Ruminations on the Vikings Game

[NYCoug]

It is not good coaching to do what the analytics say on every occasion. Good coaching is taking into account what the analytics say, the tenor of the game, how you feel about your situational football (the short yardage concepts you practice and have ready for that gameplan) versus that opponent and make the decisions to give you the best chance to win.

Spot on 100% in my meaningless opinion. Well said man.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

All Pete has done since he got here is win, and more than pretty much any team in the league other than the Pats. He knows what he's doing. The guy wins all the time, and he continues to get ripped after wins, for years now. We might not always agree with HOW he gets it done, but what we think doesn't matter one bit, he is going to do it his way. And he IS capable of adjusting, he's just stubborn like most coaches are. It just seems like every time they win a close game, the "it almost cost them" posts come in. But it DIDN'T cost them. And it didn't cost them 10 times already this season.
Results are what matter in sports, and he is one hell of a coach. Does he drive me crazy sometimes? Absolutely. And that's fine, that's part of sports. It doesn't have to be done the way that WE want it to be done.

 

[Hawkpower]

Because the two greatest coaches in the game haven't done it historically isn't a good argument. They can be(and often are)wrong to do so. We just have much more information available now that we know it probably makes more sense, in most instances(not all) to go for it inside the 30's than to punt. We punted from the 37 at one point on 4th and 1 that netted us 17 yards. That doesn't make any sense at all. None. I could go more into this but people are camped on both sides and no one is going to change their opinion on this so it's probably best to agree to disagree.....

The problem isn't so much that people are "camped" on both sides, its (as always) the extremes that people on both sides tend to go to.

The answer lies in the middle. Analytics are great, taken in context. They should not be rigid or used without context.

People need to be open to the fact that the game is changing, and be willing to accept new norms.

I think if analytics people came off less arrogant in their condescending lectures, and old school fans learn to adapt better to change, this conversation goes away 8)

 

[FrickinChickens]

See, tweets like this are why Baldwin is such a needlessly polarizing figure. He's not wrong about the numbers, but the team is 10-2 against immensely difficult competition and here's this couch jockey trotting out "cowards". There is a point at which criticism turns into douchiness, and he crossed it along time ago and then lapped it. There are probably countless pundits out there who could and did put the exact same point far more professionally.

VERY well said

I definitely see your point on this guys, but contextually, the tweet is being made in the heat of the moment, mix the emotions with the math, and this is what results. It was a cowardly punt ultimately, with a high surrender index.

There is no heat of the moment. He is nowhere near the moment. The dangers of mixing math and emotion? He is sitting on his ass trying to sound like he knows more about football than Pete. Questioning his heart.

Why give this guy an excuse for being an a##hole because he was in the heat of the moment but our coaches and players get railed for being imperfect when they really are in the heat of the battle.

THIS!
How anyone can question the coach who has brought the most success to this team ever is beyond my understanding. Let alone questioning a 4th down in the first quarter on our side of the field. Why would you risk giving them momentum that early in the game? Because the computer statistically says you should? Really? I understand statistical analysis but all the calculations in the world cannot duplicate hands on experience and knowledge. The fact that we got the 'W' is all I need to know about the coaches decision making. We are 10-2 because of the coaching decisions not in spite of them. Show me your coaching credentials and then Ill listen to your statistics otherwise ill continue to take the heartburn routinely associated to a Seahawks win, just sayin ….
GO HAWKS!!!

 

[DomeHawk]

VERY well said

I definitely see your point on this guys, but contextually, the tweet is being made in the heat of the moment, mix the emotions with the math, and this is what results. It was a cowardly punt ultimately, with a high surrender index.

There is no heat of the moment. He is nowhere near the moment. The dangers of mixing math and emotion? He is sitting on his ass trying to sound like he knows more about football than Pete. Questioning his heart.

Why give this guy an excuse for being an a##hole because he was in the heat of the moment but our coaches and players get railed for being imperfect when they really are in the heat of the battle.

