The Analytics Revolution in the NFL

[Shanedorf]

Linked here is an excellent and in depth article from The Ringer, talking about the rise in use of Analytics in the NFL and the growing power it wields across the league

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/12/19/18148153/nfl-analytics-revolution

"After working in the scouting departments of both the Saints and Browns, Manocherian was let go by Cleveland in 2014 and explored graduate school. He talked to Vince Gennaro, then the director of Columbia’s sports management program. Gennaro is also the president of SABR, the baseball research society, and serves as a consultant for MLB teams. Manocherian had never looked into the analytics side of football, but Gennaro told him that it was the way in.
“He said to look at the analytics movements,” Manocherian said. “Baseball is past theirs, basketball is in theirs now, and football’s is still to come.

"Those are the guys who are going to be running teams in five years.”

“In every field there’s way too much: ‘This is the way we’ve always done it,’ and in the NFL that’s particularly extreme,” Joe Banner said.
“Now comes the major shift.”

[AlexGreen#20]

Football doesn't even have regular stats for a lot of its positions to say nothing of advanced stats. It doesn't have the volume of reps that the other sports do to parse out tends versus noise.

In baseball, analytics gives you the answers.

In football, analytics gives you the questions.

 

[MacReady]

This is the type of stuff I love about the NFL, but more on a macro level.  

I don't really get into the splits and 40 and athletic measurable stuff.  That's not my thing.

What interests me and one thing that I think will keep me a fan even if the Packers ebter a dark age is this macro level stuff that points to Super Bowl wins.

Positional value and how it equates to success.  The Saints are really interesting with this.  They've gone OT, ILB, DT, CB, OT, EDGE with their past 6 first round picks.  They've gone skill in rounds 2/3.  They are primed as the best team with the most promising roster in the NFL.  One wonders where they'd be right now if they hadn't slipped with the ILB pick and instead went with Malcolm Brown or Landon Collins (the next two picks).  

Everybody points to them having Brees, but that team is nothing without their drafting, which was done through having strong draft capital and selecting positional value.

Then you look at certain bottom-dwelling teams who can never seem to amount to anything.  The Bengals and the Lions are perfect examples of this.  Both went IOL this year, ILB/WR last year, and a bunch of other times in the recent past.  

Then you've got some teams who do that who manage to have some success in spite of their drafting habits (Cowboys), but they've got an okay QB on a mid round rookie contract, so that gets into the analytics of cap space distribution.  

Everyone seems to think you need the QB, and yet we've got allegedly the best and we're eliminated from playoff contention.  Then you've got Mayfield and the Browns till technically in the playoff hunt, Mahomes and the Chiefs as a favorite, the Bears reaching the playoffs for the first time in a long time...

I just wish people would look beyond QB play, not ignore Eli, Geriatric Manning, Flacco, Foles, rookie contract Roetlisberger/Wilson/Rodgers and instead look at the drafting and cap distribution of those teams.  Brady seems to be the exception to the QBs we've seen winning Super Bowls lately, and yet he has been getting criminally underpaid.  Part of that is his wife's being crazy rich, but I think part of it is also him knowing the value of not costing his team on a salary cap.

THOSE are the analytics you can point to so much more than those other two leagues.  MLB doesn't have a cap limit, the NBA's is a joke, so those leagues it is all about the micro type analytics.

If I was more mathematically inclined, I would love to somehow chart the success of teams based on cap distribution, draft capital, positional value placed on draft capital, etc.

I think you could make a very profound mathematical case for what I've been arguing on here for a long time.  

[AlexGreen#20]

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

This is the type of stuff I love about the NFL, but more on a macro level.  

I don't really get into the splits and 40 and athletic measurable stuff.  That's not my thing.

What interests me and one thing that I think will keep me a fan even if the Packers ebter a dark age is this macro level stuff that points to Super Bowl wins.

Positional value and how it equates to success.  The Saints are really interesting with this.  They've gone OT, ILB, DT, CB, OT, EDGE with their past 6 first round picks.  They've gone skill in rounds 2/3.  They are primed as the best team with the most promising roster in the NFL.  One wonders where they'd be right now if they hadn't slipped with the ILB pick and instead went with Malcolm Brown or Landon Collins (the next two picks).  

Everybody points to them having Brees, but that team is nothing without their drafting, which was done through having strong draft capital and selecting positional value.

Then you look at certain bottom-dwelling teams who can never seem to amount to anything.  The Bengals and the Lions are perfect examples of this.  Both went IOL this year, ILB/WR last year, and a bunch of other times in the recent past.  

Then you've got some teams who do that who manage to have some success in spite of their drafting habits (Cowboys), but they've got an okay QB on a mid round rookie contract, so that gets into the analytics of cap space distribution.  

Everyone seems to think you need the QB, and yet we've got allegedly the best and we're eliminated from playoff contention.  Then you've got Mayfield and the Browns till technically in the playoff hunt, Mahomes and the Chiefs as a favorite, the Bears reaching the playoffs for the first time in a long time...

I just wish people would look beyond QB play, not ignore Eli, Geriatric Manning, Flacco, Foles, rookie contract Roetlisberger/Wilson/Rodgers and instead look at the drafting and cap distribution of those teams.  Brady seems to be the exception to the QBs we've seen winning Super Bowls lately, and yet he has been getting criminally underpaid.  Part of that is his wife's being crazy rich, but I think part of it is also him knowing the value of not costing his team on a salary cap.

