I trust FO's rankings more than I do PFF's. I'm not sure I agree or in some cases understand their math/stats usage, but their rankings of teams, players and units more accurately reflects what I've seen on the field.
Sure, but knowing which data is relative and predictive is not easy. "Pertains" is a broad term. I could find a hundred data points that "pertain" to a subject, but that doesn't mean those data points are useful.
"STATS SportVU Tracking Technology delivers unprecedented levels of precise and insightful sports information and content direct from the grounds of a football match. Utilizing a sophisticated technology software algorithm to collect the X/Y positioning data of the ball and participants (players and referees) within the playing field in real-time, STATS analyzes the accumulated data streams and compiles meaningful information and insights." If you could put that in a practical interpretation relative to helping one make a personnel decision?..
The game of strategy or personnel will never become what this post is suggesting imo, watch the film, get your scouting reports on players weaknesses, call the game based on feel and matchups, aquire players based on position specific movement, maybe a few algorithms here and there, lol, anything else is a waste of time..jmo..
yeah I'm sure there a whole bunch of pro scots out there worried about what their analytics or metrics reports are saying.. There on a fu&$in plane going to see the kid play ball...lol..
Genetics..position specific movement..intelligence overall, but specifically look for players that understand the correlation of scientific strength training relative to their sport/position.Put more resources in the study of those things over more resources studying stats and lets see who wins more games.
I feel like this becoming a semantics argument. Say you are looking for release speed, like you mentioned earlier. Getting the speed from every release for a single QB over 5 games is good, but getting the speed from every release for a single QB over 5 seasons is not a bad thing or hindrance. I don't think anyone would argue that you don't want info that isn't indicative of what you're trying to find.
Why is it an either or scenario? The training you talk about is important. The scouting and film watching is important. The tracking of stats is important. Interviews and investigation of the players history and personality is important. One thing though, the training you talk about is only possible AFTER you select the right player.
The example I'm thinking of is when you spend time breaking down the mechanics of a throwing motion like is so often done as if it matters. We had seemingly endless debates on Kaepernick's throwing motion. My point was I didn't care b/c his speed was fast enough. I didn't need or want the info about his throwing motion. That was info that pertained but was irrelevant. The people who didn't like Kaepernick saw that info as valuable and used it to buffer their position. They thought the extra info helped. It didn't. It helped convince them of their ultimately incorrect assessment. It was an example of too much information being a bad thing.
Thats why they are scouts, and not executives. The executives should take an "all of the above" approach. They should value their scouts, and they should value their scientists as well.
There's two sides of the argument I'm seeing..as far as scouting an opponent, I'm sure there are some analytics that could help during the week of preparation..I don't however feel spending money and resources on a stats dept for scouting prospects is a wise use of those resources, in fact I think it's silly..It will not sway the opinion, the work has to be done. We're ultimately talking about winning games, I would much rather spend the extra money man power and resources on things like nutrition and exercise science for the players I do Aquire, so when I say it's a waste of time and money it's because 1, I don't believe stats will be significant in whether or not a player will be aquired, and two, if your spending money on it, your sacrificing money elsewhere I would think.
Exactly...I remember those debates, some were an exercise in futility arguing because once they saw the funky delivery they interpreted that as a slow release.. I'm not sure who it was, but I saw some good film work done on comparisons of his release relative to some other fine qbs who's release was never questioned.
Good GMs are scouts at heart, and it is the most important trait you want yours to have...scouting players is not rocket science, it's a talent that some have better than others, if your looking at finding an edge thru metrics or stats, you eventually will be exposed.
Nobody is debating the importance or scouting. There is a lot more to being a good GM than just scouting though. Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I understand that, my point is, when it comes to making decisions on talent whether to aquire or not to aquire, film is all you need..no stats are going to make the decision any easier or harder..
Great information here on how the 49ers use advanced analytics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aYCxvlIeuqE#t=1251s Good stuff is from around the 22min
For further viewing on the stats and football subject, here's the panel from the Sloan Conference this year with execs from the Rams and 49ers, Scott Pioli, and Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders. It's an hour long, but worth the watch for anyone who is interested in this topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S_fYTXWB3k
Literally impossible for a human to analyze and compare that much data on their own. This is really a silly argument to have anyways. NFL "scouts" are pretty bad at doing their job. Any chance at improvement should be embraced. First round picks fail at a 50% rate. HOF QBs have gone undrafted until the late rounds. This isn't really a profession that warrants any type of defense.
There's a good bit of white washing going on here. Colin Kaepernick having a slower release than other quarterbacks' was not a matter of illusion or opinion. It was a matter of fact. Did it end up mattering a whole heck of a lot? Not so far. Does it make a fact suddenly not a fact anymore? Nope. Fact is still fact. Sometimes they matter, sometimes they don't.
It was slower compared to who? "Not so far"..I'm afraid your gonna be waiting a long time, there's nothing wrong with the speed of his release..he's a great Qb, was a great QB in college and now in the pros.. Not sure what your trying to say here.
This is getting hilarious, their talking about technology and how new applications can condense data to make the job of the scout easier, in this thread, that has not been the debate, nothing in that video shows that new technology will sway the opinion of a player that they need to see on the field. I have no problem with technology streamlining the process, but you guys have been arguing with me about stats helping make personnel decisions, and once again, you would be wrong.. Y'all stat monkeys are too sensitive about your position, it's like you think it's going to take over the art of evaluation...It's not, it won't, streamlining the process in some way so their not working on countless spread sheets and not carrying around unusually large binders, ok, that's fine.
Your talking about something totally different then what the meaning of what I said in the beginning of this thread, I was very clear on my position..
