Dr LBC Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, biggie. said: Why I don't take "analytics" seriously I swear, idiots like Staley would jump off a bridge if the "analytics" told them too. To be fair, NGS is far from the standard where analytics are concerned. NGS doesn't factor in-game inputs into its algorithms; it goes for a much more general algorithms based off of "up to that game" inputs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggie. Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) Just now, Dr LBC said: To be fair, NGS is far from the standard where analytics are concerned. NGS doesn't factor in-game inputs into its algorithms; it goes for a much more general algorithms based off of "up to that game" inputs So it's all bull**** and can safely be disregarded. Edited January 10, 2022 by biggie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Hope- Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, biggie. said: So it's all bull**** and can safely be disregarded. 7 minutes ago, Forge said: Because you don't understand it? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 1 minute ago, biggie. said: So it's all bull**** and can safely be disregarded. No, but if you want to be reductive in order to drive your narrative I suppose you can take that opinion. But hey, what would I know, I've only got a doctorate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, DannyB said: Okay but...a ONE PERCENT difference!? Come on, that's pretty effing stupid. If the analytics say something is a 1 percent difference, you then HAVE GOT to put on your actual big boy real coaching pants, consider the situation, consider your guys, think about how the day has been, get SOME sort of feel for the game, and make your own choice. There's enough wiggle room and gray area in any football analytic algorithm that if it's within a few percentage points, you've gotta just make your own choice. That's not a problem with analytics. That's a problem with people who can't work outside analytics. I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't have done it (and if I did, it certainly wouldn't have been that play call, but I digress). As you said, it's 1%. Most models basically that a toss up. People far too often blame analytics for things it's not responsible for. It's giving you raw data in a vacuum. You still have to add all the other variables on your own. And people tend to act like analytics is basically telling you "this is the 100% right decision" and it's not. It's still risk based analysis. Your own internal risk appetite still matters 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 The analytics approach is nothing different than "playing by the book" in blackjack. The strategy in blackjack (and it even says it IN THE BOOK) doesn't guarantee that you'll win. It states that given a large enough sample-size, the numbers bear out that you'll win more than you lose and thus that (assuming you're making the same starting bet each time) you'll come out with more money than you started with more times than not. Statistical anomalies still occur; the human element alone accounts for that even in non-blackjack situations. It doesn't make the statistical analysis or factoring that into your decision-making crap - it just means that leaning on it wholesale isn't going to guarantee you success, just give you slightly-improved odds. Nothing more. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, Dr LBC said: The analytics approach is nothing different than "playing by the book" in blackjack. The strategy in blackjack (and it even says it IN THE BOOK) doesn't guarantee that you'll win. It states that given a large enough sample-size, the numbers bear out that you'll win more than you lose and thus that (assuming you're making the same starting bet each time) you'll come out with more money than you started with more times than not. Statistical anomalies still occur; the human element alone accounts for that even in non-blackjack situations. It doesn't make the statistical analysis or factoring that into your decision-making crap - it just means that leaning on it wholesale isn't going to guarantee you success, just give you slightly-improved odds. Nothing more. I tried going with card example a few weeks back as well. Don't think that worked either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefs_5627 Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 I know "timeout-gate" is hot button right meow but can we step back and ask ourselves wtf is going on with Derek Carr's hair? I've seen it referred to as "Lego hair", I'm starting to think it's a wig. Thoughts? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggie. Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, Dr LBC said: The analytics approach is nothing different than "playing by the book" in blackjack. The strategy in blackjack (and it even says it IN THE BOOK) doesn't guarantee that you'll win. It states that given a large enough sample-size, the numbers bear out that you'll win more than you lose and thus that (assuming you're making the same starting bet each time) you'll come out with more money than you started with more times than not. Statistical anomalies still occur; the human element alone accounts for that even in non-blackjack situations. It doesn't make the statistical analysis or factoring that into your decision-making crap - it just means that leaning on it wholesale isn't going to guarantee you success, just give you slightly-improved odds. Nothing more. Well considering Staley is the most aggressive cosch league who loves "analytics" and he'll be watching the playoffs from his couch cuz his gambles routinely failed, I am not taking "analytics" seriously. There are times to be aggressive, there are times not to. That decision should come from gut feelings, not some arbitrary number generated by AWS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, biggie. said: Well considering Staley is the most aggressive cosch league who loves "analytics" and he'll be watching the playoffs from his couch cuz his gambles routinely failed, I am not taking "analytics" seriously. There are times to be aggressive, there are times not to. That decision should come from gut feelings, not some arbitrary number generated by AWS. Depending on who's model you use, Staley isn't even top 5 in "analytically correct" decisions (I have no idea how this game impacts that... He went for like 9 when he had to and I'm not sure if those get thrown out or added in or what). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Chiefs_5627 said: I know "timeout-gate" is hot button right meow but can we step back and ask ourselves wtf is going on with Derek Carr's hair? I've seen it referred to as "Lego hair", I'm starting to think it's a wig. Thoughts? That does look fake 😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, biggie. said: Well considering Staley is the most aggressive cosch league who loves "analytics" and he'll be watching the playoffs from his couch cuz his gambles routinely failed, I am not taking "analytics" seriously. There are times to be aggressive, there are times not to. That decision should come from gut feelings, not some arbitrary number generated by AWS. You've swallowed hard on commentator scripts. Good for you, you've been groomed well and the corporations will gladly take your money, because you've convinced yourself that you've got everything figured out and you're smarter than smart people because of the instances when they screw up. Again, not because of anything you actually did but because of something they didn't succeed in doing and something you, in 50/50 hindsight, claim you wouldn't do. You do realize that it is possible for the decision to not go for it in the situation that Forge was discussion and for analytics to provide better information to make a decision, versus just "your gut" (which is still based off of context gathered from a number of sources of data, whether you want to recognize it or not - or else you might as well flip a damn coin) don't have to be mutually exclusive, right? Or are you so compelled to need to stroke your ego that you just want to throw context out the window so you can yay you? if it's the later, just say it and we can move on. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Folks do realize that the entire concept of the "house edge" in gambling is predicated off the understanding that the majority of people will go with the id and the ego and "trust their gut" over statistical-analysis, right? One of the most expensive cities in the country (the one where the game tonight was played) was built off that very concept. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piquel Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 15 minutes ago, Dr LBC said: It's like people don't realize that Carlson is in the Top 3 for converted 50+ yard FG's this season. As soon as the Raiders crossed the Chargers 42 they were confident in Carlson's range. Would they have "taken the tie" rather than having to take the risk of throwing to put themselves in better FG position? Absolutely. But as soon as they were within a distance they were confident that Carlson would either be able to hit the FG or put the FG attempt out the back of the end zone (thus making it unreturnable) they were going to kick. Agree Raiders were going to kick fg. Before the timeout however, Raiders would have been happy to kick from there/anywhere with no time left. After timeout they needed a 1st down to kick fg with zero on clock (if Chargers call more timeouts) So they run a play to try to gain yds-1st down to guarantee last sec fg attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted January 10, 2022 Author Share Posted January 10, 2022 23 minutes ago, Chiefs_5627 said: I know "timeout-gate" is hot button right meow but can we step back and ask ourselves wtf is going on with Derek Carr's hair? I've seen it referred to as "Lego hair", I'm starting to think it's a wig. Thoughts? It's called fashion hun, look it up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.