Audio: Mickey and Shan got into it on the radio today

[HungryLion]

Again, that is simply an attempt at avoiding explaining the value of the data. "All data available," isn't inherently valuable. What makes it valuable?

I am going to give one more example and if this doesn’t work, then I give up.

have you ever watched people play Texas Hold ‘me on TV?

When the first two cards are dealt to each player, on the screen they show TV watchers each players probability of winning, based on every players card.

The players themselves cannot see those probabilities on the TV screen. So, they will use their mind and experience to try to calculate the probability of winning in their brain. They will ALSO make decisions based off their opponents body language, their opponents tells, the bets their opponent is making, etc.


all the while, the TV viewer can see the probability on TV.

The dealer then deals the first 3 cards that all the players share. Each players probability of winning is then almost instantaneously re-calculated and the new probability of winning is shown on the TV screen to the viewers.

again, the players don’t see this. They can only use their brain to calculate the probability and again go based off bets and opponent body language. Probably also factor in how much money they have left, vs how much money their opponent has left, etc.


the player takes into account many factors when deciding whether to raise or check or fold.

now, imagine how much of an advantage it would be, for one of those players to actually see the win probabilities that are on the TV screen? That have been calculated by a computer.

seeing those probabilities would alter their decision making and give them high quality information, for which to base their next move.

Based off this example. Garret is playing poker at the table. And he is going off body language and opponent tells and how much they’re betting and what they see with their eyes.

meanwhile the other head coach, the other “player” at the poker table is using all the same observations Garret is doing AND that coach is able to see that computer generated win probability. So now, Garret is at a disadvantage. He may still win the hand. Because of course, even without that data he may get lucky, and the cards may just get dealt in his favor.

But if Garret’s opponent playing poker, can see that win probability on that TV screen and base his decisions off that. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, that he would want to see that win probability too? Over the course of many hands of poker dealt throughout the night, wouldn’t that give Garret the best opportunity possible to win as much money as possible?

I mean honestly. This should be easy to understand why the poker player would at least want to see those win probability numbers. Right?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

LOL. Shan is tired of the constant excuse making Mickey makes. Mickey is hardly right. He’s just a mouthpiece for the organization.

You Garrett guys are too much.

Is there a line that gets crossed where you say to yourself, you know what? Garrett ain’t getting it done.

Well I have to say I don’t think either side is right. Like this teams problems have nothing to do with analytics. It’s clear this teams problems are from the coaching and the guy who pays them. To me the whole Dez talk and the analytics talk is just trying to hard to find the problem. The problem is easy and we all know what it is.

 

[DFWJC]

Unlike Mickey regurgitating whatever the Cowboys camp spoon feed him? Riiiight. Dude has never had an original thought of his own in his existence. It is nothing but telling us how great Dallas is, they are going to win every game and how they do everything right.

Have you learned one single thing about sports by listening to Mickey? I never have.

What part of “I don't care about Spags either way” did you not understand?

I start with that and you you still go off as if it wasn't even there.

My post was ONLY about Shan and NOTHING to do with Mickey

 

[Sydla]

If we hired a coach that used analytics, Spaggs would talk about how great it was. If the Cowboys do it, its great and how all teams should do it

Absolu-freaking-lutely.

Mickey has no original thoughts. He just has thoughts and feelings based on what he thinks the Cowboys want him to say.

The proof of this will be when/if Garrett is not brought back. Watch how fast Mickey starts justifying the removal of Garrett.

 

[Sydla]

Well I have to say I don’t think either side is right. Like this teams problems have nothing to do with analytics. It’s clear this teams problems are from the coaching and the guy who pays them. To me the whole Dez talk and the analytics talk is just trying to hard to find the problem. The problem is easy and we all know what it is.

But the lack of any reliance on analytics is a reason why Garrett isn’t a good coach.

It’s all intertwined.

