Let's talk OTA's

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As much as I love data driven analysis and its applications in so many aspects of life, football is one area where doesn't help all that meaningfully. The biggest reason is one of the fundamentals of statistics - sample size. The NFL season contains only 16 games, any statistician will tell you that a sample size that small can't provide meaningful conclusions that would pass a confidence test.

And while the stats will factor in a probability of injuries, a significant injury at a key position or two is all it takes to completely change a team's approach to game-planning, completely tossing almost everything the stat book would tell us.

Last year, if RG3 were healthy, the stats never would have called for a 3-13 season, the roster was stronger than that. But the fact is he wasn't himself, no calculation can plan for that. For the Eagles - if they lose Jason Peters and Jason Kelce this year like they did in 2012, they could be looking at 5-11 because Foles simply SUCKS under pressure.

There's just too many curve-breaking variables at play in football, and over the course of only 16 games, anything can happen. Stats just aren't that telling - there's a reason they say Any Given Sunday.

In fairness to Tripp, I think he implied that the Eagles should be the favorite at this time using either prediction method. To me, it would seem that the numbers would be a good starting point. In the case of NFL football, they don't get you very far because of the significant variances that can occur but they can help to keep you from going astray from the beginning.

This may not be scientific, but I think that the play of RGIII in 2014 may the single most significant unknown in the attempt to predict the division winner. I think we pretty much know what can be expected of the other three starting QB's when they are healthy and playing well. Right now, we still don't know exactly what we have in RGIII. If he is able to optimize his athletic ability for use as an NFL QB, his production could be off the charts. If not, his production could be average.

How many wins is an optimized and fully utilized RGIII worth? I don't know but I think the difference in production with and without an optimized, fully utilized RGIII would be close to the difference in production of the Green Bay offense when they had Rodgers in the lineup last season versus when he was not available to them.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As much as I love data driven analysis and its applications in so many aspects of life, football is one area where doesn't help all that meaningfully. The biggest reason is one of the fundamentals of statistics - sample size. The NFL season contains only 16 games, any statistician will tell you that a sample size that small can't provide meaningful conclusions that would pass a confidence test.

And while the stats will factor in a probability of injuries, a significant injury at a key position or two is all it takes to completely change a team's approach to game-planning, completely tossing almost everything the stat book would tell us.

Last year, if RG3 were healthy, the stats never would have called for a 3-13 season, the roster was stronger than that. But the fact is he wasn't himself, no calculation can plan for that. For the Eagles - if they lose Jason Peters and Jason Kelce this year like they did in 2012, they could be looking at 5-11 because Foles simply SUCKS under pressure.

There's just too many curve-breaking variables at play in football, and over the course of only 16 games, anything can happen. Stats just aren't that telling - there's a reason they say Any Given Sunday.

The thing about football is that there's so many events in a single game that can be measured that it allows projections on the season level to be based on massive samples: anywhere from 500 to 2,500 events in a season depending on what is being measured. But the trade-off that you touched on is obvious: one week in football is the equivalent of 10 baseball games or five basketball games, and so all analysis in football needs to be inclusive of the idea that a ton can change in one week. Football is just unique in that it packs that many events into a single game.

I think your argument that analytics and data are not going to do a lot to help you predict the outcome of an October matchup between the Redskins and Eagles is pretty accurate, but that's true with most sports. It's always going to be a lot easier to predict the result of 16 games than 1 game.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

That logic seems flawed. Wouldn't "objective-based systems" be even more skeptical of a 3-13 team improving enough to finish ahead of a 10-6 team? I'd think that any person as well as any statistical ranking system looking at the NFC East would say the Eagles are the clear favorite; unless, of course, you're looking at it subjectively with your homer glasses on. Even if the Eagles lost 2 wins, we'd have to gain 6 to finish ahead of them. That doesn't sound like objective thinking to me.

What am I missing?

While I get what you are saying completely, the Eagles did improve by 6 games this past season over 2012. Predictions are stupid always will be, but the great thing about the NFL is that you never know who will come outta nowhere and win their division, or who will fall from 13-3 to 4-12.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

While I get what you are saying completely, the Eagles did improve by 6 games this past season over 2012. Predictions are stupid always will be, but the great thing about the NFL is that you never know who will come outta nowhere and win their division, or who will fall from 13-3 to 4-12.

Yup. In the quiet off season the 'data-driven' predictions an analysis rule but at the end of the year they play the games for a reason and almost every year there's a few teams that surprise everyone by making the playoffs, and a few that cause as much surprise by missing.

So while it's a fun way to pass the time at this point in the calendar, it's all meaningless

If the NFL was so predicable it'd be boring and not nearly as popular. The new hope that every september brings to literally almost every fan base is what makes the start of the football season special.

[SirLK26]

Great post, Gtripp. Not that I agree, because if what you say is the case, it seems a little screwed up to me. Just seems wrong to say that because history suggests the Eagles' offense will regress, they aren't the clear favorites. Do the stats also say that their defense isn't likely to improve? Do the stats say that our offense will improve enough to be equal to theirs even if theirs does regress? Do the stats say that our defense will improve?

I think that data-driven analyses aren't the best way to predict who finishes where in the division, for many reasons. They wouldn't take into account just how good Chip Kelly is at running an offense; in other words, these analyses would factor in all the teams' offenses throughout history run that were run by awful HCs and OCs, not just brilliant offensive gurus like Kelly. These data-driven analyses wouldn't take into account that the Eagles drafted a pass rusher in the 1st round and signed multiple safeties. They wouldn't take into account the fact that RG3 is more of an injury risk than most QBs. And they wouldn't take into account the point you brought out, that Romo and Dez have back issues.

Because of all that and obviously more, I think a non-data driven analysis by an objective person would provide the most accurate view in this situation. Because an analysis of that nature would take into account things that can't be measured. Or maybe I'm completely wrong; maybe your "cold hard fact driven analysis" would actually be more accurate due to the fact that all these things I mentioned are, in fact, too wishy-washy to matter; in other words, I have no idea if any of these things are true, will matter, or will happen, while data provides proof that a certain thing has a certain probabiity that it will actually happen, thus making it more reliable even without out taking into account things of a non-stat nature. Heck, I don't know.

BTW, I would be interested in seeing some of the data you mentioned, particularly the nugget that suggests that the Eagles' offense will regress.

[Schneed10]

Anybody know why Wade Phillips was seen at OTA's today?

2014 Redskins OTAs: June 9

[Schneed10]

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Looks like he was visiting his son Wes.

While he was there, he should've knocked Haslett out, drug him into a closet, and took over the Defensive Coordinator job.

[Schneed10]

I did want to see him as the D Coordinator, but now that his son is here, I've had enough of the father son thing on the same staff.

[SirLK26]

LOL. Yeah, but the Shannys were HC and OC. This would be DC and TEs coach; they wouldn't be workong with the other very much, so it wouldn't have the same effect. That said, it would be weird to have two former Cowboys coaches who happened to be father-son on our staff.

[MTK]

Redskins OTAs: Thoughts and observations - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

[MTK]

Good stuff on Clark, hopefully he's still got enough game to go along with his leadership

Washington Redskins notes and thoughts: Ryan Clark a leader - ESPN

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Andre Roberts wants to win both Redskins' return jobs - NFL.com

[Alvin Walton]

Who's wearing #1 in training camp?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Who's wearing #1 in training camp?

mini camp? DeSean Jackson