THIS!
How anyone can question the coach who has brought the most success to this team ever is beyond my understanding. Let alone questioning a 4th down in the first quarter on our side of the field. Why would you risk giving them momentum that early in the game? Because the computer statistically says you should? Really? I understand statistical analysis but all the calculations in the world cannot duplicate hands on experience and knowledge. The fact that we got the 'W' is all I need to know about the coaches decision making. We are 10-2 because of the coaching decisions not in spite of them. Show me your coaching credentials and then Ill listen to your statistics otherwise ill continue to take the heartburn routinely associated to a Seahawks win, just sayin ….
GO HAWKS!!!

Anybody can question anything, isn't that the whole point of a FORUM!

Pete Carroll is human, he makes mistakes just like anybody else does. This whole "my-coach-right-or-wrong" argument is just dumb.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Absolutely. He's one of the best in the NFL, but he certainly makes his share of mistakes. Most coaches do. He has a lot of strengths and a few things that he could improve on. I'm glad he's the coach of this team regardless.

 

[Mad Dog]

Because the two greatest coaches in the game haven't done it historically isn't a good argument. They can be(and often are)wrong to do so. We just have much more information available now that we know it probably makes more sense, in most instances(not all) to go for it inside the 30's than to punt. We punted from the 37 at one point on 4th and 1 that netted us 17 yards. That doesn't make any sense at all. None. I could go more into this but people are camped on both sides and no one is going to change their opinion on this so it's probably best to agree to disagree.....

And the analytics people can also be wrong. Because the lack of data points in football necessarily means the analytics are flawed.

In medicine, if i want to prove a treatment is 5% better than an old treatment, I need to run a study that randomizes about 1000 patients to statistically prove it. And even that runs a 5% error rate of being wrong and that the differences seen were due to chance. With Football and all its chaos and variables and low number of data points, the statistics are just trash and highly variable.

The analytics guys never give you their confidence limits. You can say that a certain action on 4th down offers you 3.2 more points per game than a different action but what they don't tell you is that its 3.2 points +/- 4.7 points. Which means any action could gain you as many as 9 points or cost you as many as 2 points and such wide variability means you absolutely should use more info than just a number to make a decision.

 

[Tical21]

Because the two greatest coaches in the game haven't done it historically isn't a good argument. They can be(and often are)wrong to do so. We just have much more information available now that we know it probably makes more sense, in most instances(not all) to go for it inside the 30's than to punt. We punted from the 37 at one point on 4th and 1 that netted us 17 yards. That doesn't make any sense at all. None. I could go more into this but people are camped on both sides and no one is going to change their opinion on this so it's probably best to agree to disagree.....

Except it appears that the teams that go for it lose at a far greater rate than those that don't. Are we trying to win games or appease analysts?

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Absolutely. He's one of the best in the NFL, but he certainly makes his share of mistakes. Most coaches do. He has a lot of strengths and a few things that he could improve on. I'm glad he's the coach of this team regardless.

Yep. And Belichick has drafted but ONE pro bowl skill position player in 17 years. No coach is perfect. None ever will be.

 

[RolandDeschain]

You go for it on 4th down if you know you have plays that will work, and you are the inferior team. Teams that have gone for it the most on 4th down: Giants, Dolphins, Ravens, Bengals, Eagles, Falcons, Panthers, Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Browns, Jets, Cardinals, Bills, Raiders, Bears, Broncos, Vikings, Buccaneers.

Teams that have gone for the least: Seahawks, Packers, Saints, Patriots, Chiefs, Lions, Cowboys, 49ers

This does not account for the huge discrepancy between better teams needing to do it far less. The raw math is fairly clear; Seattle should go for it on 4th down more often than they do. That doesn't mean they should do it as much as the crappy desperate teams that do it all the time.

This is like time of possession...correlation does not equal causation.

 

[QuahHawk]

If the Ram pound the rock with Gurley like their playoff hopes depend on it they have a shot. Unfortunately I fell like they realize this and we barely beat them at home earlier this year. They are heating up at the right time and I can't but believe we need a bit of a reminded we are not invincible before we go on our Championship run. I hope Russ can pull it off and he needs a big game to stay relevant int eh MVP race.

Rams 27-26

7-6 YTD

 

[Tamerlane]

Because the two greatest coaches in the game haven't done it historically isn't a good argument. They can be(and often are)wrong to do so. We just have much more information available now that we know it probably makes more sense, in most instances(not all) to go for it inside the 30's than to punt. We punted from the 37 at one point on 4th and 1 that netted us 17 yards. That doesn't make any sense at all. None. I could go more into this but people are camped on both sides and no one is going to change their opinion on this so it's probably best to agree to disagree.....