 

[Haimerej]

LOL. Shan is tired of the constant excuse making Mickey makes. Mickey is hardly right. He’s just a mouthpiece for the organization.

You Garrett guys are too much.

Is there a line that gets crossed where you say to yourself, you know what? Garrett ain’t getting it done.

You didn't even listen to it, did you? Mickey was right about what got dude upset.

 

[Haimerej]

If you can't see how using data that gives you proven probabilities in different situations can be a benefit I can't help you. This is borderline willful ignorance on your part.

They're just stats. They're not predictive.

 

[BlueStar22]

They are exactly right! Jerry/Jason have not evolved and they're stubborn. It matters! You build up this "great" offensive line and think you're going to just run it every down like in the 90s. It can't/won't work anymore. The league has evolved. Defenses have evolved.

 

[Haimerej]

Why not google/research it on your own instead of asking others to explain it to you? The fact Harbaugh is a proponent and belichick has his analytics nerd communicating with him suggests there is validity to it. Far more naval brass said nuclear power for ships propulsion would never be possible than those who supported the idea. Fortunately, the entire vanguard of old thinkers was proven to be wrong.

I'm asking them because they're the proponents. I'm trying to see if they understand what they're buying into. I think your example is off, though. Nuclear powered propulsion is a thing that can be tested, not a theory attempting to predict what may come.

 

[Playmaker247]

I am going to give one more example and if this doesn’t work, then I give up.

have you ever watched people play Texas Hold ‘me on TV?

When the first two cards are dealt to each player, on the screen they show TV watchers each players probability of winning, based on every players card.

The players themselves cannot see those probabilities on the TV screen. So, they will use their mind and experience to try to calculate the probability of winning in their brain. They will ALSO make decisions based off their opponents body language, their opponents tells, the bets their opponent is making, etc.


all the while, the TV viewer can see the probability on TV.

The dealer then deals the first 3 cards that all the players share. Each players probability of winning is then almost instantaneously re-calculated and the new probability of winning is shown on the TV screen to the viewers.

again, the players don’t see this. They can only use their brain to calculate the probability and again go based off bets and opponent body language. Probably also factor in how much money they have left, vs how much money their opponent has left, etc.


the player takes into account many factors when deciding whether to raise or check or fold.

now, imagine how much of an advantage it would be, for one of those players to actually see the win probabilities that are on the TV screen? That have been calculated by a computer.

seeing those probabilities would alter their decision making and give them high quality information, for which to base their next move.

Based off this example. Garret is playing poker at the table. And he is going off body language and opponent tells and how much they’re betting and what they see with their eyes.

meanwhile the other head coach, the other “player” at the poker table is using all the same observations Garret is doing AND that coach is able to see that computer generated win probability. So now, Garret is at a disadvantage. He may still win the hand. Because of course, even without that data he may get lucky, and the cards may just get dealt in his favor.

But if Garret’s opponent playing poker, can see that win probability on that TV screen and base his decisions off that. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, that he would want to see that win probability too? Over the course of many hands of poker dealt throughout the night, wouldn’t that give Garret the best opportunity possible to win as much money as possible?

I mean honestly. This should be easy to understand why the poker player would at least want to see those win probability numbers. Right?

This might be the best post I’ve ever seen on this forum

 

[HungryLion]

They're just stats. They're not predictive.

That’s just blatantly false.

The stats are complied and calculated specifically to be predictive. It doesn’t mean they are infallible. But they actually do provide a prediction. Stats that say you have a 55% of winning is offering a prediction. The prediction is that under the same scenarios 100
Times. You would likely win 55 times and lose 45 times. Or if you make this decision, in this situation 100 times. You would win 60 time and lose 40.

you don’t see that information could be helpful?

 

[yimyammer]

Why should a human being take as much data as possible into consideration when making important decisions?

Gee I don’t know.

 

[HungryLion]

I'm asking them because they're the proponents. I'm trying to see if they understand what they're buying into. I think your example is off, though. Nuclear powered propulsion is a thing that can be tested, not a theory attempting to predict what may come.

