Speed, coach, weevil, call me crazy........ but I think I've figured this out.
This staff is playing sabermetrics. For those that haven't heard that term, another name for it is moneyball.
We are using numbers to determine not only play calling, but personnel. What makes me think that? Because nothing else makes sense. There's no rhyme or reason for some of the play calling with regard to down and distance as well as substitutions.
Let me break it down for you.
Ingram averaged 6.2 yards per carry. So anybody with common sense would tell you that this average is well above what is acceptable by a running back in college (4.5 ypc) being the benchmark. Common sense would dictate that a coach would recognize this statistic and use it to their advantage. Watson was averaging 4.5 ypc until his fumble. Should that carry have gone to Ingram? Perhaps, BUT, here's what I think happens:
Coaches have run through these plays hundreds of time in practice. In the film room, the RB coach has determined that this particular playcall has a greater chance of success with Watson than with the other backs. The metric used by the RB dictated to him that Watson, based on this metric, should be substituted during this play.
Think of it as a pitching relief staff that can be substituted in and out with unlimited numbers. Instead of bringing a lefty out of the bullpen with bases loaded to face another lefty with two outs in the bottom of the 8th, imagine being able to have one pitcher throw the first pitch, then another pitcher throw the next pitch, then a third pitcher throw the next...... and so on.
To see how easily people can get lost in the weeds using statistical analysis, look at this example:
During the Vietnam War, Sec Def Robert Mcnamara and his bean counting group called the "Wiz Kids" looked at how many bullets had been fired in the warby US troops and how many enemy casualties were the result. They figured out that there was this ridiculous number of 5.56 ammo fired in order to kill one enemy. Based on bullsh!t metrics, they came up with a statistical analysis that said there should only be 7.3 bullets fired to exact one enemy fatality. Mind you, these wiz kids were 10,000 miles away and had never set foot in a war zone. But God dangit, their statistics were correct! As FBHORN will tell you, and anybody else who's ever been in a war zone, there is a zero probability of being able to predict exactly how many rounds will be needed to kill an enemy. It's a fvcking war. Metrics don't work in a gun fight.
I sincerely believe that we are using statistical probabilities to determine substitutions. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. We've got a coach who is obviously proud of his Mensa card and the 140+ score he had on the Stanford-Benet IQ test, so wouldn't it make sense that he is using some high minded form of calculations to call plays and personnel?
This staff is playing sabermetrics. For those that haven't heard that term, another name for it is moneyball.
We are using numbers to determine not only play calling, but personnel. What makes me think that? Because nothing else makes sense. There's no rhyme or reason for some of the play calling with regard to down and distance as well as substitutions.
Let me break it down for you.
Ingram averaged 6.2 yards per carry. So anybody with common sense would tell you that this average is well above what is acceptable by a running back in college (4.5 ypc) being the benchmark. Common sense would dictate that a coach would recognize this statistic and use it to their advantage. Watson was averaging 4.5 ypc until his fumble. Should that carry have gone to Ingram? Perhaps, BUT, here's what I think happens:
Coaches have run through these plays hundreds of time in practice. In the film room, the RB coach has determined that this particular playcall has a greater chance of success with Watson than with the other backs. The metric used by the RB dictated to him that Watson, based on this metric, should be substituted during this play.
Think of it as a pitching relief staff that can be substituted in and out with unlimited numbers. Instead of bringing a lefty out of the bullpen with bases loaded to face another lefty with two outs in the bottom of the 8th, imagine being able to have one pitcher throw the first pitch, then another pitcher throw the next pitch, then a third pitcher throw the next...... and so on.
To see how easily people can get lost in the weeds using statistical analysis, look at this example:
During the Vietnam War, Sec Def Robert Mcnamara and his bean counting group called the "Wiz Kids" looked at how many bullets had been fired in the warby US troops and how many enemy casualties were the result. They figured out that there was this ridiculous number of 5.56 ammo fired in order to kill one enemy. Based on bullsh!t metrics, they came up with a statistical analysis that said there should only be 7.3 bullets fired to exact one enemy fatality. Mind you, these wiz kids were 10,000 miles away and had never set foot in a war zone. But God dangit, their statistics were correct! As FBHORN will tell you, and anybody else who's ever been in a war zone, there is a zero probability of being able to predict exactly how many rounds will be needed to kill an enemy. It's a fvcking war. Metrics don't work in a gun fight.
I sincerely believe that we are using statistical probabilities to determine substitutions. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. We've got a coach who is obviously proud of his Mensa card and the 140+ score he had on the Stanford-Benet IQ test, so wouldn't it make sense that he is using some high minded form of calculations to call plays and personnel?
