lomiller1
Registered User
- Jan 13, 2015
- 6,409
- 2,967
It's no secret that I have talked to *members* of the Jets organizations. I've had solid conversations with some of these, and have heard good things about other members of the organization (supposedly Larry Simmons is really smart and actively looking to improve things in many areas).
I know that Maurice is interested in things from a team level perspective.
Now, the real question is about HOW one uses statistics and, most importantly, how do they attack situations where their own notions are counter to what statistics may indicate.
Another question is how do they deal with things that may be more explanative than predictive.
A couple thoughts:
I don’t think it can be stressed enough that the real purpose of statistics is to separate meaningful information from noise. Even smart people are prone to seeing patterns where there is just noise, or allowing noise to obscure real patterns and then go out hunting for confirmation of what they think they see.
The problem with team’s internal analytics branches is they don’t have independent third parties looking at and challenging their results. This would make them prone to mistakes creeping in and messing with their conclusions.
I don’t know how heavily I want my coach involved in analytics. Many of the things coaches need to deal with need to be addressed before they rise above the level of noise. I don’t want my coach waiting 30 games for something to become a statistically significant pattern before acting. I also don’t want them dabbling and finding patterns that are really just noise. On the other hand, if it is established as a patter I want them to understand why they math shows that and be willing to act.