- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kind of weird but OK. Ed just taking suggestions from everybody now.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 12:53 am to Gravitiger
Posted on 10/17/21 at 12:53 am to Gravitiger
quote:
That's just analytics disguised in traditional scouting terminology. People just didn't call it analytics back then, but that's exactly what it was. As I stated pages ago, there is far more overlap between the two than people think.
Actually, it's traditional scouting being renamed "analytics" and people pretend it's something new. And that was my point. Because, yes, the two DO overlap. Because it's not actually something new. The only thing that's new is that you have entire departments dedicated to breaking down more and more tiny little details, whereas it used to be a much more scaled down operation where the goals were more generalized. But you always had those few organizations who dug a little deeper into the details.
At the end of the day, it's still scouting. You don't just take numbers, stick them in a machine, and spit out a game plan. It takes human eyes to observe, track, and chart all of these details.
Which is why I take exception to this "analytics sees what the human eyes can't" rhetoric that I keep seeing. It's just not true.
1
Posted on 10/17/21 at 12:59 am to Metaloctopus
You're referencing a phenomenon that started in the late 1990s with the rise of personal computing power and the ability to statistically analyze large quantitative data sets in a somewhat efficient way. "Traditional scouting" is a 70s and 80s phenomenon, or even decades before that. See Steve Belichick's book, which is still consindered the bible of traditional scouting.
This post was edited on 10/17/21 at 1:06 am
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:01 am to MOT
quote:
Yeah that’s genuinely why I’m asking what this actually involved. Being able to quantify physical movements and use it in predictive measurements is the next frontier and would be really cool if we’re that advanced. But there’s nothing in the comments to suggest this is the case. Anyone can see we have a bunch of big offensive linemen with relatively poor footwork and agility, and a back with no lateral quickness but who is big and strong. So did Marucci have some kind of data to show that certain players “block better” from certain formations? Or did he use some very basic stuff to show what coaches’ eyes should have told them long ago, man up and run down hill?
I can only guess, but I would assume it wasn't anything real complicated. Probably more along the lines of noticing which directions the RB's and offensive linemen move the best, and finding the most efficient schemes to fit those strengths. Just look everyone (well, almost everyone) has a dominant hand, people tend to have better balance moving in a certain direction. But it probably also had to do with aligning a certain way against particular DEFENSIVE formations where they could be more effective.
Which is all just part of the job of being a football coach. Why it took Jack Marucci to figure it out, I'll never know.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:03 am to Metaloctopus
quote:Obviously
I can only guess
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:05 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Traditionaly scouting is, in part, analytics.
Ok, if I concede to that, then we are arguing semantics. Analytics come from scouting. Scouts analyze. There is no other way for analytics to exist. And my argument is more directed at those who wag their fingers at the "old farts" not being able to see things that analytics can, when those old farts are still part of the process that brings them analytics. The idea that there is some analytical system out there that sees what the human eyes can't (which is what some have claimed) is just simply ridiculous. Human eyes compile those statistics. Computers just store the data that is entered into them. They don't make up stats on their own.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:06 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Obviously
Dude, you've been arguing yourself backwards into a corner. I wouldn't be talking crap to me, if I were you.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:08 am to Metaloctopus
quote:No one is making an argument against that.
And my argument is more directed at those who wag their fingers at the "old farts" not being able to see things that analytics can, when those old farts are still part of the process that brings them analytics.
quote:The vast majority of statistics are not compiled by human eyes, but by Amazon and Google's machine learning programs, which organizations purchase. Even in the case of college football, where "human eyes" often still chart plays, that doesn't make it "not analytics."
The idea that there is some analytical system out there that sees what the human eyes can't (which is what some have claimed) is just simply ridiculous. Human eyes compile those statistics.
quote:Bless your heart. You probably think the Facebook algorithm (which Facebook engineers can't even explain at this point) just delivers you what you want to see by chance.
Computers just store the data that is entered into them. They don't make up stats on their own.
This post was edited on 10/17/21 at 1:12 am
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:10 am to Gravitiger
quote:To be fair you’re doing the same based, at this point, on nothing more than Marucci’s title.
