What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why don't teams hire game theory experts? (1 Viewer)

Zyphros

Zyphros

Footballguy
We have all seen it over and over again.  Stupid decision after stupid decision that ends up costing them the game.  At this point there has to be game theory experts that focus on football right?  Why don't teams hire these sorts of people as assistant coaches?  Why don't head coaches use this in their games?  It seems like an obvious development in the right direction of the way the game should be played, so what's stopping them?  Why do coaches continually make stupid decisions that cost them games, jobs, and money when that's literally all they care about during the season?  It's not like they don't have money to spend on it.  I mean FBG's has a long thread where we literally poke fun at guys making stupid choices so I can't imagine what an owner of the team might say to a coach about certain choices they make. 

So hire a game theory expert already.  It seems obvious no?  

 
Zyphros said:
We have all seen it over and over again.  Stupid decision after stupid decision that ends up costing them the game.  At this point there has to be game theory experts that focus on football right?  Why don't teams hire these sorts of people as assistant coaches?  Why don't head coaches use this in their games?  It seems like an obvious development in the right direction of the way the game should be played, so what's stopping them?  Why do coaches continually make stupid decisions that cost them games, jobs, and money when that's literally all they care about during the season?  It's not like they don't have money to spend on it.  I mean FBG's has a long thread where we literally poke fun at guys making stupid choices so I can't imagine what an owner of the team might say to a coach about certain choices they make. 

So hire a game theory expert already.  It seems obvious no?  
Click to expand...
True story: I sent an unsolicited email to the Rooneys about a decade ago offering to do just that (I have a masters in mathematics and have taught Game Theory many times). I haven't yet focused completely on football but I would if someone paid me. I don't recall getting any response from the Steelers. Their loss, literally.

 
pecorino said:
True story: I sent an unsolicited email to the Rooneys about a decade ago offering to do just that (I have a masters in mathematics and have taught Game Theory many times). I haven't yet focused completely on football but I would if someone paid me. I don't recall getting any response from the Steelers. Their loss, literally.
Click to expand...
What is your current occupation?  I'm a software developer and there are a lot of math guys / gals that go into IT.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably a similar thing to Moneyball happening here.   Just a lot of decision makers set in their ways, and if not, their bosses are set in their ways meaning the decision makers need to be too.

 
pecorino said:
True story: I sent an unsolicited email to the Rooneys about a decade ago offering to do just that (I have a masters in mathematics and have taught Game Theory many times). I haven't yet focused completely on football but I would if someone paid me. I don't recall getting any response from the Steelers. Their loss, literally.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna guess that it never made it to his desk.

 
JetMaxx said:
This is one of Doug Pedersons’ endearing qualities
Click to expand...
I don't know if that is true. I moved from Pittsburgh to the Philly area so I'm familiar with Doug's work over the past couple years and his decisions don't strike me as "optimal" but I have not analyzed them scientifically. I like the guy, but his grasp of probability seems shaky at best.

 
JetMaxx said:
This is one of Doug Pedersons’ endearing qualities
Click to expand...
Pederson and Wentz are going to be around a long time. You can already tell he's light years ahead of other coaches who have many years more experience. McVay as well. These dinosaurs like Fisher need to all be purged from the game.

 
pecorino said:
I taught Art's son and daughters at my prior school so I'm pretty sure it at least made it into the email inbox he gave us at the school.
Click to expand...
Then it was probably given to some clueless dolt to follow up on and he just tossed it aside. There's a lot of morons working in NFL front offices.

 
pecorino said:
True story: I sent an unsolicited email to the Rooneys about a decade ago offering to do just that (I have a masters in mathematics and have taught Game Theory many times). I haven't yet focused completely on football but I would if someone paid me. I don't recall getting any response from the Steelers. Their loss, literally.
Click to expand...
Try again for my sake, please.  

 
pecorino said:
True story: I sent an unsolicited email to the Rooneys about a decade ago offering to do just that (I have a masters in mathematics and have taught Game Theory many times). I haven't yet focused completely on football but I would if someone paid me. I don't recall getting any response from the Steelers. Their loss, literally.
Click to expand...


