Buffalo Bills Going the Moneyball Route With Analytics
Nerval's Lobster writes "Can data-analytics software win a Super Bowl? That's what the Buffalo Bills are betting on: the NFL team will create an analytics department to crunch player data, building on a model already well established in professional baseball and basketball. 'We are going to create and establish a very robust football analytics operation that we layer into our entire operation moving forward,' Buffalo Bills president Russ Brandon recently told The Buffalo News. 'That's something that's very important to me and the future of the franchise.' The increased use of analytics in other sports, he added, led him to make the decision: 'We've seen it in the NBA. We've seen it more in baseball. It's starting to spruce its head a little bit in football, and I feel we're missing the target if we don't invest in that area of our operation, and we will.'"
Gaming the analytical system.
-- Ethanol-fueled
I for one hope the new Browns owner decides to go down a similar path, for a decade the Browns have squandered draft choices and money on flop after flop. Since they're in the market for a new GM and head coach now would be the perfect time to inject such a new system into the front office.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Isn't it about 20 years too late to gain an edge on other pro franchises by following Moneyball? It's not like it is a secret weapon anymore.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Hint: Baseball can, for the most part, be broken down into a model of a face off between the pitcher and the batter.
Football is MUCH more of a team sport. It's far more difficult to tease out whether that running back is good because he's good, or whether he's good because his offensive line is leveling the defensive tackles and linebackers.
Check out places like Football Outsiders, which have tons of fantastic statistics for College and Pro teams, but individual player stats are... lacking.
and also non-sports geeks of all nationalities:
"Football" == "gridiron football", aka "handegg".
"Buffalo Bills" == National Football League franchise in the city of Buffalo, New York. Has nothing to do with American Bison (bison bison), other than the coincidental resemblance between the bovine and some of the members of the sports team.
"robust football analytics" == "another opportunity for the beancounters to interfere with the operation of the team."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Who the hell in Buffalo cares about the Bills? Bring back the NHL so we can see Sabres games again.
Ok, we've input the performance data of both teams, hit the big analyze button, and waited weeks for the answer to how the Bills can win the Super Bowl. It's formulated an answer and ... and ... AND ... Error 404, Universe not found? What does that mean?
(it was a toss-up between this and a 42 joke)
1) I thought NFL teams were already crunching data like this.
2) This seems like it would be far more effective to use in your scouting, particularly college scouting, as opposed to just members of your own team.
3) There are still intangibles no statistic can measure, so unlike the fans of sabermetrics in baseball, they will need to understand this data is only a tool, not a Bible.
Ok, I can see it for baseball. There is close to no interplay between players (even on the pitching team, coordination is restricted to whether you can catch what someone throws at you), and strategy is restricted to positioning players where a batter tends to hit and to how aggressively you go after a pitcher or batter. You're also playing 162 games a year - you can get some pretty good numbers in that time. Basketball is a bit harder, but with only four other teammates on the floor and a fairly static match-up (guards don't face centers much, you have zone or man-defense, and strategy revolves around how much you go for inside battles versus outside shots), the possible factors that influence whether a shot is made or not is still pretty small. You're also playing 82 games and taking a significant number of shots in a game. Again, you have a decent data set to work with.
But football? There are 10 teammates on the field, quite a few of which get switched out every other snap. You have 52 people on the roster, with many of them active during every game (especially on defense). Strategic decisions can take specific players completely out of the game for long stretches (simplest example: you're behind in the game, and start throwing - does that mean your running backs now suck?). And finally: there's only 16 games in a season. Some people may see action only 2-3 times a game or see action in trivial circumstances (see: kicker, long snapper). So not only do you have a huge amount of variables influencing a single player's success, you will also have a hard time creating a metric for success (touchdowns and sacks are rare outcomes of a long string of events), and on top of that, you're frequently dealing with a data set that maybe consists of 100 data points for an entire year, and maybe of 10 points for some lower-rung players. And it's exactly in the lower rungs of the players where moneyball was so wildly successful. Everybody knows an Adrian Peterson and Derek Jeter when they see one, but what about the journey players who switch teams once a year? Moneyball pretty much addressed that problem in baseball, but I don't see it working in football.
The Bills might prove me wrong, but I see this instead turning into the problem Girardi had with the Yankees: making player decisions based on stats that are calculated with 5 data points leads to decisions that will come back to bite you in the long run. You might as well save the money and just flip a coin.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Football is fundamentally different from baseball and basketball. It has a lot more strategy, deception, teamwork, and on-the-fly communication between players. Something that happens innocently on one side of the field often has tremendous consequences on the other side. All this is very hard to quantify in a statistical model. For example, if your star receiver is shut down for a game, that might be because he's drawing double or triple coverage. Sure, his stats are low, but your slot and split ends can now have a field day.
The San Francisco 49ers tried a sabermetrics in their crappy years this past decade. Pioneered by the head of player personnel Paraag Marathe, they fielded a bunch of .500 and sub .500 teams before they moved him more to the business end of things and went with more traditional executives at talent evaluation.
Baseball. Can you think of another sport where the defense is the team with the ball?
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
The reason this works particularly well in baseball, basketball and hockey is the schedule. You have 162 games a year in MLB, for example. In the NBA and NHL, it's 82 games. That's a relatively substantial sample - each game only accounts for roughly 0.6 or 1.2% of the season record.
