game.
I agree with you in that common sense would say to punt, but that's not really the way it's figured in this point of view. It's more of an expected points situation. And that's where things get wacky, but yet also sort of... make sense?
In the most basic of rationality, the further in your own territory you are, the higher chance the other team has to score off of your punt. For instance, punting from your own 5 would give the opposing team better field position than, say, punting from your own 35. Better field position then leads to a higher expected point value for the other team.
Add in the fact that punting yields an expected return of 0 points for you, where going for it yields an expected return of > 0 points, and you can see why the case can be made to never punt...and why it would actually make less sense to punt the further in your territory you get backed up.
This is just one situation of how analytics can be completely skewed.
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
Interesting, that would be really odd to me that turnovers wouldn't factor in a negative expected points value. I really don't know anything about the models they use though-I get that at a base level but it seems the model could account for that.
-
Here's the (abbreviated) way I look at it: we've sucked forever with conventional thinking, and clearly are among the worst in the NFL when going down that road.
If we are going to continue to suck, at least it'll be after trying something different and bold. What the fuck do we have to lose? Let's roll the dice.
As a wise bartender once said: 'Anything else is always something better.'
-
Oakland A's haven't won squat under Billy Bean.
Unless you count division pennants...
OK, so, tell us why. Not a name I know.
Price is the Mets' prized 3rd baseman.
Jimmy is about as corporate as it gets......and Id say he's trying to build what most would call a consensus decision making team...
Ill add that if Jimmy is in any way a part of the group...being owner and the boss.... he will pollute the integrity of the system and prevent true consensus from occurring.....(can he let them do their thing....alone????)
So.....lots of words here....sorry bout that....but I think by hearing Jimmys words....a consensus is what he prefers and he's REALLY trying to pick people who have the lack of ego, along with the intellect and patience and maturity to operate this kind of system.....
Really good summaries... I'll take a stab at pulling them together.
The trick is to drive consensus without tipping the scale one way or another. But there are two roles that are incapable of doing this: the boss (Haslam) and a key stakeholder (Sashi)... and I don't give a shit what the latter's ego level is.
Only a skilled mediator/facilitator with no skin in the game can drive consensus. Who is this guy in this org? It could have, maybe should have, been Sashi, but he was given a direct report who is a key player, The Scoutmaster.
And Haslam just made it worse IMO...
Yesterday he set up Sashi to be his "strategic guy"... praised him for his strategic approach, ability to develop strategy, etc., etc. Sashi and strategy were mentioned together at least three times in Jimmah's presser.
Today? Haslam names Podesta to be Chief Strategy Officer... and makes him direct report #4 to boot. Odd title for "the metrics guy"... and an even stranger Org Chart addition for an Owner/President who seemed unwilling to intervene between 2 of his 3 direct reports in the prior org.
How does he not pollute the process?
Price is the Mets' prized 3rd baseman.
David Wright is the Mets 3rd baseman, Price is a pitcher.
-
What? I really don't understand what you're saying. Look, I don't look at the models these guys do. but for example I'm quite certain if the game is tied 0-0 in the first quarter and your team is facing a 4th and 20 from your own 5, the model would spit out a 99.9999% opinion to punt the ball. That would qualify in stats as "common sense"
I work with stats every day albeit in a way, way different field. I am biased which I admit, but I see where stats can heavily inform opinions in a positive manner all the time. It's crazy and doesn't make sense even to me sometimes, but we admit students that on paper shouldn't be in the program but excel. Who knows what Haslam is really thinking hiring these guys but you should resign yourself to the idea that stats and analysis will play heavily into decisions. Of course stats can be wrong, but the Browns certainly haven't gotten much right up until today right? Of course this stuff can't be the only way to make decisions, but it can really inform decisions. It'll be very, very interesting to see how it plays out because if the Brownies finally get a break it could be the start of a new wave of thinking in the game.
I agree with you in that common sense would say to punt, but that's not really the way it's figured in this point of view. It's more of an expected points situation. And that's where things get wacky, but yet also sort of... make sense?
In the most basic of rationality, the further in your own territory you are, the higher chance the other team has to score off of your punt. For instance, punting from your own 5 would give the opposing team better field position than, say, punting from your own 35. Better field position then leads to a higher expected point value for the other team.
Add in the fact that punting yields an expected return of 0 points for you, where going for it yields an expected return of > 0 points, and you can see why the case can be made to never punt...and why it would actually make less sense to punt the further in your territory you get backed up.
This is just one situation of how analytics can be completely skewed.
