Breer: Influence of Analytics Will Increase Under McDermott

[Thurman#1]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/28/nfl-analytics-front-office-old-school-approach-draft-game-planning-charting

 

 

It's an article looking at how all 32 teams handle analytics.

 

 

"The Bills hired Xerox exec Michael Lyons to be its director of analytics four years ago, but his role has been pretty limited since his arrival. That is about to change. Lyons and analyst Peter Linton have simply provided the information up until now, but with new GM Brandon Beane and coach Sean McDermott in place, their influence is expected to grow and additional hires are planned for before the season begins."

 

 

 

 

I know this is almost three weeks old, but I searched for it and didn't find anything. You can see because I searched old analytics threads, got interested and necro-bumped an old thread on the subject. Sorry. ;-)

 

It's something I have been hoping for since forever, really.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Straight Hucklebuck]

We'll finally get that "robust" analytics department that Russ Brandon debuted with 71 year old Buddy Nix over 7 years ago?!?

[jr1]

of they could just read PFF

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

More khaki pants!!

[C.Biscuit97]

Analystics in football is the most overrated thing ever. There are analysts that have stats that will have you believe Alex Smith is a better qb than Brett Farve. Sorry nerds, football still isn't for you.

 

If there is any information to help you, you should use it. But football will always be more of a feel type game. Don't be afraid to be your own coach. If I was in charge, I'd consider going for it on every reasonable 4th down once I crossed the 50.

[Mark80]

Analystics in football is the most overrated thing ever. There are analysts that have stats that will have you believe Alex Smith is a better qb than Brett Farve. Sorry nerds, football still isn't for you.

 

If there is any information to help you, you should use it. But football will always be more of a feel type game. Don't be afraid to be your own coach. If I was in charge, I'd consider going for it on every reasonable 4th down once I crossed the 50.

 

Bashes analytics and then points to the exact type of thing that typical coaches do not do, but analytics supports. Funny.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

of they could just read PFF

...Moolarkey's Magic 8 Ball is much better..............

[C.Biscuit97]

 

Bashes analytics and then points to the exact type of thing that typical coaches do not do, but analytics supports. Funny.

That has nothing to do with analytics. I wouldn't look at some numbers. You go for it because you believe in your offense.

 

Coaches are too conservative and unwilling to go out on a limb. That has nothing to do with analytics.

[Jerry Jabber]

We'll finally get that "robust" analytics department that Russ Brandon debuted with 71 year old Buddy Nix over 7 years ago?!?

+1

[NoSaint]

That has nothing to do with analytics. I wouldn't look at some numbers. You go for it because you believe in your offense.

 

Coaches are too conservative and unwilling to go out on a limb. That has nothing to do with analytics.

And that's a prime place to know it's true by using the numbers.

[Mark80]

That has nothing to do with analytics. I wouldn't look at some numbers. You go for it because you believe in your offense.

 

Coaches are too conservative and unwilling to go out on a limb. That has nothing to do with analytics.

 

The "analytics" say that coaches should be going for 4th down in way more situations than they actually do. This is based on percentages of getting the 4th down and eventually getting points versus not getting the 4th down and not allowing points on the subsequent drive and the impacts of punting / kicking a FG vs going for a TD, field position, etc. I know you were not saying you would be using analytics, I just thought it was funny that the example you cite is a precise area where analytics says they can improve over a coach's "gut feeling" and an area where the there is enough data to support the percentages not really lying in this use case.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Mark80

[Kemp]

Analytics absolutely work in baseball and hockey. Makes it seem likely that they would be valuable in football.

[C.Biscuit97]

Analytics absolutely work in baseball and hockey. Makes it seem likely that they would be valuable in football.

Analytics work best in baseball because there are fewer variables. Football has 22 players and is a game played on emotion.

 

You should use all the information you have but most of the analytic people haven't really ever played football. I don't want a coach who blindly follows a chart. If it's early in the game and you like the o line is playing, you should go for and not have to rely on some numbers.

 

FYI, teams have been using "analytics " when scouting teams and finding tendencies forever.

