Analytics

[Brees#1]

This seems to be the thing about fantasy football that is so confusing. I'm beginning to realize that in order for me to understand football matchups I may have to pay for some kind of membership.

When the rams and saints played, the announcers were talking about the rams playing zone against one side of the field and man on the other. When stuff like this happens, it becomes confusing. Do players really succeed any better vs a man or zone defense? If a team plays two defenses then chances are the player has a chance to succeed because he's facing two styles.

Or how about what happened yesterday. the bengals allow Brees, Mayfield, Fitzpatrick, Cam, and Ryan to exploit them, but when they play LAC they show up defensively against Rivers. Is there something there about that matchup I don't know about. Do the chargers have a terrible oline or something? Is it the stadium?

This stuff right here becomes hard to conceptualize and figure out without paying for it.

I have more in this thread.

 

[femurov]

A wise man once said... "And that's why they play the games."

 

[TREFF]

No, what you need, and I've been telling you this for three years now, is to watch and understand WHY and HOW those stats get accumulated the way they do. You have a completely ass backwards understanding of why teams and players and coaches do what they do, so no amount of analytics is going to help, because you don't have any understanding if how to apply them.

 

[Stomp]

This falls under #5

 

[eaglesnut]

This seems to be the thing about fantasy football that is so confusing. I'm beginning to realize that in order for me to understand football matchups I may have to pay for some kind of membership.

When the rams and saints played, the announcers were talking about the rams playing zone against one side of the field and man on the other. When stuff like this happens, it becomes confusing. Do players really succeed any better vs a man or zone defense? If a team plays two defenses then chances are the player has a chance to succeed because he's facing two styles.

Or how about what happened yesterday. the bengals allow Brees, Mayfield, Fitzpatrick, Cam, and Ryan to exploit them, but when they play LAC they show up defensively against Rivers. Is there something there about that matchup I don't know about. Do the chargers have a terrible oline or something? Is it the stadium?

This stuff right here becomes hard to conceptualize and figure out without paying for it.

I have more in this thread.

Chargers were looking ahead to their matchup with the Chiefs.

The league is week to week. Lots of variables. Acknowledge them all.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Chargers were looking ahead to their matchup with the Chiefs.

The league is week to week. Lots of variables. Acknowledge them all.

or more accurately, accept that as much as you think you know, you still don't know EVERYTHING... you may make the correct pre-game choice, and then gamescript changes and player is not used like you expected... OR you may make the wrong pre-game choices and have them work out because SOMETHING CRAZY happened...


Look at Drake last week in the Patriots game he was a total BUST until that last freak play... and then he became a solid RB play...


With that said, I think people get confused by right and wrong decisions and base them on results.. Results are not what makes a decision the correct one... - or even better, after the fact, is not good reasoning for your decisions...

 

[TREFF]

Chargers were looking ahead to their matchup with the Chiefs.

The league is week to week. Lots of variables. Acknowledge them all.

And they were missing this guy named Gordon, not that he's a big part of the offense or anything

 

[eaglesnut]

or more accurately, accept that as much as you think you know, you still don't know EVERYTHING... you may make the correct pre-game choice, and then gamescript changes and player is not used like you expected... OR you may make the wrong pre-game choices and have them work out because SOMETHING CRAZY happened...


Look at Drake last week in the Patriots game he was a total BUST until that last freak play... and then he became a solid RB play...


With that said, I think people get confused by right and wrong decisions and base them on results.. Results are not what makes a decision the correct one... - or even better, after the fact, is not good reasoning for your decisions...

I see what you're saying, but the results answer the decision's main question.

"Is this decision about the future correct?"

You can reason after the fact that your decision was still sound based on the known variables, or that you would make the same decision again. But part of making an accurate decision about the future is getting the unknown variables right as well.

The results shed light on those unknown variables and a little more becomes known for use in future decisions.

 

[eaglesnut]

And they were missing this guy named Gordon, not that he's a big part of the offense or anything

True, although it shouldn't have mattered against the worst run D in the league, but the Oline had half their minds in next week.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I see what you're saying, but the results answer the decision's main question.

"Is this decision about the future correct?"

You can reason after the fact that your decision was still sound based on the known variables, or that you would make the same decision again. But part of making an accurate decision about the future is getting the unknown variables right as well.