:lol:

 
Jimmy Johnson was on Cowherd a while back and said that in his coaching days, no one was allowed to call a timeout except him. Not another coach, not the QB, no one.  It's astonishing to me how often teams blow through timeouts like they don't mean anything. 

 
Walking Boot said:
Seriously. A single "coach" in the coaches box up in the stands who can signal another coach on the headset about what to do is all they need. Hire some kid who's simulated all 100,000 possible two-minute clock management drills by playing Madden for half his life knows more than a guy who's coached for 20 years but only 20 games a year. 
Click to expand...
Beat me to it. 

 
Because the nfl are a bunch of cautious, traditional, old curmudgeons who won't try something new until someone else beats them with it and who coach not to get fired instead of to win. 

One day the league will get there. Coaches are getting younger and younger so it's only a matter of time before one of them goes in with no fear and does it. Analytics took over for a lot of baseball teams. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coaches are held accountable for the outcome not the probability of their decision.

Think of the Seahawks/Pats probability-wise throwing might have been the right decision.  But fans and owners look at the INT and suddenly there was 100% chance of a TD running and zero percent chance of a TD passing.

It's all well and good to make the percentage play, but most NFL coaches don't have the stability of a guy like Belichick.  You don't get fired for punting on 4th down.  You might get fired for going for it and missing.

Things will change because as these types of plays become more common (going for it on 4th, onsides kicks etc...) the play gets more legitimacy and fans won't punish you as quickly when it goes wrong.

But coaches will always have to balance the smart play with the irrational fans they have to please.

 
pecorino said:
And, to his credit, Belicheck seems to be one of the only coaches who knows a lick about probability and game theory.
Click to expand...
BB has a football theory guy. His name is Ernie Adams and is a big part of the coaching staff.  He is under the radar by choice b/c EA doesn’t like the spot light.  

Ernie advises B.B. during games.  He sits in the booth and is the guy that is looking ahead at the possibilities.  

I know there have been a few articles about Ernie’s role on the Pats. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Eagles have an analytics guy on staff that runs probabilities during the game. It's why Doug went on 4th and 8 against the Giants earlier this year. It's a big reason why Doug goes on 4th as much as he does. Punting is for suckers. 

Doug P very special guy.

 
yabahos said:
BB has a football theory guy. His name is Ernie Adams and is a big part of the coaching staff.  He is under the radar by choice b/c EA doesn’t like the spot light.  

Ernie advises B.B. during games.  He sits in the booth and is the guy that is looking ahead at the possibilities.  

I know there have been a few articles about Ernie’s role on the Pats. 
Click to expand...
Former Browns owner Art Modell notably quipped "I'll pay anyone here $10,000 if they can tell me what Ernie Adams does."

 
yabahos said:
BB has a football theory guy. His name is Ernie Adams and is a big part of the coaching staff.  He is under the radar by choice b/c EA doesn’t like the spot light.  

Ernie advises B.B. during games.  He sits in the booth and is the guy that is looking ahead at the possibilities.  

I know there have been a few articles about Ernie’s role on the Pats. 
Click to expand...
This makes a ton of sense. I’ve been saying forever that every team should have this kind of guy on their staff. 

 
It seems like a no brainer to me.  Even if you're the one guy in the league everyone else laughs at because of the hire, what's an extra 80k salary to these owners (totally guessing)?  I mean come on.  

It's just gotten to a point where every single week, we're talking about 2-5 coaches making stupid choices that don't put their team up for success.  Be the voice of reason at least to a coach, doesn't even have to be a numbers guy, just a logical thinker.  But then again the coach would have to undoubtedly trust the person giving them that advice which might be the hurdle for some of them.  

 
Ghost Rider said:
Jimmy Johnson was on Cowherd a while back and said that in his coaching days, no one was allowed to call a timeout except him. Not another coach, not the QB, no one.  It's astonishing to me how often teams blow through timeouts like they don't mean anything. 
Click to expand...
I think, in addition to the general conservatism others have mentioned, this is a huge factor. Coaches are control freaks, and to admit that you're not good at something like clock management would be seen as a sign of weakness. The irony is that if someone like Andy Reid had done that, he might have won multiple championships by now and be regarded as an all-time great.

