I'll bet that analytics does account for some of the items you mentioned. But your point is still valid: there are many variables that significantly affect the expected outcome that are probably not captured in analytics.
I will be a much happier fan when coaches finally realize football is a poor fit for analytics.
- Thread starter 91Joe95
- Start date
It's like all data...you consider it along with external variables. Not up 1 go for 2 regardless.
If you look at a detail, and consider whether or not it will tend to lead more toward success or failure, it is part of "analytics."
The old adages of football that some of you are so tied to, because it was beaten into your head over and over again ... they are also "analytics" ... they're just often bad analytics.
I've never delved deeply into football analytics, but I've always wondered does the analytics give you the same recommendation to go for a 2 point conversion if your team's QB is Maholmes/Allen/Jackson or if you're the Steelers and your QB is Russ?
If using analytics produces the same answer, then I believe that it limits its usefulness.
Which I believe was the point of the poster that you were responding to.
The thing that I don't know is what special circumstances that analytics uses in making their determination.
Good analytics would consider who the QB is, along with any other relevant factors for which there is statistically significant data available that affects the expected outcome.
I have a question about analytics. Does it consider statistics against Akron the sames as statistics vs OSU?
If not, how does it decide that and how does it modify the results. Teams change every year. If it doesn't treat them differently then analytics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
If not, how does it decide that and how does it modify the results. Teams change every year. If it doesn't treat them differently then analytics are pretty much useless in my opinion.
You're looking at the issue differently. You need a two point conversion once. Either with that score or the final one. When doesn't matter. I think the 'analytics' tell you that you are more likely to get it or give yourself the most options if you go for it on the first score. Because of defensive tendencies and if you don't get it and score again, you can still kick an onsides kick versus taking the one point, getting the second score and then it's all or nothing with the 2 pt convention.
You don't need to agree with it, but that's the line of thinking.
Last edited:
The devil is in the details. And I'm not sure the level of detail that the probability models statistically use when determining their %'ge recommendations.
The level of detail that I believe would be most helpful in generating these %'ge recommendations would almost need to be a construct of AI.
The consensus of knowledgeable football fans that I have discussed this issue with believe in the analytics if their coach and team were successful in utilizing the strategy. When using analytics fails, they are quick to point to and analyze how the game would have played out if 'conventional wisdom' strategy had been employed.
The truth is that there are no do overs, and we are all left to just speculate on how the outcome could have been better.
One strategy is mostly likely to clear the stadium at the 57:30 minute mark.
Well, equally likely. Given your inability to score the 2-point conversion (if you don't earlier, there is no reason to think you will later), the other scenario has you lose later. But you're right, hope feels good for a few more minutes but you lose either way.
I remember back in the 70s and even 80s the announcers would go after coaches that took a field goal off of the score board, when an offsides gave the offense a first down. The ball would be at the 15 yard line, the kicker would make the field goal and the defensive offside would give the offense first and goal from the 10. Mathematically it is a very easy decision, but the announcers would swear that taking points off of the board was a dangerous play..........
Sure. Likely is same either way.
Keep the game going. Period. Lose with expiring time because you can’t convert the 2….it sucks to lose.
Lose when you didn’t actually have to lose is absurd. That’s the difference. And it matters.
that's the problem with analytics. You feel better because you lose at the end when analytics would tell you that you'll lose more often if you play that way.
The brain of an experienced coach can make a much better decision than a computer. The coach has so much more knowledge of his team, of his players, of his opponents than a computer will ever have. I explained this before but I’ll go over more examples.
-Maybe my QB just got crushed and he may not be 100% for this 2 point conversion.
-Maybe my kicker has missed some extra points lately so the 2 point conversion makes more sense.
-Maybe we are the under dog and haven’t beat OSU since 2016.
Computers will never understand these things.
-Maybe my QB just got crushed and he may not be 100% for this 2 point conversion.
-Maybe my kicker has missed some extra points lately so the 2 point conversion makes more sense.
-Maybe we are the under dog and haven’t beat OSU since 2016.
Computers will never understand these things.
Last edited:
