Analytics in football
-
Okay those of you who put at least a moderate amount of stock into Analytics I admit I don't know much about it beyond: better a c and e seem to do better against left-handed pitching so let's arranged the lineup up accordingly. Etc.
I wouldn't guess it had so much to do with a football lineup because those are pretty much ditched in stone but maybe which defensive or offensive schemes might be better against which teams? Who knows?
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
In analyzing your question I came up with not a whole lot?
Seriously, it's not hard. It's the AFC North, play solid defense and be fundamentally sound in all three phases, like Pitt, Balt, & sometimes Cincy (like the Browns were years ago), and you contend.
-
Deja Vu all over again. Didn't we have this conversation like 3 years ago?
-
Deja Vu all over again. Didn't we have this conversation like 3 years ago?
Deja Vu all over again. Didn't we have this conversation like 3 years ago?
Even if we did it's more important now if our head coach was selected through the process.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Okay those of you who put at least a moderate amount of stock into Analytics I admit I don't know much about it beyond: better a c and e seem to do better against left-handed pitching so let's arranged the lineup up accordingly. Etc.
I wouldn't guess it had so much to do with a football lineup because those are pretty much ditched in stone but maybe which defensive or offensive schemes might be better against which teams? Who knows?
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
WSS
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
"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 -
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
-
Okay those of you who put at least a moderate amount of stock into Analytics I admit I don't know much about it beyond: better a c and e seem to do better against left-handed pitching so let's arranged the lineup up accordingly. Etc.
I wouldn't guess it had so much to do with a football lineup because those are pretty much ditched in stone but maybe which defensive or offensive schemes might be better against which teams? Who knows?
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
WSS
Okay those of you who put at least a moderate amount of stock into Analytics I admit I don't know much about it beyond: better a c and e seem to do better against left-handed pitching so let's arranged the lineup up accordingly. Etc.
I wouldn't guess it had so much to do with a football lineup because those are pretty much ditched in stone but maybe which defensive or offensive schemes might be better against which teams? Who knows?
My question here is how exactly would analytics help us determine that stefanski was the best coaching choice available?
WSS
I have wondered the same thing. I think a part of it is every play a team runs is input in the computer. How did said play result against different fronts, etc. Then the coach calls are input and a grade is given. The coach makes a correct call as based on the statistical odds for a positive outcome v a negative outcome.
Coach A makes the statistically correct call 74% v another coach who made the correct call 54% of the time. Same could be done with halftime adjustments. What coach showed he threw out the things that didn't work and went with the things that did. Does the coach go with the odds on going for it...I am sure much more that this mind doesn't understand.
-
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
Some of it has to be gut, but in many ways that is the least important as compared to the person stands the best chance of putting us in to a good play based on situation. It's like playing blackjack. The player who makes the solid decisions stands a good chance of winning. It doesn't always work out that way. You can make the call that statically says you have a 70% chance at a positive result, but you still have a 30% chance it won't. The measure in this case isn't the result. The measure is did he put us in to a play that had a good or best chance of working? That is all you can hope for.
Like you, I am tired as well. See you next year...lol
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Deja Vu all over again. Didn't we have this conversation like 3 years ago?
Even if we did it's more important now if our head coach was selected through the process.
WSS
Even if we did it's more important now if our head coach was selected through the process.
WSS
Well, maybe. Though personally I put no importance on it.....other than to say, no matter what process was used, can we just get a fucking guy to come in here and win...no matter how!
-
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
Do you think that would work? I mean, we have to try something. I mean, it could end up being like this.....watch some of it.. They sing Kumbaya, and then giggle for 3 minutes. That could be how our FO ends up:
-
My guess... and it's only a guess... is that analytics has broken down the chances of success of playcalls in every down and distance situation. Then it's a pretty simple matter of seeing how a playcaller stacks up. Only one aspect of a HC evaluation, but feel for the game is an important one.
Other aspects... leadership, trustworthiness, communication skills, etc. ... would seem to have to be evaluated the old fashioned way, legwork and face-to-face.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated.
Not only that, but it can't be "quantified"....
There can be some "science" in today's interviewing approaches, but it's psychological, "soft science". Questions can be clustered to probe certain qualities an employer is looking to test, but in the end candidate evaluations are subjective.