I can only guess
Obviously
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:11 am to Gravitiger
quote:
You're referencing a phenomenon that started in the late 1990s with the rise of personal computing power and the ability to statistically analyze large quantitative data sets in a somewhat efficient way. "Traditional scouting" is a 70s and 80s phenomenon, or even decades before that. See Steve Belichick's book, which is still consindered the bible of traditional scouting.
What I'm referencing is not a phenomenon of any sort. The internet is something relatively new. Scouting departments have had computers available to keep track of their "data" for a very long time. I will say it once more: Human eyes have to watch film and chart everything they put into use. A scout, by the definition of his job, is to analyze. So no matter if you call it scouting, analytics, or tap dancing ninja farts, it's all the same thing. As years go by, there are more data points being gathered. That's kind of what always happens with the passage of time.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:12 am to Metaloctopus
quote:I think they call that "analytics"
Scouting departments have had computers available to keep track of their "data" for a very long time.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:13 am to Metaloctopus
Holy shite, you are making the same argument I am. Except you think human eyes can analyze data as efficiently as computers. Which is wrong in the context of most sports situations.
LSU never had "scouts" to do any of this before a few years ago. Coaches are not "scouts." Even MLB coaches do not "scout". They rely on data analysis from hundreds of "scouts" and "analysts". One of the most important jobs "analysts" for pro teams do is provide "scouting" reports. As you mentioned, it was totally cutting edge in the NFL not long ago.
LSU never had "scouts" to do any of this before a few years ago. Coaches are not "scouts." Even MLB coaches do not "scout". They rely on data analysis from hundreds of "scouts" and "analysts". One of the most important jobs "analysts" for pro teams do is provide "scouting" reports. As you mentioned, it was totally cutting edge in the NFL not long ago.
This post was edited on 10/17/21 at 1:22 am
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:14 am to DiamondDog
A good leader listens to wise counsel. The depths y’all go to try and give O zero credit for anything that’s ever happened at LSU is pathetic.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:24 am to Gravitiger
quote:
No one is making an argument against that.
Yes, actually most little ignorant kids like you are arguing against that.
quote:
The vast majority of statistics are not compiled by human eyes, but by Amazon and Google's machine learning programs, which organizations purchase. Even in the case of college football, where "human eyes" often still chart plays, that doesn't make it "not analytics."
You are simply desperate with this argument. Google and Amazon do not chart football statistics. Or did you forget which topic we were talking about, genius? Google and amazon simply keep track of entries, be it purchases, searches, or whatever the case may be. Any sort of entry you make is recorded. That's extremely simple. A computer cannot watch film and analyze tendencies. You have to compile the data and enter it into a data base. Before there were computers to do this, everything would have been kept in stacks of paper. No one is saying that it isn't more convenient now.
quote:
Bless your heart. You probably think the Facebook algorithm (which Facebook engineers can't even explain at this point) just delivers you what you want to see by chance.
It delivers what I want to see, because it tracks my searches. What it can't differentiate is why I search what I do, or how I can use that information. That's all up to me. But I ask, again, how do internet algorithms have anything to do with football? You can put any stat into a computer. If you don't specify which direction a run went, or which formation it was in, then all the computer knows is how many yards the guy rushed for. It can't differentiate context. You have to specify the context. The computer is an efficient tool for keeping stats. That is not my argument, here. It's the idea that you can just punch numbers into a computer and get any context, is my argument. Actual people have to do that. And they have always done that. It's simply much easier now.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:24 am to Metaloctopus
quote:And I wouldn't be talking crap to me, either, if I were you.
I wouldn't be talking crap to me, if I were you.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:28 am to Metaloctopus
quote:No, I'm not.
Yes, actually most little ignorant kids like you are arguing against that.
quote:They literally record every angle and velocity of every ball movement, along with those of all player movements, on every NFL play. LSU contracts with Nike through AWS to do the same thing, as do most bigtime schools. MLB does it with every player on every pitch. We can tell how fast a WR turns his head right versus left to catch a pass.
Google and Amazon do not chart football statistics.
quote:Yeah. "Football analysts" gather data, like "scouts" have always done. Then Jack Marucci and his team actually perform statistical analyses on them, not just eyeballing looking for trends.
