The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

#77
#77
StoVol said:
So deciding to punt from your own five whilst having a great defense just makes me stuck in some historical tradition, bound by confirmation bias? Anyone who disagrees with the book is suffering from a mental delusion? So icing a kicker makes us ignorant now?

Maybe you (they) are trying to negate old data. The newness of the book may be influencing you.

The math can say one thing, but the conclusions you draw from "on average" are a different animal altogether. Cubs filling their stadium as evidence of fans hindering the team being a case in point.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing with all of this data parsing that you think you are so good at, is that the only assertion that I myself made (actually it is a question that I raised) was IF the cubs fans and Volunteer fans actually hindered the long term success of their programs. I didn't conclude or state definitively that was the case. I simply stated that using the argument presented supported by overwhelming data, that if cubs fans could hinder their franchise by being too loyal, that perhaps we could hinder Tennessee with the same thing. And that, at least in MLB, teams whose fans fluctuate with success tend to be more successful.

The rest of your statements regarding conclusions that you seem to believe are mine, are conclusions of the authors of the book. All I am doing is being a proponent of the book, suggesting that people read it and decide for themselves.

But as to your statements regarding being bound by confirmation bias and a historical inability to see reality, there is an interesting corollary outlined in the book (I keep saying that all of these points are addressed, and they are). The book points out how the forward pass sat largely unused in the college football rule book for about 13 years. Why, because it totally defied common knowledge and people didn't understand how it could be any better than what they had.

Until one game when Notre Dame, facing a vastly superior Army squad, wins the day by throwing the ball for something like 275 yards. Suddenly, the forward pass is all the rage when literally the day before it was a shunned new-fangled monstrosity that couldn't and shouldn't work, because...people didn't want to even consider that the way they had been looking at things had been wrong.

But hey, if you want to ice the kicker, even though statistics might show that in so doing the chance that the kick is good actually increases, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#78
#78
daj2576 said:
I really think you should read the book. You are arguing against everything that is addressed there. I can't scribe whole chapters of the book to present the argument with all of the data and intertwined views.

I will quote this. In that paper that I cited above, the author states that:
"..play calling of NFL teams shows "systematic and clear cut" departures from the decisions that would maximize their changes of winning. Based on data from more than 700 NFL games, [the author] identified 1,068 fourth-down situations in which, statistically speaking, the right call would have been to go for it. The NFL teams punted 959 times. In other words, nearly 90% of the time, NFL coaches made the sub-optimal choice."

Now, I am sure you are asking if this stuff is so clear cut, why doesn't anyone use it. The answer is because most people think about football, including coaches and managers/owners, just like you do. There is a prevailing wisdom, no matter how incorrect, that is totally risk-averse (the risk being change). Seriously, this whole book is dedicated to debunking some of the same things you are saying.
Click to expand...
Cause it's a bunch of crap.
 
#79
#79
To sum it all up, here are a list of books that might change the way you view the world, especially the world of sports, or maybe just make you angry at me.

Who knows?

1). Freakonomics.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.): Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner: 9780060731335: Amazon.com: Books

2). Superfreakonomics.
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner: 9780060889586: Amazon.com: Books

3). Scorecasting.
http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-...8&qid=1396735722&sr=8-2&keywords=scorecasting

4). Mathletics.
Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football: Wayne L. Winston: 9780691154589: Amazon.com: Books

5). Sports Analytics.
Sports Analytics: A Guide for Coaches, Managers, and Other Decision Makers: Benjamin C. Alamar, Dean Oliver: 9780231162920: Amazon.com: Books

6). Stumbling on Wins.
Stumbling On Wins: Two Economists Expose the Pitfalls on the Road to Victory in Professional Sports: David J. Berri, Martin B. Schmidt: 9780132357784: Amazon.com: Books
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#82
#82
daj2576 said:
To sum it all up, here are a list of books that might change the way you view the world, especially the world of sports, or maybe just make you angry at me.

Who knows?

