The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

[peyton4heisman]

It's just the roof with the rings. From a seating standpoint it's hard to get any closer to the field.

I agree Boca. I spent a year in St. Pete and attended many Rays games. The views are hard to beat.

 

[Special Ed]

I'll get to those eventually.
Right now, I'm working on this series:



So far, I've learned a lot about amphibians, but nothing about Smokey hounds.

 

[VolFan4Life87]

This confirms what I said all along in 2012 - we should've onside kicked after every TD. Our defense was horrible, you KNEW they'd give up points; the only question was 3 or 7. We would've given our high octane offense the chance to retain the ball.

 

[Exfix]

Here are a brief summary of the conclusions from a 2005 study, included in the book, done by an economist from Cal-Berkeley. This is using NFL data.

-Inside the opponent's 45-yard line, facing anything less than fourth and eight, teams are better off going for it than punting.
-inside the opponent's 33-yard line, they are better off going for it on anything less than fourth and 11.*
-regardless of field position, on anything less than fourth and five, teams are ALWAYS better off going for it.

*the exception: if little time remains and a field goal would decide the game.

To understand the methodology behind those numbers takes several pages of the book. All I can do is just point you to the chapter titled "Go For It" and let you read it yourself. Whether you ultimately agree or disagree, I think you will find it interesting, if not compelling.

If you examine the numbers, you would find that the majority of the time a big dog defeats a smaller dog in a fight. Then you would say "big dogs beat little dogs." But if you had a pitbull and a Labrador you would be wrong. So personnel clearly matters.

 

[CroKev]

Always enjoy your posts. This may have been mentioned but I don't have the time right now to read all the responses.

1) Sounds like Chip Kelly's philosophy.

2) It appears that all the 4th down situations in your scenarios involve lining up in normal formation. I just wonder how many times we could have gotten 1st downs with just the occasional fake punt. It seems like at least half the time that the receiving team is immediately dropping back to block their assigned man.

 

[General Jack]

Maybe. As the authors of this, and Freakonomics point out, life is about incentives. If fans participate regardless of success, then there is no incentive to spend in a way that increases the chances for success. At least that is the well reasoned argument in this book.

Of course the question could be: well if fans don't participate, where would the money come from to spend to create the on-field success? I can't answer that.

I agree with this premise if you have a Jerry Jones type who is satiated with economics alone. His fixation on megalomania rather than commitment to building a super bowl winner at all costs (i.e. he hire a real general manager) has become a huge problem for the Cowboys fanbase.

University of Texas football is a good example too. Raking in cash but the product on the field sucks. They've been fortunate the Big 12 stinks; they would have gone sub 500 with our schedule. Their AD is proposing games in Mexico and China(?) to promote the "longhorn" brand. Millions of longhorn fans couldn't see a few games the last couple of years on the longhorn network because most major carriers hadn't picked it up. (hahaha) The common fan suffers immensely.

All that said, applied to the college game, if the administration is committed to winning (case in point Alabama), the wins will come period. Even Alabama didn't fill Bryant Denny up for all games last year... but they are still at the top (gag).

BTW, good thread as usual from you.

 

[daj2576]

I'm not reading this book. I only have so many days on this planet, and reading this stack of meaningless idiocy is not in my itinerary. Why don't these economists get coaching gigs? Nice edit, btw.

You do with your time as you will. If you are so pressed for time, though, why spend so much time arguing something that you admit you won't read or consider?

All I can do is lead a horse to water...

 

[daj2576]

I agree with this premise if you have a Jerry Jones type who is satiated with economics alone. His fixation on megalomania rather than commitment to building a super bowl winner at all costs (i.e. he hire a real general manager) has become a huge problem for the Cowboys fanbase.

University of Texas football is a good example too. Raking in cash but the product on the field sucks. They've been fortunate the Big 12 stinks; they would have gone sub 500 with our schedule. Their AD is proposing games in Mexico and China(?) to promote the "longhorn" brand. Millions of longhorn fans couldn't see a few games the last couple of years on the longhorn network because most major carriers hadn't picked it up. (hahaha) The common fan suffers immensely.

All that said, applied to the college game, if the administration is committed to winning (case in point Alabama), the wins will come period. Even Alabama didn't fill Bryant Denny up for all games last year... but they are still at the top (gag).

BTW, good thread as usual from you.

Interesting that you brought up Jones. There is a fantastic section about how he changed the NFL draft, and about how bad teams really are at assessing risk in a draft environment.