The other point to make is that teams have tried this stuff and its never taken (the Browns being the most recent example). Bill Barnwell often has Daniel Adler (former Jags analytics guy) on his podcast, and it's very clear Adler was on  the losing side of a bunch of those debates during his time with the team.

I do think it will happen eventually, but football's innate conservatism means it will be much slower than it should.

 
I've thought about this a lot, especially when it come to clock management. Teams should have a chart that lists every circumstance (e.g., ahead by less than 3, ball at own 20, 2:35 to play and opponent has 2 timeouts) that dictates what they do - run 3 times and punt or go for first down even if risks clock stoppage, etc. Preplan all this stuff based on probabilities rather than have some offensive coordinator trying to wing it while also calling plays under huge stress. It seems so obvious 

 
Leroy Jenkins posted this in the Steelers thread:

Ben Roethlisberger on 4th-and-1 rush attempts in his career, including playoffs:

19 attempts
18 first downs

Highest success rate (94.7 percent) of any player with over 10 attempts since 2004 (including playoffs)

Steelers on 4th-and-1 today: 
0-for-2 (Bell run, Ben pass)

Would be a good idea to have someone that could inform the clueless coaches of this stat. I guarantee neither Haley nor Tomlin knew these numbers.

 
lod001 said:
Leroy Jenkins posted this in the Steelers thread:

Ben Roethlisberger on 4th-and-1 rush attempts in his career, including playoffs:

19 attempts
18 first downs

Highest success rate (94.7 percent) of any player with over 10 attempts since 2004 (including playoffs)

Steelers on 4th-and-1 today: 
0-for-2 (Bell run, Ben pass)

Would be a good idea to have someone that could inform the clueless coaches of this stat. I guarantee neither Haley nor Tomlin knew these numbers.
Click to expand...
I actually mentioned that their best bet was probably Big Ben going for that foot for the first down - how are you going to stop him? And that was just anecdotal on my part, not knowing those ridiculously compelling stats.  Big QB, no need to step back, hand off the ball ... it's gonna be a first down.

Glad it didn't work out that way, but it seemed painfully obvious.

And when I see coaches outsmart themselves, like trying as running play with 15-20 seconds left on fourth down (because they KNOW we have to pass, so let's run!), when even a successful play renders the game all but over, MAYBE time for one heave into the endzone after spiking the ball... this is really simply probability here.

 
Walking Boot said:
Seriously. A single "coach" in the coaches box up in the stands who can signal another coach on the headset about what to do is all they need. Hire some kid who's simulated all 100,000 possible two-minute clock management drills by playing Madden for half his life knows more than a guy who's coached for 20 years but only 20 games a year. 
Click to expand...
Dumb people do dumb things. Learning from those mistakes requires brains and someone with the balls to think for themselves. This is about 1 in a hundred people if not less. And that certainly applies to people with doctors in math. I’ve spent my fair share of time at university. I’m sure most people would be shocked how much memorization there is and how few people are actually understanding and innovating.

I don’t see a lot of baseball teams with money ball guys calling pitches. They help in drafting and finding players. There’s a lot of apples to oranges comparisons here.

Now I agree that coaches should have someone to help them but they need smarter coaches to know they need help and to apply stats correctly. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every team in every sport should be doing this.  That person’s job should be to generate probabilities based on just about every scenario possible.  Mind boggling to me how many arrogant, stubborn idiots there are who are unwilling to accept change.

 
I think a lot of teams use some form of this. They certainly have someone of staff that evaluates these things. Probabilities and whatnot just like their analytics staff will evaluate other aspects of football, just as the draft, player data and so on.

Maybe no one who has the specific title of game theorist, but they have someone looking at these things.

Ultimately it is the head coaches decision how much they implement that information and when.

Some of you seem to have the notion that running a 1000 simulations of an event, that is a controlled experiment, and not specific to the decision the coach is making at any given time, would be reflective of the probability of the actions success, for this specific team, for their healthy players at that time and 1000 other variables that have some affect on the probability of that outcome as well, that were not considered in the straight probability of something in the controlled experiment.