1). Freakonomics.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.): Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner: 9780060731335: Amazon.com: Books

2). Superfreakonomics.
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner: 9780060889586: Amazon.com: Books

3). Scorecasting.
Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won By Tobias J. Moskowitz, L. Jon Wertheim: -Author-: Amazon.com: Books

4). Mathletics.
Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football: Wayne L. Winston: 9780691154589: Amazon.com: Books

5). Sports Analytics.
Sports Analytics: A Guide for Coaches, Managers, and Other Decision Makers: Benjamin C. Alamar, Dean Oliver: 9780231162920: Amazon.com: Books

6). Stumbling on Wins.
Stumbling On Wins: Two Economists Expose the Pitfalls on the Road to Victory in Professional Sports: David J. Berri, Martin B. Schmidt: 9780132357784: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...

I would add one more to the required reading list for this semester: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
daj2576 said:
The interesting thing with all of this data parsing that you think you are so good at, is that the only assertion that I myself made (actually it is a question that I raised) was IF the cubs fans and Volunteer fans actually hindered the long term success of their programs. I didn't conclude or state definitively that was the case. I simply stated that using the argument presented supported by overwhelming data, that if cubs fans could hinder their franchise by being too loyal, that perhaps we could hinder Tennessee with the same thing. And that, at least in MLB, teams whose fans fluctuate with success tend to be more successful.

The rest of your statements regarding conclusions that you seem to believe are mine, are conclusions of the authors of the book. All I am doing is being a proponent of the book, suggesting that people read it and decide for themselves.

But as to your statements regarding being bound by confirmation bias and a historical inability to see reality, there is an interesting corollary outlined in the book (I keep saying that all of these points are addressed, and they are). The book points out how the forward pass sat largely unused in the college football rule book for about 13 years. Why, because it totally defied common knowledge and people didn't understand how it could be any better than what they had.

Until one game when Notre Dame, facing a vastly superior Army squad, wins the day by throwing the ball for something like 275 yards. Suddenly, the forward pass is all the rage when literally the day before it was a shunned new-fangled monstrosity that couldn't and shouldn't work, because...people didn't want to even consider that the way they had been looking at things had been wrong.

But hey, if you want to ice the kicker, even though statistics might show that in so doing the chance that the kick is good actually increases, so be it.
Click to expand...

Mobile QBs will never work in the NFL either. Every fan knew that was true 20 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
Witch_Doctor said:
Witch Doctor say with no mention of Voodoo, Curses or Juju....
good luck believing with this! Witch Doctor say only time math used in sports is counting how many heads roll down the steps of the temples.
lol
Bones never lie.
*actually very good books. Shhhh
Click to expand...


Dude........where ya been?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
the Cubs ? we all know that they got bad Karma off that goat,how does that figure in the stats?

and i do like your post :) I enjoy reading them,but i suffer from CRS,so I'm not sure how good they are at times lol
 
#88
#88
We all know where to hide something should SamRebel35 come lookin... it be like kryptonite.
 
#90
#90
I took a class on this last year in college. The class was called sports by the numbers and we used the "Mathletics" book as our textbook. I found these mathematical situations to be helpful but not a end all be all to the situations. My professor would always point out that most mathematicians don't believe in momentum in sports. I for one do believe in momentum. These mathematical approaches have no way of factoring in momentum and other factors such as that. We've all seen baseball players in a slump or offenses who can't move the ball for a period of time. You have to factor these things into your decision making as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
IMO the Cubs and Vols comparison can't be made. Now after getting through this thriller of a thread read the only comparison I was thinking would be close, and agree with the guy who brought it up, is the Jerry Jones comparison. But with the fan reaction mainly. Thing with him though is that I think he may have calculated the manipulation of the fans. He doesn't need to field a championship team. He just needs to have one that is just good enough to tease the fans into "next year being the yr". Why he kept Romo imo. The guy isn't going to win win, but gets the job done. And is purdy. If the cowboys end up winning a SB he would be expected to maintain that by his fanbase. Right now he doesn't have to. Once he feels/sees that money starts to dip because of fan support I'm sure he'll step it up. Being around Cowboys fans for as long as I have I frankly think JJs well is nowhere near drying up. Anyway that's my opinion on the cowboys situation. I would think that UGA is closer to that description than we r by keeping Richt around. But our fans are a close second.