The results shed light on those unknown variables and a little more becomes known for use in future decisions.

but the results lie... especially in football since TDs are very difficult to predict... A player gets a random TD, and they are already a solid play... and can out score a player who had significantly more snaps...

If I told you that you can either have 100 dollars or 75 Euros, and right now 1 dollar= 1 euro, and you can not foresee the future 100%... would you ever choose the euro??

if you did, and next month somehow the 75 euros are worth more than the 100 dollars, would that make you correct??


Point is, you can only make the best decision at that time you choose it... the results do not mean that your decision was wrong... it just means SOMETHING unpredictable happened...

 

[eaglesnut]

but the results lie... especially in football since TDs are very difficult to predict... A player gets a random TD, and they are already a solid play... and can out score a player who had significantly more snaps...

If I told you that you can either have 100 dollars or 75 Euros, and right now 1 dollar= 1 euro, and you can not foresee the future 100%... would you ever choose the euro??

if you did, and next month somehow the 75 euros are worth more than the 100 dollars, would that make you correct??


Point is, you can only make the best decision at that time you choose it... the results do not mean that your decision was wrong... it just means SOMETHING unpredictable happened...

Results can't lie. They are the results. They may not be easily conceived of in comparable future situations, or expected, but they are real as they happen, making the points real too.

There are certainly possible surrounding circumstances where I would absolutely choose the Euro in your scenario. And yes, I would be right if events unfolded that way.

Random TDs ultimately matter. Snaps ultimately do not. Again, I don't want the opportunity for points. I want the actual points. Sure there is a strong correlation between the two and that could help you predict the future, but if it doesn't get it right then the results proved that decision wrong.

None of it is completely unpredictable. Drew Brees could throw a TD to an active player. Does Sean Payton/Drew Brees have any pattern of that? Let me put it this way. You already know that random TDs will happen. You said so. That already makes them less random.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Results can't lie. They are the results. They may not be easily conceived of in comparable future situations, or expected, but they are real as they happen, making the points real too.

There are certainly possible surrounding circumstances where I would absolutely choose the Euro in your scenario. And yes, I would be right if events unfolded that way.

Random TDs ultimately matter. Snaps ultimately do not. Again, I don't want the opportunity for points. I want the actual points. Sure there is a strong correlation between the two and that could help you predict the future, but if it doesn't get it right then the results proved that decision wrong.

None of it is completely unpredictable. Drew Brees could throw a TD to an active player. Does Sean Payton/Drew Brees have any pattern of that? Let me put it this way. You already know that random TDs will happen. You said so. That already makes them less random.

let me try again... If week one, I traded Aaron Rodgers for Patrick Mahomes... Does me being correct CHANGE that it was a terrible trade at the time??

 

[eaglesnut]

let me try again... If week one, I traded Aaron Rodgers for Patrick Mahomes... Does me being correct CHANGE that it was a terrible trade at the time??

It would have never been a terrible trade at any point. The results show that. You not being able to predict it just means the predictive model was wrong for that.

See, results cut through all the inadequate and fairly elaborate models of mostly noise. Results are the signal. And the only real goal of any analysis is to get that signal sooner, before the result actually shows it to us.

 

[femurov]

Let me put it this way...

My son plays 9U basketball. At this age they are learning the fundamentals of the game. Last night, they had a scrimmage. A kid got a rebound about a foot outside the paint down on the baseline. He hesitated with the ball and ended up getting double teamed. He was facing away from the basket and panicking. He had a man wide open about 10 feet from him who would have had an easy (even for this age) shot. He ended up throwing the ball backwards over his head as he fell away from the basket and somehow, it went in.

The correct thing to do would be to pass the ball to the open man for the open shot. Even if the other kid would have missed the open shot, that was the right thing to do as opposed to throwing up a no look prayer. The percentages tell you that if you do both things 100 times, you will score a hell of a lot more by passing to the open man. But, it doesn't always work out like that.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It would have never been a terrible trade at any point. The results show that. You not being able to predict it just means the predictive model was wrong for that.

See, results cut through all the inadequate and fairly elaborate models of mostly noise. Results are the signal. And the only real goal of any analysis is to get that signal sooner, before the result actually shows it to us.

