Change Is A Good Thing

Hello everyone!

It's football season again (on both sides of the Atlantic) which means I'm firing up the blogging effort!

I've decided to move my blog to my LinkedIn page.  If you aren't already a contact of mine I'll be happy to accept your invite to link up.



http://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanbain


I may still use this space to talk about Real Sports Analytics specific subject matter and use the LinkedIn page for more generic analytics conversations.

Either way, I welcome your comments and input.

- Bryan

Football Isn’t Hard

Like many of you I watch a lot of football.  Especially this time of year - isn't it just magical?  This year brings to us the college football "playoff system" and I'm sure the controversy left over by the BCS and its MNC (mythical national championship) will not abate.  In fact, the "Final 4" pics are sure to leave almost as much devastation in the hearts of collegiate football followers as its predecessor.

In the NFL, many of this year's story lines really could be classified as repeats of last year.  Brady is still good.  So is Manning, Rogers and Brees.  There are a lot of "so-so" QBs out there like Newton, Kaepernick (yes I did have to look up the correct spelling of that one) and Wilson as well as the always unpredictable "Romo-coaster".

But since I'm a "numbers guy" and always looking to read the tea leaves in order to find something that someone else never has, I thought it appropriate in this blog post to "rise above" the fray for a while and take more of a macro view of football.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I love the minutia and Real Sports Analytics is a fantastic way to see patterns in performance that no one else can provide.  Buried down in the bottom of our analysis though is the "raw" numbers and having seen enough of those I can provide a bird's eye view of patterns that we've discovered over the last few years.

There is a definite pattern when it comes to bad teams, good teams and great teams.  And, in the spirit of today's blog headline, football isn't really that difficult to figure out.

First of all, you need a good offensive line.  Not a great offensive line, but just one that provides good running lanes, hits their blocks and knocks the front four of the defense off the line.  As a bonus, if you can get your 5-6 guys hitting those four and then 1-2 guys getting to the next level and (at least) get in the way of a linebacker or safety, well then you've got something going on.  If your running back is consistently getting hit in the backfield then he will not get back to the line of scrimmage (much less downfield) with any regularity.

Without a good running game, your offense is inconsistent at best.  If the defensive front four is shutting down your running game then they are also (probably) getting pretty good pressure on the QB.  That leaves 7 guys on their side to cover the middle and drop back to defend a rushed QB that is probably not making the best of decisions.  That is a formula for disaster and the dream of every defensive coordinator in football.

This also leads to the dreaded "3 and out".

It's pretty obvious to most what a 3 and out means in football.  First of all, your offense had zero chance of getting into ANY kind of rhythm.  Secondly, your defense which (it seems) just got to the sideline has had ZERO opportunity to gather themselves, work with the coaches or REST.  And "WHAM" they are right back out there.  Even if they just pulled off a 3 and out on the opposition, having to jump into battle again has got to be at least a little demoralizing.

The great “ying and yang” of football in my opinion is the interactions between the offenses and defenses of the two teams on the field (paging Dr. Obvious, right?).  But I won't delve into that here, wow that could be a really long blog entry.  (and special teams and momentum shifts could be another blog unto itself)

Let me get back to my point.  In the hundreds of games and tens of thousands of downs we have watched at Real Sports Analytics the difference between winning and losing in a VAST MAJORITY of cases comes down to three simple little things.

1. Good offensive line
2. Good QB/RB combo that HANGS ONTO THE BALL (minimal fumbles/ints)
3. Good defense that can stop the run

That's it.  Pretty simple, right?

Having a great QB is a plus though, right?  But without the other two he's as useless as a bicycle to a fish.

A great RB can and will break tackles get back to the line of scrimmage, but he won't be able to do it consistently without a little help from the OL.

Oh, and even if you have those two covered, if your defense is giving up 40+ points a game?  Forget about it.

Just look at the Seahawks last year.  Wilson performed OK, heck great for a guy with less than one year's experience in the league, but still a 5 or 6 in my book.  Marshawn Lynch is a good, bruising runner, but he also had some BIG, HUGE, GAPING lanes opened for him by the OL.  (I'll rank him a 7 for now)  And then they had the legion of BOOM for a defense, those guys were a 9 or 10.  They could stuff the run AND play great man-to-man.

Their opponents in the super bowl.  Great QB, average (maybe even less than average) OL and average defense.  Match those three together on both sides of the ball and well, you saw what happened...

(Also see Alabama vs. Notre Dame from a couple of years ago, almost the exact same game)

Football Isn't Hard.  (period)

US Open 2014

Last week I had the pleasure of being a USGA volunteer for the US Open Golf Championship in Pinehurst, NC.  I’ve been a longtime member of the USGA and this was my first experience as a volunteer – it was fantastic.  I would highly recommend any USGA member reading this to volunteer for any of the USGA events including the Women’s open and Amateur open championships.

A huge congratulations to Martin Kaymer on his 2nd major win.  He was kind enough to provide my son with an autograph as he left the course on Tuesday and I’d like to think that extra bit of karma helped him on his very impressive victory this week.  Well done Martin, you played excellent golf on a very, very tough course and did it with style and grace.

Now for my thoughts on the course…

I’ve been playing golf now for almost 40 years.  I spent my formative years in Augusta, GA and have probably attended close to 30 Masters golf tournaments.  In 2005 when the US Open was last played at Pinehurst #2 I was there and when the PGA was played at Kiawah I was able to attend AND bring my children (which was very special).  I’ve played courses that have hosted US Opens, Open Championships and PGAs – still looking for my round at Augusta National (hint, hint).

My point here is not to brag it is to establish that I am NOT a “come hither” golfer or golf commentator.  I know the game, I play the game and I’ve spent a lot of time studying golf course design.  Alister MacKenzie’s book on design is a must read in my opinion (Golf Architecture).

One last disclaimer before I make my main point….  I am a HUGE Ben Crenshaw fan.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him on two occasions and just think the world of him and his contributions to the game over the years so what I’m about to say should NOT be viewed as an attack on Mr. Crenshaw.

Pinehurst #2 right now is a dog track.  For those of you not familiar with that vernacular, it’s a golfer’s term for a course that is not in very good shape.  I would submit that the course I grew up playing in Augusta (Augusta Municipal Golf Course – a.k.a. the “Cabbage Patch”) is playing right now in better shape.  The greens are spectacular, don’t get me wrong, but the overall condition of the course is pathetic.

(Above - Which course is which?)

Let me be specific, the tee boxes are bare and the grass is dying.  The fairways are in intolerable condition – I’d ask for my money back.

Coore and Crenshaw are responsible for this.  To intentionally kill grass and remove beautiful fairways is a crime.  Try it yourself – drive down to your local, expensive golf course with a big bucket of Round Up and see how fast YOU get arrested.

Donald Ross’ original concept for domed greens was born out of necessity.  Basically, the technology in 1907 when the course was first constructed was rudimentary at best.  Watering systems were imprecise and the sub-air systems that most top-notch courses enjoy now were 60 years in the future.  Ross needed a design that would not only accept watering but would drain evenly.  The “natural areas” that C&C have now created were there originally because of necessity, not from design.  In fact Ross attempted in several of his designs (mostly in the American Southwest) to transform brown, rough areas into well manicured, green spaces.

See any other Ross courses HERE that look like Pinehurst #2 today?

If you look back to the origins of golf, the game was created on the “wastelands” between arable land and the beach.  (Look up the origins of Scottish bunkers for some free entertainment)  This land was naturally dry, hard and mostly barren with small tufts of grass and gorse.  That was the TRUE NATURE of that land.

What’s happened at Pinehurst #2 is a tragedy.  They’ve intentionally parched the soil and killed 70% of the grass in a cheap attempt to fabricate a Scottish links course 100 miles away from the ocean.  Listening to the talking heads of the Golf Channel and ESPN blindly praise these changes frankly made me ill.

I know I’m taking the unpopular view here, chide me if you must.  But American golf 100 miles from the nearest ocean does not NOT look like this.  The Kiawah ocean course is a masterpiece because of its design and location.  Can you imagine what would happen if you attempted to make it look like Augusta National?  Pinehurst #2 should resemble, well, other courses at Pinehurst.  Let the Ross design speak for itself.

