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!