Now to why the Cubs can't be used at all in this convo...its said that back in the day Wriglys son made the biz decision to make The Wrigley Field Experience his business plan. Not fielding a successful baseball team. Going to the game, the cold beer, the party, the fun. The stadium is in the middle of a GREAT FREAKING city. It passes 85 in the summer people freak out as its not normal. 100s of thousands of people can walk there in less than 20-30 mins on any given day. Then add on top the people that can jump on the Red line from North Shore or Dwtn and be there in 10-30 mins and get dropped off a half a block away from the stadium. With there kids in hand. Back when I lived there my buddies and I would get home from the office, walk ovr there, get there about 2-3rd inning, pick up a ticket outside for like 5 bucks sometimes for free. Drink beers and watch baseball til the 8th inning, and head to the bars across the street if it wasn't a good game. Reminded me of the days of living in Fraternity Park and heading to a BaseVol game. Totally different experience than what Neyland and the Vols can offer.

Of course I'm sure i'll be told I'm an idiot, that all I've said is bull, but it's all my opinion so well..i really don't care cause it's all IMHO and take it for what it is...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#97
#97
TOP said:
Bull.

Viking's record setting offense... lost in the playoffs 30-27.

Patriot's record setting offense... lost in the Super Bowl 17-14.

Bronco's record setting offense... lost in the Super Bowl 43-8.

Oklahoma's record setting offense... lost in the championship 24-14.

Oregon's record setting offense... lost in the championship 22-19.


On the flip side... Buccaneers, Ravens, Steelers, Seahawks, Florida, Alabama etc. all walk away with titles when they have elite/record setting defenses. Even when the Colts won a Super Bowl with Manning, he was terrible and the defense carried the Colts to the title. He averaged 258.5yds with 3tds, 7ints and a passer rating of 70.5 in 4 playoff games.

In football, defense is clearly more important than offense. And you could argue it in other sports as well. You don't see the Yankees winning titles these days with line ups built to put 10 runs a night. You do see the Giants, Phillies and D'backs winning titles with great pitching though. Or in basketball, you never saw the Suns winning titles when Nash was a back to back MVP and the Suns were crushing it on offense. You do see the Spurs, Heat and Pistons with defense though. Pistons took down Shaq/Kobe preventing the 3peat.

Give me elite defense over offense any day. You can't be beaten if you don't allow your opponent to score and odds are you'll score a little bit because your opponent isn't fielding an elite defense. Heck, your offense might not even need to score in the case of football. Your defense can take one back or special teams can put points on the board. Elite offenses are stopped all of the time though. It's not like you see Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony winning titles. The only record setting offense I recall in the past decade or two winning a title are the Rams. Even then, they only scored 23. That's not exactly winning with offense. Especially considering they were averaging more than twice that I believe.
Click to expand...


I agree, at least with respect to the value of a dominant defense in football. If I had to pick a single statistic to predict Super Bowl success, it would be scoring defense. Consider the following data with respect to the rank of all 48 Super Bowl winners in this category:

1966 Green Bay 1st (163 pts., 14-game regular season until 1978)
1967 Green Bay 3rd (209 pts.)
1968 New York Jets (280 pts; would have been 10th if the 26 teams in the NFL and AFL had been merged that year).

1969 Kansas City 1st (in AFL with 177 pts.; would have been 2nd if the 26 teams in the NFL and AFL had been merged that year)

1970 Baltimore Colts 7th (234 pts.)
1971 Dallas 7th (222 pts.)
1972 Miami 1st (171 pts.)
1973 Miami 1st (150 pts.)
1974 Pittsburgh 2nd (189 pts.)
1975 Pittsburgh 2nd (162 pts.)
1976 Oakland 12th (237 pts. In 28-team NFL)
1977 Dallas 8th (212 pts.)
1978 Pittsburgh 1st (195 pts. Regular season is lengthened to 16 games)
1979 Pittsburgh 7th (262 pts.)