Don’t be so quick to judge

"“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

- Matthew 7:1-2

Lately it seems all we hear is bad news.  The global media machine is fueled by the stuff.  The reason for this is simple, bad news sells.  Why this is remains (to me at least) to be one of the great mysteries of human kind.  I do have an admission to make, I am an information junky.  I think it stems from my business background and the necessity to always be “up” on the most current technology, business issues, trade magazines, management books, etc…

Other folks though I think are “bad news” junkies.  They anxiously await the next scandal, affair, caught-on-camera issue that will affix their attention for the next 3-4 days until the next one comes along.  The media of course are glad to oblige because they’ve got something to sell, they’re happy to produce a product from the “fuel” they receive.  I mean, how else could a complete journalistic hack like Wolf Blitzer get a nationally syndicated show for several hours each day on a major network???

I’m refuse to delve into the most current of these.  Honestly it’s hard for me to keep track of what the latest “hot button” issue is in the media.  (I think it has something to do with a senile 80 year old man saying something racist, wow that’s news?)

One of the more media “hyped” events occurs whenever a NFL (or major college for that matter) athlete is arrested.  From my experience it seems that NFL players end up with cuffed hands behind their backs, being walked into police stations for things that most of us would pay a fine and drive home.  (You can’t tell me there aren’t some high 5s going around the precinct when a major sports figure is arrested for driving too fast.)

So now I come to my point.  Think that NFL players (or athletes in general) are a bunch of thugs?  Here’s a link to a great article I came across the other day:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/15/nfl-arrest-problem-more-about-perceptions-than-statistics/

For those of you with borderline ADD (like me) that don’t want to read the entire article the main statistic here is that the NFL has a 1.9% arrest rate for current players (2010 data).  Now, compare that to the arrest record of the rest of the US population – 4.9 PERCENT!

That’s right folks, the NFL has a much, much lower arrest record than the general population of the United States.

Even more surprising given that the NFL registers 67% of players as being African American.

Wait, what?  Hang on, the media has me believing that black folks have a higher arrest rate than any other ethnic group.  Well, from everything I’ve read (not from Wolf Blitzer or CNN mind you) that is the case.  So, if a majority of NFL players are a minority then logic would only dictate that the % would be much higher.

So, what’s the reason behind this?  Well, I can only tell you from my personal experience.  Current (and former) NFL players that I know are kind, generous, hard-working and intelligent men.  98.1% of them in fact completely stay out of trouble and are very thankful for the gifts they’ve received in this life and are making the most out of them.  The ones that I personally know are good family men, good business men, and well, just a pleasure to be around.

Here’s my main point.  Don't believe all that the media tries to sell you on this issue.  Don't read the front page of the paper or the front page of a news web site, but dig deeper.  Get down and dirty in the local section of your paper, it's typically buried under the obituaries on page C6.  What are you looking for?  Well, good news of course.  It only gets printed if there's space, but you can usually find it if you look hard enough.  And especially during the holidays you’ll usually find something about a famous (or not-so-famous) athlete doing something good in the community.

In fact, let me make it very easy for you...   (thank you for reading)

Andre Johnson and the $19,000 toy shopping spree

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/texans-wr-andre-johnson-drops-19k-toy-shopping-205258442--nfl.html

Player honors dead super fan

http://oldschool1053.com/3079715/nfl-player-rey-maualuga-pays-tribute-to-gary-owens-cousin-watch/

Several stories of big name players giving back

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/brandon-marshall-other-charitable-nfl-players-055800184--nfl.html

Former player and (now) NFL exec Troy Vincent honoring veterans and their families

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1895948

You gotta love this…

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/12/tony-romo-jon-kitna-dallas-cowboys

And here's a great example of those that DON'T make the headlines (shame on you Wolf Blitzer)

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=218120

The State of Sports Analytics

Well, that does sound presumptuous now doesn’t it?  I mean, who am I to assume to know the current “state” of Sports Analytics?

Quick background – for the last 20 years I’ve been involved in a business discipline known as Enterprise Performance Management (EPM).  I’ve run my own practice in this field for the last 12 years (I tell everyone I made money for other people for the first 8…).  And I have done projects all over the world for a variety of companies across many industries.

Now, with that said, you can Google “Enterprise Performance Management” and you will invariably run across a reasonably authored Wikipedia article on EPM.  There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of books on the subject and if you’re interested I’d be happy to recommend some and also advise you which ones to avoid.

By the way, my particular “flavor” of EPM that I’ve developed over the years and delivered to my customers is a mixture of Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan/Norton), Six Sigma (Motorola) and TQM (General Motors).  I’m also known as a technical specialist in the area of multidimensional databases.  (that’s a fun Google query)

The world of sports analytics is evolving and its evolution is following a very similar pattern as EPM.  Sports Analytics seems to be about 10-12 years behind business analytics (decision support, business intelligence, whatever you want to call it…) but it all began in a very similar fashion – handwritten pencil and paper solutions (a.k.a. “old school”).

In the business world these were ledgers or other record keeping systems that evolved into what we know today as a spreadsheet (still the most widely used EPM tool).  Sports then evolved in to the box score and baseball charting.  I still see people charting baseball games from time to time, but over time the teams themselves moved on mostly to spreadsheets and databases.

Let’s stop here.  Why did we create these things?  It’s simple, we’re trying to represent what happened in the game without actually watching it.  Why?  Maybe someone didn’t have enough time to watch the game.  Maybe they weren’t physically capable or watching the game or they want to analyze what happened in multiple games.  Either way, a sheet or paper (or multiple sheets of paper) were now able to somewhat represent what occurred on the field of play.  The same reason necessitated these breakthroughs in the business world.

Sports then went to the first stage of what we now refer to as “statistics”.  We began to see things like batting averages, on base percentages and eventually we put stats like that “in a blender” and Moneyball was born (Gen 2).  Mr. Beane after all was just taking statistics and blending them together in such a way to value players differently than had been done before.  On the business side, the same thing occurred when companies began analyzing earnings per share or return on invested income or revenue to debt ratios.  Take a collection of data points that you had been “measuring” combine them together and create indexes/ratios that somehow represent the value of something.

A few years ago I did my first work with retailers that were using RFID chips to follow supply chain events, understand inventory and (in some cases) automatically replenish when certain levels were reached.  Cool stuff.  No longer did management need to manually place “orders” and constantly keep inventory, you always knew what was there and could automatically calculate what you needed.  In the same way, we now have sports organizations that are experimenting with RFID chips, GPS locators, even microwave systems that map where bodies, equipment, referees, etc are on the field 100 times a second!  Wow.  Again, cool stuff, but that nagging “So What?” question rears its head… (we’ll save that discussion for another day).

So now the sports world has entered in to what I call the “circles and triangles” phase.  Business went there for a while too (and abandoned it fairly quickly).  You take the enormous amount of data (not information) produced by the above systems and then graphically represent (most often by circles and triangles, hence the name) where everyone is on the field.  You can see speed, acceleration, x/y body position, really neat stuff.  My only question is (not “So What?” I know you guys are tired of that one already) if you’re sitting there for 90 minutes (or whatever) watching circles and triangles, why don’t you just watch the actual game itself!?!?  By watching film you can see where the person was looking, what their body position was, where their hands where, etc, etc, etc  BUT NOOOO…  millions of dollars are being spent right now to simplify that down to circles and triangles…  You can tell how I feel about that.

Now, there are other pieces of information, like telemetry that can be gathered by these system…

Speed of a player?  That’s great.  Anyone who solely bases decisions on speed alone needs to head to Jamaica, there’s a guy down there, last name is “Bolt” I believe that you’ve got to sign right now.  Basing player decisions on how far (distance) a player can run?  There’s some guys from Kenya (Wilson Kipsang for example) that can flat out run forever.  Last I checked he was not under contract by any football (soccer) organization, easy negotiations!  Even mixing some of those data points together still (IMO) doesn’t give you ANY indication of how well someone is playing the game.