Less used, but even more effective are some scenario "exercises" that can test candidates. One is very effective for looking at time management/ organizational skills. It involves replacing someone who after a prolonged absence will not be returning to work. The candidate is put in the departed's office, stacked with a backlog of workflow of varying importance and urgency. How quickly and accurately he sorts thru the backlog is measured.
"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 -
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated. So in the end, it just boils down to gut feeling if it's the "right guy".
I have no feeling one way or the other about Stefanski this go around, it's all about wins. And if Kevin doesn't win right out of the gate, its going to be a real short honeymoon with the fans and the shouts from the peanut gallery for Haslam to sell out are going to be deafening. MHO. So Jimmy is trying for (I hope the last time) to assemble a coaching staff where they can all sit around the campfire, toast marshmallows and sing kumbaya. I hope it works. I'm getting mighty tired shelling out money for season tickets to watch the unending clown show Haslam offers up year after year.
Some of it has to be gut, but in many ways that is the least important as compared to the person stands the best chance of putting us in to a good play based on situation. It's like playing blackjack. The player who makes the solid decisions stands a good chance of winning. It doesn't always work out that way. You can make the call that statically says you have a 70% chance at a positive result, but you still have a 30% chance it won't. The measure in this case isn't the result. The measure is did he put us in to a play that had a good or best chance of working? That is all you can hope for.
Like you, I am tired as well. See you next year...lol
Some of it has to be gut, but in many ways that is the least important as compared to the person stands the best chance of putting us in to a good play based on situation. It's like playing blackjack. The player who makes the solid decisions stands a good chance of winning. It doesn't always work out that way. You can make the call that statically says you have a 70% chance at a positive result, but you still have a 30% chance it won't. The measure in this case isn't the result. The measure is did he put us in to a play that had a good or best chance of working? That is all you can hope for.
Like you, I am tired as well. See you next year...lol
We should just then get James Holzhauer to run the team. I mean, this is a guy that takes big risks, and is right like 98% of the time:
-
Problem is, the last stuff you mentioned really can't be quantitated.
Not only that, but it can't be "quantified"....
There can be some "science" in today's interviewing approaches, but it's psychological, "soft science". Questions can be clustered to probe certain qualities an employer is looking to test, but in the end candidate evaluations are subjective.
Less used, but even more effective are some scenario "exercises" that can test candidates. One is very effective for looking at time management/ organizational skills. It involves replacing someone who after a prolonged absence will not be returning to work. The candidate is put in the departed's office, stacked with a backlog of workflow of varying importance and urgency. How quickly and accurately he sorts thru the backlog is measured.
Not only that, but it can't be "quantified"....
There can be some "science" in today's interviewing approaches, but it's psychological, "soft science". Questions can be clustered to probe certain qualities an employer is looking to test, but in the end candidate evaluations are subjective.
Less used, but even more effective are some scenario "exercises" that can test candidates. One is very effective for looking at time management/ organizational skills. It involves replacing someone who after a prolonged absence will not be returning to work. The candidate is put in the departed's office, stacked with a backlog of workflow of varying importance and urgency. How quickly and accurately he sorts thru the backlog is measured.
No doubt. You are being tested when you go in to Wal-Mart to fill out a application at their employment center computer kiosk. It records how fast you typed and when you backed spaced to correct spelling, etc. It's used everywhere. Just another tool for companies to better gauge your intelligence
-
Not only that, but it can't be "quantified"....
There can be some "science" in today's interviewing approaches, but it's psychological, "soft science". Questions can be clustered to probe certain qualities an employer is looking to test, but in the end candidate evaluations are subjective.
Less used, but even more effective are some scenario "exercises" that can test candidates. One is very effective for looking at time management/ organizational skills. It involves replacing someone who after a prolonged absence will not be returning to work. The candidate is put in the departed's office, stacked with a backlog of workflow of varying importance and urgency. How quickly and accurately he sorts thru the backlog is measured.
