Why Josh Allen will demonstrate the flaw in the analytics approach to football

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

57 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

apparently there are are some confused by your post. 

 

This  is why you can’t trust stats 

16 minutes ago, musichunch said:

 

You must hate that we made the playoffs last year. I've been noticing your posts around this board along with a few other active accounts with a very similar tone. It would do the fanbase a lot of good for moderators to just ban you. I do not believe you are genuine in your negativity, rather you want to bring people down and incite emotion. 

After Josh starts and wins some games only the devout will remember Tyrod Taylor 

 

[msw2112]

It's too early to say whether Allen will be successful.   You can't predict an NFL career on two preseason appearances.  So far I like what I see.  He has the physical skills, seems to have the desire to put in the work, and so far, is demonstrating the "football smarts" that it takes to be a successful NFL QB. 

 

EJ Manuel had the physical skills, work ethic and was a smart kid in general, but lacked the "football smarts" - the ability to quickly process information on the football field, react to it and execute the proper play.  Tom Brady is a good athlete (he was an excellent high school and college baseball player and was drafted by the Montreal Expos), but he was not and is not as athletically gifted as numerous other quarterbacks who have played in the NFL, including EJ Manuel.  He has a great work ethic.  He's a smart guy, but probably not as smart as a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick.  What separates him is the innate ability to process information quickly on the football field, react to it and execute the proper play.  He may be the best ever in this area - it's hard to argue otherwise.  To make one other comparison, Doug Flutie had great football smarts, but was limited by his physical stature, whereas Rob Johnson had the physical skills, but lacked the football smarts.  Fitzy has the smarts, but lacks the physical ability.

 

Getting back to Allen, let's hope he has the complete package.  Time will tell.  Go Josh and go Bills!

Edited August 24, 2018 by msw2112

[Buffalo716]

15 minutes ago, JMF2006 said:

 

They all play once a WEEK  

 

My thought on the situation is they were going to draft the best fit at QB for this team and I trust the process.(as long as it wasn't Lamaar(TT2) Jackson)

 

I really billieve that these guys are going to get us back to the top of the league.

 

Go Cornfed....light em up on Sunday.

 

BTW did everyone see SuperFoles get destroyed by the Browns D? the same D  Cornfed drove for scores on 3 times

 

How did you quote me with that? I never said that... that was op not me lol

[ToGoGo]

14 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

After Josh starts and wins some games only the devout will remember Tyrod Taylor 

 

 

Until we lose again, then they come out of the woodwork. They feed on doubt and negativity. Banning is the best move IMO. 

[H2o]

Mayfield was my guy. I still like Mayfield and think he is going to be a top tier QB in this league for years to come. My opinion on Mayfield was based off of watching him play at Oklahoma. Analytics are analytics, but I watched Mayfield make every throw across the board time and time again during the most clutch of situations. Was pissed on draft night. I thought we were trading up for the other Josh. I quickly understood why Rosen wasn't the pick. I have been pleasantly surprised with Allen and am very optimistic for our chances at having landed our franchise QB. For being a rookie he looks awful poised back there and just seems to get things done along with making a few wow plays along the way. Will he destroy the analytics way of thinking? No, but he may cause people to dig a little deeper than just the numbers especially when selecting a QB. The strides he has made from the end of the season, to the Senior Bowl, and up until this point have been pretty spectacular. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by H2o

[billykay]

1 hour ago, Jay_Fixit said:

I’ve literally been wrong twice in my life.

 

I hope Josh Allen makes it a third time. So far, it looks like it.

 

I thought that I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

 

[Putin]

1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

Speaking of analytics: so far, after 2 pre-season game performances, Josh Allen's numbers are pretty much the same as....

 

EJ Manuel.

 

 

The eye Chico the eye ? never lies !!

[fergie's ire]

52 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

The key word is "predicted." I work in finances and statistics is a hobby of mine. The biggest misconception people have about statistics is that they are making black and white predictions. Really they are assigning probabilities. So for example QBASE (the Football Outsiders analytics stat) gave Josh Allen a 62.7% chance of busting. That's a better than a 1 in 3 chance he makes it. A 1 in 3 chance is NOT that unlikely. If he succeeds that doesn't mean QBASE or whatever other analytics tool is complete bogus. If a model gives 10 QBs a 66% chance of busting and they ALL bust, that means the model is broken. The problem isn't analytics as a tool, the problem is how people interpret them.

