Look. I'm an engineer by training and now work at a big bank in investments. So yeah I like math and "analytics." I think they are instructive especially when careful study shows where what you believe to be true is in fact false. People who understand these counter-intuitive truisms claim a consistent edge.
There was much talk about how much Mike has learned in his year hiatus and how analytics was a big part of the thing he leaned on and has incorporated. And good lord he is not off to a great start. In fact it seems he is a fraud.
See below:
This is an awful quote. What he says here is the exact opposite finding from the analytics community.
In fact this is something I looked into when studying Zeke's pedestrian efficiency numbers last year (As a reminder we greatly overpaid Zeke after greatly over drafting him). But I digress....I posted this in August of last year...
What this shows is that play action passing is the most effective passes a QB can throw. And it hardly matters if you run the ball a lot. Or if you run the ball a little bit. And it does not matter if you run the ball well. Or if you run the ball poorly.
The point? If McCarthy is getting this basic thing wrong what confidence do we have that he actually learned anything in the last year, analytics or otherwise? And just like the Garrett era we can expect to give away the small edges that smart coaches understand and benefit from.
And that's a shame.
What part of rushing attempts hardly matters and rushing efficiency doesn't matter to play action success don't you understand?
Wait...is our default feeling supposed to be "we love the new Cowboys head coach hire" or should we have an honest opinion about every decision they make?He hasn't coached a single game with Dallas and people already don't like him. Goodness.
Just because you keep saying this won't make it true.What don't you get that good rushing teams have the defense playing closer to the line of scrimmage making play action much more effective. Like I said find a new hobby because it's greatly obvious you are clueless on NFL football.
.
I knew what your analogy was referring to, and I agree with your assessment that play action can be successful, even when you only run 40%, but when you get right down to it, 40% isn't too far from being half the time. What's important is how well you sell the run on play action. When you watch Lamar Jackson, even on TV it's difficult to tell if he handed it off or not, while I've seen others who might as well be holding the ball up over their heads. Either way, the fake causes hesitation, but in Jackson's case it very often causes complete misdirection, which is part of the reason he can run it so effectively himself.In this case punching someone is running the ball. Something McCarthy does 40% historically.
And whether he runs the ball well or frequently the play action game has proven to be successful. The exact opposite of his quote in the OP.
The obvious implication from my statement is that it is weighted by frequency among the qbs. Not an average of each qbs numbers.From your article:
If you are going to do a deduction in general you need to show how your example excludes the one you're arguing against.
The actual analysis is the entire article where he points out cases like the lowest rushing teams and particular players where the outcome is different. IOW the analysis details specific cases where it is not universal.
This is a hilarious reach.Yeah, let’s just have our head coach come out and completely give away what we’re planning to do offensively on a weekly basis. Good lord.
Yes for 4 of 28 passers the trend did not hold.So you are saying thee PFF article you cited is not trustworthy? Thanks for undermining your entire argument.
This show PA did not net a benefit for everyone ie not universal:
Just because you keep saying this won't make it true.
Literally the point of this thread is that by the numbers/analytics, this isn't true.
You might want to read post #87 again. It shows that ~90% of the QBs in the NFL perform better when using play action. That is something we all agree on.Gee fuzzylumkin post #87 put some numbers that were copied from obviously a different site than yours that just blow you foolish idea all away.
.
Nice ink, brother! Boys to the bone!This is why we can't have nice things
Rushing attempts hardly matters. Rushing effectiveness doesn't matter.
Taking a small Dak sample size or a few outliers doesn't disprove that correlation. Often times it confirms it.
In any case McCarthy is saying something demonstrably untrue.
The obvious implication from my statement is that it is weighted by frequency among the qbs. Not an average of each qbs numbers.
Yes for 4 of 28 passers the trend did not hold.
This is what we call exceptions that prove the rule.
Thinking you're the 1 of 7 that this sample size did not hold for is the fallacy of i'm different than everyone else which leads to mistakes. As I have tirelessly argued.