And the analytics people can also be wrong. Because the lack of data points in football necessarily means the analytics are flawed.

In medicine, if i want to prove a treatment is 5% better than an old treatment, I need to run a study that randomizes about 1000 patients to statistically prove it. And even that runs a 5% error rate of being wrong and that the differences seen were due to chance. With Football and all its chaos and variables and low number of data points, the statistics are just trash and highly variable.

The analytics guys never give you their confidence limits. You can say that a certain action on 4th down offers you 3.2 more points per game than a different action but what they don't tell you is that its 3.2 points +/- 4.7 points. Which means any action could gain you as many as 9 points or cost you as many as 2 points and such wide variability means you absolutely should use more info than just a number to make a decision.

I can't disagree with the one point by austinslater25, that an appeal to authority, even the authority of almighty Bill Belichick, is just that, an appeal to authority. I raised it half in fun and half because you will rarely find an analytics follower (certainly not a Seahawks analytics follower) who will critique Belichick on football decisions the way they hack on Pete Carroll. But that's not the meat of the argument. It's only a warning/indicator that the very best coaches and organizations in an ultra competitive $20 billion industry, with access to sophisticated professional analytics and to vastly more comprehensive data, are not obeying the "laws" of popular football analytics. Just maybe they are doing it for very good reasons rather than because they are "old fashioned".

Mad Dog lays out a really serious and persuasive case for why. Others with quantitative backgrounds have also written deeply challenging things, scattered here and there on forums and blog sites, about the limits of football analytics generally, the expected points framework, diminishing returns of this or that "efficiency", and so on. But one of the most disturbing things about popular football analytics is that its followers have shown basically zero interest in any of this methodlogical debate and more or less ignore all challengers. Post up a critique and you will just get silence from the likes of Baldwin. In the meantime we are left wondering what is the validity of any of these claims to football knowledge? More like modern medical science or more like nineteenth century leeching?

I'm all for what a few others have said here -- up the middle so to speak -- in terms of taking up whatever statistical research there is on specific, isolated football situation if it is at least somewhat amenable to quantitative study. But even there, this provides nothing more than a loose guide. Don't surrender the decision to a machine or worse yet an economist! Coaches simply have more relevant and complete information of the given situation on a given day. Coaches also have biases, yes, but hopefully data and collective input can help to counter the worst elements of these. Still, until I hear a valid football explanation, beyond "luck" and "Russ is just so good", for how Carroll could defy all odds with his 55-0 record nursing a lead then I personally will give him quite a bit of slack for erring on the side of caution, at least when the game is firmly in hand.

When it comes to the more grandiose, sweeping claims coming from some of these guys telling coaches to work from some cookie cutter template based on "optimal" run-pass ratios and so on -- at that point, sorry,, they have exceeded any and all authority. Many of these guys don't even understand the basics of football, and in the Seahawks Twitter world, when film study guys like Matty Brown take the time to correct faulty notions using concrete in game evidence, typically again the response is a deafening silence. Any historian of football should know there is no single way to win, no template of the time. Everything has a counter and football trends come in cycles.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Because the two greatest coaches in the game haven't done it historically isn't a good argument. They can be(and often are)wrong to do so. We just have much more information available now that we know it probably makes more sense, in most instances(not all) to go for it inside the 30's than to punt. We punted from the 37 at one point on 4th and 1 that netted us 17 yards. That doesn't make any sense at all. None. I could go more into this but people are camped on both sides and no one is going to change their opinion on this so it's probably best to agree to disagree.....

And the analytics people can also be wrong. Because the lack of data points in football necessarily means the analytics are flawed.

In medicine, if i want to prove a treatment is 5% better than an old treatment, I need to run a study that randomizes about 1000 patients to statistically prove it. And even that runs a 5% error rate of being wrong and that the differences seen were due to chance. With Football and all its chaos and variables and low number of data points, the statistics are just trash and highly variable.