I think your missing the point... More likely, you are just being argumentative...

But the point is that you are always making decisions with the information given... Sure, you could be reading the information wrong... But there may be some clear RIGHT or WRONG decisions... at the time... The ACTUAL results, doesn't change whether you made the right or wrong decision...

With your logic, every thing is predestined to happen, you just need to find the correct algorithm to figure it out... But that's not the way it works... there are factors that are impossible to factor in...

 

[TREFF]

Let me put it this way...

My son plays 9U basketball. At this age they are learning the fundamentals of the game. Last night, they had a scrimmage. A kid got a rebound about a foot outside the paint down on the baseline. He hesitated with the ball and ended up getting double teamed. He was facing away from the basket and panicking. He had a man wide open about 10 feet from him who would have had an easy (even for this age) shot. He ended up throwing the ball backwards over his head as he fell away from the basket and somehow, it went in.

The correct thing to do would be to pass the ball to the open man for the open shot. Even if the other kid would have missed the open shot, that was the right thing to do as opposed to throwing up a no look prayer. The percentages tell you that if you do both things 100 times, you will score a hell of a lot more by passing to the open man. But, it doesn't always work out like that.

Did this explanation make sense to the 9 year old?? I'll bet it did, but I'm not so sure its simple enough for this particular poster. Got anything for a 4-5 year old?

 

[molsaniceman]

I think your missing the point... More likely, you are just being argumentative...

But the point is that you are always making decisions with the information given... Sure, you could be reading the information wrong... But there may be some clear RIGHT or WRONG decisions... at the time... The ACTUAL results, doesn't change whether you made the right or wrong decision...

With your logic, every thing is predestined to happen, you just need to find the correct algorithm to figure it out... But that's not the way it works... there are factors that are impossible to factor in...

Its semantics U made the logical decision but it definitely wasnt the right one

 

[eaglesnut]

Let me put it this way...

My son plays 9U basketball. At this age they are learning the fundamentals of the game. Last night, they had a scrimmage. A kid got a rebound about a foot outside the paint down on the baseline. He hesitated with the ball and ended up getting double teamed. He was facing away from the basket and panicking. He had a man wide open about 10 feet from him who would have had an easy (even for this age) shot. He ended up throwing the ball backwards over his head as he fell away from the basket and somehow, it went in.

The correct thing to do would be to pass the ball to the open man for the open shot. Even if the other kid would have missed the open shot, that was the right thing to do as opposed to throwing up a no look prayer. The percentages tell you that if you do both things 100 times, you will score a hell of a lot more by passing to the open man. But, it doesn't always work out like that.

That's the inherent bias of analytics. It favors predictable simulations over unpredictable reality. Reality only happens once and it only produces one result. It can tell you what gives you the best odds in infinite simulations but it can't tell you the right decision. Only the result shows us that.

 

[eaglesnut]

I think your missing the point... More likely, you are just being argumentative...

But the point is that you are always making decisions with the information given... Sure, you could be reading the information wrong... But there may be some clear RIGHT or WRONG decisions... at the time... The ACTUAL results, doesn't change whether you made the right or wrong decision...

With your logic, every thing is predestined to happen, you just need to find the correct algorithm to figure it out... But that's not the way it works... there are factors that are impossible to factor in...

But that is the way it works. The difficulty of developing the algorithm is irrelevant here. Those "impossible" factors are still factors. They must still be weighted. To ignore them would be to exclude possible outcomes from your algorithm and, therefore, decreasing its reliability.

There is only one result. Whether it was "predestined" or not is a distinction without a difference. An inconsequential distinction.

A "wrong" decision that turns out right was not a wrong decision. What makes it wrong? You are arguing that an event's probability is more significant than its result.

 

[eaglesnut]

Did this explanation make sense to the 9 year old?? I'll bet it did, but I'm not so sure its simple enough for this particular poster. Got anything for a 4-5 year old?

Fem didn't know that kid eats Twinkies with one hand and shoots that shot with the other for 2 hours after school everyday blindfolded. Poor kid was waiting for his big game moment. And after all his months of work some dad comes out of the stands and says "next time pass it."
"Fucker, that's my spot"