Now, I’m not all negative on these types of systems.  I can see their use as far as training is concerned and also in-game analysis of fatigue.  But from a quality of play, I really don’t see much use to these (very expensive) systems.

A piece of advice.  In the business world I’ve always advised my clients to “not buy the demo”.  There’s a lot of flash and some really cool technology out there, but ask yourself what does this do to improve my performance?  Here’s where that “So What?” question comes in handy.  Yeah, the demoes are pretty, but in day-to-day work in my organization is any of this really going to make me better somehow?

Another piece of advice.  Never, ever invest in something unless there is a direct, provable way to exemplify how it is going to improve your organization’s performance.  Now THAT is something that has come to prominence in the business world the last few years, I hope the sports world also realizes this concept soon.

“Old School”

“Only a fool trips over what’s behind them” – Albert Einstein

Blogging is great.  As I sat down to write this with an idea in mind I went through several ways of starting this off.  First of all, I’ll try to make this short.

The above quote is really more about not making the same mistakes twice and not dwelling on the mistakes you have made.  I couldn’t agree more.

On the other hand though, we shouldn’t “throw out the baby with the bath water” (I’m probably dating myself with that reference).

What do I mean by this?

Last week I had the opportunity of sitting in the same room with an “old school” football coach that I greatly admire.  I’ve followed his career since I was a kid really (sorry coach, another age reference).

The only “bad” part of the meeting was that I walked away with the impression that this coach was intimidated to some degree with the technology around the ideas I was presenting.  I tried my darnest to get across to coach that what Real Sports Analytics is all about really is just a natural progression of old school thought.

We believe in film study.  We believe in observable metrics.  We believe in coaches just like him watching film and evaluating how well the game is being played (film don’t lie).  We embrace the concept of the “qualified observer”.  And we most certainly want to tap into the incredible knowledge possessed by some of these “old school” coaches.

The technology enables us to do things with this collected information and present it to coaches, players, administrators in an easy to understand manner.  Yeah, that’s great.  But the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out” applies here as well.  We need to be collecting and analyzing good information to optimize what we deliver with Real Sports Analytics.

If that’s not “old school” I don’t know what is.

My next blog post (already working on) will be focused on the current state of sports analytics and how closely its evolution has mirrored the evolution of business intelligence in the business world.

Blind Squirrel Finds Nut

Every year the 1972 Dolphins, or at least a good many of them, get together to celebrate when the last undefeated NFL team finally loses a game.  Their “perfect season” record is safe for another year.

In my opinion the 2008 Detroit Lions should also have some sort of get-together every year.  See, they were the last NFL team to have a WINLESS season.  Maybe instead of Champaign and steaks they can enjoy a diet coke and some beanie weenies.

If this fictional celebration would take place one of 2008 Lion team members would be running to the nearest Publix for supplies after Monday night’s game.  Lo and behold, the Jaguars and Buccaneers both finally won a game during week 10.

Here’s some quick thoughts on both…

Jacksonville’s QB Chad Henne will probably never make it to a Pro Bowl, but he put together another solid performance on Sunday.  With the exception of his complete brain meltdown and 2nd quarter interception he played to a solid PER of 6.875.  He also was the victim of 3 pathetic sacks (he will also never be known as a running QB) with only a 6.57 score for his throw accuracy.  Give credit to their running game and receivers on offense, solid running and open receivers make it easy for a QB even if he’s not having his best day.

The “real” winners of the game were the Jacksonville front 4 on defense.  They were constantly in the Titan’s backfield and helped to produce 3 1st half turnovers.  The Jake Locker injury really didn’t have any significant effect.

Now, on to the Bucs – have they finally found a QUARTERBACK?

Mike Glennon becomes only the 6th rookie quarterback to win a Monday night football.  For this to be the Bucs first win is even more impressive – lots of pressure when you’re winless in week 10 of the season.  Glennon’s PER was a solid 6.865 which is pretty darned good given the pressures of a nationally televised game.  His stats were highlighted by a 7.2 score during the game for “Run/Throw Decision”.  Aside from his one interception he made solid decisions throughout the game and took care of the ball.

The play of the Bucs defensive line vs. Dolphins offensive line could only be described as a bloodbath and was the real story in the game.  On the other side the Bucs offensive line was dominate (finally!), once again, easy for a QB to have a good day when you can establish a solid running game and have plenty of time to throw the ball.

Both of these were very interesting games.  Is this a signal for continued success?  Probably not.  Watching these guys sign free agents and draft players is like watching a monkey throw darts.  Their wayward approach to analytics has been mentioned here before, so sorry Bucs and Jags fans, I wouldn’t hope for much during the rest of the season except for a high draft pick.  (actually I wouldn’t put too much hope behind those either)

BCS Armageddon?

Just a quick post this morning, I had some thoughts on the bloodbath that occurred in NCAA football this weekend.  For those of you who didn’t watch any of it, you may want to change channels (spoiler alert!).

What’s up is now down, what was good is now bad and what was mediocre just got completely trampled upon Saturday.

BUT, wouldn’t it be fitting during the last year of the travesty referred to as the BCS that we have the complete Armageddon that has been feared since its inception.

Here’s what could happen.

Alabama has only one “real” game left with LSU and then the rivalry game (anything can happen in the “Iron Bowl”) with Auburn.  They most likely will end up in the SEC championship game against (a very good, but not great) Missouri or South Carolina team.  Result?  Alabama, undefeated SEC champion.

Similarly, Oregon has games against a decent UCLA team, good Stanford team and their in-state rivalry with Oregon State.  Result – Oregon will probably be an undefeated conference champion coming out of the PAC-10.

Ohio State has games remaining against Penn State (Jekyll meet Hyde) and Michigan and that’s really it.  So, Ohio State, Big-10 champion, also probably undefeated.

And then you have Florida State.  Color me “convinced” after their thrashing of Clemson on Saturday night.  This team is for real and with their only “real” games left vs a streaky Miami team and a (lost) Florida team, you gotta believe these guys will roll into the ACC championship game as a heavy favorite.  ACC champion and undefeated Seminoles.

Now, for those of you not up on your American football rules, let me explain one of the most basic tenants of the game.  Aside from all of our other “odd” rules the truth still remains that only two teams can play.  There is no such thing as a football field that looks like this:

 

So, we’ve got to use unbiased sportswriters (right), even more unbiased fellow coaches (oh boy) and a complex computer formula to figure out what two teams play for the MNC (mythical national championship).

But not to worry, next year will be better, Condi Rice is involved in picking the four teams that play in the new playoff system.  That’s an improvement.  (right)

(By the way, Ms. Rice if you’re ever looking for someone to fill out your foursome next time you’re in Augusta, I’m a 12 index and can help with your NCAA playoff picks too!)

So duck and cover everyone, the next few weeks should be a lot of FUN!

Big Data vs Better Data vs NO Data

As mentioned in previous posts, the majority of my experience is from the “business” world.  I’ve done analytic models for companies on four continents and a wide variety of industries.  This has provided me with an diverse perspective, especially when looking at professional sports and their attempts at “analytics”.

I’ve told the folks that work with me at Real Sports Analytics several times that the book (and movie) “Moneyball” was great for sports analytics.  No, not because there was any significant analytical work done by Billy Beane in the story (trust me on that, his approach is what I call a “frog in the blender”), but the movie did raise awareness of a potential use of analytics in professional sports.  Some say I’m the “Moneyball of football”, well maybe I am, but what I’ve invented at Real Sports Analytics is much closer to the performance management work I’ve done in the business world and nothing at all like what Mr. Bean did at the Oakland A’s – mine is a frog safe approach. 

(side note: being played by Brad Pitt in a movie is just not me, George Clooney would be a much better choice)

With all of that said, let’s get to our topic of the day.  Big data is typically defined as taking a large amount of “raw” data, meaning data that doesn’t mean anything at all by itself and that has no intrinsic value with the exception of its volume, BUT given proper processing algorithms certain observational deductions can be made when these sets are jammed together and “mined” for data.  (see the Wikipedia article on data mining)  With this large data set, patterns can emerge or “nuggets” of important information (thus the “mining” analogy) can be discovered, but typically only after huge databases have been created and large amounts of computing power have been thrown at the problem and “experts” have analyzed the results.  Again, think mining analogy like the 49ers of old panning for gold and hoping to find a nugget hidden within tons of mushy dirt.

