The Cowboys are going all in on analytics in 2023

[CCBoy]

Those computer programs can be wrong also. Garbage in - garbage out. A computer does not think for itself or choose what it gets to eat.

No, they are programed or controlled by it's owner. They are what the owner of them makes them into.

 

[CCBoy]

I think the chick that discovered that not all RBs are the same is a major addition that is sure to pay dividends.

She looking for a life mate?

 

[charron]

What does going all in on analytics mean? Does it mean going for it every 4th down, always going for 2? Coaches have always done what they think gives them the best chance to win. We will see just how aggressive Mike is calling plays.

 

[CCBoy]

What does going all in on analytics mean? Does it mean going for it every 4th down, always going for 2? Coaches have always done what they think gives them the best chance to win. We will see just how aggressive Mike is calling plays.

Take a college level course and learn, maybe...

 

[Alexander]

More words from the mountain. John Park is building an analytics team of extraordinary magnitude.

 

[Alexander]

I think the chick that discovered that not all RBs are the same is a major addition that is sure to pay dividends.

I have reported this misogynistic comment to the moderators.

 

[erod]

I have reported this misogynistic comment to the moderators.

I hope you're joking.

 

[EST_1986]

How ever did Knute Rockne and Vince Lombardi ever get it done without analytics?

Games changing, get with it or go 3 decades without sniffing a Championship

 

[Qbert]

 

[shabazz]

Games changing, get with it or go 3 decades without sniffing a Championship

Shouldn’t they just go with A.I. instead of these people?……humans are unreliable.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I don’t see how any of it fits into football.

As an example…let’s say you’re faced with 4th and 4 from your own 41, and teams convert that down and distance at a 68% rate.

It doesn’t mean you have a 68% chance to convert in the current situation, or make it a good idea…not early in the game or when ahead anyway.

There are dozens of factors that were not in play during the 68% calculation, not the least of which is who you are and who you’re playing.

I’m probably missing something but I just don’t see how it fits. It’s not baseball.

Why do you think the time into the game, the score, information about your team and who you're playing wouldn't be included in the models? Teams have tremendous resources to build models with a ton of situational detail in them. And remember, it could be lower than 68% because of other factors, but it could also be higher. More importantly, wouldn't you want those numbers before making the decision?
"Hey coach, the models say we're better off punting here and you can see it's not a close call." "Oh, good to know, I was thinking we have them on their heels, and their MLB is a little dinged up, but yeah, those things aren't nearly enough to overcome THAT big a difference."
Or: "the analytics think you should go for it, but the difference is pretty small." "Okay, but you know what, my guys are slipping all over the place on that field today, we need to change their cleats at halftime, let's not risk it here for such a small potential benefit."

 

[JD_KaPow]

Analytics is a tool.

Having more tools is good.

Knowing how to use tools is good.

Amen. And most important, you can throw as much money as you want at tools like this, and scouts, and coaches, and consultants, and nutritionists, etc., etc. without touching your salary cap. Why wouldn't you?

(Well, okay, at some point you get diminishing returns, like having more coaches than players would probably be counterproductive, but it would make for some goofy fun to watch I bet!)

 

[fivetwos]

Why do you think the time into the game, the score, information about your team and who you're playing wouldn't be included in the models? Teams have tremendous resources to build models with a ton of situational detail in them. And remember, it could be lower than 68% because of other factors, but it could also be higher. More importantly, wouldn't you want those numbers before making the decision?
"Hey coach, the models say we're better off punting here and you can see it's not a close call." "Oh, good to know, I was thinking we have them on their heels, and their MLB is a little dinged up, but yeah, those things aren't nearly enough to overcome THAT big a difference."
Or: "the analytics think you should go for it, but the difference is pretty small." "Okay, but you know what, my guys are slipping all over the place on that field today, we need to change their cleats at halftime, let's not risk it here for such a small potential benefit."

Yeah I can’t argue with any of that and well put.

I’m not even sure if those would be the situations in question, but it would seem that what other teams did vs other teams in the past has little to do with the matchup at hand.

I don’t think that type of data is useless, and I wouldn’t want my team ignoring it by any means. Just hopefully use it under advisement as opposed to gospel.

 

[EST_1986]

Shouldn’t they just go with A.I. instead of these people?……humans are unreliable.

Would be nice, the humans we got are practically monkeys on the evolution chart