THOSE are the analytics you can point to so much more than those other two leagues.  MLB doesn't have a cap limit, the NBA's is a joke, so those leagues it is all about the micro type analytics.

If I was more mathematically inclined, I would love to somehow chart the success of teams based on cap distribution, draft capital, positional value placed on draft capital, etc.

I think you could make a very profound mathematical case for what I've been arguing on here for a long time.  

I don't think you really need to make a deeply mathematical case for any of those things. There's a lot of common sense involved. 

[MacReady]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I don't think you really need to make a deeply mathematical case for any of those things. There's a lot of common sense involved. 

The issue with common sense is it isn't very common.

I think more people would be open to receiving it with hard data to support it.  

All the points I've brought up get scoffed at and tossed aside with, "It's not concrete, it's just speculation..."

I think there would be a way to show overwhelming evidence for it with some kind of chart or graph, and yet I have no idea how to do it.

[AlexGreen#20]

33 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The issue with common sense is it isn't very common.

I think more people would be open to receiving it with hard data to support it.  

All the points I've brought up get scoffed at and tossed aside with, "It's not concrete, it's just speculation..."

I think there would be a way to show overwhelming evidence for it with some kind of chart or graph, and yet I have no idea how to do it.

And here you discover the problem with analytics in football. There's too many variables. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And here you discover the problem with analytics in football. There's too many variables. 

Agreed. Players enhance each others performance. There's a synergy between QB and WRs. Between RBs and O-line. Even between QB and O-line. For example, a great QB can make poor WRs better, but great WRs can make a poor QB better. What is the point of diminishing returns on these synergies? What is good enough QB play, what is good enough WR play, to max out the synergy? How do analytics capture that? 

[squire12]

GB has been really sound with 1st round picks being high positional value.  CB, DL, OT, Edge, QB, S.  Still out of playoffs 2 consecutive years.

Here some analytics.....hit on a higher % of draft picks and FA signings.

[Golfman]

3 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

This is the type of stuff I love about the NFL, but more on a macro level.  

I don't really get into the splits and 40 and athletic measurable stuff.  That's not my thing.

What interests me and one thing that I think will keep me a fan even if the Packers ebter a dark age is this macro level stuff that points to Super Bowl wins.

Positional value and how it equates to success.  The Saints are really interesting with this.  They've gone OT, ILB, DT, CB, OT, EDGE with their past 6 first round picks.  They've gone skill in rounds 2/3.  They are primed as the best team with the most promising roster in the NFL.  One wonders where they'd be right now if they hadn't slipped with the ILB pick and instead went with Malcolm Brown or Landon Collins (the next two picks).  

Everybody points to them having Brees, but that team is nothing without their drafting, which was done through having strong draft capital and selecting positional value.

Then you look at certain bottom-dwelling teams who can never seem to amount to anything.  The Bengals and the Lions are perfect examples of this.  Both went IOL this year, ILB/WR last year, and a bunch of other times in the recent past.  

Then you've got some teams who do that who manage to have some success in spite of their drafting habits (Cowboys), but they've got an okay QB on a mid round rookie contract, so that gets into the analytics of cap space distribution.  

Everyone seems to think you need the QB, and yet we've got allegedly the best and we're eliminated from playoff contention.  Then you've got Mayfield and the Browns till technically in the playoff hunt, Mahomes and the Chiefs as a favorite, the Bears reaching the playoffs for the first time in a long time...

I just wish people would look beyond QB play, not ignore Eli, Geriatric Manning, Flacco, Foles, rookie contract Roetlisberger/Wilson/Rodgers and instead look at the drafting and cap distribution of those teams.  Brady seems to be the exception to the QBs we've seen winning Super Bowls lately, and yet he has been getting criminally underpaid.  Part of that is his wife's being crazy rich, but I think part of it is also him knowing the value of not costing his team on a salary cap.

THOSE are the analytics you can point to so much more than those other two leagues.  MLB doesn't have a cap limit, the NBA's is a joke, so those leagues it is all about the micro type analytics.

If I was more mathematically inclined, I would love to somehow chart the success of teams based on cap distribution, draft capital, positional value placed on draft capital, etc.

I think you could make a very profound mathematical case for what I've been arguing on here for a long time.  

While you might be right and I don't disagree with most of your claims. One can always find facts to support their claims while ignoring those that don't. 

One of the great turnarounds this year is the Colts. Sure, it helps that Luck is healthy, but you used Brees so using Luck's team seems fair. Their last six first picks (no first rounder in 2014: OLB, OT, WR, C, S, G.) Pretty sure that is contrary to your thought process.  

The biggest thing about the draft is getting good players. Absolutely if you can hit at QB, OT, EDGE and CB, it's more important. IMO, those are the top four positions you need to be good. But worse is missing on any first round pick. 

[smetana34]

9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Football doesn't even have regular stats for a lot of its positions to say nothing of advanced stats. It doesn't have the volume of reps that the other sports do to parse out tends versus noise.

In baseball, analytics gives you the answers.

In football, analytics gives you the questions.

 

Exactly. I noticed this with daily fantasy sports lineups. There's services you can pay for that will send you "the optimum" lineup. Tried one and they did well in the latter half of the baseball season last year, so I tried their football subscription too. The results weren't nearly as lucrative. My only conclusion was the huge sample size in baseball to draw tendencies from. Everything from home/away, LHP/RHP, day/night game, where one hits in the order, color of the jersey. Over 162 games, you see the trends. 16 games in football is just a lot of noise, as you said.