1980 Oakland 10th (306 pts.)
1981 San Francisco 2nd (250 pts.)
1982 Washington 1st (128 pts. in a strike-shortened, nine-game season)
1983 Los Angeles Raiders 13th (338 pts.)
1984 San Francisco 1st (227 pts.)
1985 Chicago 1st (198 pts.)
1986 New York Giants 2nd (236 pts.)
1987 Washington 6th (285 points)
1988 San Francisco 8th (294 pts.)
1989 San Francisco 3rd (253 pts.)

1990 New York Giants 1st (211 pts.)
1991 Washington 2nd (224 pts.)
1992 Dallas 5th (243 pts.)
1993 Dallas 2nd (229 pts.)
1994 San Francisco 6th (296 points)
1995 Dallas 3rd (291 pts. NFL expands to 30 teams)
1996 Green Bay 1st (210 pts.)
1997 Denver 7th (287 pts.)
1998 Denver 9th (309 pts.)
1999 St. Louis 4th (242 pts.)

2000 Baltimore Ravens 1st (165 pts.)
2001 New England 6th (272 pts.)
2002 Tampa Bay 1st (196 pts. NFL expands to 32 teams)
2003 New England 1st (238 pts.)
2004 New England 2nd (260 pts.)
2005 Pittsburgh 4th (258 pts.)
2006 Indianapolis 23rd (360 pts.)
2007 New York Giants 17th (351 pts.)
2008 Pittsburgh 1st (223 pts.)
2009 New Orleans 20th (341 pts.)
2010 Green Bay 2nd (240 pts.)
2011 New York Giants 25th (400 pts.)
2012 Baltimore Ravens 12th (344 pts.)
2013 Seattle Seahawks 1st (231 pts.)

If I count correctly, 33 out of 48 SB winners finished in the top quartile in that category; 30 of them were ranked in the top five and 25, just over half, finished in the top three.
 
#98
#98
Thanks for another interesting topic, daj. That book has been on my "to read" list for a while so now I had better get after it. I really enjoyed "freakonomics" and "super freakonomics" as well as what I have read of "moneyball." I am sure that "scorecasting" will be interesting as long as the authors don't start challenging that the earth is flat or any number of other things that we know are true and unassailable facts.
 
#99
#99
daj2576 said:
The interesting thing with all of this data parsing that you think you are so good at, is that the only assertion that I myself made (actually it is a question that I raised) was IF the cubs fans and Volunteer fans actually hindered the long term success of their programs. I didn't conclude or state definitively that was the case. I simply stated that using the argument presented supported by overwhelming data, that if cubs fans could hinder their franchise by being too loyal, that perhaps we could hinder Tennessee with the same thing. And that, at least in MLB, teams whose fans fluctuate with success tend to be more successful.

The rest of your statements regarding conclusions that you seem to believe are mine, are conclusions of the authors of the book. All I am doing is being a proponent of the book, suggesting that people read it and decide for themselves.

But as to your statements regarding being bound by confirmation bias and a historical inability to see reality, there is an interesting corollary outlined in the book (I keep saying that all of these points are addressed, and they are). The book points out how the forward pass sat largely unused in the college football rule book for about 13 years. Why, because it totally defied common knowledge and people didn't understand how it could be any better than what they had.

Until one game when Notre Dame, facing a vastly superior Army squad, wins the day by throwing the ball for something like 275 yards. Suddenly, the forward pass is all the rage when literally the day before it was a shunned new-fangled monstrosity that couldn't and shouldn't work, because...people didn't want to even consider that the way they had been looking at things had been wrong.

But hey, if you want to ice the kicker, even though statistics might show that in so doing the chance that the kick is good actually increases, so be it.
Click to expand...

And you accuse us of being condescending? The forward pass? Really? As an illustration of our backwards thinking? I've stated that even common fans know we punt too much, and that most of the time icing a kicker is useless. I suspect an economist could coach a football team as well as a coach could prove that sumo wrestlers cheat. We are just discussing the validity of their conclusions. You took offense to an opposing view of a new book you read. The condescension is on you and your confirmation bias possibly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top