BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

[The Compromise]

Re: BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

"Analytics" are only as good as the person(s) doing the analysis. It is impossible to reduce human performance to single numbers except for very linear and objective things, such as the things that are measured at the combine, but how often are those indicators deceptive.

While I enjoy both PFF and FO, neither encompasses a number of things, such as the level of [individual] competition as merely one example. Another is the impact of a particular system in which a player plays. Some players simply play well in alternate or certain systems.

Etc. Analysis is a tremendously open-ended thing. The key to it is being able to synthesize the information that is gathered and convert it to some useable form, which is often easier said than done for players other than say QBs, RBs, or WRs.

For our franchise, I am not under the impression for a moment that anyone on the staff has the first clue what to do with good data even if it were handed to them gift-wrapped. Who is the Ernie Adams on this team? There isn't one. IMO this is just a passing fad for a bunch of dopes at OBD.

[X-Era]

Re: BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

"Analytics" are only as good as the person(s) doing the analysis. It is impossible to reduce human performance to single numbers except for very linear and objective things, such as the things that are measured at the combine, but how often are those indicators deceptive.

While I enjoy both PFF and FO, neither encompasses a number of things, such as the level of [individual] competition as merely one example. Another is the impact of a particular system in which a player plays. Some players simply play well in alternate or certain systems.

Etc. Analysis is a tremendously open-ended thing. The key to it is being able to synthesize the information that is gathered and convert it to some useable form, which is often easier said than done for players other than say QBs, RBs, or WRs.

For our franchise, I am not under the impression for a moment that anyone on the staff has the first clue what to do with good data even if it were handed to them gift-wrapped. Who is the Ernie Adams on this team? There isn't one. IMO this is just a passing fad for a bunch of dopes at OBD.

If you read the article PFF actually does look at scheme:

"As far as differentiating between two players, again I think the proper numbers can be very useful. There will never be one magic number that completely distinguishes one player from another, though the closest thing we have is overall PFF grade. It’s a good way to evaluate a player’s performance, though scheme, surrounding talent, and other factors always need to be considered within the context of the grades. But even beyond that, our film study breaks players down in all aspects of their game, and it does so against players who play the same position, so it’s a big advantage when trying to decipher a player’s strengths and weaknesses."

Now where I do agree with you is that any analysis can yield bad conclusions. It can come from bad data, collecting the wrong data, or from drawing the wrong conclusions. I work in R&D at a big company and I can tell you that very smart people draw bad conclusions all the time. Often, you have to experiment over and over just to figure out how to properly run the experiment to get the information you want. And you can have a room full of people looking at the same chart and have a room full of different conclusions.

I don't think we have enough metrics yet and that they can be refined. But, I do think it's possible to measure just about anything. The experiment is usually in figuring out how to measure what you want information from. QB decision making, pocket presence... QB metrics would be really interesting. I think it's possible but we may not be there yet.

It will ultimately come down to how the data is being used and what were trying to find.

[TedMock]

Re: BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

If you read the article PFF actually does look at scheme:

"As far as differentiating between two players, again I think the proper numbers can be very useful. There will never be one magic number that completely distinguishes one player from another, though the closest thing we have is overall PFF grade. It’s a good way to evaluate a player’s performance, though scheme, surrounding talent, and other factors always need to be considered within the context of the grades. But even beyond that, our film study breaks players down in all aspects of their game, and it does so against players who play the same position, so it’s a big advantage when trying to decipher a player’s strengths and weaknesses."

Now where I do agree with you is that any analysis can yield bad conclusions. It can come from bad data, collecting the wrong data, or from drawing the wrong conclusions. I work in R&D at a big company and I can tell you that very smart people draw bad conclusions all the time. Often, you have to experiment over and over just to figure out how to properly run the experiment to get the information you want. And you can have a room full of people looking at the same chart and have a room full of different conclusions.

I don't think we have enough metrics yet and that they can be refined. But, I do think it's possible to measure just about anything. The experiment is usually in figuring out how to measure what you want information from. QB decision making, pocket presence... QB metrics would be really interesting. I think it's possible but we may not be there yet.

It will ultimately come down to how the data is being used and what were trying to find.

I have followed both PFF and FO (FO for the last few years, PFF the last year), and you are correct. PFF does account for scheme. So does FO. Neither claims to be the "only and final anwser," but both make very good use of more effective data. Film study in a traditional sense will always have a place, but we are smarter now and this is a BIG business. EVERYTHING has to be accounted for and researched. All data can be misleading which is exactly why it should be sliced and diced to get a more real picture. At it's most basic level I can say I had 150 tackles last year and commentators will call me a "tackling machine" etc. The quality of the tackle is what's missed. Where did I make the tackle? How many yards were gained or lost before I made the tackle? Where did I start on the field compared to where the tackle was made? What did my first movement indicate assignment-wise? Did I fight through traffic? How long did that take? Did I shed 1 or more blocks? How long did that take? Was I taken high or low? Did I hit the ground and come back up? Was I held at all? Was I fooled on a fake or did I diagnose quickly? Etc, etc, etc. Question after question to get more and more data. I think it's great that they are catching up with the rest of the century.

[Mouldsie]

Re: BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

j/w Do they account for travel and weather?

And of course it's still a human game. Denver was analyzed as the perfect team by Aaron Schatz, with Baltimore having too many flaws to overcome. Whoops!

[TedMock]

Re: BBD: What does Department of Analytics mean?

j/w Do they account for travel and weather?

And of course it's still a human game. Denver was analyzed as the perfect team by Aaron Schatz, with Baltimore having too many flaws to overcome. Whoops!

Good points re travel and weather. I dont believe so. at least I don't recall. You're right that it's still a human game. PFF and FO will admit to as much too. As I said, it's a tool to make more informed decisions. There is no fool proof antecdote. I missed on Denver too. Even Schatz who is as good as they come doesn't win them all. At the end of the day you want all tools available to make the best decisions.