It delivers what I want to see, because it tracks my searches. What it can't differentiate is why I search what I do, or how I can use that information. That's all up to me. But I ask, again, how do internet algorithms have anything to do with football? You can put any stat into a computer. If you don't specify which direction a run went, or which formation it was in, then all the computer knows is how many yards the guy rushed for. It can't differentiate context. You have to specify the context. The computer is an efficient tool for keeping stats. That is not my argument, here. It's the idea that you can just punch numbers into a computer and get any context, is my argument. Actual people have to do that. And they have always done that. It's simply much easier now.
This post was edited on 10/17/21 at 1:35 am
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:36 am to MOT
quote:And knowing people who have worked for him
To be fair you’re doing the same based, at this point, on nothing more than Marucci’s title.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:40 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Holy shite, you are making the same argument I am. Except you think human eyes can analyze data as efficiently as computers. Which is wrong in the context of most sports situations.
LSU never had "scouts" to do any of this before a few years ago. Coaches are not "scouts." Even MLB coaches do not "scout". They rely on data analysis from hundreds of "scouts" and "analysts". One of the most important jobs "analysts" for pro teams do is provide "scouting" reports. As you mentioned, it was totally cutting edge in the NFL not long ago.
No, I'm not making the same argument as you. You erroneously believe that I'm trying to poo poo computers, when all I am doing is pointing out that those who poo poo any of the old guard for their "archaic scouting" are failing to realize that scouts have always had the job of analyzing. And I didn't say coaches were scouts. I said scouts. Coaches do, however, have a responsibility to direct their scouts on what information they need from them.
I know a computer makes it more efficient. What scouts didn't have 40 years ago is what they didn't have, period. The did the best they could with what tools they had. Now they have a more efficient way to COMPILE information. But the computers don't gather the information on their own. It's absurd for anyone to make the argument that a computer can see something in a football game that the human eyes cannot. Again, unless a scout correctly charts the direction and formation of a play, the computer has nothing to analyze. So the scouts absolutely see it. Now, once they look at their "data" at the end of the game, they are able to see the complete picture much faster than if they had to look through pages and pages of paper and sort out all of the little nuances.
Your entire hang up with me, is that, again, you erroneously believe that I'm saying computers aren't a huge help in the efficiency department. Of course it's a help. But someone has to go do the work of charting everything first, and the fact that our staff was apparently unwilling do do that work, and had to get an outside suggestion, is what I find disturbing.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:42 am to Metaloctopus
And your whole hang up with me is you think I am saying humans have no value in the analytics department.
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:44 am to Metaloctopus
quote:God I hope we aren't paying our coaching staff hundreds of thousands a year to "chart everything". That's not laziness, just a terrible use of their time.
But someone has to go do the work of charting everything first, and the fact that our staff was apparently unwilling do do that work, and had to get an outside suggestion, is what I find disturbing.
"Football analysts" chart plays. Again, that is data collection. Then they give the spreadsheets to the actual statisticians employed by Jack to make sense of them.
This post was edited on 10/17/21 at 1:49 am
Posted on 10/17/21 at 1:49 am to Gravitiger
quote:
No, I'm not.
I didn't say YOU were. I said most LIKE you, with your attitude, do.
quote:
They literally record every angle and velocity of every ball movement, along with those of all player movements, on every NFL play. LSU contracts with Nike through AWS to do the same thing, as do most bigtime schools. MLB does it with every player on every pitch. We can tell how fast a WR turns his head right versus left to catch a pass.
So, in other words, they have cameras that record things? Wow, that's some blazing new technology. And yet, with no one to decipher what any of it means for the first half of this year, LSU sucked at everything, until yesterday.
quote:
Yeah. "Football analysts" gather data, like "scouts" have always done. Then Jack Marucci and his team actually perform statistical analyses on them, not just eyeballing looking for trends.
I know this. it is also true that someone has always had the job of analyzing statistics. now they can do it much faster. It's the work of gathering the data that makes the analysis even possible. I get that we're in a different world in terms of efficiency.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News