[BarleyNY]

It was pretty obvious that McD was in charge of this past draft precisely because it was far more analytics driven than previous ones.

[bleve]

Analystics in football is the most overrated thing ever. There are analysts that have stats that will have you believe Alex Smith is a better qb than Brett Farve. Sorry nerds, football still isn't for you.

 

If there is any information to help you, you should use it. But football will always be more of a feel type game. Don't be afraid to be your own coach. If I was in charge, I'd consider going for it on every reasonable 4th down once I crossed the 50.

 

I don't know if it's the most overrated thing ever. Maybe you should ask Ernie Adams?

[Chilly]

Hopefully this is more than lip service. I would love to have access to a true giant NFL stats DB and be able to create a neural network to help answer football questions. I think it would help as lot as long as people were open-minded, realized that it's not the end-all be-all strawman that always gets argued against in these threads, and decide to not be analytics crumudgeons (I'm looking at you Doug Marrone).

[BarleyNY]

Analytics work best in baseball because there are fewer variables. Football has 22 players and is a game played on emotion.

You should use all the information you have but most of the analytic people haven't really ever played football. I don't want a coach who blindly follows a chart. If it's early in the game and you like the o line is playing, you should go for and not have to rely on some numbers.

FYI, teams have been using "analytics " when scouting teams and finding tendencies forever.

You think the Patriots have won by being more emotional? How can you type that with any sincerity? Analytics is not about blindly following charts, it's all about finding value and advantage by removing emotion from decision making and focusing on expected outcomes. You know, like Belichick has done.

[NoSaint]

Analytics work best in baseball because there are fewer variables. Football has 22 players and is a game played on emotion.

 

You should use all the information you have but most of the analytic people haven't really ever played football. I don't want a coach who blindly follows a chart. If it's early in the game and you like the o line is playing, you should go for and not have to rely on some numbers.

 

FYI, teams have been using "analytics " when scouting teams and finding tendencies forever.

To the final line - yes, certainly. And now with the advantages of advanced technologies and more developed study those tendencies are able to be charted in a lot more ways.

 

No ones arguing you blindly follow a chart. Most of us think you can be more prepared to make an educated choice.

[3rdand12]

You think the Patriots have won by being more emotional? How can you type that with any sincerity? Analytics is not about blindly following charts, it's all about finding value and advantage by removing emotion from decision making and focusing on expected outcomes. You know, like Belichick has done.

true enough

[C.Biscuit97]

You think the Patriots have won by being more emotional? How can you type that with any sincerity? Analytics is not about blindly following charts, it's all about finding value and advantage by removing emotion from decision making and focusing on expected outcomes. You know, like Belichick has done.

They won by having the best qb ever.

 

They also win by using tendencies. Years ago, they played Minnesota who had the number 1 run defense. So they passed like 20 straight times to start the game. This type of scouting has been around forever. It's just that most coaches are kitty cats who are afraid to go past conventional coaching.

 

Again, you use all information available to you. But it's not nearly as important in football as it is in other sports. Qb play has killed this team the last 17 years more than analytics.

[BarleyNY]

They won by having the best qb ever.

They also win by using tendencies. Years ago, they played Minnesota who had the number 1 run defense. So they passed like 20 straight times to start the game. This type of scouting has been around forever. It's just that most coaches are kitty cats who are afraid to go past conventional coaching.

Again, you use all information available to you. But it's not nearly as important in football as it is in other sports. Qb play has killed this team the last 17 years more than analytics.

The Pats do have Brady, but they've also done a whole lot else right and it's been right in line with what analytics is showing to be advantageous. You couldn't be more wrong about the use of information in football versus other sports - it is absolutely as important in football. I'll just leave it there.

[C.Biscuit97]

The Pats do have Brady, but they've also done a whole lot else right and it's been right in line with what analytics is showing to be advantageous. You couldn't be more wrong about the use of information in football versus other sports - it is absolutely as important in football. I'll just leave it there.

Honest question: have you ever played or coached, especially past high school? Again, I said it has a role but not nearly as big as some what to make it to be.