Now, again, with my experience in the industry I have some pretty strong opinions.  Read previous blog posts about the question I love to ask (SO WHAT?) when setting up any analytic model.  I think “Big Data” and “No Data” in many cases are equivalent.  How is that?  Because most people in the sports world are looking at the WRONG data without even knowing it (think the old 49er panning for gold in someone’s swimming pool).  For example, you may download from NOAA the entire meteorological record of New Orleans and correlate the weather patterns that are most favorable for the Saints winning football games, BUT unless someone makes you aware the the Saints football games are played in an INDOOR facility, you’d really be crunching all of those numbers just for the sake of crunching numbers.  (which a lot of people do)

Now, this is an extreme example, but so many times I’ve seen in business (and now in sports) people trying to count the “oranges” by looking at the rows in the apple orchard.

Case in point.  The Jacksonville Jaguars.  Any NFL fan is aware of the struggles of this organization over the past few years.  They have repeatedly failed to find a quarterback (denial), have failed to keep their best players (through poor management and bad trade evaluations), have not drafted well (again poor player evaluations), and now have a guy at the head of their analytics department whose only real qualification is that he was born to the right father (i.e. the current owner of the Jacksonville franchise).  Read the fourth paragraph of this article:

Jacksonville Jaguars seek “the truth” 

Ok, so maybe I’m being picky, but if I’m presenting someone with information concerning a multi-million dollar decision I’m not going to present the information on “three handwritten sheets of paper” that can hardly be deciphered.  It’s unprofessional and (in my mind) throws serious doubt on the contents.

This guy graduated college in 2007 and in the interim (before joining the Jaguars in 2012), wait for it…  helped to build a biodiesel fuel factility.  I’m not making this up - http://www.jaguars.com/team/football-staff/tony-khan.html.

If you Google Jacksonville Jaguars and analytics you’ll get two pages of hits on stories about how the Jaguars are “maximizing their returns” using analytics.  Yeah, not too many teams give their owner’s kid a cushy job that he’s obviously not qualified for, go 0-5 to start the year and even resort to giving away coupons for free beer in an attempt to fill the seats.  I’ll give them this, their press management is top notch.

The Jacksonville Jaguars are a great example where “Big Data” really equates to “No Data”.  If you’re not asking the right questions and you don’t have the right people with the right experience finding the answer – really if ANY of those are the case, HOW THE HECK can you expect to be delivering the right answers.

Ok, now for “Better Data”.  “Better Data” doesn’t always involve big server farms, huge spreadsheets or bunches of guys that look like this.  In fact, rarely does “Better Data” involve more than a few megabytes of information.  “Better Data” involves professional people with EXPERIENCE that come in and ask the right questions.  How do you currently measure performance?  What would make that simpler or more useful in what you are trying to accomplish?  Do you think your current performance metrics are correct for your organization?  What (in your opinion) works when you team is successful?  What are your teams current weaknesses?

There are hundreds of questions, thousands of permutations these conversations can take and I certainly am not going to give away the “ancient Chinese secret” in a blog post.  But, my point is this.  Always ask the question “SO WHAT?”.  I’m sure those guys at Jacksonville have a huge budget and are now asking themselves where is our return?  How long will it take to get that return?  Just because someone says they are experienced with “big data” doesn’t mean they are right for your organization – find someone that comes in and asks questions first.  (hopefully)  Also find someone with some experience in the game or at least someone who can bring those valuable people to the table.  I know at Real Sports Analytics we have a team of former NFL players advising us every step of the way and their experience and knowledge are INVALUABLE to how we build our analytic models.

Some teams are doing this effectively, it’s pretty obvious who they are in the NFL and NCAA ranks.  The most valuable aspect of this is knowing the difference between those three types of data and becoming an engaged partner with an experienced, knowledgeable analytics company.

Thinking ahead, one of my future blog posts will be about the ways analytics are used in the business world and how that relates (directly) to the world of professional sports.  Until then, keep this quote in mind.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Why I don’t watch baseball

Yes, I know it’s football season, but the other day I came across this article:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130918&content_id=61017384&vkey=news_atl&c_id=mlb

After doing some research apparently this particular umpire (CB Bucknor) has had some issues in the past with calling balls and strikes.

http://deadspin.com/5921148/better-know-an-umpire-cb-bucknor

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/06/mlb-umpire-cb-bucknor-calls-player-out-two-strikes

http://38pitches.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/why-c-b-bucknor-is-not-a-good-umpire/

I’m not writing this as an op-ed piece meant to bring down a guy who has been an umpire since 1996.  The guy obviously knows the game of baseball, enjoys the spotlight and enjoys his job.  Even with all of these ejections, players/coaches squaring up with him, etc he seems to remain fairly calm and handles the situation admirably.  His “crisis handling” skills are certainly not in question.

But, let’s get to the point.  Baseball is boring.  Sorry folks it is.  You can make whatever excuse you want.  The worst part is, you get to a penultimate moment in the game, a place where you are REALLY INTERESTED in what’s going on and the WHOLE THING is RUINED by a BLOWN CALL.  I would say a vast majority of the blown calls I’ve seen recently were specifically about balls and strikes – the instant reply system that MLB is trying out right now I think can be considered a success for the other ones.

Hey, I love tradition.  I live in a very historical city and we enjoy seeing horse drawn carriages, people dressing up in “period” attire and I love attending historical dinners, etc meant to remember a pivotal occasion in US history.

BUT, baseball is supposed to be a somewhat “modern” game.  They have embraced (to some degree) instant replay for example.  Baseball parks have gotten a lot nicer than what I remember growing up in the late 70s and early 80s.  Every billboard is a giant HDTV, anybody remember the old flip cards out in the outfield telling you balls/strikes and the scores of other games?

So we have come a long way, so why do we still rely on umpires behind home plate, behind the catcher, in what many have called the worst place on the field to observe balls and strikes?  It makes absolutely no sense.

A simple solution to those “traditionalists” out there (yes, you know who you are, you’re the ones who still get “bled” by leeches when you’re not feeling well):

Keep the umpire behind home plate.  He’s still important and has a great perspective on foul balls and (obviously) plays at the plate.  He can also be helpful on occasion by calling safe/out plays at 2nd base, balks and other miscellaneous disagreements with managers.  He’s still the “guy in charge” as anything relates to the officials on the field of play.

BUT, instead of having the umpire decide on ball strikes use the TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE to us and instead give him a buzzer or maybe a green/red light in his mask that instead tells him if the pitch is a ball or strike when it crosses the plate.  Something like this for example:

See the bottom right corner.  This is a technology via TBS called “Pitch Trax”.  C’mon man, TBS has this, but MLB refuses to use it, really?

THIS WOULD ELIMINATE all discussions about balls and strikes unless the technology wasn’t working.  OK, technology sometimes fails, in that case we would resort back to the umpire calling balls/strikes.  SEE?  We have a built-in failsafe!

I predict this would make the game more interesting, focusing more on the real strategy of the teams, performance of the players and NOT so much of an emphasis on where so-and-sos strike zone is.

Then again, maybe this baseball thing is a microcosm as to why so many of us are resistant to change…

Are you?

Player Safety

Unless you've been living under the proverbial rock the last few years you know that player safety, mostly focused on the NFL, has been in the limelight.  There are many issues at stake here.  Some former NFL players have actually gone so far as to file a lawsuit against the NFL asking for damages related to long-term effects of injuries sustained during their career.  My lawyer friends tell me that the legal format is similar to other lawsuits focused on "unsafe working conditions" which have become more and more popular here in the US.  Some of the players involved in this lawsuit (ironically enough) are actually beginning to work with the NFL in the hopes of increasing awareness of player safety.