You can cite some math as the end all be all to decision making, removing the actual decision making process but it won't necessarily be the right decision in every situation.

When the Vikings pinned the Bears inside their 20 with 4 punts in week 17 I don't think Zimmer cares that those punts may have led to a +3 expected points if he had gone for it instead of punting it. Not with the Vikings defense and not with the Bears offense in that game.

Some of you are acting like the decision based on the simulation is full proof and the decision of the coaches is always wrong to not follow that information. Which to me seems arrogant and willfully ignorant of what probability actually is, and what the best ways to apply it might be.

 
This is a fun thread to read.  These types of decisions are critical to team success and thereby to a HC’s longevity.  That said, people actually expect a HC to put his job on the line by hiring and then delegating fully the responsibility of these critical decisions to math geeks, many of whom have little to no realistic football theory background?  Seriously?

And to the number crunchers here, how accountable do you intend to be for decisions that you are convinced that statistical analysis support yet still fail on the field due to all sorts of possible variables that you may not be able to quantify and are inherently uncontrollable?  How versed are you in Chaos Theory and how do you intend to account for it in your decision making process?

Clock management is one thing.  I do agree that coaches ought to have some kind of advisor who can put forth advice in managing time - but then is willing to say their piece very quickly and confidently and then shut up and allow the coach to make the decision in what is an incredibly short and stressful time period.  But play calling?  Maybe to educate the coach prior to the season and maybe even early in game weeks - provided there is sufficient background in multiple mathematical fields as well as strong expertise in the game of football itself.  But during the game and then expect the HC to defer?  That’s really just nuts.

Oh, and for all you guys who watched Moneyball and think football works the same way?  This ain’t baseball, which when you drill down can be whittled into a game of one on one between a pitcher and a hitter.  Football is much more immensely complex with multiple interactions between humans as individuals and in subgroups with diverse strengths and weaknesses every play.  The coaches who have tremendous success do everything in their scheming to reduce the number of variables in a play, and ultimately find isolated matchups that they can exploit.  But the actual play on the field and the interactions between all the variables usually means that these exploitable instances that actually occur happen somewhere between 4 and 7 times a game.  The rest of the game comes down to field position, maintaining control of the ball for extended periods by trying to optimize down & distance, reducing turnover opportunities for your offense while enhancing them for your defense, and trying to keep from being exposed to exploitable instances by the other team.  Very very complex stuff.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't suggesting full responsibility for play calling or every critical choice, more as the voice of reason to a HC in times of that critical choice.  Falcons up 28-3 "hey coach shouldn't we be running the ball and milking clock?" Seahawks on 1st and goal "hey coach we have a 230 pound RB called Beast Mode, shouldn't we use him 3 straight times?"  Those are just the obvious examples but there are plenty that happened through the season this year.  Like not punting and pinning them to gain field position instead of going for it and giving them a long field goal try even if they didn't gain any yards.  Or if the lead is there run the clock.  Or it's 4th and inches, ok lets QB sneak.  There are so many examples of bad coaches decisions and obviously they can't always be right, and some are truly hindsight decisions we can question but some are so obvious that they think they need to differ from the obvious to get a leg up on the defense... It's ridiculous.  It's like saying, "ok we're going to give everyone the ball to score EXCEPT Lebron because people will expect him to get it".  No.  There needs to be some sort of pragmatic thinker on that sideline to make sure coaches don't get too cute with their choices.  