 

Belichick uses his gut from 30 years of coaching more than numbers, imo. He is willing to take more chances than most head coaches.

 

Chip Kelly loved analytics. But he loved them so much he ignored things like varying the pace so your defense doesn't completely wear out.

[Peace Frog]

Honest question: have you ever played or coached, especially past high school? Again, I said it has a role but not nearly as big as some what to make it to be.

 

Belichick uses his gut from 30 years of coaching more than numbers, imo. He is willing to take more chances than most head coaches.

 

Chip Kelly loved analytics. But he loved them so much he ignored things like varying the pace so your defense doesn't completely wear out.

You sound like you know what you're talking about. I think you should be a coach or GM and put that to good use.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

 

Bashes analytics and then points to the exact type of thing that typical coaches do not do, but analytics supports. Funny.

 

Bill Belichick does it far more often, so he can't be all that wrong. Like I have said, analytics is just a 21st century version of "How to Win at Blackjack/Poker/et al"...

[Overseas Bills Fan]

Analystics in football is the most overrated thing ever. There are analysts that have stats that will have you believe Alex Smith is a better qb than Brett Farve. Sorry nerds, football still isn't for you.

 

If there is any information to help you, you should use it. But football will always be more of a feel type game. Don't be afraid to be your own coach. If I was in charge, I'd consider going for it on every reasonable 4th down once I crossed the 50.

Wow. Aloof, Haughty, Superior, and a gaslighter for people who think differently than you. Amazing! Internet does bring out the inner-bully in alot of people.

[Estro]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/28/nfl-analytics-front-office-old-school-approach-draft-game-planning-charting

 

 

It's an article looking at how all 32 teams handle analytics.

 

 

"The Bills hired Xerox exec Michael Lyons to be its director of analytics four years ago, but his role has been pretty limited since his arrival. That is about to change. Lyons and analyst Peter Linton have simply provided the information up until now, but with new GM Brandon Beane and coach Sean McDermott in place, their influence is expected to grow and additional hires are planned for before the season begins."

 

 

 

 

I know this is almost three weeks old, but I searched for it and didn't find anything. You can see because I searched old analytics threads, got interested and necro-bumped an old thread on the subject. Sorry. ;-)

 

It's something I have been hoping for since forever, really.

 

Analytical department:

 

Step 1: Follow the 4th down bot on twitter

Step 2: Do what it says

 

......you then have an analytical dept. better than any in the league. Pretty simple.

[GunnerBill]

Chip Kelly loved analytics. But he loved them so much he ignored things like varying the pace so your defense doesn't completely wear out.

This is your strongest point. I'd develop on this because it is where your strongest argument lies.

[Chandler#81]

Honest question: have you ever played or coached, especially past high school? Again, I said it has a role but not nearly as big as some what to make it to be.

 

Belichick uses his gut from 30 years of coaching more than numbers, imo. He is willing to take more chances than most head coaches.

 

Chip Kelly loved analytics. But he loved them so much he ignored things like varying the pace so your defense doesn't completely wear out.

 

Calm down, Biscuit. You've made your perspective abundantly clear, while hi-jacking the thread. Others, INCLUDING NFL teams, don't share your view. Please allow others to present theirs.

[Thurman#1]

We'll finally get that "robust" analytics department that Russ Brandon debuted with 71 year old Buddy Nix over 7 years ago?!?

 

 

May 16, 2013 - Bills promote Doug Whaley to GM.

 

Oct 30, 2013 - Bills launch analytics department by hiring Lyons

 

So it wasn't Nix, but beyond that I agree. They clearly haven't been using them enough. Hope they start to do so now.

[eball]

I find C.Biscuit97's rant against analytics amusing. It's not as if they're giving the car keys to a couple of nerds who have never driven.

 

We now live in a world of data/analytics/algorithms. To presume this is of no benefit in the game of football is simply naive.

 

Those who hang on to the notion of old school, coach-by-your-gut gameday decision-making are doomed to be surpassed by those who understand data and know how to make it useful.

