The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

[Boca Vol]

I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on Scorecasting. Keep me posted.

I just started it and right away I agree with his point that in public opinion, inaction is better than the wrong action.

I have a feeling that's where he's going the punting issue. Punting is safe.

 

[tm3]

Just came across an error.

In discussing golf, the author states that Yang in the 2009 PGA was the first Asian golfer to win a major. Actually the 2nd place finisher, Woods, holds that honor, having classified himself as Asian on his application to Stanford.

 

[Thunndarr]

trust me on this one -- i have a kindle AND a bge. i love the bge, cooks the best food i have ever eaten. but if i had to give one up ......... i would keep the kindle.

Talk about Sophie's choice. I'd probably just have to end it all if I had to choose between my Kindle or my Big Easy.

 

[daj2576]

Just came across an error.

In discussing golf, the author states that Yang in the 2009 PGA was the first Asian golfer to win a major. Actually the 2nd place finisher, Woods, holds that honor, having classified himself as Asian on his application to Stanford.

This could lead to a really interesting discussion on how to define racial identity in an often mixed race society. Or, if any of that is even important.

 

[82_VOL_83]

1) To win in the SEC to you either have a crushing defense and good offense or an excellent offense and a good defense. One or the other doesn't get it in our conference..... Period.
2) If you ate going to go for it on every 4th down you better have a good defense in the SEC because you will eventually begin to get stuffed....period.
3) If you are going to onside every kick, you better have a damn good defense.....period.

Good defense is many times overlooked as a norm.

 

[kidbourbon]

Let me see if I can get your attention. What might fans of the Chicago Cubs and the Tennessee Volunteers have in common? To restate this question another way, what if our rabid and largely stable fan base actually has disincentivized the Tennessee Athletic Department from making good decisions over the past decade? More on that later.

As I begin to write this, I know that the vast majority of those reading will end right about here. Many of those will go on to put something along the lines of "too long, didn't read" or "nerd" or whatever else. That's fine, but for those of you who continue on, who like to parse and understand the data driving the things you love, and be challenged in your position, please continue reading.

Many of my posts on this site have been about the numerical impact of talent on the outcome of football games. There are generally two distinct conclusions that I have drawn from the data. The first is that talent is the major contributor to about 70% of the wins on the field, and the second is that coaching is one of the most over-valued aspects of a team's success (only part of the remaining 30% can be attributed to coaching). These findings rocked my world.

In that vein, I tend to be attracted to information that is more informative as opposed to speculative. Sadly, so much of the information that sports enthusiasts are given is the latter and not the former. If you read message boards, listen to sports talk, or even watch games, you are pelted with traditional views, that are largely nonsense.

If you have read Freakonomics or perhaps even Moneyball (watching either movie doesn't really count), you will love this book I just finished reading (and my sincerest apologies if this has been brought up previously).

View attachment 76055

Written and researched by economists, who also love sports, the information in this book truly pulls the veil back on many modern day fan-fictions. Here, in no particular order, is an non-exhaustive list of some of the topics covered.

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.

Second: Is home field advantage due to crowd enthusiasm and support? Nope, not in the way most fans think.

Third: Does icing the kicker work? Nope.

Fourth: Is punting really as valuable as modern coaching and fan perception would lead you to believe? Nope. In fact, going for it on 4th down (outside of a few exceptions) is a far better statistical option if you want to actually win a game, than kicking a punt or a field goal.

Now, back to the Cubs v. Volunteers question from the beginning. Buried deep in the last chapter is the revelation that for most teams, wins and losses effect fan attendance at games. Fan attendance directly equates to income. Income, if turned back into the team, directly equates to wins (those who tend to spend more, tend to have more success). So, for most teams, keeping a quality product on the field is the way to generate income. Or to put it another way, if you want to make money, put a quality product on the field, and the fans will come and you will make more money. Except for the Chicago Cubs.

For whatever reason, the Cubs have spent years of being mediocre and the fans still buy over 90% of the seats thus insulating the team from the impact of mediocrity while removing any incentive for the management to invest more money to assure a winning team.

