Yes, this is a reference to the dumb 2 pt attempts Buffalo tried, but they are far from the only team. First off, the coaches don't really know how to apply them properly. If they did, they'd understand the data behind them is very incomplete. There's also no really good way to fix it either as there are simply too many variables. Every competent statistician knows when you add or remove variables, you are supposed to start new data sets. All these charts are based on the proverbial 30,000 foot view of the problem. There's no way to capture if a specific guard or center can beat his man, or a receiver runs a crisper pattern, or is more physical than the DB, or is matched up against a LB, whether a LB is good at covering a TE, does a play call provide space for receivers, does a coach do a better job of scouting the opposing team's tendencies, are players getting fatigued, when does fatigue typically set in for certain players, etc, etc, etc. Now, not all variables always matter, but when you have 22 players on a field, with liberal substitution and coaching staff tendencies, it should become apparent the number of variables grows dramatically, and there is simply no way to generate enough statistical data to be truly meaningful.
My solution - make every coach take a course that highlights the limitations and misuses of statistics, and then gather all their stupid charts and throw a White Sox style party at midfield.
Translation: 91Joe95 no likey thinky. He no understand statistics so he poo-poo scary numbers by simple-mindedly trying to point out the details he thinks matters, but which are already embedded in the statistical analysis ... or will eventually be embedded in the statistical analysis.
It reminds me, slightly, of when I took on the vanguards of the baseball advanced stat world ... tangotiger is one of the godfathers of baseball quant'ing. There was a time when the new thing was to break up batted balls into fly balls, line drives and ground balls, and judge a batter based on the proximity to the optimal mix of these outcomes. Back then, the big controversy was the mouth-breathers crying as the new age stat guys clamored for line drives and fly balls, and downplayed strikeouts. Everybody knows you just put the ball in play ... put it on the ground, if you must, and good things will happen. But this was the rise of "launch angle" analysis (which is still valid, today, even if it's more intricate).
I argued with tango and others that the fly/line/ground analysis wasn't good enough ... that quality of contact mattered ... that a soft liner wasn't as good as a smashed fly ball, and that some folks were better at producing consistent hard contact than others, and this mattered. One of the reasons behind my argument was my own personal experience - in golf. Ball speed was a result of swing speed ... the difference between ball speed and swing speed was a multiple called "smash factor." It was essentially a measure of quality of contact (and ability of the club to transfer velo). When my swing was analyzed, my swing speed was below elite - very good, but below top pros - not elite. But my ball speed was elite. Faster than Tiger. So my quality of contact was better.
The argument then, by the stats nerds, was that they had no evidence that batted ball speed mattered and, more importantly, that it was a skill (it could be repeated and controlled). Of course, now everything is exit velo ... because they eventually found out I was correct, as they were better able to capture that data and analyze it. And now you look at exit velos and launch angles.
Point being, there are 2 things at play here. One, the stat turds (the unknowledgeable ones) thinking they're doing god's work picking out variables and individual circumstances that they think matter and blow up the stat - the great majority of the time, the analysis already accounts for those things, inherently, and there's no real differentiator there. Two, if there is a skill there, and it's not properly accounted for now, it likely will be eventually ... so you don't ignore the stat-based determinations ... you decide based on the best info and analysis available to you, and you change your decision-making if/when the analysis improves and indicates as such.
So, yes, in the future, if it's relevant to the decision of whether or not to go for 2, the quality of the Center, the quality of the DT, the quality of the WR, etc. ... those things will all be compiled, analyzed and included in statistical analyses, and that information will be processed and spit out to coaches on the spot, to the best of our abilities. The relevancy here is that you don't abandon statistical analysis ... you push forward with it and improve it, if possible. And you realize that the "old school" decisions you want made in place of reliance on more and better information, are themselves the process of "statistical analysis" - you don't go for it because you're unlikely to be successful (in your opinion). That's analysis, sport.