[GunnerBill]

I think one of the issues is there is a disconnect between the "surface level" numbers that get loosely termed "analytics" and actual "analytics". The 4th down thing is an example of that. There is that number out there that says a team going for it on every 4th down would have a positive points differential overall as against a team who take the conventional punt and FG route. However, actual analytics would need to isolate certain numbers in that assessment and consider the variables at play. For example, 4th downs in a team's own half of the field have a high success % but they are rarely tried beyond 2 minute drills at the end of a game when a defense will often not sell out to stop the run in a 4th a short scenario because they are protecting against the big play down the field. The reason teams don't go for every 4th down is not because they are "ignoring analytics" it is because the reality of analytics is much deeper and more complex than the "surface level" numbers that are loosely thrown around on twitter.

 

I think that is a bit what C Biscuit is getting at.... not that numbers can never help.... but that surface level headline numbers that ignore the multitude of variables are little better than gut instinct ever was. That isn't to say the Bills can't get better and sharper in their use of data to assist in gameplanning and scenario based decision making - they clearly can and hopefully they will.

[eball]

I think one of the issues is there is a disconnect between the "surface level" numbers that get loosely termed "analytics" and actual "analytics". The 4th down thing is an example of that. There is that number out there that says a team going for it on every 4th down would have a positive points differential overall as against a team who take the conventional punt and FG route. However, actual analytics would need to isolate certain numbers in that assessment and consider the variables at play. For example, 4th downs in a team's own half of the field have a high success % but they are rarely tried beyond 2 minute drills at the end of a game when a defense will often not sell out to stop the run in a 4th a short scenario because they are protecting against the big play down the field. The reason teams don't go for every 4th down is not because they are "ignoring analytics" it is because the reality of analytics is much deeper and more complex than the "surface level" numbers that are loosely thrown around on twitter.

 

I think that is a bit what C Biscuit is getting at.... not that numbers can never help.... but that surface level headline numbers that ignore the multitude of variables are little better than gut instinct ever was. That isn't to say the Bills can't get better and sharper in their use of data to assist in gameplanning and scenario based decision making - they clearly can and hopefully they will.

 

They don't go for it because it goes against their "gut" and the old school mentality of coaching, and they are more focused on the specific moment than in long-term probabilities. There are times it won't work and they're more concerned about being second-guessed than in trusting the data.

 

It's the same thing as basic strategy in blackjack. The data is tried and true -- if you follow basic strategy (the math) religiously then over the long haul you will come out almost even with the house. How many people refuse to hit 16 against a 10, though, because their "gut" won't let them do it when they have a big bet out there?

 

Getting back to football, I do agree that you have to factor game variables into the decision -- but those are simply additional data points from which the algorithms are derived.

[GunnerBill]

 

They don't go for it because it goes against their "gut" and the old school mentality of coaching, and they are more focused on the specific moment than in long-term probabilities. There are times it won't work and they're more concerned about being second-guessed than in trusting the data.

 

It's the same thing as basic strategy in blackjack. The data is tried and true -- if you follow basic strategy (the math) religiously then over the long haul you will come out almost even with the house. How many people refuse to hit 16 against a 10, though, because their "gut" won't let them do it when they have a big bet out there?

 

Getting back to football, I do agree that you have to factor game variables into the decision -- but those are simply additional data points from which the algorithms are derived.

 

No they don't do it because they have done actual analytics which goes beyond the surface numbers and considers the variables and tells you a strategy of going for every 4th down is simply not supported by robust data. There are times, of course there are, when teams don't go for it on 4th down because they are trapped by conventional thinking but those are not as prevalent as most fans assume. Quite often proper analytics that factors in the variables in any single independent decision will not support a decision to go for it.

[zman44]

Analytics is so much more than in game decisions, people need to understand that analytics is not just going for it on 4th downs. It is used very effectively to monitor player performance both in game and in practice. Players use analytics to make their workouts more effective and get the most out of their bodies. It is an extremely useful tool that for some reason personally angers people who can't stand to think sports change and adapt over time.

