Coach decisions and analytics

[blion72]

on the ESPNU college final, the team were picking on Lanning's decision in the OU - UW game as a bad use of "analytics". Lanning said he was taking into account all the factors. The ESPNU crew were critical of analytics. Joey Galloway challenged the crew re who said it was analytics? There are a lot of coach decisions that look like analytics but are just judgements. Some of the decisions would seem to have no real data behind them. Lanning made several decisions that did not look like they were based on the odds.

In the Buffalo - Giants game it was similar decision. Buffalo has 3rd down call on the Giants 36 with 1:46 left in the game. Buffalo is up 14 -9 and Giants have 1 TO. Buffalo throws and incomplete pass and then misses 53 yd FG. That puts the ball on the 43 yd line for Giants. Game winds up with last play Giants at the 1 yd line of Buffalo. How was the Buffalo decision based on real data. If Allen runs on the play, the FG is shorter and odds go up, or you punt to get it inside the 1 yd line. That would make a long field with no TOs for the Giants. It would be hard to imagine the Buffalo decision to throw on 3rd down was based on data.

there is a fine line between aggressive and stupid.

 

[CDLionFL]

I didn’t have an issue with Lanning going for it with 2:15 left because if they get those 2-3 yards, he wins the game. He put confidence in his team to either get the yardage or get the stop. He should have kicked at end of 1st half to get the points as there was no decided field position advantage with a miss.

As for the Bills, I was all for the pass on 3rd down. A run was just gonna get stacked at the line like the previous two plays and Allen’s rollout wouldn’t have netted much. Allen just missed on his throw.

I think a lot of coaches and fans have been conditioned to be risk-averse but I don’t have an issue with a feel play if you think momentum is on your side to make the play. Do you go for 2 after a score at end of regulation to win game or kick the XP and try OT?

 

[Grant Green]

Not sure about the Buffalo play, as I didn't see it and don't know the situation. If a pass completion would have sealed the victory, then maybe the numbers say to do it? There is certainly an analytical argument to be made for burning time too, so you may be right.

I agree that many people blame "analytics" when some of these risky coaching calls fail, but I don't think it's always analytics. Seems like a lot of coaches are getting conditioned into going for it on 4th, etc, because everyone else is doing it. I'm all for using analytics as a tool, but sometimes, just take the easy 3 points (Lanning).

BTW, the anchor on Game Day final also said "analytics has probably lost more games than it's won". Uh, how do you know that? Have you been tracking it, or does it just feel that way? An analytical edge may be 55% to win so it's going to fail almost half the time, but it's still the right thing to do.

 

[Woodpecker]

I didn’t have an issue with Lanning going for it with 2:15 left because if they get those 2-3 yards, he wins the game. He put confidence in his team to either get the yardage or get the stop. He should have kicked at end of 1st half to get the points as there was no decided field position advantage with a miss.

As for the Bills, I was all for the pass on 3rd down. A run was just gonna get stacked at the line like the previous two plays and Allen’s rollout wouldn’t have netted much. Allen just missed on his throw.

I think a lot of coaches and fans have been conditioned to be risk-averse but I don’t have an issue with a feel play if you think momentum is on your side to make the play. Do you go for 2 after a score at end of regulation to win game or kick the XP and try OT?

I'm of the school that goes for 2 on the road and for OT at home.

 

[Grant Green]

on the ESPNU college final, the team were picking on Lanning's decision in the OU - UW game as a bad use of "analytics". Lanning said he was taking into account all the factors. The ESPNU crew were critical of analytics. Joey Galloway challenged the crew re who said it was analytics? There are a lot of coach decisions that look like analytics but are just judgements. Some of the decisions would seem to have no real data behind them. Lanning made several decisions that did not look like they were based on the odds.

In the Buffalo - Giants game it was similar decision. Buffalo has 3rd down call on the Giants 36 with 1:46 left in the game. Buffalo is up 14 -9 and Giants have 1 TO. Buffalo throws and incomplete pass and then misses 53 yd FG. That puts the ball on the 43 yd line for Giants. Game winds up with last play Giants at the 1 yd line of Buffalo. How was the Buffalo decision based on real data. If Allen runs on the play, the FG is shorter and odds go up, or you punt to get it inside the 1 yd line. That would make a long field with no TOs for the Giants. It would be hard to imagine the Buffalo decision to throw on 3rd down was based on data.

there is a fine line between aggressive and stupid.

In addition to my post above. When Buffalo misses the 3rd down pass, maybe consider punting instead of FG attempt. It actually may be the more analytically correct call.

 

[PSUFTG2]

The 4th down decisions by Oregon in their game vs Washington were all the right choices - wrt giving Oregon the best chance to win. None of them were even all that close, quite frankly (the one at the end of the first half would be the "closest call" and comes down to how good you feel with the Oregon offense against the UW defense, and vice versa). Obviously, making the right choices on a consistent basis doesn't mean you always win - else MIT would have a room full of trophies. The best any coach can do is make the decisions that will lead to BETTER chances to win over a large number events.

FWIW: PSU has been good in making those types of strategic decisions this year - probably better than average for teams nationwide. In particular, they have been quite prudent wrt 4th down "go for it?" decisions thus far this year - which has helped them significantly.
The first 6 games, of course, were against non-competitive opponents (where even bad decisions wouldn't have mattered much, and with zero pressure on the decision maker)- will optimal decision making continue when the pressure mounts against higher quality teams? Time will tell, but one would reasonably hope so, I think.