 
Zyphros said:
I wasn't suggesting full responsibility for play calling or every critical choice, more as the voice of reason to a HC in times of that critical choice.  Falcons up 28-3 "hey coach shouldn't we be running the ball and milking clock?" Seahawks on 1st and goal "hey coach we have a 230 pound RB called Beast Mode, shouldn't we use him 3 straight times?"  Those are just the obvious examples but there are plenty that happened through the season this year.  Like not punting and pinning them to gain field position instead of going for it and giving them a long field goal try even if they didn't gain any yards.  Or if the lead is there run the clock.  Or it's 4th and inches, ok lets QB sneak.  There are so many examples of bad coaches decisions and obviously they can't always be right, and some are truly hindsight decisions we can question but some are so obvious that they think they need to differ from the obvious to get a leg up on the defense... It's ridiculous.  It's like saying, "ok we're going to give everyone the ball to score EXCEPT Lebron because people will expect him to get it".  No.  There needs to be some sort of pragmatic thinker on that sideline to make sure coaches don't get too cute with their choices.  
Click to expand...
Like I tried to convey - You’re convinced this is simplistic.  It isn’t.  Don’t you see coaches and players pouring over pictures and discussing strategy when the other unit is on the field?  Don’t you see the headphones on the coaches and all the communication with the coaches up in boxes - who are pouring over video and having discussions of their own before they talk to the sideline?  And those are just small snapshots of some of the communications that occur that happened to be captured between plays on the field.

There are a ton of considerations and adjustments put into play as a game proceeds, all involving people with substantial expertise in the game of football.  It seems easy to you because you have the luxury if sitting back and making judgments about the outcome of a play after it is over, certain you know better if it didn’t work and having no clue about all the factors, communications, and decisions that went into calling the play before it happened. 

 
JohnnyU said:
What is your current occupation?  I'm a software developer and there are a lot of math guys / gals that go into IT.
Click to expand...
I'm a math guy, was studying for my Actuary exam when my son was born 4 weeks earlier on the date I was supposed to take the exam, ended up in IT and software development

 
Bronco Billy said:
Like I tried to convey - You’re convinced this is simplistic.  It isn’t.  Don’t you see coaches and players pouring over pictures and discussing strategy when the other unit is on the field?  Don’t you see the headphones on the coaches and all the communication with the coaches up in boxes - who are pouring over video and having discussions of their own before they talk to the sideline?  And those are just small snapshots of some of the communications that occur that happened to be captured between plays on the field.

There are a ton of considerations and adjustments put into play as a game proceeds, all involving people with substantial expertise in the game of football.  It seems easy to you because you have the luxury if sitting back and making judgments about the outcome of a play after it is over, certain you know better if it didn’t work and having no clue about all the factors, communications, and decisions that went into calling the play before it happened. 
Click to expand...
Some of these questionable decisions are very simple.  Sure there is a lot of communication, but you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.  There are a lot of people on that sideline but coaches continually make stupid choices perhaps because of all the communication that they allow, and if you take hindsight out of it there are simple solutions to put yourself in a better position.  Again it's a logical thought process, and I'm sure emotions get in the way more often than not with a "oh they think that I'll do this, so I'll do that" mentality sometimes, again getting too cute.  It is simplistic if you take emotion out of it, easier said than done though.  Which is why I think a voice of reason on the sidelines is needed.  

 
Zyphros said:
Some of these questionable decisions are very simple.  Sure there is a lot of communication, but you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.  There are a lot of people on that sideline but coaches continually make stupid choices perhaps because of all the communication that they allow, and if you take hindsight out of it there are simple solutions to put yourself in a better position.  Again it's a logical thought process, and I'm sure emotions get in the way more often than not with a "oh they think that I'll do this, so I'll do that" mentality sometimes, again getting too cute.  It is simplistic if you take emotion out of it, easier said than done though.  Which is why I think a voice of reason on the sidelines is needed.  
Click to expand...


Okay, let’s take your “simple” example:

Seahawks on 1st and goal "hey coach we have a 230 pound RB called Beast Mode, shouldn't we use him 3 straight times?"

But what you don’t know, but the coaching staff does after watching game tape of the opponent for hours and hours prior to Wed practice and tracking the opponent’s proclivities (which occurs every week during the season) is that the opponent tends to sell out, load the box and send the SS in at the second level as a read-and-fill run defender in these exact situations.

So during meetings and then in practice on Wed through the walk through before game day, the team has practiced this exact scenario, using play action and then throwing to the TE who has filled the spot to be vacated by the SS.

So when it just doesn’t happen to come off right for any of several reasons related to human error on Sunday, guys like you sit back and judge how stupid the HC is for not just running Beast Mode 3 plays into what is in actuality a loaded box with essentially 4 seek and destroy LBs behind the DLs.  When in fact that was a play that was doomed before it would have even been snapped when it was really played out.  I mean, how do teams possibly get stopped on say 3rd & 1 and then again on 4th and 1 if they have guys like Beast Mode in the backfield and hand it to them (but it happens at times, doesn’t it)?

