The guy the Jets just hired is a longtime assistant coach and MBA who did some analytics work for the Dolphins and Bears. He got hired because he knows Gase. The Jets aren't exactly pushing the frontier of analytics here.
I think analytics gets a bad name for a few reasons: 1. People don't like what they don't understand. 2. Analytics are designed to win games, even if it makes them less entertaining. 3. Some analytics people come in with no knowledge of the field they're trying to revolutionize and end up making things worse because they don't put the numbers in the right context. 4. Anyone can call himself a data scientist, even if he's completely unqualified. Some of these people weasel their way into important positions because they put their effort into self-promotion while the more qualified people are too busy actually doing analytics and aren't as good at self-promotion. 5. People who have a positive or neutral opinion of analytics aren't as loud as people who don't like it.
That isn't the fault of analytics, it's the fault of the league office. The analytics guys are paid to win. If the league office thinks the new strategies are hurting the sport, they can change the rules to put an end to those strategies.
i'd hardly call feeding numbers into a computer strategizing. all I can say is, Kirk Gibson would not have gotten that epic at bat in todays day and age. Ricky Henderson isn't Ricky Henderson in today's game. they're taking the soul, the human element out of the game. even the managers are boring now. they basically have become mouth pieces for number crunchers that have to take the slings and arrows for when the game doesn't play out like the numbers predicted. what's great about sports is it's supposed to be about people, not spread sheets. baseball is almost completely gone the way of the spread sheet, hopefully football never gets there.
Fjay ,I will believe it when I see it as the only thing that shocked more more then the way they dealt with this O line is that they hired Gase. Camp in a week games soon enough hopefully Im wrong but ohhhhhhhhhhhhh this line.
No offense but this is douchey and is a big reason why people don’t like the analytics crowd. They really are not that hard to understand even a little bit. There’s nothing all that complex to most of them. In the age of social media and discussion boards, analytics give way too many people who don’t know what they’re talking about the confidence to make definitive statements. I’m also well aware that a lot of people including people here agree that analytics aren’t the be all end all. But some people think they are and there within lies the problem.
It may be douchey (though no more douchey than referring to analytics guys as "a bunch of nerds who couldn't hit a jumper") but it's true. And I'm not talking about the self-proclaimed analysts on the Internet (see my point #4). I'm talking about the people who do legit stuff. For instance, analytics guys say coaches should go for it more often on 4th down. The guy who figured that out is a Berkeley economics professor who wrote his findings in this paper. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf Read it and tell me with a straight face that it isn't hard to understand even a little bit. And what person out there has said analytics is a be all end all?
I stopped watching the NBA and used to be a big fan years ago. I can't stand watching certain teams in baseball either. It's a breath of fresh air to see local guys playing like I want to see the game played (McNeil, Alonso, Lemahieu). I've had it with launch angle, FIP (which is a biased stat as they come because it rewards the fire ball strikeout pitcher but hurts the sinker ball, off speed pitcher that pitches to contact... if babip stat exists why not embrace it instead of disregarding it). Football is a different animal, except for the QB position, imho. 16 games is too small a sample to draw any conclusions except at QB where they have a hand in every play. If this guy has learned what to watch with his eyes and verify what he thinks with relevant stats, great, I'm all for it. If he relies solely on stats he's a waste of time and money.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence is “not that hard to understand even a little bit” Good call bro
I’m not talking about the study behind how the formula to get said number was developed. I’m talking about what each means. They aren’t that hard to understand to the “consumer”.
If all you understand is the layman's version, you don't understand it. It would be like me telling a heart surgeon that I understand how to do a heart transplant because I read somewhere that you cut the guy's chest open, take out his heart, and put the replacement heart in.
This thread is all over the place because some here are looking at the new hire as a guy to ace the next draft and some are looking at him to be a decision maker (or at least decision influencer) for in game situational choices and play calling. Does anyone have any information of his experience in either realm?
So the guy on twitter telling me “you just don’t understand defensive win shares per 48 minutes” is god damn Steve Jobs? I don't think so. I think you misread or misunderstood my original post. I’m not talking about this guy we hired, I flat out said I had no issue with that.
