waldoputty
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 23,375
- Reaction score
- 21,163
Wow!!! I didn't know you were smart! I knew you were a smart*** but not smart!it really does not matter whether a stats 101 level regression calculation is appropriate or not for run efficiency relevancy to passing efficiency.
there is a 14 person team working on analytics. there are a few coaches in the group, but it is highly doubtful they are the ones doing the regression or god forbid, developing the model. there must be some quants in the group that is doing the work.
it is highly doubtful that one year of analytics study will teach a few jogs that much about statistics. that does not make them a fraud. all you can hope for from even one year of intense serious study in analytics is an appreciation of importance of analytics. does anyone really expect someone (likely) with ZERO background in stats and math to truly get more than that. you have got to be kidding.
and having the coach understand the proper role of analytics is really all you need and want. this is not baseball where analytics play a bigger role, and the conditions are much more relevant for a more scientific approach for improving pitching and hitting. there are far more variables that cannot be accounted for in football.
so there is no need to argue whether run efficiency matters to pass efficiency. to interpret a simple regression model is stats 101. but really understanding the model and how flimsy the model is is actually something you would hire a phd to do.
Wow!!! I didn't know you were smart! I knew you were a smart*** but not smart!
There's no reason to assume that this would only affect passes with play action, but not affect passes without. If the QB expects a run blitz, for example, he might eschew the play fake and target the vacated area of the defense, thus improving the success rate on non-play-action passes.would you run a play action if the defender is penetrating the backfield in 2 seconds. i dont think so. so you effectively have eliminated data points in which the defense is too dominant. gee, i wonder what happens to the pass efficiency when you eliminate some data points when the defense is too dominant...
Meh, not so much. Ever heard of Ernie Adams, their "Director of Football Research"?
https://www.si.com/nfl/video/2018/02/04/new-england-patriots-super-bowl-52-who-is-ernie-adams
Pay attention to Albert Breer's comments at 0:42.
This is what I'd like to think, that it's either lip service or "coachspeak" designed not to give anything away. Maybe both. Even if he does plan to make the team less run-happy, he certainly has nothing to gain by admitting it now.Bottom line: Jerry wasn't going to hire anybody who didn't placate him about how vital Elliott is and how happy they are that he's locked up. And because of McCarthy's history of not prioritizing running or RBs at all, he probably had to make an even bigger deal about how wildly happy he is to have Elliott, just to overcompensate.
There's no reason to assume that this would only affect passes with play action, but not affect passes without. If the QB expects a run blitz, for example, he might eschew the play fake and target the vacated area of the defense, thus improving the success rate on non-play-action passes.
does it in any way take account of the fact that teams would not run a play action under certain circumstances. for example, would you run a play action if the defender is penetrating the backfield in 2 seconds.
You could come up with multiple scenarios that make the success of play action more or less likely, and you could do the same for non-play action. That doesn't mean you simply throw up your hands though.that is only one example of simple self-selection bias.
Yeah, I feel that some of his "growth" is marketing talk. However, doesn't mean he won't be better than what we had.Like I said.. McCarthy is like all of these big ego coaches that speak about all the changes they want to do from what they did before but the reality is that they are just doing whatever it takes to get another million dollar job.
McCarthy sold everyone some BS and a lot of people bought it.
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.
You could come up with multiple scenarios that make the success of play action more or less likely, and you could do the same for non-play action. That doesn't mean you simply throw up your hands though.
such as tendencies of each team/coach that we will be playing. again football is a very complex situation for statistical analysis due to the complex interactions of 22 players. intuitively, the narrower you can focus your analytics, the more likely you will get something useful.
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.
I'm sure that will be case as it presumably is for every team, but in a study of whether run frequency/success affects play action success then obviously you have to look at the whole league, and preferably over several seasons -- which was exactly what Baldwin did in those three studies posted above.again, i am not privy to these models. though it sure seems like a simple regression with play action or no play action. i would expect much more detailed sophisticated analysis to be done rather than a simple regression with play action or no play action....i would probably spend resources in much narrower questions myself. such as tendencies of each team/coach that we will be playing.
I hope he does well but he isn’t changing from what he did in GB that got him fired.
And that's because?I hope he does well but he isn’t changing from what he did in GB that got him fired.
OP is negative about everything, so who cares what he thinks