On top of that, we also have the countless lawsuits filed by non-professional players, youth, high school, etc saying that some equipment manufacturers haven't done enough to "warn" younger players about the dangers of the game.  While I sympathize with these folks (I really do) and the injuries sustained while playing football this reminds me a lot of the old McDonald's hot coffee fiasco.

I play golf.  (sounds like an AA admission doesn't it?)  I enjoy playing the game and I like being out in the great outdoors being endlessly frustrated by something that should be very simple.  Occasionally, on the course I have come close to either hitting someone else with my ball (when I actually do make contact with the darned thing) or being hit by someone else's ball.  The lawsuits mentioned above give me pause to think, if/when I do get hit can I file a lawsuit against the ball manufacturer for not putting a warning label on the ball and making sure the offending person had read and understood the risks of striking this object?  What about those odd-shaped sticks that we use to play the game?  There's got to be a lawsuit in the making there.

Maybe sidewalks should have warning labels on them.  I mean, you could always trip over the curb or not look both ways - either way sidewalks are suddenly very scary...

My point is this, there is danger everywhere.  You need to identify those dangers, do what you can to mitigate the risk and go on living your life.  No one wants to be wrapped in shrink wrap bubbles their entire life.  Playing any sport is no different and I really hope most people don't let the media overreaction dictate their decisions.

Speaking of the media, they of course have done nothing but sensationalize this issue and make it extremely larger that it probably needs to be.  Sports are inherently dangerous, in fact football is the 3rd most dangerous for youth participation according to this study.  Note, this study is just based in America, I can imagine that European Football (soccer) would be pretty high on that list if more popular with youth in America.  I know that the only time I've taken my son to the emergency room for a sports related injury it was because of soccer (he was fine by the way, I was being rightfully over-cautious).  Any time you have human beings running around as fast as they can and running into each other you are going to have injuries.  The gelatinous substance floating in liquid surrounded by a hard bone material that we call a "brain" is suspect in such collisions to bruising and other damages.  It's been going on since the first cave man chased the first cave woman and ran into a tree.

Equipment manufacturers are spending billions of R&D dollars in a race to make the "safest" helmet, but at the end of the day, given the g-forces, rotational speeds and impact accelerations a player is subjected to during a football game, I have a hard time believing they will ever deliver a "magic pill" to make this issue go away.

The problem (and the subsequent answer) lies NOT with the equipment manufacturers, but in the methods used to teach and play the game.

So where am I going with this?

Today I am proud to announce publicly (we're not big enough yet to have a full-time PR person, we are looking for interns though) that Real Sports Analytics is introducing our "Player Safety Rating" (PSR).

Much like our "Player Effectiveness Rating" (PER) that measures how well someone is playing a particular sport our "Player Safety Rating" (PSR) gives us a way to effectively measure how safely someone is playing the game.

How do we do this?  Over the last few months we have added several former NFL/NCAA players, coaches and administrators to our advisory council.  I've spent a lot of time with each of them and we have developed not only the on-field components of this model, but also on the camp/seminar aspects of teaching a safer way to play the game.  We are also working with companies that deliver these camps/seminars as well as equipment manufacturers on how best to promote this safety model.

What does the PSR do?  Easy, much like our PER displays a very simple representation of how well someone is playing the game based on their position (7.2, 8.1, 6.5, etc) we now can represent how safely someone is playing their position.  As with the PER we observe each player on a play-by-play basis and apply safety metrics.  For example, a good "form" tackler like Brian Urlacher would probably score pretty highly (except that he has unfortunately retired).  Over his career he has been known as one of the hardest hitters in the game, but also one of the safest.  If you watch his film his form is good, his arms are out, he doesn't lead with his head and he focuses on his body position and control to make plays.

I was going to mention some players that do NOT play the game (in what we measure) in a safe manner, but I won't.  The NFL has singled out certain players that always seem to get an unfair share of attention when it comes to the "safety issue".  Or is that attention really unfair?  They don't know, why?  The old adage applies here "You can't improve what you can't measure".

Up until now it has been virtually impossible to measure this safety factor. That's why this is such an exciting time for us here at Real Sports Analytics - the future is now!

The “next level”

Springtime is a marvelous time of the year for American football.  National signing day was just concluded and the annual track meet (a.k.a. the combine) is going on in Indianapolis.  Why do people watch this?  Well, it’s either that or figure skating or bowling.  So, can you really blame them?

We are (as of today) 221 days until the start of the regular NFL season and 186 days until college football begins.

So what the heck do we do for the next 100+ days?

We’ll watch Youtube highlights of last season.  We’ll analyze, re-analyze and over-analyze anything that happened during the combine and/or national signing day.  We will watch some premier league games (at least I will, even though the title is all but settled already).  And we’ll probably watch a combination of golf, spring baseball and reruns on our DVRs of the televised NCAAF spring football scrimmages.

Hopefully, you will also read my blog, even though I’ve promised to publish more and have not (thus far).

So, now on to the topic of conversation today.  The “next level”.  Much of our spring fascination and ongoing debates during this time of year revolve around high school players going to the “next level” (NCAAF) and collegiate players graduating to the “next level” (NFL).

Who will be a success?  Who will be a “bust”?  Who will be drafted (or signed) with low expectations and become an all-star (ala Tom Brady) player?

For the record, I have not watched nor do I plan to watch any of the Indianapolis track meet going on this week.  I won’t rant about this again this year.  (although if you do want to see a previous rant you may click here)  It is interesting to me that ESPN and others have marketed this thing to the masses in such a way that observers really think NFL teams are learning something here, THEY ARE NOT.  If that was the case, then why doesn’t college football have something like this?  The answer is that most collegiate coaches have (at one time or another) coached at the high school level.  They focus on fundamentals and focus on that with their current rosters.  THEY WATCH FILM!  Which of course is the ONLY way to understand how well someone plays the game (ANY GAME).  Don’t you think that the “real” NFL scouts and player personnel directors look at film 100x more than they tune into ESPN this week?  Let’s try to use some common sense here.

I was thinking on this today and here’s what I WANT as a consumer, fan and professional.

I WANT a consistent way to measure how well someone plays the game.

I WANT easy to understand numbers that tell me that Player A is better than Player B and exactly WHY that is.

I WANT player rankings that make sense so that I KNOW (or at least understand better) what players are the best at their position both coming out of high school and entering the NFL draft.

I WANT players to be measured for their on-field ability AND THEN (only then) compare that on-field performance with their performance at the “track meet”.

I WANT historical information telling me that a player had certain rankings/abilities/shortcomings coming out of high school those were developed in a measurable way by (insert name of college position coach here) and because of that he is now a top rated player going to the next level.

IS THAT REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK?

Think to yourselves, do you make ANY type of decision with significant monetary value without having hard, discernable facts and objective review.  Could you imagine buying a car without knowing it’s performance numbers (0-60, mpg, etc)?  Could you imagine buying a home without an inspection or information regarding taxable value or utility rates?

Then how pray tell, can you really value one football player vs. another by watching them run between some cones?  Better question, how can you believe that NFL personnel do the same?

Between a rock and a hard place

I’m not sure how this is going to play out with the NFL…

Well, by now everyone has heard of the tragedy in Kansas City the last few days (link).

And all of the talking heads from local sportscasters to Bob Costas have decided to put in their opinion.  (How I feel about opinions)  Costas even tried to make some sort of anti-gun 2nd amendment speech regarding this issue…  (really?)

At the same time (flip side) we see articles like this – Ed Reed, NFL powder-puff league

And actually, as much as I hate to use this oft-used misnomer, what we really have here is the 3 sided coin…

One side – football is a violent game that breeds violence within individuals that sometimes cannot be contained.  In fact, while players are active it is encourage by coaches, other players, fans and society in general.  Whether or not there are guns involved really isn’t the issue, look at the UK for examples on what happens when gun laws are enacted.

2nd side – because of this violence some players are hurt rather badly.  In some cases bodily and physiological damage results in suicides.  Lately these individuals, when they are choosing to end their lives, do so in a manner so that their brains may be studied for this damage.

