Moving on - NY Giants vs. Dolphins

LOL. OK, fine. You're on record saying that Tua had a 155.8 rating with 4 TD passes, no INTs, over 300 yards passing, but he and our passing game weren't a major reason for our win in Denver — it was "primarily" the run game. And you think you're not dissing Tua saying that? LOL is all I can say. Yes you are, and it's a ridiculous and completely untenable argument.

First, I never discounted the human element. It's you that discounted stats. I also said McD is one of the major reasons we have such a great offense, so don't act like I'm discounting him. You saying that I'm acting like it's a computer printout doing this is either deliberately creating a strawman or demonstrating an inability to comprehend simple arguments. Up to you which one it is.

 

I'll repeat- please show me your data that illustrates gaps on the field or other mis-matches we exploit each and every week. Help me "comprehend this simple argument" because you're just spinning away from your own words.

I will remind you, my original comment was: "That is my annual reminder that your correlations are not as important as team chemistry, work ethic, and actually winning the football game." (post #263)

I'm not sure how that was offensive...I even said I love you in the first sentence.

If I was mistaken, then please illustrate how your correlation data is more important than the coaches/players and the team's work ethic. You're the one here trying to play both sides of the fence.

 

No KeyFin, don't act like I'm the one doing the spinning. That's what you're trying to do.

In your first post you said "stats don't win football games". That claim is what my entire response was directed at if you read it again. Stats definitely help win football games. It's precisely why so many front offices and HCs are leveraging data about historical performance to decide how to build a team (important for winning football games) and improve play calling (I gave you that 4th down example), etc. Note that I didn't respond to your claims about "team chemistry" or "work ethic" because there's no way to measure their relative effect. Neither you nor I can do that, so that's just a claim you made without any evidence.

Then you asked a pretty incredulous question: "How do you build a team to do something that's never been done before based on data?". Obviously, data is used to determine what happened so that you can evaluate and decide what to do better. That's obvious! That's true in basically every business and industry you can think of. In the case of football, I pointed out that IF the data shows that defenses are adapting in a particular way, or they're leaving gaps open you didn't notice before, that alone can lead to new concepts. I never said I knew precisely what data we exploit each week. That's you spinning things, acting like I said something I didn't.

Then you spun things even further by acting like I said there was no human element to this right after (in the very post you quoted) I pointed out our offense is performing at elite levels in large part because of McDaniel (a human element). Again, you're spinning things, either deliberately or because you can't help it.

 

The only name that, arguably, fits that bill is Don Coryell. Great regular season records, but no SBs. The main reason Don made finally made it to HoF because his offense has remained a staple building block of NFL offenses for over 40 years since he retired. If his offenses schemes had died out as a product of their times then he doesn’t make it to the HoF.

 

Levy is also in the HoF with no SB win (or NFL championship). It's rare, but there are a few. However, I doubt any widely respected list of top 10 coaches of all time includes one with no SB win or NFL championship.

 

You’re right and I apologize. I came at you because I mistakenly thought you were the person who posted what “Allen in England” posted and it struck a nerve with me. My bad, dude. You’re actually being pretty reasonable and again, I apologize.

 

All good, discussions about Tua tend to get heated quickly.

 

100% sarcastic.

 

many immature people on here.

Still seemed odd defense let him (Waller) run wide open time and time again. Thankfully we got a good lead and held it

 

Some of our 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 2 calls make me furious.

 

I felt nervous, seemed like officials kept calling calls against us to try to keep game close.

 

Those two statements are not the same- I agree that stats help win football games. So does the coach. So does the players. So does the weather, and the scouting, and dozens of other factors. That does not make my statement untrue- stats do not win football games. Or maybe I should have said, "Stats alone do not win football games."

Because of your career with a scientific/mathematical background, you may believe this to be true everywhere. But the visionaries of the world did not turn to data to build their companies, they turned to their customer-base and looked at what was missing. I mean, 20 years ago modern data did not exist- how did the world accomplish anything pre-2000? It happened through instincts, listening to your customers, and hard work.

Data can certainly help to optimize and if used correctly, it can guide you to better outcomes or entirely different business models. Again though, the key word there is "help"....analytics is not the end all, be all source for information. Seeing things a different way is where innovation comes from.

In an earlier post, you stated that some of the stats were not statistically relevant to building a SB winning team. That's how we got on the full tangent of Tua passing for 300+ yards and our RB's churning out 350+ yards. Everyone had a great game, no doubt. But you can't say the run game is less important because statistically, passing teams do better.

The Denver game showed that and it's why McDaniel was so focused on being a run-first team to begin with. That's realizing the importance of passing and finding a creative way to maximize every opportunity. I mean, just look how many 2nd and short scenarios we've had this season and how it opens up the entire playbook- defenses are at the greatest disadvantage in those situations and we're consistently creating them through the run.