 

[GreggK]

A bunch of talking heads are people who have never coach, or have coached and failed.
Their opinion means nothing. The exception would be a guy like Urban, but I doubt he would second guess.

 

[BobPSU92]

A bunch of talking heads are people who have never coach, or have coached and failed.
Their opinion means nothing. The exception would be a guy like Urban, but I doubt he would second guess.

But look at us. Our opinions mean everything. Just ask us.

 

[Woodpecker]

But look at us. Our opinions mean everything. Just ask us.

 

[blion72]

Not sure about the Buffalo play, as I didn't see it and don't know the situation. If a pass completion would have sealed the victory, then maybe the numbers say to do it? There is certainly an analytical argument to be made for burning time too, so you may be right.

I agree that many people blame "analytics" when some of these risky coaching calls fail, but I don't think it's always analytics. Seems like a lot of coaches are getting conditioned into going for it on 4th, etc, because everyone else is doing it. I'm all for using analytics as a tool, but sometimes, just take the easy 3 points (Lanning).

BTW, the anchor on Game Day final also said "analytics has probably lost more games than it's won". Uh, how do you know that? Have you been tracking it, or does it just feel that way? An analytical edge may be 55% to win so it's going to fail almost half the time, but it's still the right thing to do.

I think it was Mullen who said "that analytics has probably lost more games than it has won". Joey Galloway's comment was how do we know their decisions were based on analytics. As you point out the media experts may be just assuming it was analytics. If you think about it, the analytics model to take everything into account would be quite complex.

 

[Woodpecker]

I think it was Mullen who said "that analytics has probably lost more games than it has won". Joey Galloway's comment was how do we know their decisions were based on analytics. As you point out the media experts may be just assuming it was analytics. If you think about it, the analytics model to take everything into account would be quite complex.

Just ask AI

 

[PSUFTG2]

I think it was Mullen who said "that analytics has probably lost more games than it has won". Joey Galloway's comment was how do we know their decisions were based on analytics. As you point out the media experts may be just assuming it was analytics. If you think about it, the analytics model to take everything into account would be quite complex.

It isn't difficult.
Decisions (not outcomes) based on "analytics" are choices that give you a better chance to win the game than would the "other" choice.

Those decisions (not outcomes) that decrease your chances to win the game are not.

The statement by Mullen (who was paid $12 million from UF - in exchange for him agreeing to NOT coach their team) is so abjectly and definitionally stupid as to make any further comment irrational.

 

[Grant Green]

I think it was Mullen who said "that analytics has probably lost more games than it has won". Joey Galloway's comment was how do we know their decisions were based on analytics. As you point out the media experts may be just assuming it was analytics. If you think about it, the analytics model to take everything into account would be quite complex.

It was definitely not Mullen (@PSUFTG2) , but the anchor guy, whoever the hell that is. I rewatched to get his exact words so I'm positive. And I liked when Galloway came back with that retort (I actually think Galloway is pretty good for the most part).
It's more than just the media always assuming analytics. You will see plenty of comments from the arm chair coaches aimlessly blaming analytics on Twitter as well.

 

[CDLionFL]

It was definitely not Mullen (@PSUFTG2) , but the anchor guy, whoever the hell that is. I rewatched to get his exact words so I'm positive. And I liked when Galloway came back with that retort (I actually think Galloway is pretty good for the most part).
It's more than just the media always assuming analytics. You will see plenty of comments from the arm chair coaches aimlessly blaming analytics on Twitter as well.

Was it Matthew Barrie? That dude is a sideshow to the highest degree.

 

[PSUFTG2]

It was definitely not Mullen (@PSUFTG2) , but the anchor guy, whoever the hell that is. I rewatched to get his exact words so I'm positive. And I liked when Galloway came back with that retort (I actually think Galloway is pretty good for the most part).
It's more than just the media always assuming analytics. You will see plenty of comments from the arm chair coaches aimlessly blaming analytics on Twitter as well.

TY. I shoulda' been diligent enough to verify for myself, instead of reacting to the OP's supposition. Mea Culpa.

 

[Grant Green]

Was it Matthew Barrie? That dude is a sideshow to the highest degree.

Yeah, I think it's that guy. I usually tune in while I'm reviewing all the game box scores, so it's on in the background. I'm mostly keeping an ear out for injury news, so I kind of block him out. What's his deal?

 

[Grant Green]

TY. I shoulda' been diligent enough to verify for myself, instead of reacting to the OP's supposition. Mea Culpa.

Nah, you can't fact check everything. I just didn't want you to go on thinking Mullen was a total idiot (hell, he's smart enough to be getting paid millions not to coach!).

 

[CDLionFL]

Yeah, I think it's that guy. I usually tune in while I'm reviewing all the game box scores, so it's on in the background. I'm mostly keeping an ear out for injury news, so I kind of block him out. What's his deal?

He sounds more like a carnival barker than someone that reads highlights. Tries to force in catch phrases and other references and his delivery is pretty corny. He reminds me of a former co-worker who sounded very much like him on air. I see him pop up hosting a show and I skip to something else.