You guys were just bickering over the speed of a player's release. Once the technology is implemented, you'll be about to quantify exactly how long someone's release, and quantify how much of an effect the speed of a player's release is. This stuff is already being done in other sports. It is about creating data that doesn't exist, as much as it condenses it. People consider a players 40 yd time from the combine, imagine if they were able to measure the equivalent of game-speed? This is the direction that everything in the world is taking. There is literally a computer that has graduated medical school, and will be a licensed doctor soon.
and once your app tells you the numbers you will still have to look at your qbs in effort to make sure your not missing something.. Kaepernik has a hinge in his swing basically, not necessarily a slow release, does your stats tell you that? You want a slow release that no'one ever talked about, where technology or stats can not identify, watch closely the release of Mike Glennon, don't watch the his throwing arm, watch his left arm and hand initiate the whole process of drawing the right arm back..
Agreed. But having the data as well as looking at it is superior to just looking at it. No, the stats don't say anything, because this type of data is not available yet. Which is more accurate at determining a car's speed, a radar gun or the human eye?
Here's the final point I'll make. Teams are using stats to complement their scouting efforts right now. More teams are implementing systems where they can complement their scouting with statistics. You can choose to dislike it or disagree with the approach, but it's happening. Maybe it'll work or maybe it won't, but I can personally guarantee 100% that teams are using them now. Arguing against it is just like trying to stop the wind from blowing, it's fruitless.
I'm saying that I am sensing that you and rafael are attempting to use the fact that Colin Kaepernick has turned out to be a good quarterback as a means of either refuting specific pieces of evidence from when he was coming out (e.g. "his release is not slow compared to other quarterbacks"), or claiming some kind of philosophical problem (e.g. "this is a great example of too much information being a bad thing"). There isn't really any basis for either claim. Colin Kaepernick's release WAS slower than the average quarterback, by a consistent margin. And being wrong or right about a prospect could be evidence of almost any conclusion ranging from, "Better lucky than good" to "Too much information is a bad thing" or even "Not enough information is a bad thing". My final grade on Colin Kaepernick was a 2nd rounder in a virtual tie with the guy that everyone knew I loved, T.J. Yates. I may end up wrong on Colin and he may turn out to have been worthy of a high 1st round grade. That could happen. But it won't be because his release was not actually slower than most other quarterbacks. It was. It just won't have mattered because of other factors, which is a possibility I admitted all along. In fact, I recently had a conversation (in person) with Colin's agent about exactly that subject and he fully agreed with me. He shook my hand and said the only reason he was annoyed at my criticism was because the points I brought up were completely true and undeniable, and he hated to see others identify it. But even back then before Colin came out, we talked about how those observations may not mean anything in the balance, as other things could outweigh, and that's exactly what looks like has happened. And if I do end up wrong and Colin turns out to have been worthy of a high 1st round grade, I'm not inclined to believe that it was TOO MUCH information that was the problem, but just the opposite. Not enough information: schematic possibilities unconsidered, character information not privy to, etc. That happens a lot.
I really don't care whether its your last take, I never asked for your first.. "Compliment", as in help condense data and make life easier for the evaluators... your responses to my initial statements suggested you disagreed with me about my take on stats in relation to the bottom line of aquiring, drafting, or not aquiring or drafting players. I don't think it was hard for anyone to understand where I was coming from, but y'all insisted on arguing, when all you should of said is stats and tech can help condense data and make life a bit easier, if you continue to imply that scouts or Gm's will turn to stats to help make their personnel decisions, like you obviously do, I will continue to say your not going about it the right way, and you will end up wrong a lot more than right.
Understand and understood..If I was doing that I wasn't aware.. There was something about his release while it might have been a bit slower, I wasn't worried about it at all, I remember trying to tell folks when the numbers were coming out, not to listen to them, but for the life of me I can't remember my reasoning behind it. (maybe it was about the moment of when he initiated his motion that I disagreed with on the stop watch.)
have less paperwork and being more organized is far from the tone I was getting from some on the subject of stats..and having less paperwork and being more organized is not going to help one become a better evaluator of the bottom line..
My position on Kaepernick's release during those debates was specifically that it was fast enough. The additional info about how his release compared to some other QBs was useless. It clouded the issue and was predictive of nothing since it was fast enough. I never claimed he could not fail. I merely stated that if he did fail it would not be b/c his release was too slow. For the record, I had an early second round grade on him b/c I had questions about his ability to read defenses. The offense at UNR uses simple reads and there was a real question whether he could make NFL reads. Additional info about how quick of a study he was or his work habits would have been useful and predictive. Additional data on his release was as useful as trying to find out if a 6'4" QB is really 6'4.3". It adds no predictive value as the .3" won't make a difference in his success or failure. That 6'4" QB is already tall enough. That's the point. Some information is predictive. Some is not. IMO the more successful scouts are the ones that ignore that non-predictive info.
A stop watch is sufficient, don't waste your money on a radar gun.. Lets keep on eye on # 81, he can run 25 Mph. Lets keep an eye on # 81, he can run a sub 4.3. That's a pretty weak example Stringer..
I've never seen anyone say how many MPH someone is running during an actual game. I've never seen anyone say how fast a player accelerates. You can look at a player and say "he's fast", but a human has a very had time quantifying that. There have even been studies suggesting that players in white shoes are perceived as faster than players wearing black shoes. The human mind is powerful, but it often can be misled.
You know I think you are a very smart person...I have no idea why you think a radar gun could be more relevant in the art of scouting then a stop watch, and why your using it to defend your POV about stats influencing personnel decisions.
