Good Dr. Z article...

[InmanRoshi]

I hope he's not like James. James is a moron whose now whinning because there's a backlash against his book, which he proclaimed in his book was the right way to build a baseball team. And he's also whinning about people trashing the A's 2002 draft "so soon" even though it didn't bother him to call their 2001 draft an "expensive disaster".

Nevermind the 2001 draft has returned far greater results than the 2002 and the crown princess of the 2002 draft is tolling away in AA Midland with little or no hope of ever reaching the majors....

Which book are you talking about. Baseball Prospectus? I hope you're not refering to Moneyball, because that is not James' book.

Anyone who concocts the Pythagorean Theorem of Winning Percentage is clearly not a "moron". Its funny how almost all of the successfull MLB general managers, including Theo Epstein who hires James as a consultant, is following the theorems of a moron.

 

[InmanRoshi]

So if a QB isn't sacked, the conditions under which he makes the pass are always the same? That doesn't seem to make much sense... We've all seen passes from a pressured QB look far worse than passes from a QB who has all day... I don't think that's hype.

I'm not slamming Brown (I always thought he was better than Sheppard) or the author. I think it's great that he wrote this book, and would love to read it myself. It's just that as you said, "How do you objectively quantify" every aspect of the game? I don't think you can. That's why judging players is as much art as science... IMO of course.

I think there are ways to quantifiably predict events in football that are undiscovered, but current football statistics are so primitive and downright meaningless that its difficult to find meaning with the data available. At the very least, we should be able to better assess who is and is not a good football player from statistics than we currently can. Why don't statistics better indicate how good a QB Troy Aikman is or was? Because statistics are based on sum totals? Wouldn't a better model be based on efficiency?

Many of the people who have redefined baseball statistics came from outside the game. Computer programmers, mathematicians, economists who took up baseball statistics as a hobby and formed their own seperate community. In time, as more and more intelligent people begin to offer their analysis and their talents, hopefully things will improve with the quality of football statistics.

Scientists and Economists are able to invent, test and apply numerical models to explain phenomenons like game theory and quantum mechanics, so I fail to see how 22 men in colored jerseys running around with a inflated piece of leather is so vastly complex and intricate to be out of the realm of numerical explaination.

But I do agree that the "art" of football will always be usefull and practical ... especially when it comes to things like talent evaluation.

 

[lurkercowboy]

A lot of baseball is one on one, pitcher versus batter. Football is a different game because there are a lot of individual battles going on, DE versus OT, WR versus CB, runner versus tackler etc. Plus double teams like center and guard versus DT, QB and WR against DB etc. It will be hard to break football down into numbers because it is a team game on every play. I do like the idea of the book though and I would buy it if I could afford it.

 

[GTaylor]

Which book are you talking about. Baseball Prospectus? I hope you're not refering to Moneyball, because that is not James' book.

Anyone who concocts the Pythagorean Theorem of Winning Percentage is clearly not a "moron". Its funny how almost all of the successfull MLB general managers, including Theo Epstein who hires James as a consultant, is following the theorems of a moron.

Awww man - yes I was thinking Moneyball. Michael Lewis is the guy thats an idiot, my bad. I do like BP.

Red Sox also were helped by 2 #1 starters and a strong rotation, something any baseball system reccomends. Red Sox were also helped by a NY team that "Phillyed" the playoffs. While I'm proud of them breaking the curse, I'm not going to credit the stathead system, win with an average rotation and now you have something.

Other teams that have used this system include Toronto, which has had so-so success, and the L.A. Dodgers, who have had either really bad luck or bad management.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Scientists and Economists are able to invent, test and apply numerical models to explain phenomenons like game theory and quantum mechanics, so I fail to see how 22 men in colored jerseys running around with a inflated piece of leather is so vastly complex and intricate to be out of the realm of numerical explaination.

that is one funny observation, inman. if you're not a writer - you oughta be.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

But I do agree that the "art" of football will always be usefull and practical ... especially when it comes to things like talent evaluation.

I think it's far more art than science.

In evaluation, as you say, where 'intangibles' play such a role, but also in the understanding and appreciation of the game.

The very formulae for some statistics is outdated or errant, as Troy Aikman repeatedly has pointed out re QB ratings. But the incredible number of variables that factor into individual perfomance will always skew if not screw the pooch.

The best stats nuts, imo, are of the Tuna variety. Parcells admits a fascination with numbers, and of having "guys" research "stuff". But the clues he looks for are team-oriented. How many times did a offense that started at is own 30 end up in the end zone as opposed to starting at its 25 type info. Bill looks for probability in a reasonable way..has never let his fondness for stats overwhelm his "psycological" approach to the game.

Score one for the "artists", imo, in the endless debate over the primacy of the "hard vs soft" sciences. Football is just too human to be quantified.

That said, I will order the book. Not to rely on it, or even refer to it, but to appreciate the passion of a fan would concoct it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Stats are an indicator for the most part.

If Alex Rodriguez is batting .350 from the plate and has been hitting .600 against David Wells in Yankee Stadium.....it's an indicator that the Red Sox need to either not pitch to Rodriguez or be very careful in doing so.

I gave in and purchased the book as well.


Rich............

 

[TobiasEagle77]

http://www.thefootballscientist.com/

is his website. You can view his gamenotes as well, which to me is more valuable than the stats.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Whew, I just read his gamenotes for the entire year... Very interesting.

I couldn't help but notice that he is very hard on many big corner names... He frequently talks of so-and-so being "targeted". Among these are Bailey, Buchanon, Lucas, Al Harris, Mike McKenzie, Lito Sheppard, Chris Gamble, and Dunta Robinson (who I inexplicably sometimes see in top-10 and top-5 lists on fan boards). Maybe this is because of his fantasy and therefore offensive orientation?

FWIW, about all he said about Newman was that he didn't look like he had the closing speed he did last year as people were running by him at times, and then later in the year that he was playing much better when he played bump and run, and maybe he needed to play in an aggressive scheme like that to be more successful.

Also, I noticed plenty of comments on Bledsoe, most of which were not very flattering. A lot of it centered on forcing passes into coverage when pressured... But then, we already knew that.

I'm looking forward to hearing more when some board members get their book in. It should make for some great conversation, if nothing else.

Just watch for the occasional turd-like comments, such as "I was laughing my *** off when I saw that."

 

[InmanRoshi]

I noticed an interesting note that Bledsoe (and Kerry Collins) perform best when executing the play as called from the huddle, and not using checkoff audibles. I don't believe Parcells even lets his QB's use checkoff audibles.