 

[daj2576]

the key to the whole argument is "on average". the book seems to state what many football fans know intuitively, and runs counter to other things common sense would tell you. teams should go for it on fourth more, but not 90% of the time. just because a book says so does not make it so. kelley's reasoning for going for it on fourth, ( the hs coach from ark) is that it is a way of limiting the opposing offense's possessions, a form a defense. the onside kick is one of his specialties and his teams have multiple types that are called.

the fact that the cubs can fill a 41,072 stadium in a city with a population of 2.715 million (0.0151) would be more logically attributed to population density rather than an extreme outlier, which would question the point about adverse effects of fans. it is safe to deduce that it has provided a disincentive for owners to improve the team tho, seeing as how its so easy to fill with a subpar team. it would also tell you they are throwing money away by not building a bigger stadium

fans know that home field advantage is not a huge deal. "on average" tho, it is worth about 3 points, as vegas continually tells us. some of it is due to crowd enthusiasm and support, while some is the pressure on referees affected by their own psyche.

coaches know that icing the kicker doesnt work.... most of the time, but youre calling a timeout for that one instance where the moment may get to a young man, youre in a situation where thats all you can do... so you should try it

as for the point about defense, that is where averaging all teams together would get you in trouble. it seems logical to deduce that a good d would limit an offenses posessions. if that offense scores 70% of the time "on average" that would include the stats generated against crappy defenses. i think why you see great defenses matched up with good running games is a way of eating the clock and limiting the opposing offenses chances to score. so the point about great offenses being as important as d's seems counterintuitive to common sense... on average. combining a great offense with a propensity to go for it on fourth is a nice combination tho, as we saw last year with auburn, and yet they lost to a team with a very good defense. and no you cant use a one game result to extrapolate a conclusion anymore than you can average all teams together to tell a coach what he should do in every instance. A good d is superior to a good o.. "on average" because General Neyland said so.

Ive read dubner and leavitts works and am interested in reading the book tho, because there are certain instances where knowledge of the laws of averages and a certain team's proclivities can work to your advantage.

All of your points are addressed in the book.

The authors discuss psychology a great deal as well. Including the fact that most people who try to integrate new data that challenges what they believe they know, suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias. Therefore most fans or decision makers are driven into a very real and quantifiable mental trap, where they have to believe data before they see it.

 

[daj2576]

Simple summary, do you play to win or not to lose.

That is EXACTLY what this book addresses. Fantastic that you could draw that conclusion.

It even talks about how people behave differently when the outcome is the same, yet their perception has changed. For instance, if a golfer is putting for a birdie or a bogey, but has the same lie, he will behave differently. If a batter is facing a full count, he will behave differently if he started out with 3 balls, than 2 strikes (and so will the pitcher), and football coaches make play calls that tend to support not losing as opposed to winning.

 

[daj2576]

Auburn thinks so, but I've seen the actual study. Punting on the opponents side of the field is stupid.

I'm going to buy this book DAJ. I love economics, and math makes it all work.

Keep me posted on what you think after you read it.

 

[daj2576]

Always enjoy your posts. This may have been mentioned but I don't have the time right now to read all the responses.

1) Sounds like Chip Kelly's philosophy.

2) It appears that all the 4th down situations in your scenarios involve lining up in normal formation. I just wonder how many times we could have gotten 1st downs with just the occasional fake punt. It seems like at least half the time that the receiving team is immediately dropping back to block their assigned man.

The book is a few years old, and doesn't address Chip Kelly, but it does address Bellicheck. Bill actually assesses risk in much the same way that this book describes and frequently calls plays based on these sorts of statistics. When it works no one notices (people say he is aggressive but they don't complain), and the rare occasion when it doesn't work, the fans and media want to lynch him because it flies in the face of what they expect. There is a whole page dedicated to the media's reaction to one failed play where the numbers say go for it, and conventional wisdom said don't, and he went for it and failed. Even though, in that same game, he went for it something like 3 other times according to the numbers (and against traditional thinking) and it worked. Ultimately fans reacted to one play they perceived as being the reason the Patriots lost, and not the other 3 that could have been the reason the Pats were still in the game.

 

[daj2576]

If you examine the numbers, you would find that the majority of the time a big dog defeats a smaller dog in a fight. Then you would say "big dogs beat little dogs." But if you had a pitbull and a Labrador you would be wrong. So personnel clearly matters.

If I say something works 70% of the time, that means it doesn't 30%. I am sure you understand that, right?