Do you even consider this possibility?  But yeah, I’m sure you’re right and you are much smarter and have much greater wisdom than guys who have spent their entire careers coaching football for a living and spend literally dozens of hours watching tape of oppnents before the game against them.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
Okay, let’s take your “simple” example:

Seahawks on 1st and goal "hey coach we have a 230 pound RB called Beast Mode, shouldn't we use him 3 straight times?"

But what you don’t know, but the coaching staff does after watching game tape of the opponent for hours and hours prior to Wed practice and tracking the opponent’s proclivities (which occurs every week during the season) is that the opponent tends to sell out, load the box and send the SS in at the second level as a read-and-fill run defender in these exact situations.

So during meetings and then in practice on Wed through the walk through before game day, the team has practiced this exact scenario, using play action and then throwing to the TE who has filled the spot to be vacated by the SS.

So when it just doesn’t happen to come off right for any of several reasons related to human error on Sunday, guys like you sit back and judge how stupid the HC is for not just running Beast Mode 3 plays into what is in actuality a loaded box with essentially 4 seek and destroy LBs behind the DLs.  When in fact that was a play that was doomed before it would have even been snapped when it was really played out.  I mean, how do teams possibly get stopped on say 3rd & 1 and then again on 4th and 1 if they have guys like Beast Mode in the backfield and hand it to them (but it happens at times, doesn’t it)?

Do you even consider this possibility?  But yeah, I’m sure you’re right and you are much smarter and have much greater wisdom than guys who have spent their entire careers coaching football for a living and spend literally dozens of hours watching tape of oppnents before the game against them.

.
Click to expand...
Because teams practice only 1 scenario for certain situations... yeah sure they do.  You think they don't practice running Marshawn from the 1 yard line?  I don't believe that for a second.  Continue your ignorance.  There are simple choices to be made and coaches continually don't do it.  That is a fact.  

 
Zyphros said:
Because teams practice only 1 scenario for certain situations... yeah sure they do.  You think they don't practice running Marshawn from the 1 yard line?  I don't believe that for a second.  Continue your ignorance.  There are simple choices to be made and coaches continually don't do it.  That is a fact.  
Click to expand...


Wow.  Okay.  Have it your own way and spin it up any way you prefer to reinforce yourself.  Have a great day.

 
Bronco Billy said:
Okay, let’s take your “simple” example:

Seahawks on 1st and goal "hey coach we have a 230 pound RB called Beast Mode, shouldn't we use him 3 straight times?"

But what you don’t know, but the coaching staff does after watching game tape of the opponent for hours and hours prior to Wed practice and tracking the opponent’s proclivities (which occurs every week during the season) is that the opponent tends to sell out, load the box and send the SS in at the second level as a read-and-fill run defender in these exact situations.

So during meetings and then in practice on Wed through the walk through before game day, the team has practiced this exact scenario, using play action and then throwing to the TE who has filled the spot to be vacated by the SS.

So when it just doesn’t happen to come off right for any of several reasons related to human error on Sunday, guys like you sit back and judge how stupid the HC is for not just running Beast Mode 3 plays into what is in actuality a loaded box with essentially 4 seek and destroy LBs behind the DLs.  When in fact that was a play that was doomed before it would have even been snapped when it was really played out.  I mean, how do teams possibly get stopped on say 3rd & 1 and then again on 4th and 1 if they have guys like Beast Mode in the backfield and hand it to them (but it happens at times, doesn’t it)?

Do you even consider this possibility?  But yeah, I’m sure you’re right and you are much smarter and have much greater wisdom than guys who have spent their entire careers coaching football for a living and spend literally dozens of hours watching tape of oppnents before the game against them.

.
Click to expand...
Ironically enough, what happened on the Butler INT was that the Pats sniffed out the play based on Seattle's formation and inserted Butler into the game with instructions on how to defend it, since they had specifically practiced against that exact play earlier in the week.