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
I agree with you in that common sense would say to punt, but that's not really the way it's figured in this point of view. It's more of an expected points situation. And that's where things get wacky, but yet also sort of... make sense?
In the most basic of rationality, the further in your own territory you are, the higher chance the other team has to score off of your punt. For instance, punting from your own 5 would give the opposing team better field position than, say, punting from your own 35. Better field position then leads to a higher expected point value for the other team.
Add in the fact that punting yields an expected return of 0 points for you, where going for it yields an expected return of > 0 points, and you can see why the case can be made to never punt...and why it would actually make less sense to punt the further in your territory you get backed up.
This is just one situation of how analytics can be completely skewed.
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
Isnt the analytics going to be used in player acquisition. The coach will coach the players and make game decisions. How analytics will translate into player acquisition I have no idea, I would have to see what metrics they would be using to help them make decisions. Baseball is a stat sport even before sabre metrics came out so it makes a lot of since there. I think its much more difficult for football.
-
-
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked pretty well for George Costanza.
-
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked pretty well for George Costanza.
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked for pretty well for George Costanza.
We should have kept Farmer and Pettine on board - especially since we're still paying them.
Just let them finish their big board and work away from that.
-
Of course, common sense would dictate that you punt in that situation. But looking at the expected point values, it would actually make more sense to go for it. That's because most of these models (at least the ones that I've read so far) don't account for turnovers as negative points.
Interesting, that would be really odd to me that turnovers wouldn't factor in a negative expected points value. I really don't know anything about the models they use though-I get that at a base level but it seems the model could account for that.
Interesting, that would be really odd to me that turnovers wouldn't factor in a negative expected points value. I really don't know anything about the models they use though-I get that at a base level but it seems the model could account for that.
In the couple studies I've found thus far, the running theme is either "you score or you don't score", where each individual possession is looked at in a bubble, rather than in a linear model.
In that line of thought, turning the ball over is, in effect, the same as punting...in that you didn't score. You're just giving the opposition the ball in a much better position for them to score. So a 3-yard run on 4th and 10 is no different than a 3 yard punt, basically.
It's wacky. Like I said, it kind of makes sense...but it's also just wrong because football is a causal sport. Every single thing that happens in a football game until the first score is based off of what happens on the opening kick. Then everything until the next score is based off of the next kick. It's not like baseball, where you get a completely clean slate the next inning (if nobody scores).
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Banner did give a good example of analytics potential conflict with traditional coaching philosophy: passing early vs. establishing the run.
Analytics say the team leading at the half has the greater chance to win the game and passing leads to more scoring therefore you pass early.
Traditionally HCs, and Defensive minded HCs in particular, would resist passing in favor of ball control early setting up the pass game late.
-
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked pretty well for George Costanza.
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked pretty well for George Costanza.
Which is exactly why I said fuck the QB chase and draft Bosa. Every year the Browns chase QB's with exactly the same results. And right on this board I'm watching Browns fall in love with this or that QB. Last week it was Lynch (until he got his clock cleaned). This week it's Goff. Fuck that shit. Pick the best fucking player available, not the fucking position. It's never worked here. Hell we just watched a dominant defensive player pull a former Browns QB right into the playoffs. Ring any bells?
-
Hopefully the analytics will simply look at what the Cleveland Browns would normally do, who they would sign and who they would draft............ and completely do the opposite.
Hey, it worked pretty well for George Costanza.
Which is exactly why I said fuck the QB chase and draft Bosa. Every year the Browns chase QB's with exactly the same results. And right on this board I'm watching Browns fall in love with this or that QB. Last week it was Lynch (until he got his clock cleaned). This week it's Goff. Fuck that shit. Pick the best fucking player available, not the fucking position. It's never worked here. Hell we just watched a dominant defensive player pull a former Browns QB right into the playoffs. Ring any bells?
Which is exactly why I said fuck the QB chase and draft Bosa. Every year the Browns chase QB's with exactly the same results. And right on this board I'm watching Browns fall in love with this or that QB. Last week it was Lynch (until he got his clock cleaned). This week it's Goff. Fuck that shit. Pick the best fucking player available, not the fucking position. It's never worked here. Hell we just watched a dominant defensive player pull a former Browns QB right into the playoffs. Ring any bells?
We have drafted the consensus #1 QB exactly once in the history of the new Browns. Maybe once in the entire history of the Browns?
I don't disagree with you, but this situation isn't necessarily the same.
Goff + whoever or Bosa + Wentz are the only two options I'd like to see.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login