The guy is a physicist. He might just know
Something about nuclear submarines.

 

[BlueStar22]

"Are they always right?" Every dinosaur resistant to any new sources or theories asks that question.

Nothing is always right, including your hunches, gut feelings, or however else you make a decision. But to have information available and simply refuse to use it is ridiculous.

Never change, Mickey. Keep defending the Jones/Garrett machine but ignore the results. After all, those are numbers too.

This This!!!

 

[yimyammer]

God forbid you have too much information to win.

I'm with ya but I do suffer from analysis paralysis from taking in too much info on certain decisions, so there can be some downside if one is a perfectionist

 

[BlueStar22]

This thing won't evolve and it's the very reason why when things are going good, it's great but when things are going bad, it's really bad. Offense has a stretch of killing and the defense is the opposite. Then the defense turns out a performance like it did in Foxboro and the offense struggles. Can't get these two unites firing together ever.

 

[yimyammer]

I also don’t understand why Shariff got so mad though lol.....I didn’t think anyone took Mickey that serious enough to get mad lol

he was probably playing everyone knowing how Mickey annoys folks just to gen up ratings

 

[Haimerej]

I really need to explain why the data is important?

It’s taking thousands of points of data over decades of NFL history, that calculate the probability of winning or losing NFL games based on a decision to kick a field goal or punt, or go for it on 4th down. Even based on running or passing the ball.

I don't see how an amalgamation of the past is predictive.

and we had the discussion about probabilities before. People take winning probabilities into consideration in many many other things. Card games, board games, roulette, dice games, etc. People based their decision to hit or stay based on how likely they are to get a card they need and how likely the dealer is to have the cards they need, etc.

Probabilities are used in business when calculating whether an investment is worthwhile or not.

And like I’ve said, It doesn’t mean you only go with the decision that has the higher probability of working. I have said you also take other factors into consideration. Like your opponent, and matchups and how your own team is currently playing.

It's still just trivia. There are too many variables in athletics. You bring up card playing. The variables in cards are much less than a game involving 22 players, weather conditions, etc.

But given new technology that allows coaches to have this extra information presented to them in real time within seconds. There is no valid reason to at least have the information available when making a decision.

It's lack of predictive value seems valid.

Having more information available to make decisions is a good thing. In every aspect of life.

There is no reason not to. Choosing to not have that information available and consider it is willful ignorance. It is choosing to not know something that you could know. That may help you form an more educated opinion.

Here's a reason- it's just a stat.

I don’t know why that concept is difficult for you to grasp.

It's not. What makes you think I don't understand what you're saying? Is it because I disagree?

 

[Haimerej]

The guy is a physicist. He might just know
Something about nuclear submarines.

I'm well acquainted with cern. Did I question his knowledge of nuclear submarines? Don't recall doing so. These little nuggets from you are what makes my pry into your understanding of what you're saying. You apparently didn't understand what I wrote to cern, so...

 

[HungryLion]

I don't see how an amalgamation of the past is predictive.



It's still just trivia. There are too many variables in athletics. You bring up card playing. The variables in cards are much less than a game involving 22 players, weather conditions, etc.



It's lack of predictive value seems valid.



Here's a reason- it's just a stat.



It's not. What makes you think I don't understand what you're saying? Is it because I disagree?

No. Because you’re throwing out nonsense like “it’s not predictive” without any basis for saying it.
And now nonsense like “here’s a reason, it’s just a stat”.

Here’s the thing. You accuse me of throwing out my data talking point and not backing it up.

When given sound and logical reasoning, your only retort is “it’s not predictive” and “it’s just a stat”. Or “it’s just trivia”.

You’re offering nothing of value to actually argue against the benefit of using probabilities. Nothing.


So have at it dude. Disagree all you want. That’s your right. You’re free to be willfully ignorant.