Mathematician, Data scientist @SumerSports. A simple mind thinks everything that didn't happen couldn't have happened. Tweets/opinions are my own.
Germany
Joined January 2017
- Tweets57.6K
- Following111
- Followers34.5K
- Likes10.7K
Pinned Tweet
Lots of analytical draft analysis comes with a lot of uncertainty due to small sample sizes and the league changing over time.
Hence I thought of a method to compute the value of draft picks intrinsically. Here it is:
pff.com/news/draft-2023-nfl-…
sheesh that's diabolical
Saw the clip where Travis Hunter explains how he “fake stumbles” when undercutting a route to trick QBs into throwing the ball - he says he intentionally squats low and leans over looking off center to make it seem like he tripped or got caught slipping on a route.
Went back and realize he did it to CJ Stroud on the EndZone interception and Stroud realizes what happened immediately.
Classic of example of the number of losses signals skill.
There are of lot quarterbacks, including many with decent NFL careers, who wouldn't have gotten to 122 losses if put in Stafford's shoes (because they wouldn't have gotten to 245 games)
Matthew Stafford has a career record of 122-122-1 as a starting quarterback. With his next loss, he'll tie Vinny Testaverde for the most QB losses in NFL history. nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal…
I will never understand why coaches always try to bring this to the logical or even philosophical level, because sorry, but that reasoning just ain't it.
Just say you don't trust the numbers, because you have a better feel for your play calls and players and that's fine.
Kyle Shanahan says a 51% analytics recommendation won’t convince him to go for it because he gets one shot, not an hour at a blackjack table
“I don’t want to hear about it if it’s 51% of the time we should go for it.”
“As I always say, I’m not sitting here playing Blackjack for an hour with no one else at the table, and eventually I’ll get 51% of it. Like, I have this one try, and I have a feel for it. I’ve been doing it too long.”
“But what I want to know from him, when it’s not a feel, when it, no, this is 98%. We don’t even need to talk about it. So we don’t need to talk about it. Tell me when it’s that, and I’ll just do it.”
Maybe that's also what he meant, because he mentions that he's been doing that for a long time, but I just can't get over the "I have only one shot" part of the argument.
mandatory follow up reading.
same TL;DR: Attack the model results, not the logic behind the concept.
xitter.cf/Timo_NFL/status/211279…
This is a common misconception worth talking about.
The model that spits out the win probability is actually factoring in the variance. That's the whole point.
Here is an easy example:
You're at the 2-yard line, down 3, 1 second to play.
xitter.cf/roy1993/status/2112685…
This is a common misconception worth talking about.
The model that spits out the win probability is actually factoring in the variance. That's the whole point.
Here is an easy example:
You're at the 2-yard line, down 3, 1 second to play.
xitter.cf/roy1993/status/2112685…
The difference here is that the utility function in life is not expected money in the bank, it's living a good life and that's damn near impossible with a million in debt and when that happens 99.9% of the time, you don't take the bet.