Yes, the black and white thinking is the big problem.  Either analytics are right all the time...or the eyeball test is the only way to go.  Analytics are extremely useful...but have to understand they are a tool, not an answer.  Not only is probability an issue, but have to consider context.  I remember several years ago someone was discussing how football should use more analytics.  The example they gave was the draft and they argued that teams should draft more guards and safeties in the first round...particularly early in the first round.  The reasoning was that quarterbacks, even in the top 10, did not have a high probability of success...but almost every guard or safety drafted early had a good or great career.  The context that these analytics failed to recognize was that because guards and safeties have less relative importance than, say QBs, if one is drafted in the first half of the first round, he is probably a generational prospect (e.g. Quenton Nelson).  That does NOT mean that teams would be more successful if they started spending all their early draft picks on guards and safeties.

[ricojes]

1 hour ago, Johnnycage46 said:

That may be true...from a numbers perspective...but stats only tell one part of the story.  Did a QB throw a pass 1 yard in the air and the receiver broke some tackles and went 30 yards...crediting the QB with a 30+ yard completion.  From watching Josh Allen thus far, I would say he is NOTHING like EJ Manuel.  You can compare any game's stats and try to say they are the same but the devil is in the details.

Great answer to an awful post...

[billybob71]

1 hour ago, Jay_Fixit said:

I’ve literally been wrong twice in my life.

 

I hope Josh Allen makes it a third time. So far, it looks like it.

 

I've never been wrong and I say he gonna be good. Discussion over close this post. Mic drop

[Orlando Tim]

As posted previously in post there is a huge misconceptions about analytics- all the numbers say is that this guy has the best chance of success based on his numbers. It is not stating who is better because numbers only cover so much of a person. Also reading the numbers is not as easy as many think or the baseball A's would never be in the playoff hunt.

[Utah John]

I'm not convinced analytics will work as well in football as it does for some aspects of baseball.  A hitter and a pitcher, mostly one on one.  Sure the defense is working together and the catcher has a lot to do with the outcome, and also the hitter might not be swinging freely but instead could have men on base and needs to hit accordingly.  But it's largely one on one, so the influence of other team members (such as the O line in football, or the skill and speed of the receivers, or the offensive scheme) is less in baseball.  Also a hitter gets hundreds of times at the plate in a season, so there's a big statistical sample compared to a QB's number of passes attempted.  So for football, I think analytics might be an indicator of capability but not always a good one.

 

As for statistics in general, people are terrible at understanding what they mean.  If there's a 10% chance of rain, most people assume it won't rain, period.  What that 10% means is that on one day out of ten with those weather conditions, it will rain.  So you shouldn't be surprised or angry if today's the one day out of ten. 

 

[mjt328]

Nothing... (whether it be analytics, statistics, film study, etc)... can flawlessly predict how a player performs at the next level.

 

The biggest reason? 

They aren't a finished product yet.

 

Teams didn't miss on Tom Brady because they were stupid.  They overlooked him because virtually nothing during his college career suggested he would be more than an NFL backup.  His performance on the field was average.  His physical attributes were average.  His stats were average.  Brady just happened to perfect every aspect of his game after reaching the pros - whether it be accuracy, arm strength, pocket presence, release and his ability to read a defense.

 

That doesn't mean analytics have no value.  Every piece of information can help a scouting department in evaluating prospects.  But they aren't going to be anywhere close to 100% in predicting future success.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Nothing... (whether it be analytics, statistics, film study, etc)... can flawlessly predict how a player performs at the next level.

 

The biggest reason? 

They aren't a finished product yet.

 

Teams didn't miss on Tom Brady because they were stupid.  They overlooked him because virtually nothing during his college career suggested he would be more than an NFL backup.  His performance on the field was average.  His physical attributes were average.  His stats were average.  Brady just happened to perfect every aspect of his game after reaching the pros - whether it be accuracy, arm strength, pocket presence, release and his ability to read a defense.