(see link)

3rd side – in putting in place policies, rules, etc the NFL is coming down hard on head-shots, violent collisions involving “defenseless” players and calling everything anywhere near a QBs head.   With these rules some (including Mr. Reed) claim the NFL is taking something away from the game.  What happens when you take the so called “violence” away from an inherently violent sport?

This is a tough one to call.  The rash of former NFL players is both astounding and tragic.  These are men with any other profession would be at the prime of their lives.  They leave behind children, wives, brothers, sisters and numerous friends.

So what’s the answer?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that one former player is taking this into his own hands.  Lavar Arrington’s Xtreme Procision WILL change how the game is taught and (hopefully) how the game is played.  These strategies as well as advancements in equipment and g-force monitoring MUST BE PUT IN PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  If we can teach the next generation how to properly and safely play the game these injuries and deaths CAN BE PREVENTED.

The game is changing.  The game must change.  If these changes don’t happen then the future of American football is in jeopardy.

Time for a little “I told you so”

The thing that still gets to me, even after all this time, even being the “inventor” of this product is that the damn thing just works.

Film study by qualified people DOES NOT LIE.

Chad Henne in yesterday’s loss to Houston.

16/33

354 yds

4 TDs

no interceptions

For those of you who don’t remember, Chad (in his fours games last year) scored right up there, with some pretty big names…

I’m sure Gabbert is a nice guy and he will make a successful backup somewhere in the NFL, but (as I’ve posted before) Chad Henne before injury last year was playing at a very, very high level.  I know that Gabbert is Gene Smith’s darling in Jacksonville, but at some point it becomes painfully apparent who SHOULD be starting for this team.  Unfortunately for this season I think it’s probably too late.

The teams that are successful make personnel calls on FACTS not gut feel or player “preference”.

Quick Posts

I have been asked recently by a reader to shorten my posts (and to make them more often) – this I promise to do starting in 3, 2, 1….

As we enter Week 11 of the NFL season I have a few observations based on our scoring…

- The recent “rise” of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers has nothing to do with Josh Freeman.  He’s still scoring at the bottom of the league as far as QBs go.  When will the experiment end?  This guy to going to be a GREAT backup QB somewhere, as a starter though he continues to make (rookie) mistakes.  At this point in his career he should be playing much better than Andrew Luck and well, he isn’t.

- The Gabbert experiment in Jacksonville is also near completion.  The result?  Well, because he “bet his career” on the development of this mid(low) level talent, Gene Smith will probably lose his job.  Ironically in the offseason they signed Chad Henne – who you might remember as scoring VERY well last year in the four games with the Dolphins before injury.  How well?  Like Brady/Brees/Eli well.  Unfortunately this is an obvious case of “new coach syndrome” and the GM is deciding which QB to start – NOT a good way to run a team.

- The Romo coaster continues in Dallas and I will say this, Tony has scored fairly well this year – at least the times he’s not been lying on his back.  The offensive line there has been atrocious and since I think the talent is there (expensive talent I might add) there must be something else at play.  Unfortunately for Jason Garrett (who I think is one of the brightest up and coming minds in football), the masses in Dallas (including it’s owner) are an impatient lot.  I’d be surprised if he gets another year to pull things together, there’s just too many good (experienced, super bowl winning) coaches out there looking for a job.

Speaking of that…

- Like you, I’ve seen the hirejongruden.com web site.  There is NO freakin’ way that guy is going to coach any team at the collegiate level.  I mean, he can barely stand rookie QBs, what would he do with an 18 year old freshman?

OK, I said I would keep it short, going to keep my promise.

More next week!

Peace, out.

Let’s talk golf!

As you probably know this week is US Open week.  Now, being from Augusta I’m more inclined to be excited about Masters week (I typically hum the tune “it’s the most wonderful time of the year” during that week much to the chagrin of those I am around) but I do recognize the US Open as typically being the “greatest test of golf”.  There are some years (anyone remember the fiasco at Shinnecock?) when I think the USGA goes too far and sets up a “goofy” golf course and I certainly hope that doesn’t happen again here.  San Francisco is known to have it’s share of “goofy golf” courses and typically the Lake Course at Olympic is not one of them – let’s hope the USGA gets it right this time.

I’ve also been pondering golf analytics.  I mentioned some useless pieces of information in my previous post (putts per round, greens in regulation, etc) and started wondering, OK Bryan, you’re so smart, how would YOU build an analytics model for golf based on nothing but the qualitative results from a golf round.

After much thought, here’s my first go at it…

First of all I think there are three segments to the game: tee to green, around the green and putting.

Tee to green is pretty straightforward and you can in fact use a “sensor” based input to assist in this.  Basically define the areas of the fairway that are “ideal” for the player to hit to in order to set up his shot to the green.  Obviously these are only valid for par 4 and 5 holes.  These “ideal” locations can change based on hole location (those change in a tournament every day) and they can also change according to conditions (wind, rain, etc).  Once you have these, you can put some use (finally!) on data produced by a system like Shotlink by using their precise measurements to figure out where exactly the ball ended up in the fairway.

Par 5s in this situation would be a bit more difficult in that you would need to measure a players quality of shot going for the green in 2 vs. their layup position, but it could be done with a qualified observer.  (i.e.. were they really going for it or did they just badly mishit their shot?)

Par 3s you would qualify the shot based on where on the green (hopefully) the player left the ball.  There is such a thing in golf as a “good miss” so you would also need to observe the strategic use of “bail out” areas for particularly difficult or dangerous shots (no such thing on the 17th at Sawgrass, right?).

Coming into the green would be even easier.  Based on where they are in the fairway (are they in a 8-10 position or worse?) how well did they fare?  If they’re lying in a 9 or 10 position and promptly chunk it into the front right bunker, well you can imagine that’s not going to score very well.

Once near the green, meaning just off the green or in a greenside bunker or collection area it would also be straightforward to judge how well the ball is played close to the hole for a birdie or par-save opportunity.  Speaking of par-save opportunities, we could also enable a “scrambling” factor on how well the player recovers from a bad shot anywhere on a given hole.  In fact, in some cases you would probably get multiple observations for scrambling.

And finally, the players quality putt on the green.  As I mentioned before I spent a lot of my younger days in Augusta and have been to probably 30 Masters tournaments.  There are some places on that golf course that you simply do NOT want to go.  Some examples:

• back bunker at number 7 with a front right pin location
• back or middle tier of the green on 9 with a front hole location (brutal false front there that rolls 30 yds back down to the fairway – the worst “walk of shame” in golf IMO).
• back bunker on 12 with the Sunday pin location
• anywhere, and I mean ANYWHERE right of the green on #4
• over the green on #14
• back bunkers on #16 with Sunday pin

Why do I mention bunkers when we’re talking about putting?  Typically when you’re in the bunker you are playing your –1 par shot (different for Par 5s when you’ve gone for the green, yes I know) so the placement of this greenside bunker shot is critical.  In the case of #7 at Augusta for example, you want to leave your shot “below” the hole leaving an uphill putt, but if you run it too far by the hole you may end up in one of the front bunkers (which isn’t an easy shot either) or rolling between the bunkers and back into the fairway.  #7 is a particularly brutal green and you also don’t want to necessarily leave the ball “above” the hole leaving yourself with a very fast, typically hard-breaking putt for par (or worse).

There are also putts at Augusta when it’s almost impossible to aim at the hole.  Everyone remembers Tiger’s shot a few years ago at #16 from just off the green, but they don’t remember Davis Love’s putt earlier in the tournament from across the green.  Davis has to putt up onto the hill (90 degree angle AWAY from the hole) to catch the hill properly and make an improbable birdie.  When he was lining up his putt, he had his BACK to the hole!

So what does this mean for putt scoring?  Again, a qualified person needs to observe what’s going on.  The fairway observations can be made with the assistance of the Shotlink system, but around the green, scrambling and putting must all be “observed”.

Think this would take a lot of manpower?  Have you ever been to a golf tournament and watched the cadre of people that walk along with a typical weekend twosome?  I bet you that all of those people know the game of golf and even if they’re already busy it wouldn’t be a big deal for one more person to be there.  OR just station someone in the fairway and green for every hole.  Every tournament has more than their share of able-bodied volunteers.  Heck, I just filled out my form to volunteer for next year’s open at Pinehurst!