The discussion about dogs, or exceptions to a rule, doesn't change the rule. You are probably correct, that personnel matters. In fact, my personal studies have mathematically shown that they matter a great deal.

But that doesn't change the fact that I am still more likely than not to affect the outcome in my favor if I follow these general rules, than if I try to plan for an exception that is already factored into the rule.

 

[Witch_Doctor]

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

 

[garry123]

Sure glad Spurrier didn't go for it on fourth toward the end of the game last fall!!!

 

[TOP]

What might fans of the Chicago Cubs and the Tennessee Volunteers have in common?

I know what they don't have in common. A 100 year championship drought.

Cubs suck.

I shutter at the thought of being compared to such a miserable fan base.

 

[SamRebel35]

You do with your time as you will. If you are so pressed for time, though, why spend so much time arguing something that you admit you won't read or consider?

All I can do is lead a horse to water...

Nice. Create a thread where you bring up a book about theoretical strategy based on statistics. Then tell everybody that they need to read it before they can argue with you. Nice strategy. Nobody will ever give enough shats to read this waste of trees, and you will forever maintain a position of authority on the subject. Kudos to you.

 

[TOP]

First: Is defense really the key to championships? Nope, as intuitive as it is to say, offense is just as important, if not more so, in every major sport.

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.

 

[StoVol]

All of your points are addressed in the book.

The authors discuss psychology a great deal as well. Including the fact that most people who try to integrate new data that challenges what they believe they know, suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias. Therefore most fans or decision makers are driven into a very real and quantifiable mental trap, where they have to believe data before they see it.

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.

 

[ncvol17]

I am sorry to say that you are totally incorrect in all of your assessments. What wins games 100% is dependent upon which 'lucky' shirt i am wearing on game day.

 

[garry123]

In all events and actions, one can compute an "average", but specifics (good kicker - bad kicker), (good QB - bad QB) effect a specific outcome. card counters in Vegas don't have absolute data, but have enough data to manipulate the odds on a specific hand!

 

[volfan5589]

Pulaski Academy (Little Rock, AR) Football Home - MaxPreps.com
Pulaski Academy info

 

[Exfix]

If I say something works 70% of the time, that means it doesn't 30%. I am sure you understand that, right?

The discussion about dogs, or exceptions to a rule, doesn't change the rule. You are probably correct, that personnel matters. In fact, my personal studies have mathematically shown that they matter a great deal.

But that doesn't change the fact that I am still more likely than not to affect the outcome in my favor if I follow these general rules, than if I try to plan for an exception that is already factored into the rule.

Do you understand the difference between statistics and applied statistics? I'm guessing not with your oversimplification of the data. Each individual play and each series has to be taken within the context of the game more so in football than baseball. That was my point.
As a side note, coaches recruit the talent and get them to sign so they are indeed worth a good deal more than what you say in college football. Your argument might hold more water on an NFL board.

 

[daj2576]

Nice. Create a thread where you bring up a book about theoretical strategy based on statistics. Then tell everybody that they need to read it before they can argue with you. Nice strategy. Nobody will ever give enough shats to read this waste of trees, and you will forever maintain a position of authority on the subject. Kudos to you.

Yeah, I agree, there is no need for you to read this book.

Nice chat though.

 

[daj2576]

Do you understand the difference between statistics and applied statistics? I'm guessing not with your oversimplification of the data. Each individual play and each series has to be taken within the context of the game more so in football than baseball. That was my point.
As a side note, coaches recruit the talent and get them to sign so they are indeed worth a good deal more than what you say in college football. Your argument might hold more water on an NFL board.

Do statistics and applied statistics have numbers? If so, gah, numbers suck. I don't understand numbers.

Geezus.

Look, instead of the condescension, read the book, look at their tables, question their methodology. Don't shoot the messenger. All I am doing is pointing people to an interesting resource, that draws interesting conclusions, that is easy to read and relatively cheap.

What I don't get is how people who claim to understand numerical models and systems will buck when any system is shown to them, yet go on to point out that Vegas is pretty good at coming up with systems that predict outcomes, including score differentials. Do you think that is magic, or maybe do they have systems that begin with the general (such as the rules outlined in this book) and adjust for the specific ("star" players, coaches who use unique systems, etc)?

In college, I can tell you that games are exceedingly easy to predict. You can pick winners and losers over 70% of the time just by averaging four years of rivals recruiting numbers and pick the team closer to one. You can be right at a level approaching 60% of the time just by picking the home team. Vegas is right about 80% of the time (picking straight winners and losers), but they used more advanced models that I am capable of showing you.