 

That doesn't mean analytics have no value.  Every piece of information can help a scouting department in evaluating prospects.  But they aren't going to be anywhere close to 100% in predicting future success.

 

 

 

...the whole analytics thing reminds me of "paralysis by analysis"..........not sure when analytics were first introduced, but it would be interesting to see a "pre versus post" comparative analysis of QB's......"pre" sample size would be much larger so you'd have to establish a level playing field in the number of years to be compared IMO.....

[MAJBobby]

23 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

I like analytics and was against drafting Josh Allen.  The analytics were clear his poor statistical performance against week competition predicted a poor success rate.  His inaccuracy was sure to doom him at the next level.  I bought into it and wanted analytics darling Baker Mayfield.

 

But the problem with these types of statistical analysis is that it is hard to translate them to individual case by case scenarios. When you get to the individual player there are various idiosyncrasies of their story experience and their career that may produce a result that is statistically improbable on the whole but entirely likely on the individual case.  For instance if a player put together a great college carrier but they struggle with addiction, injury or laziness they individually are far more likely to fail. The prime example of this would be Ryan Leaf, analytics would say he was as likely to succeed as Joe Flacco was but Leaf's individual laziness, bad attitude and addiction issues meant that he was always going to fail.

 

In his limited preseason game time Allen is demonstrating the opposite of the example above, instead of showing how analytics overvalue some players he is showing how analytics can undervalue one. The issue at hand is coaching, Josh was under-coached throughout his time in football. He attended few QB camps went to a Small time High school, then a small time college. The overwhelming number of QB prospects, especially top prospects went to those QB camps, focused on football in highschool and went to a program far bigger than Wyoming. In other words the concept of having already received top flight coaching is inadvertently baked into the analytics. A player who has not received good coaching naturally has more to learn than a [player who has. 

 

Josh Allen has made huge strides (pun intended) when it comes to his footwork, which has improved his accuracy which was the prime concern about his game. Despite the fact that we are in preseason it is easy to see how his footwork is far better than before the off season. If this improvement continues Josh will be the biggest example yet of how the individual circumstances of a player can be missed by  statistical analysis.

 

Analytics are a tool. A mathematical tool that will be more right than wrong. And yes Josh Allen may be the statistical anomaly, however that is also why scouts are still employed to show why the math is wrong. 

 

Again I like all Bills fans have their fingers crossed that Josh Allen becomes that statistical anomaly. However if your Front office is looking for that or looking to catch lightening in a Bottle they will be more wrong than right. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by MAJBobby

[Augie]

I am firmly on the “Let’s Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Bandwagon”. 

 

Sure, I’m very hopeful, but let’s keep watching and pray he keeps getting better. 

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, billykay said:

I thought that I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

 

Doesn't that make you wrong about being wrong though?

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

I'm a big believer in analytics at the NFL level (especially with regard to gameday decision-making), but analytics based on college football statistics is highly problematic.  There is just too much variation in the schemes, schedules, talent level, coaching, etc, from team-to-team.  I think JA is going to demonstrate that.   

The problem is that analytics is a great tool for lazy writers.  Across the country, when people are writing or representing different Sports publications, they are all not traveling to Wyoming and watch Josh Allen day in-day out to write reviews about him.  IN today's Internet-driven world, the data is available and it is up to people to interpret it (as someone else wrote earlier).  Lazy writers pick what statistics they want to write stories that sell on Internet! 

[The Wiz]

1 minute ago, ganesh said:

The problem is that analytics is a great tool for lazy writers.  Across the country, when people are writing or representing different Sports publications, they are all not traveling to Wyoming and watch Josh Allen day in-day out to write reviews about him.  IN today's Internet-driven world, the data is available and it is up to people to interpret it (as someone else wrote earlier).  Lazy writers pick what statistics they want to write stories that sell on Internet! 

The part about this that is funny is how many people are changing their minds about Allen but his stats are basically the same.  Yes there are throw aways and drops but they aren't pointing at the stats anymore and going by the eye test instead and liking what they see.

[buffaloboyinATL]

Analytics can assume a fixed increase in ability due to coaching. But it can’t assume that there will be a sharper increase in ability based on Better coaching.