There’s a lot of useless information presented in golf telecasts.  Just like “statistics” you can mix/blend these to make any point that you like – Johnny Miller is a master of useless statistics.  The point of golf is scoring low of course and a guy who chips in from the bunker for par is scored exactly the same on the score sheet as the guy who lips out a 4 ft. birdie putt and taps in.  This method tells you more of “how well” someone is playing despite the score.  You can’t be lucky ALL of the time!

As always dear reader, ask why and ask is what you are being presented with really tells you what’s going on in the game – ANY GAME!

Useless “stats” (continued)

Let’s talk some golf…

First of all, a little background.  I grew up in Augusta.  When you grow up in Augusta (the “mecca” of golf) you play golf.  Actually I was introduced to the game by my grandfather in S. Illinois, but that’s a story for another day.  The net, net is that I’ve played golf and followed it closely since the age of 7.  The game fascinates me and I find the traditions, history, etc just as exciting today as ever.  In fact, I’m a big fan of Tim Finchim even if others are not.  I think he’s acting as a great caretaker for the “greatest game ever invented”.  I also think that the Masters is not only golf’s greatest spectacle, but probably the greatest spectacle in sports and certainly the hardest ticket in sports to acquire.  I’ve been fortunate enough to attend roughly 30 Masters golf tournaments and I still get the “goose bumps” up and down my body when I step on the premises.  For those of you who are wondering, I play once every 6 weeks or so, but still maintain a solid 12 index.

So yesterday was not only the conclusion of the English Premier League (which was completely crazy and awesome by the way), but it was also the final round of the players championship at the TPC Sawgrass.  Commonly known as golf’s “fifth major” and broadcast around the world just as a major, it is a great tournament to watch.

Just as I admire Mr. Finchim and his leadership of the PGA I absolutely hate to watch any tournament where Johnny Miller is commentating.  I have the pleasure to know several club pros and a few golf course superintendents and Johnny, NO the ball does not break “away from the setting sun”.  Maybe your early exit from the world of professional golf involved watching the setting sun and focusing on “grass” too much (“yips” anyone?).

Mr. Miller aside, today let’s talk about some of the “useless” stats related to golf.  Let’s start with one of Mr. Miller’s favorites is number of putts per round.  Golf is an easy game, you hit your drive to the fairway (on par 4s and 5s) hit one or two other shots, hit two putts (no more) and you’re going to shoot par or somewhere thereabouts.  On the par 3s you hit one shot, two putt and repeat.  Nonetheless, 36 putts for 18 holes is considered excessive (except maybe for a US Open) and anything around 20 putts is viewed as pretty good.  Now, why does this NOT make sense?  Let’s have a short story…

A few years ago I attended a friend’s wedding in Chicago.  It was bitterly cold, but he insisted on playing golf so out we went (with some liquid antifreeze in tow of course).  The “game” we were playing that day involved a deck of cards.  Essentially, if you one putt a green you got a card, two putts nothing and three or more putts you had to throw $5 into the kitty.  At the end of the round, you took the earned number of random cards from a standard deck and played straight poker for the money in the pot.  In our case it was around $200.

What I observed during this game is that the really good golfers would NOT play for the flag.  In fact, they would try to pick a nice landing surface just off the green, play to that, chip up close and try to make their one putt (for a card in the poker game).  Guys like me that were trying to hit to the center of the green and two putt ended up with only a couple of cards.

See my point?

Who cares how many putts you had?  You could have 18 putts, have missed every single green, some of those putts might’ve been for par, many might’ve been for bogey (or worse), but you had a great putts per round stat!  Johnny will love you if you average 18 putts per round!  (even if you shoot 82)

How about another short game statistic – greens in regulation (GIR).  My problem with GIR is that some of these greens are HUGE.  You could be just off the green and 10 ft. from the hole (collar) and NOT have a GIR or you could have a GIR but 70 feet from the hole on the wrong side of the green (a.k.a. three putt city).  GIR is supposed to be a metric to show how well a golfer is hitting his irons into the green.  In my opinion it is anything but.

I can say the same thing for driving distance.  Who cares?  If driving distance really mattered then Zach Johnson, Mike Weir and Fred Funk wouldn’t even be on tour!

Here’s two that I do like. (let’s try to end on a positive note)  I do like driving accuracy, you obviously need to hit the fairway to win tournaments (most of the time).  I also like how “putt feet” is starting to be analyzed to show how well someone is making putts.  (It’s taking the measurement of all the putts made and adding that number up over the round – obviously the higher the number the better the putter).  I’d like to see more of “average distance away from the hole for birdie” – that would be a pretty cool stat.

The surprising thing in all of this is that there are people doing golf broadcasts that I really like and who really know the game (Nick Faldo, Kelly Tilghman, Roger Maltbie, Gary Koch) – why don’t these guys think of this?  With systems like “shotlink” in existence it’s extremely easy to get the measurements of where the ball is all of the time.  Define where the ball “should be” on the different holes and measure how well the players hit those targets.

I’ll happily volunteer my services to help by the way!  Keep it in the short grass everyone!

Soccer (aka “Football”)

I’ve been thinking about writing a blog entry for football (yes, I’m going to call it football for the purposes of this blog) for some time now.  Previous to 2006 I never, ever watched soccer.  I know that my high school had a soccer team, but it was during track season (and prom season) and I just didn’t pay that much attention to it.  I also attended the gold medal match during the 1996 Olympic games, but I was really just there for the party (and it WAS a lot of fun).  But before 2006 I just really didn’t pay too much attention to football.  Why 2006?  That’s the year my son turned 5 and started playing.  Yes Virginia, you may have heard of “soccer moms”, but in 2006 I became a fully fledged “soccer dad”.

Even though I would go to the weekend soccer games and cheer on my son I still didn’t consider myself a “fan” and certainly not a student of the game.  That all changed a couple of years ago during a Saturday with nothing to look forward except yard work and a “honey do” list a mile long.  The Super Bowl was two weeks in the past and the doldrums of spring and summer were upon me with the prospect of no football.

While sulking and channel surfing past the bowling, figure skating, basket weaving, etc I ran across an EPL match.  I don’t even recall what the match was, but it was riveting.  That 110 minutes or so was enlightening, a football fan was born….  Finally!  A sport that I could watch in the long (American) football off-season that was just as intense and just as intriguing to follow!  My wife was overjoyed that I had found a sport that glued myself to the TV for the remaining 6 months of the year.

The “long and short of it” is really that even though I didn’t grow up around the sport I have become a great fan of the game.

So today I would like to discuss two of the metrics that I see that seem to be at the heart of most discussions for football.  Just as Kirwin pointed out in his book (“Take Your Eye Off The Ball”) I’d like to ask soccer fans everywhere to pull their attention away from these useless stats that they’ve always been fed and ask the most important question of all (So WHAT?!?!).

First, distance run.  Well, where to start?  For those of you that aren’t familiar with the concept, several companies in the past few years have developed technology that allows the physical tracking of players as they move around the field.  This feeds x/y coordinates of the players on the field, their average speed and the total distance (typically reported in kilometers or meters) that the player has covered during the course of the game.  It’s really fascinating stuff.

So what?

What does distance covered really tell you about the performance of a player during the game?  Absolutely nothing.  A couple of years ago at the sports analytics conference in Boston one of the EPL staff members using this technology actually lamented the meaningless data it produced.  In this particular case a keeper was augmenting his “distance run” metric (after being cajoled by some coaches) by running back and forth across the box while the ball was on the other end of the pitch.  Not making any plays, not doing anything productive for the outcome of the game and certainly not doing anything to help his team (aside from some extra conditioning), just trying to get that particular STAT better and get the coaches off his back.

