Mike McCarthy's Analytics Fraud

[conner01]

I don't think any coach is ever going to come out and say it doesn't matter if you run the ball well or run the ball poorly no matter how much they are into analytics. I think the nugget to take from this is that he recognizes the importance of the play action pass and fake game.

I do not know what Garrett's percentage of play-action passing was, but we didn't do it nearly as often as I felt we should, especially considering the focus on the running game.

Going into the last week we was 7-1 in games we ran 29% or more play action
I thought that was interring that half the games we didn’t
Sometimes you get behind and I get that but I think play action should be huge in our offense

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

You can call it whatever you want but those teams would be stupid to follow your advice. They are indeed different than everyone else.

You can argue it all you want but when the premise of your fallacy does not apply you should stop using it. Every team is not the same.

And let's be clear here, the analysis was not remotely exhaustive. That was simply one permutation of real world examples and it showed you to be wrong. There is no reason to believe that organizing it by opposing defense or something else is not going to do the same.

You were wrong to claim it was true in all cases. Admit it and move on.

 

[Hadenough]

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.

Are you saying this was a bad hire?

 

[big dog cowboy]

McCarthy > Garrett.

/thread.

 

[garyo1954]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the whole mess is a stretch.

How does this help me in a situation like 1st and 10, inside my 20, 1st quarter, score tied at 0?

If I'm on defense, what can I expect from the offense?
If I'm on offense, what am I going to do?

It would be much more helpful if I knew New Orleans faced this situation 5 times and they passed each time, being successful 80%. They never ran in that situation.
On the other hand, in the same situation, Seattle ran 5 times and was successful 60% of the time. They never passed.

That type information helps me on defense.

Offensively I'd need to know what the defense is doing in these situations to have any advantage.

Big difference in quoting stats and understanding how you can use them in a game situation.

But yall go ahead and argue. I'll go dribble over there......

 

[The Fonz]

It was all BS moves from MIke and his friends in the media and JJ fall for it.The guy football IQ is questionable.
I guess we will find out soon....hoping for the best expecting the worse.

 

[NeonNinja]

Noted, OP.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

OTOH, what MM said was true. You do need to run enough to get that benefit.

What part of this is not true don't you understand?

 

[CIWhitefish]

Nice ink, brother! Boys to the bone!

Thanks man!

 

[Hadenough]

I'm less worried about McCarthy and more worried about Dak. A coach can have a great play design but its up to the QB to execute the throws.

 

[Proof]

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.

Couple things, just for clarity.
Is this a new quote?

and also since I assume the study is across the league, is there any isolated study on teams that do have a potent rushing attack and how PA benefited or didn’t based on their rushing?


Like I just wonder if the ravens, 9ers, Seahawks, boys etc have a larger efficiency boost than say the bucs or falcons

 

[iamliko22]

That's a true statement. Mike was 60% pass.
And when he passed 62% went to his WRs, 22% TE and 18% to the RB.

62
22
18

 

[lwehlers]

McCarty has not had a running back like Elliott before. so maybe he will change and run the ball more. if not we will see Elliott and pollard catch a lot of passes which sometimes is just a short handoff in a westcoast offense.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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.
.

Then why does the same play action split occur with poor rushing teams?

 

[mahoneybill]

I’d rather throw myself off a 3 story building breaking both of my legs than watch that loser coach this team again.

That dude wasted so much talent over the years it’s unforgivable.

Telling that no HC offers came his way. Proof of what league/ teams thought about him

 

[mattjames2010]

A lot of nerd crap in this thread that completely separates itself from the game of football.

The same goes for McCarthy - maybe this analytic stuff matters in preparation for a game, but once you hit the field that stuff often goes right out the window due to situational football and all the analytical nerds can ever look at are the outcomes of games.

Lame and labeling him a "fraud" while he holds something very few other coaches in NFL history has held is hilarious. He obviously got it right once before.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Do you have the data behind the article? This is not attempt to undermine your analysis. I really want to understand why you are so confident given the lack of information on the article. For example, the article states:

"Over the past three seasons, passer rating had a 0.14 positive correlation to play-action pass attempts in games. A quarterback’s play-action passer rating was slightly impacted by the frequency of rushing attempts within a game (a 0.14 correlation), while yards per carry had a negligible effect (-0.02)."

They argue play action is important, but it "only" has a correlation of 0.14 with passer rating. Said another way, running more play-action hardly matters? Also, they say passer rating was "slightly impacted" by rushing attempts but we know correlation numbers are not causation. I am not arguing between causation vs correlation, my point is that the article uses incorrect terms, selective metrics and inconsistent conclusions.

I mentioned Dak because the same article that claims rushing attempts/efficiency hardly matters, then claims low play-action passer rating may be due to low attempts/efficiency.

I think we would need to get the full set of data they are looking at. They only disclosed passer rating in PA vs non-PA and that's it. The data behind the the running game correlation stat was not disclosed.

Thats not what the article said about Dak. It said when Zeke was out he performed poorly and they postulate that maybe Zeke had an impact on PA. Of course we know Zeke played poorly in that stretch due to Tyron being out and not Zeke.

 

[johneric8]

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.

Jason is that you?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Are you saying this was a bad hire?

I didn't say that. And nowhere did I argue that we should have kept Garrett.

But from what McCarthy said his analytics claims seem dubious at best.

 

[Haimerej]

Then why does the same play action split occur with poor rushing teams?

Do you know the success breakdown of PA bootleg vs standard PA dropbacks or shotgun PA?