I agree that historical data says not to focus on the run game. But the part you're missing is that historical data is based on...well, history. That's what worked for this team or that team in their era. That does not mean it's the only path to success though and Miami is showing that right now. Our run attack is statistically relevant whether history says so or not.

Again, data HELPS. But data does not win football games.

 

Uhh.. no. Can't have it both ways. This is your entire post:
"Brad, I love you my friend, but stats don't win football games! That is my annual reminder that your correlations are not as important as team chemistry, work ethic, and actually winning the football game."

You made it clear we're talking about what is more important for winning a football game. So my interpretation is correct.

I never said stats are the end all be all. That's once again a strawman. You asked "How do you build a team to do something that's never been done before based on data?"

I pointed out how it's possible. That's it. So this latest response of yours is also based on a strawman argument.

Point is.. you're WAY off base saying Tua and the passing game weren't a major factor in winning against Denver — instead it was "primarily the run game". That's the kind of dissing of Tua we expect from anti-Tua posters (which you haven't been historically). You're basically saying Tua puts up a fantastic game with 155.8 rating and 4 TDs but credit goes to the running game. That's ridiculous.

This is not accurate. It was McDaniel that wanted us to focus on getting elite WRs like Hill because he thought that's what would allow Tua to thrive. It's very clear this team is built with the right historical focus statistically: get an elite QB and elite WR corps first, then worry about OL and RB. Look at how little resources we've put into RB and OL. No we are not designed to be a run first team at all. This is a pass first team where the pass is opening up the run. Note in the Chargers game we didn't run much but had a great passing attack. That's counter to using the run to make the pass possible.

The reason for the change is the systematic rule changes from 1978 that have made it much easier to improve stats like EPA/play through passing. As long as those rule changes remain in place, or continue down the path of making the passing game more efficient, the recnt historical trends are the ones you want to note and take advantage of to build a SB winner.

 

Brad, my friend, why are we stuck in this loop? If it helps, we can break this down phrase by phrase.

Brad (That's your name. Or if it's not, you picked a lousy username, LOL.)

I love you my friend (because I do, even though we bicker often over statistics. I enjoy it though and I know you secretly do as well.)

Stats don't win football games (I should have said, "Stats alone don't win football games", so forgive me there. But the point stands, I've never seen data throw a football in an NFL game.)

That is my annual reminder (because we do this at least once per year)

that your correlations (because you were talking about historical correlations on what it takes to win a super bowl. Note, I did not say "all data in the universe" or "any statistical correlation", I was specifically referring to your prior post where you minimized some of the stats over others.)

are not as important as ("not as important" does not mean "not important" or "having no value". It just means that I felt other stuff is more important.)

Team chemistry (the right coaches and players working together for a single goal)

Work ethic (how hard those coaches/players prepare for next Sunday)

Winning the football game (at the end of the day, that's the stat that always matters most and it doesn't matter how it's accomplished. Just win baby!)

Now, maybe you disagree with some or all of that short statement. But at least you now know what I meant by those two sentences and you can freely tell me why I'm wrong if you so desire. I'll end how I started though, I love you my friend and I genuinely enjoy this in small doses each year.

 

Point is, by saying "are not as important as team chemistry and work ethic" you're very clearly talking about the relative importance of stats to winning a football game. So the original "stats don't win football games" has to be interpreted in that context. I didn't misinterpret anything given the context.

 

Key….you are absolutely correct. Kudos.

 

I don`t feel sorry for them at all. They let personal preference overshadow the fact the team is Ballin` with Tua as the field general and he's doing a damn good job. No one knows exactly where this season will ultimately take us, but to find fault and nitpick and constantly look for negatives is very telling of the ones who are complaining. As if mistake free perfection is a barometer of NFL elite teams/QB`s and anything other than perfection is cause for concern. These people are nuts.

 

Stats are results, quantifiable measurements of performance. I don't see the point of the debate. Team chemistry, and so forth, will change performance, and there for change the stats. Correlations are just math. They are good for showing how trends are likely to effect or be effected by results. EG the team that wins the passer rating battle tends to win the game. All that proves is that the game has greater importance with passing than running. Which rule changes and salaries prove too. Exceptions only matter if they are repeatable and quantifiable when trying project performance. If you have a trend breaking stat, the correlation will lag the result because of how time works.

So, you can argue against stats and be correct, but eventually the stats will back up your argument if you are correct. If, for example, you keep saying that a QB is too weak armed to be effective in the NFL, then eventually the QB will not be effective in the NFL, and the stats will prove that. If the stats never prove that, then you were wrong, and there isn't a good argument for being right.

 

Schottenheimer? Oh, he's not actually in the HOF, I'm actually surprised by that. I get that his teams sucked in the playoffs but he was such a good regular season coach.

 

He was actually Shula’s pick to succeed him when he retired.