For any of you who believe that UT doesn't spend money to make quality coaching hires (disregard the fact that I actually believe coaches are worth far less than what they currently command on the market due to their impact on the outcome of most games being far inferior to talent) do you think that it could possibly be because our fans tend to be incredibly loyal? When have we ever seen Neyland at 15% attendance, or even 50% for that matter? As a hypothetical question, could it be that our fans actually allow the AD, or any of those who are in charge, to make decisions that could actually make Tennessee less competitive over the long run?

So it seems that the bottom line might be that if you want a more competitive team, ride a bandwagon.

Food for thought and a great book.

Now, own to my next project...

View attachment 76057

Mathletics is more of a reference guide than a story.

Scorecasting is on my list.

 

[kidbourbon]

This could lead to a really interesting discussion on how to define racial identity in an often mixed race society. Or, if any of that is even important.

In a few hundred years it'll be academic as we'll all be differing shades of brown.

 

[Boca Vol]

Just came across an error.

In discussing golf, the author states that Yang in the 2009 PGA was the first Asian golfer to win a major. Actually the 2nd place finisher, Woods, holds that honor, having classified himself as Asian on his application to Stanford.

You must have missed the racial draft on the Chappelle Show. Tiger Woods is 100% black:

 

[daj2576]

In a few hundred years it'll be academic as we'll all be differing shades of brown.

In hundreds of years, everything we are discussing now will be academic. I doubt much of anything will be the same.

 

[daj2576]

Mathletics is more of a reference guide than a story.

Scorecasting is on my list.

I tend to want to know how, and not just why. You're right, Mathletics isn't a narrative more than a "how to". In many ways it is the next logical step in trying to understand the subject, for those willing to take it.

 

[tm3]

This could lead to a really interesting discussion on how to define racial identity in an often mixed race society. Or, if any of that is even important.

i would argue that it is unimportant, and largely motivated by secondary gain.

but hearing the discussion would be interesting.

 

[tm3]

i just read the part that explains how the dallas cowboys became a dynasty under jerry jones' ownership. wow. reinforces my sig line.

 

[daj2576]

i just read the part that explains how the dallas cowboys became a dynasty under jerry jones' ownership. wow. reinforces my sig line.

It's fascinating isn't it? It also helps reinforce how badly we tend to judge risk/reward, a common theme throughout the book.

I just stumbled across another gem about how to gamble in football. I will post a link later, but my cursory reading reveals an interesting statistical find, that tends to jive with my recruiting evaluations. That is, that returning experience doesn't matter anywhere near as much as any common narrative would suggest. That has always been one of the many suggestions that people want me to factor into my recruiting evaluations, or is an issue raised when people try to claim that talent can't actually account for at least 70% of the wins. Anyway, stay tuned.

 

[WA_Vol]

So it seems that the bottom line might be that if you want a more competitive team, ride a bandwagon.

Food for thought and a great book.

Now, own to my next project...

View attachment 76057

i used to listen to a radio show that used to quote the freakenomics book a lot. I had planned to look though it at some point. thanks for the info

 

[MSCE09]

I agree a lot with the points about the Cubs. The Yankees have to win or their fans will riot. The Cubs who cares, winning might even hurt their mystique at this point. I don't think Tennessee is quite the Cubs though, the fans abandoned Fulmer and Dooley and the AD took notice. However the 100K seats and a lucrative tv deal do insulate the AD from a few years of mediocre fan support so there is some truth to it.

 

[DaddyChad]

I think you've given me my next book purchase.

IDK if you've already addressed this but media likely plays a role in those decisions as well. I would agree that stats would point to one course of action versus common thinking pointing to another course. While statistically the best course of action will win out, the public criticism might be too much for a college coach to overcome.

 

[tm3]

It's fascinating isn't it? It also helps reinforce how badly we tend to judge risk/reward, a common theme throughout the book.