The analytics guys never give you their confidence limits. You can say that a certain action on 4th down offers you 3.2 more points per game than a different action but what they don't tell you is that its 3.2 points +/- 4.7 points. Which means any action could gain you as many as 9 points or cost you as many as 2 points and such wide variability means you absolutely should use more info than just a number to make a decision.

I can't disagree with the one point by austinslater25, that an appeal to authority, even the authority of almighty Bill Belichick, is just that, an appeal to authority. I raised it half in fun and half because you will rarely find an analytics follower (certainly not a Seahawks analytics follower) who will critique Belichick on football decisions the way they hack on Pete Carroll. But that's not the meat of the argument. It's only a warning/indicator that the very best coaches and organizations in an ultra competitive $20 billion industry, with access to sophisticated professional analytics and to vastly more comprehensive data, are not obeying the "laws" of popular football analytics. Just maybe they are doing it for very good reasons rather than because they are "old fashioned".

Mad Dog lays out a really serious and persuasive case for why. Others with quantitative backgrounds have also written deeply challenging things, scattered here and there on forums and blog sites, about the limits of football analytics generally, the expected points framework, diminishing returns of this or that "efficiency", and so on. But one of the most disturbing things about popular football analytics is that its followers have shown basically zero interest in any of this methodlogical debate and more or less ignore all challengers. Post up a critique and you will just get silence from the likes of Baldwin. In the meantime we are left wondering what is the validity of any of these claims to football knowledge? More like modern medical science or more like nineteenth century leeching?

I'm all for what a few others have said here -- up the middle so to speak -- in terms of taking up whatever statistical research there is on specific, isolated football situation if it is at least somewhat amenable to quantitative study. But even there, this provides nothing more than a loose guide. Don't surrender the decision to a machine or worse yet an economist! Coaches simply have more relevant and complete information of the given situation on a given day. Coaches also have biases, yes, but hopefully data and collective input can help to counter the worst elements of these. Still, until I hear a valid football explanation, beyond "luck" and "Russ is just so good", for how Carroll could defy all odds with his 55-0 record nursing a lead then I personally will give him quite a bit of slack for erring on the side of caution, at least when the game is firmly in hand.

When it comes to the more grandiose, sweeping claims coming from some of these guys telling coaches to work from some cookie cutter template based on "optimal" run-pass ratios and so on -- at that point, sorry,, they have exceeded any and all authority. Many of these guys don't even understand the basics of football, and in the Seahawks Twitter world, when film study guys like Matty Brown take the time to correct faulty notions using concrete in game evidence, typically again the response is a deafening silence. Any historian of football should know there is no single way to win, no template of the time. Everything has a counter and football trends come in cycles.

Post of the month

Side note: Matty is really good at what he does

 

[Tical21]

You go for it on 4th down if you know you have plays that will work, and you are the inferior team. Teams that have gone for it the most on 4th down: Giants, Dolphins, Ravens, Bengals, Eagles, Falcons, Panthers, Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Browns, Jets, Cardinals, Bills, Raiders, Bears, Broncos, Vikings, Buccaneers.

Teams that have gone for the least: Seahawks, Packers, Saints, Patriots, Chiefs, Lions, Cowboys, 49ers

This does not account for the huge discrepancy between better teams needing to do it far less. The raw math is fairly clear; Seattle should go for it on 4th down more often than they do. That doesn't mean they should do it as much as the crappy desperate teams that do it all the time.

This is like time of possession...correlation does not equal causation.

What's the raw math? You could also argue that if bad teams went for it less, maybe they wouldn't have to go for it so much?

 

[Ozzy]

Surprisingly good stuff in here. Well done guys and I agree Matty does some awesome work.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The raw math is fairly clear; Seattle should go for it on 4th down more often than they do.

Why? We're 10-2. At some point, the urgency just isn't there.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Your blind allegiance to anything Pete does is admirable. By the way I think he is an all time great coach. He is way too conservative at times and it could potentially cost him. His two punts at the end of the San Fran game should have cost him but thankfully it didnt. Surrender index isn't the only metric pointing out that punting at midfield on 4th and short....I'll say it again you're overvaluing 30 yards instead of possibly scoring yourself, burning more clock etc. The reward outweighs the risk.