Overall, you're right that a lot of this stuff is way more complex than we realize sitting on our couches. To cite one example, in the 2015 playoffs, when Green Bay scored on the double Hail Mary to get within one at the end of regulation, stat-heads said (correctly) that the numbers argued pretty strongly for going in that situation. According to later accounts I read, McCarthy did seriously consider it, but the problem was that the Packers were down to the dregs of their WR corps, and didn't feel comfortable running a play with the personnel they had available. I also think when you break down the criticism of Quinn/Shanahan in the second half of last year's Super Bowl, most of the individual decisions were defensible. They just all went catastrophically wrong.

I think what's needed is less the Bill Simmons "VP of Common Sense", chiming in ahead of specific calls, and more of an effort to build an understanding of probabilities into teams' general decision making. In the aggregate, teams kick on 4th down way more often than they should. They don't go for two at times where it clearly makes sense. But in order for stuff like that to change, a coach has to hire someone to crunch the numbers for him and then, just as important, he has to educate himself on those probabilities and incorporate them into his in-game strategies. Nerdlingers are never going to have much of an impact on the game unless there's buy-in from the top.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zftcg said:
Ironically enough, what happened on the Butler INT was that the Pats sniffed out the play based on Seattle's formation and inserted Butler into the game with instructions on how to defend it, since they had specifically practiced against that exact play earlier in the week.

Overall, you're right that a lot of this stuff is way more complex than we realize sitting on our couches. To cite one example, in the 2015 playoffs, when Green Bay scored on the double Hail Mary to get within one at the end of regulation, stat-heads said (correctly) that the numbers argued pretty strongly for going in that situation. According to later accounts I read, McCarthy did seriously consider it, but the problem was that the Packers were down to the dregs of their WR corps, and didn't feel comfortable running a play with the personnel they had available. I also think when you break down the criticism of Quinn/Shanahan in the second half of last year's Super Bowl, most of the individual decisions were defensible. They just all went catastrophically wrong.

I think what's needed is less the Bill Simmons "VP of Common Sense", chiming in ahead of specific calls, and more of an effort to build an understanding of probabilities into teams' general decision making. In the aggregate, teams kick on 4th down way more often than they should. They don't go for two at times where it clearly makes sense. But in order for stuff like that to change, a coach has to hire someone to crunch the numbers for him and then, just as important, he has to educate himself on those probabilities and incorporate them into his in-game strategies. Nerdlingers are never going to have much of an impact on the game unless there's buy-in from the top.
Click to expand...


Well, if we are going to educate coaches as you state, then we need to provide a complete information set.  That is, not only do the probabilities of success need to be quantified, but also the consequences of failure.  By going for it on 4th down and failing, there are real issues - you most probably lost points if you are in close and you most probably lost significant field position if out in the middle of the field.  

Turning the ball over on downs with no appreciable change of field position is a turnover every bit as much as a lost fumble.  Turnover ratio has one of the stronger correlations to winning/losing to the best of my knowledge.  Then there is the momentum shift in stopping the other team on 4th down, which I have no clue how one quantifies it, but I can assure you is very real.

Have these things been considered as well by the number crunchers, or only the rate of success vs failure?

 
Edited-I got this first part wrong.

On that Seattle goal line play with the Butler INT it was second and 2. The first
play they did run M Lynch and he lost a yard when he got tackled by Hightower.

That was the 3rd time the Pats stopped M Lynch in short yardage so the pass play
after that wasn't a bad call. B Browner stoning his guy at the line and R Wilson throwing
the ball to where the WR was supposed to be allowed M Butler to make the INT.

Hightower's tackle was the game saver-he got one hand on Lynch's thigh and got him down.
No one talks about this because we didn't get to see the replay. Seattle quickly lined up for
the next play and then it was game over.
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Coaching Carousel '24 or The next batch of folks that will be walked out the door in 2-3 years
Replies
26
Views
642
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
jumper
Playoffs look ahead - who gets in, doesn't make it? Worst team in? Sleeper to go deep?
Replies
8
Views
406
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Max Power
NFL Teams asking for Forensic Accounting of NIL Money
Replies
27
Views
688
Bri
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top