I just stumbled across another gem about how to gamble in football. I will post a link later, but my cursory reading reveals an interesting statistical find, that tends to jive with my recruiting evaluations. That is, that returning experience doesn't matter anywhere near as much as any common narrative would suggest. That has always been one of the many suggestions that people want me to factor into my recruiting evaluations, or is an issue raised when people try to claim that talent can't actually account for at least 70% of the wins. Anyway, stay tuned.

looking forward to it.

hope it ranks right up there with

no "i" in team, but "i" in win

defense does not really win championships

going for it on 4th down beats kicking

which are all fascinating concepts.

 

[daj2576]

looking forward to it.

hope it ranks right up there with

no "i" in team, but "i" in win

defense does not really win championships

going for it on 4th down beats kicking

which are all fascinating concepts.

I'm glad you've enjoyed reading it.

 

[daj2576]

More food for thought.

 

[Boca Vol]

I think you've given me my next book purchase.

IDK if you've already addressed this but media likely plays a role in those decisions as well. I would agree that stats would point to one course of action versus common thinking pointing to another course. While statistically the best course of action will win out, the public criticism might be too much for a college coach to overcome.

In Scorecasting they bring up the 2009 Colts vs. Pats game in which Belichick went for it on 4th down, on his side of the field, late in the game. The postgame reactions from the NBC crew (former players and coaches) all said that he had to play the percentages in that instance and punt the ball....Well, ther percentages said he made the correct call.

 

[daj2576]

In Scorecasting they bring up the 2009 Colts vs. Pats game in which Belichick went for it on 4th down, on his side of the field, late in the game. The postgame reactions from the NBC crew (former players and coaches) all said that he had to play the percentages in that instance and punt the ball....Well, ther percentages said he made the correct call.

Like I keep telling everyone...read the book.
I don't think I have seen a counter-point that isn't addressed to some extent in the book.

 

[Boca Vol]

More food for thought.

The bottom of page 4 and page 5 hit the nail on the head. There are key positions where replacements (QB, OT, DB) have more value. The rest (IMO) is like the WAR stat. If you replace talent with talent, the difference should be minimal. If you replace talent with crap, well....

Bama will be back in the mix due to their recruiting. They are replacing 5*s with 5*s so the learning curve should be shorter and what isn't learned CAN BE MADE UP FOR WITH TALENT.

That's where UT struggles. They aren't deep enough, yet! It's coming, though.

 

[daj2576]

The bottom of page 4 and page 5 hit the nail on the head. There are key positions where replacements (QB, OT, DB) have more value. The rest (IMO) is like the WAR stat. If you replace talent with talent, the difference should be minimal. If you replace talent with crap, well....

Bama will be back in the mix due to their recruiting. They are replacing 5*s with 5*s so the learning curve should be shorter and what isn't learned CAN BE MADE UP FOR WITH TALENT.

That's where UT struggles. They aren't deep enough, yet! It's coming, though.

As I have been preaching for years now, talent is by far the single biggest indicator of success. It isn't coaching, or uniform color combinations, or player turn-over, it is largely just about talent. If you keep increasing your talent, you will get better regardless of the experience you are losing.

He does make an interesting comment about how he grades talent. Unlike my system that averages four years, he uses three, then weighs the classes with the newest given the weakest weight. Oddly that goes against his own statement about returning starters not being a great indicator (except in a few key positions).

 

[Boca Vol]

As I have been preaching for years now, talent is by far the single biggest indicator of success. It isn't coaching, or uniform color combinations, or player turn-over, it is largely just about talent. If you keep increasing your talent, you will get better regardless of the experience you are losing.

He does make an interesting comment about how he grades talent. Unlike my system that averages four years, he uses three, then weighs the classes with the newest given the weakest weight. Oddly that goes against his own statement about returning starters not being a great indicator (except in a few key positions).

I noticed that further down he took into consideration the returning starters and number of seniors. I agree with replacing a decent Sr. with a great Fr. may not be that noticeable right away.

 

[Boca Vol]

daj,

I agree with your assessment that you can typically pick about 70% winners based on talent.

I think it would be interesting to see how well VN can pick games before the season starts based on the data we currently have. Most people predicted somewhere between 5-7 and 7-5 last year but did they predict the correct 5 wins? How many predicted wins over Mizzou and Auburn? A win over SC?