I do have the numbers showing most teams go for it there. I can post them and do the research for you but you were being snarky so not sure it's even worth it.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont: No one is going to kill Pete if he turns the ball over at the 50. Hell he's even punted at the opponents 35. Again no one is going to criticize him for that. It's another dumb argument.

As for prefacing posts about liking Pete....it should be obvious. Spend any time on here, on twitter or anywhere on social media and it's always met with the same response. "you know more than Pete!" "Were 10-2 and you're just hating on Pete!" I could go on and on and it's already shown up in this thread.

Conventional wisdom has changed on this and you're late to the party, as is Pete. Which in a lot of ways is understandable. He's coached for 40 years doing it that way. We now KNOW it's probably a better idea to go for it in most instances. As we gather more information, technology, studying outcomes etc it's blatantly obvious. If this defense turns into the old LOB all time great type of defense then maybe, maybe it makes more sense to be a little more conservative at times. I would also argue we went away from cover 3 way too early in this game and their offense woke up and got them back in the game (along with our mistakes) but I can't say that because who dares question Pete!

Weren't you and tical arguing that Russell wasn't elite as well here recently? How'd that go?

Let me know when punting on 4th down from our own side of the field with 57 minutes remaining in the game costs us a game. Thanks :2thumbs:

Also, in regards to the "surrender index",


https://github.com/andrew-shackelford/Surrender-Index

You guys are literally using a completely arbitrary metric to try to legitimize your opinion that Pete is wrong, continues to be wrong, and is apparently a coward. Which is far more ridiculous than punting on 4th down from our own side of the field 3 minutes into the 1st quarter.

Well when almost every other coach in the league goes for it there because the numbers say you should then its a bad decision.

Do you have anything to support your assertion that almost every other coach in the league goes for it on 4th down on their own side of the field 3 minutes into the first quarter? You don't have to answer that. We both know you don't. I doubt half the coaches in the league go for it there, but I also doubt there's any way to prove it one way or the other.

I love Pete as much as anyone but this weird allegiance to every single decision he makes like he's infallible is strange.

It's also strange that some here immediately resort to comments like this when someone disagrees with a criticism of Pete. I seriously doubt there are more than a tiny handful of people that think Pete is infallible, and I'm sure as hell not one of them.

There are many other metrics that should its smarter to just go for it instead of gaining the potential 30 yards in field position. Points matter and you have a better chance of scoring more if you go for it. The risk outweighs the reward. Harbaugh in Baltimore talked about this in a recent interview and moving forward it will continue to be a situation where more and more teams do go for it.

That's great, and I get that things are changing in regards to the conventional wisdom on whether or not to go for it on 4th down. However, coaches are constantly faced with "damned if you do, damned if you don't" decisions. Pete chooses to punt it there, he gets criticized. Pete chooses to go for it there, he gets criticized. Even if the team converts the 4th down some would criticize taking the unnecessary risk of possibly giving the Vikings great field position for seemingly no reason on their very first drive of the game.

You said let you know when it costs us a game but that's not really true. if Pete does do this and it does costs us a game you won't admit and neither will every other Pete apologist on this subject.

No. It really is true. You let me know when punting on 4th down on our own side of the field with 57 minutes remaining in the game costs us a game and I'll eat the biggest plate of crow you've ever seen. And again, I'm not a Pete apologist. I simply disagree with you, Fade, and Baldwin on this particular criticism of this particular 4th down decision.

We get it Pete is perfect and if you don't agree you're not a true fan. This take is tiring.

I'd argue that the melodramatic fallacy you just resorted too is far more tiring.

Any thoughts on the "surrender index" and your citing of it to support your argument? Thought I'd ask since you ignored that part of my post and instead tried to create the fallacy that I'm some sort of blind Pete loyalist that believes everything he does is perfect and that he never makes any mistakes.

What's happening right now in this Pac12 Championship game is why coaches still hesitate to go for it. Utah on the opening drive, get stuffed on 4th and 1 firing up the Oregon. The ducks go down and score right away 7-0. Utah is down 10-0 at the end of the 1st quarter and playing like shit since. If Pete goes for it, gets stuffed, and it leads to a disastrous melt down, he would be getting pasted for the rest of the season on here and everywhere else.