The NFL, on the other hand, has a 16 game season. A team having a particularly good or bad game carries 10 times the weight it does in baseball (just going off the percentage of the season's games). Also, unlike baseball, football's playoffs are single-elimination.
The reason analytics aren't as directly relevant to football is exactly the reason that I enjoy it immensely.
---
Legend for our friends abroad:
MLB = Major League Baseball
NHL = National Hockey League
NBA = National Basketball Association
NFL = National Football** League
** - yes, we're talking about American football, rather than the game known internationally as the game in which you kick a ball with your foot.
Because it makes too much sense to, I dunno, hire a GM and coach who know what they're doing, and bring in players that can actually perform? Is their analytical system going to take the field in place of Ryan Fitzpatrick? Couldn't get much worse, could it?
Their success will likely depend on how much effort they put into collecting data. If all they look at is the same statistics you can find at CBS Sports, Football Outsiders, etc. then it will probably not help at all. But if they really get serious about data collection, who knows how much insight they could gain.
There are about 130 plays per game, and 256 games per year. That is 33,280 plays to analyze each year. That would increase to about 135k if you include Division 1-A college games. If you had two guys spend 15 minutes analyzing each play (2 guys to reduce errors) then it would take 20 full time employees to do this each year. More if you want to get more immediate results after each week. There are plenty of ex-athletes that couldn't make the pros and are intelligent enough for the work. Probably somewhere around $2 million per year in salary ($500k if you only look at professional games).
Just think of all the information you could gain. The first team to get this right could probably greatly improve their overall defenses and their offensive lines (positions that are very hard to rate with stats). I wonder how many teams know how many seconds thier offensive tackles can block an average defensive lineman, adjusted for their quarterback's mobility on each play, and any number of other mitigating factors.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Unfortunately it's poor ownership and overall lack of leadership that is forcing you to suffer season after season after season of terrible records.
This team is hopelessly lost. They have not made the playoffs since 1998 and haven't had a winning record since 2003.
Invest in proper coaches and support staff. Commit to building a franchise instead of quick picks that you think will instantly win you a super bowl. Teams don't win with one or two guys. It takes a good (not great) quarterback, a good running back (not great) and a couple of good receivers. Couple that with a consistent defense and you can win Championships.
Look at Pittsburgh or New England. Year after Year these teams are in the hunt and have won a truck load of trophies.
They could go the "Voodoo Witch doctor throwing darts at names in a phone book whilst simultaneously factoring in the price of tea in China" route and have equal success. That franchise is all but cursed.
I'm not sure that the analytics will work as well. football players have exceptionally short careers.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
As much as I like how the game of Football plays, I will forever see it as one of the brain injury sports.
The Boston University School of Medicine studied 35 brains of former pro Football players. They found evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in 34 of them. The disease can lead to sufferers experiencing memory loss, dementia and depression.
It's fun to watch and play, but I can't support a sport that knowingly puts hundreds of thousands of kids through that. I don't know how much of this they knew when they published it, but the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic about Headbrick was frighteningly accurate.
To make it safe, they would have to turn it into what we currently call “flag” or “touch” Football. It would be a different sport.
While I have no employment or ownership connection to that site, I'd like to point out that they compile an incredible amount of statistics about teams, players, and other affecting data (weather, altitude, wind, etc) for every game. They have a custom stat that they call VOA/DVOA which is essentially a value number that indicates the value of the player as opposed to a league average replacement player. They readily admit that their data has limited predictive ability, but, it does give you answers to some of the more complex questions that can be asked about a certain team's performance in certain circumstances.
The main issue with Football is limited sample sizes. FO uses each play as an analytic unit. FEI in the college football world uses each drive (from the moment a team has a first down after gaining possession until the end of the drive due to a score or loss of possession). An average football game will see about 100 plays or so. An average season, about 1600 plays. While some players will appear in almost half of those plays, some situational players will only appear in about 10% of them at most. You can attempt to add pre-season data, but, often times, overall game strategy in preseason games may not be to win as much as it is to test new players and new strategies. Inside of each individual game, strategies can change. In the first half of a game, you may be trying to score as often as possible, in the second half, you may be trying to just run down the clock. This can also change the basis for statistical analysis. This makes metrics analysis of football very imprecise and frustrating.
or else it gets the hose again.
Minimize the fucking ratio!
*dances around with penis tucked between legs*
The University of Texas can get just about any 5-star, Blue Chip football recruit they want. They then proceed to loose about 80% of their games againt Kansas State University, which features a roster of 2 to 3 star players and a bunch of walk-ons from tiny little Kansas towns. Why? It's akin to genius sometimes being not too far from madness; sheer athletic ability is frequently accompanied by arrogance and selfishness. It also can't help being told you're god-like in your abilities by adults since the age of 12. But in the face of real adversity? Having never had to try very hard before? They fail more often than not. I don't think analytics will help too much where it really counts: heart, desire, and humility.
I'd be surprised if scouts and/or agents weren't already doing a lot of this when marketing and evaluating players.
- arrests? #?
- children by different mothers?
- college GPA? School? Graduation? etc?
- catches during a scoring drive, finger touch drops, yards after contact, block success, etc
As far as the in game stuff goes, my guess is you could create a supervised but automated system to review game film, and more easily radio feeds to get a ton of useful data. Eventually you can throw all the 32 teams, 256 games, 1696 players per year and start some Machine Learning training. You'd have to continually iterate, but my guess is you'd be a lot better of going this route than traditional intuition.
I have no idea what you'd find ... but surely it would be interesting.