[GunnerBill]

Analytics is so much more than in game decisions, people need to understand that analytics is not just going for it on 4th downs. It is used very effectively to monitor player performance both in game and in practice. Players use analytics to make their workouts more effective and get the most out of their bodies. It is an extremely useful tool that for some reason personally angers people who can't stand to think sports change and adapt over time.

 

Yes absolutely. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The uselessness of that surface level 4th down analytics is just a particular bug bear of mine. I am very pro the use of data in sport to better understand performance.

[Thurman#1]

 

No they don't do it because they have done actual analytics which goes beyond the surface numbers and considers the variables and tells you a strategy of going for every 4th down is simply not supported by robust data. There are times, of course there are, when teams don't go for it on 4th down because they are trapped by conventional thinking but those are not as prevalent as most fans assume. Quite often proper analytics that factors in the variables in any single independent decision will not support a decision to go for it.

 

 

IMHO most of them don't do it because if they go for it and don't make it there'll be a massive firestorm aimed at the head coach, whereas if he goes conservative, no firestorm because he's doing what the conventional wisdom has long championed. So even if the analytics, both general and situation-specific say go for it, most teams still won't.

[GunnerBill]

 

 

IMHO most of them don't do it because if they go for it and don't make it there'll be a massive firestorm aimed at the head coach, whereas if he goes conservative, no firestorm because he's doing what the conventional wisdom has long championed. So even if the analytics, both general and situation-specific say go for it, most teams still won't.

 

Yea of course to some extent that is true. It just grates on me when I see twitter reactions to coaches who the analytics would support getting hammered for ignoring analytics. Particular bug bear of mine I suppose so I tend to notice those situations more, they stand out to me.

[C.Biscuit97]

I think one of the issues is there is a disconnect between the "surface level" numbers that get loosely termed "analytics" and actual "analytics". The 4th down thing is an example of that. There is that number out there that says a team going for it on every 4th down would have a positive points differential overall as against a team who take the conventional punt and FG route. However, actual analytics would need to isolate certain numbers in that assessment and consider the variables at play. For example, 4th downs in a team's own half of the field have a high success % but they are rarely tried beyond 2 minute drills at the end of a game when a defense will often not sell out to stop the run in a 4th a short scenario because they are protecting against the big play down the field. The reason teams don't go for every 4th down is not because they are "ignoring analytics" it is because the reality of analytics is much deeper and more complex than the "surface level" numbers that are loosely thrown around on twitter.

 

I think that is a bit what C Biscuit is getting at.... not that numbers can never help.... but that surface level headline numbers that ignore the multitude of variables are little better than gut instinct ever was. That isn't to say the Bills can't get better and sharper in their use of data to assist in gameplanning and scenario based decision making - they clearly can and hopefully they will.

Thanks. You explained it much better than I did. I just think analytics is some hit buzz word right night when he has existed forever. I also think the media and the fans will use it to criticize coaches when coaching is much more complicated than looking at numbers.

Analytics is so much more than in game decisions, people need to understand that analytics is not just going for it on 4th downs. It is used very effectively to monitor player performance both in game and in practice. Players use analytics to make their workouts more effective and get the most out of their bodies. It is an extremely useful tool that for some reason personally angers people who can't stand to think sports change and adapt over time.

I definitely agree with this. We are training much smarter now.

[re enlightener]

i thought this said "Beer" so im not reading anymore

[eball]

 

No they don't do it because they have done actual analytics which goes beyond the surface numbers and considers the variables and tells you a strategy of going for every 4th down is simply not supported by robust data. There are times, of course there are, when teams don't go for it on 4th down because they are trapped by conventional thinking but those are not as prevalent as most fans assume. Quite often proper analytics that factors in the variables in any single independent decision will not support a decision to go for it.

 

You apparently didn't read the last sentence of my response. I also think you are grossly underestimating the level of "gut" coaching that still goes on.

 

 

IMHO most of them don't do it because if they go for it and don't make it there'll be a massive firestorm aimed at the head coach, whereas if he goes conservative, no firestorm because he's doing what the conventional wisdom has long championed. So even if the analytics, both general and situation-specific say go for it, most teams still won't.

 

Correct; this is what I was trying to say as well.