I won’t even go into why I think average speed is idiotic.  Based on what I’ve just said I think it’s obvious…

#2, passing %.  Basically Player A passes the ball to Player B X number of times.  Y number of times the pass was successfully received by Player B, therefore the percentage is simply Y divided by X.  Now you ask, what fault could I find in a perfectly good statistic that represents teamwork between two players on the same team?  Well, football is definitely a team sport.  It’s definitely helpful to have your players working together.  But, it’s also a sport of speed and continuity.  If Player A passes to Player B while in a full run about to blow by a flat-footed defender and Player B has to completely halt all of his momentum to go back and get the ball (because bone head Player A didn’t lead him enough) then it is considered a successful pass and counts in the Y column.

Really?  There was an opportunity for a breakthrough on the defense, possibly a good, quality shot on goal, but the pass was poor.  But wait!  Even though the pass was poor and completely killed the opportunity, the pass was “received” and therefore it counts in this statistic.

(One of the many reasons I hate dumb, automated statistics like these.)

Neither of these pass the “So What?” test.

Look at statistics like this and ask yourself “So What?”.  Who cares how much distance a guy ran?  Maybe he was having a horrible day and giving up the ball every chance he got and spent his 8 km chasing the guy who just stole the ball from him?  As an example, Messi’s distance stat during a game is not impressive – have you ever watched a game and really focused on him?  He puts himself in the right place at the right time and he’s fresh for the entire 90 minutes.  (see this article from a couple of years ago, sorry Bleacher Report, but you guys were WAY off on this one).  You don’t get that running 10 or 12 km per game, you get that by playing SMART.  The same can be said for Rooney – who’s always back there heckling the keeper to hurry up his kicks?  Why is he back there?  He typically sets himself up just onside - you hardly ever see this guy on the defensive half of the pitch…

The same for passing accuracy.  If the pass isn’t a quality pass and actually prevents the receiving player from doing something “good” then it shouldn’t be counted as a positive event in the course of the game!

Those x/y coordinates produced by these technologies are good for one thing though.  You can “virtualize” the game where all of the players on the field are represented by circles and squares.  It’s really cool to watch all of those little shapes move around the field, it’s almost like WATCHING THE GAME.  A huge amount of money is spent on these technologies and all they’re getting for that money is something that I spend $12/month to receive (no, this isn’t a DirecTV commercial).

The bottom line?  You are smart, you’re on the internet and you’re reading a blog.  Question these stats and demand more.  Ask the “So What?” question as often as possible and don’t stop until you’re satisfied with the answer.  If you want to know more about what I think are “real” metrics that measure the “real” performance of these fantastic athletes, let me know.

The circus is in town!

At least if you live in Indianapolis that is.

Today marks the opening of the 2012 NFL combine and it also represents the day that I typically publish my annual rant on the “circus” also known as the NFL combine.

Gosh, where to start…

Let’s begin “at the beginning”.  Those wonderfully straight lines are drawn for the 40 yard dash.  The pickets are up for the vertical leap.  The cones are laid on the field for the shuffle.  And the pens and pencils are all prepared for the Wonderlic test.

With the exception of that last point if you didn’t know any better you would think that a track meet was about to take place in Indianapolis.

Let’s start with those wonderfully straight 40 yard dashes.  First of all, these guys will NEVER, EVER run 40 yards in a straight line wearing nothing but shorts, a t-shirt and running shoes.  They will always be pursued by others trying to bring them down and (hopefully) NOT running in a straight line.  They will always be wearing at least 15 lbs of gear including a helmet.  And why, oh why is this only a 40 yard dash?  Last time I checked the football field was 100 yards from goal line to goal line.  Why not let them run 100, 80, 60 and then 40 and time them?  After all these guys are world class athletes right?  They will sometimes have the opportunities to run THOSE, more appropriate distances.

Now, the vertical jump.  Very, very rarely will a player who tests out on this be able to jump freely (again without wearing any equipment) for a goal.  My only recollection of a player doing any sort of jump like this is the Saint’s Jimmy Graham!  Almost always there will be two, three or maybe even four guys going up for a ball at the same time.  Put some pads and a helmet on these guys and then have a couple of cornerback prospects attempt to grab the “goal” at the same time and then you might have something more realistic.

My favorite is the bench press.  I saw a video the other day where someone was trying to justify the bench press as a good measure of “endurance”.  Really?  How many times have you seen a guy pump out 25 reps in the middle of the field at the end of the 4th quarter to prove his endurance?  It’s similar in motion to a push up, maybe this is in case they do something on the field really, really dumb and their (ex-military) coach orders them to “drop and give me 50!”.  Ok, that I can buy, sort of….

And last, but not least we have the cones.  Yes boys and girls even though these guys have spent the last 3 or 4 years running away and between 6ft 250lb guys the ultimate test of their AGILITY will be to run between 12 inch stationary cones.  Heck, if you only had to take on 12 inch cones I might’ve had a shot at the NFL!  In a multi-billion dollar industry this is the best you can come up with to attempt to measure one of the most important facets of the game?  Really?  C’mon man.  (the link is one of my favorites from last season by the way)

So what are we really trying to accomplish here?  I mean, how did this get so convoluted after all?  If you answer “the media” I think that’s partially the answer.  Fans are SO HUNGRY for anything in the off-season even remotely related to football, they are going to watch the combine coverage – no doubt.

Another point to ponder is do NFL franchises really look at the NFL combine to make any sort of decisions?  Yeah, they send guys there (junket?) and they carry clip boards and sit in the stands and LOOK like they’re paying attention.  But, how much do they really put on this?

But, back to the first question – what are we trying to really MEASURE within this circus?  I think we’re trying to evaluate (predict?) how well a player is going to perform in the NFL.  (In actuality I think we’re measuring how well these guys would do in a track meet.)

So how do you measure how well someone performs on a football field?  Well, I think you would watch them during a game, on a football field.  (At least the combine IS taking place on a football field, mostly…)  Then, when watching them on the football field, how would you measure them?

Well dear reader, like anyone who’s ever been to Disney will know – when the ride ends, you end up in the gift shop.

Evaluating REAL performance in REAL situations with REAL players in REAL games is what REAL SPORTS ANALYTICS is all about.

Enjoy the entertainment this week coming from Indianapolis!

A couple of changes

Well, after much encouragement from some of my co-workers and friends I have signed up for Twitter.  If you enjoy being bored and hopefully (from time to time) entertained 140 words at at time feel free to start following me at http://twitter.com/#RSA_Bryan.  I am planning on attending the MIT conference again next spring and will be “tweeting” from there.  Last year’s conference featured attendees tweets on the big screen in between sessions and provided some nice entertainment on the breaks.

There is a lot to talk about in football.  Some early guys who were grading out very well (Josh Freeman for example) are fading.  I’m not sure where to begin on grading Tebow - we may need to develop special grading metrics just for him (maybe “Wildcat” or “TE playing QB”?).  And of course, the old reliables (Brady, Rogers, Manning2) are confidently making their way through their respective schedules en route to leading their teams to another playoff appearance.  Brady’s game yesterday against the Eagles was one of the most dominating performance by a QB that I’ve seen in a long time.  It reminded me of watching Montana during his prime in that awesome Bill Walsh offense.

Unfortunately, I can’t provide much as far as insight for the later part of the season except for a big “I TOLD YOU SO”.  The Patriots juggernaut, sans a few defensive hiccups, is rolling along again and most of their problems there can be traced back to the injury bug (did you see they had a wide receiver playing defense yesterday???).  The last team to handily defeat the Patriots (Green Bay) is rolling as well.  Everything that I just said above about Tom Brady can also be said about Aaron Rodgers.  They both are just playing great with Green Bay’s defense getting the edge on overall team ratings.

In my last post I revealed that Real Sports Analytics “LIVE” is now available and a few of you have signed up and provided some excellent scores.  I was taking a look at the model this morning and I hate to ask, but I need more!  We really only have a handful of players scored so nothing can really be published on overall team strengths at this point (except for the obvious ones mentioned above).  Please sign up, even if you can only provide 10-20 observations for the games you are watching it really does help.  I can take those 10-20 and mix them in with others and we get some really good information.  I will be publishing those results to my members in the very near future.

In the meantime, I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving and (as Mark Cuban tweeted) that you recover quickly from your food coma (me included).