No doubt. You are being tested when you go in to Wal-Mart to fill out a application at their employment center computer kiosk. It records how fast you typed and when you backed spaced to correct spelling, etc. It's used everywhere. Just another tool for companies to better gauge your intelligence
No doubt. You are being tested when you go in to Wal-Mart to fill out a application at their employment center computer kiosk. It records how fast you typed and when you backed spaced to correct spelling, etc. It's used everywhere. Just another tool for companies to better gauge your intelligence
If typing speed and accuracy = intelligence, then I'm fucked...
"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 -
Some of it has to be gut, but in many ways that is the least important as compared to the person stands the best chance of putting us in to a good play based on situation. It's like playing blackjack. The player who makes the solid decisions stands a good chance of winning. It doesn't always work out that way. You can make the call that statically says you have a 70% chance at a positive result, but you still have a 30% chance it won't. The measure in this case isn't the result. The measure is did he put us in to a play that had a good or best chance of working? That is all you can hope for.
Like you, I am tired as well. See you next year...lol
We should just then get James Holzhauer to run the team. I mean, this is a guy that takes big risks, and is right like 98% of the time:
We should just then get James Holzhauer to run the team. I mean, this is a guy that takes big risks, and is right like 98% of the time:
He understands how to play that game. Similar to my bring up Blackjack.
Depo isn't a coach, but he does understand sports. He can identify the qualities top performers have/had and compare those to prospective hires.
Again, it's just playing the percentages. To me, playing the percentages makes more sense than going on a gut feeling, but that's just me. Doofus went with his get feeling and it turned out to be the worst decision of his life. I feel bad for the guy.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
No doubt. You are being tested when you go in to Wal-Mart to fill out a application at their employment center computer kiosk. It records how fast you typed and when you backed spaced to correct spelling, etc. It's used everywhere. Just another tool for companies to better gauge your intelligence
If typing speed and accuracy = intelligence, then I'm fucked...
If typing speed and accuracy = intelligence, then I'm fucked...
No, it helps for placement. You might still be able to be a overnight stocker. Maybe not a cashier or some type of management candidate.
-
We should just then get James Holzhauer to run the team. I mean, this is a guy that takes big risks, and is right like 98% of the time:
He understands how to play that game. Similar to my bring up Blackjack.
Depo isn't a coach, but he does understand sports. He can identify the qualities top performers have/had and compare those to prospective hires.
Again, it's just playing the percentages. To me, playing the percentages makes more sense than going on a gut feeling, but that's just me. Doofus went with his get feeling and it turned out to be the worst decision of his life. I feel bad for the guy.
He understands how to play that game. Similar to my bring up Blackjack.
Depo isn't a coach, but he does understand sports. He can identify the qualities top performers have/had and compare those to prospective hires.
Again, it's just playing the percentages. To me, playing the percentages makes more sense than going on a gut feeling, but that's just me. Doofus went with his get feeling and it turned out to be the worst decision of his life. I feel bad for the guy.
We shall see. If just playing the percentages gets us to a place where following your gut feeling did not.
-
He understands how to play that game. Similar to my bring up Blackjack.
Depo isn't a coach, but he does understand sports. He can identify the qualities top performers have/had and compare those to prospective hires.
Again, it's just playing the percentages. To me, playing the percentages makes more sense than going on a gut feeling, but that's just me. Doofus went with his get feeling and it turned out to be the worst decision of his life. I feel bad for the guy.
We shall see. If just playing the percentages gets us to a place where following your gut feeling did not.
We shall see. If just playing the percentages gets us to a place where following your gut feeling did not.
True. Thought I think we were so under coached, we have to be better.
Plus, Freddie didn't really select his coordinators, did he? I think John had a big role in that.
John brought in some excellent skill players. Foundation players not so much.
Math proves everything, and I am as anti-math as it gets. I don't think that way, except when playing cards and investing. Go with percentages, it gives you the best odds. Like I said, it can still come out wrong, buy you are never wrong going with the choice that gives you the best odds for a positive outcome.
-
No doubt. You are being tested when you go in to Wal-Mart to fill out a application at their employment center computer kiosk. It records how fast you typed and when you backed spaced to correct spelling, etc. It's used everywhere. Just another tool for companies to better gauge your intelligence
If typing speed and accuracy = intelligence, then I'm fucked...
-
Analytics is a fancy work for proctology, so when all else fails in selecting a HC, just pull a name out of your ass. Listen closely as Eddie says Stefanski. ?
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