Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[BernardB]

I appreciate that straw burns brightest when it's placed at the extremities, but there is a middle ground. Nobody suggested Belichick was a statistical luddite. Here's the relevant passage from the story:

Moss came under fire when he finished Sunday's game with just one catch and appeared to be a bit unfocused, prompting criticism that he was running lazy routes and giving up on plays.
Was it a bad effort or just a bad game? Belichick chooses to believe the latter.
"Everybody can't have high stats every week," he told the Web site. "It's impossible. We can always pick out somebody and say, 'What happened to them?'"
The coach made it clear that nobody will ever catch him evaluating his players based on their single-game stats.
"Stats are for losers," Belichick said. "The final score is for winners."
And Belichick has one more thing to say to the Panthers:
"That's a lot of conversation coming from a team that just lost another game."

It's pretty obvious what his position is. You might as well ask him about how they only rushed for 16 yards against the Jets.

All fair points. Everyone knows Belichick uses stats to breakdown opponents tendencies and to gain any kind of insight on things like when to go on 4th down. I took the quote to be used by Matt in the context of a fairly crude bashing of stats. So I put in my 2 cents.

[JWL]

As you can see in several other recent posts, I am not the only person interpreting your posts as that you are dismissing others' opinions

I'll walk people through it.

- Throwaway comment made by me about passer rating (and the 'advanced' statistics spawned from it): "was made by people who never took a snap from center" ... nothing about me, just a line about stats. (note: comment was not in response/quoted to or was in anyway made towards Turney, making the following even more odd) ...

- Turney predictably takes it out of context and talks about Favre taking snaps for some reason (Favre didn't create the statistic so it made no sense), and then tries to impress with very transparent "this is what I've done in football" (e.g. talked to a player during SB week) type stuff and he mentioned taking snaps a second time - again, for some unknown reason and completely out of context (as anyone with reading comprehension skills can see) ...

- Sarcastically, semi-clearly I suppose, I asked if he's taken snaps (since he took my throwaway line and focused on it) and listed my football 'resume' with the line "if we're posting football resumes for some reason" (such as Turney was trying to impress with) ...

- Turney's white knight - following the thread you can see he's quick to speak for John and defend him against the evils of multiple others - further takes the origins of the comment out of context and talks about Belichick taking snaps for some unknown reason. Perhaps he took the "Cheerleader" comment made by another member, a bit too literal?

Other peoples inability to follow along with a thread and/or keep things in context is not my problem nor am I overly concerned about it.

No, because i had a cup of coffee at the JUCO level it does not mean I've played in the NFL nor have I ever said that it does (can't see where that can be quoted?) I have practiced with a QB who was in - IR - the NFL and going through NFL style workouts and I've been coached by QB's who spent time in NFL training camps/practices, I've been at camps run by NFL coaches and so on. Football is largely football, so I've found, but that is my personal experiences and it can easily be kept to myself, instead of wanting to share it to teach others and/or show others what it was like.

I do like to hear about others experiences playing/coaching football - as I've posted anytime anyone else talks about their high school, college, sandlot, etc. playing days - but I personally like football, all levels, and like reading firsthand accounts about it. For one example, anytime there is a discussion about kicking I hope that our member who was an all-conference DIII kicker responds, because I find his firsthand knowledge of kicking to be fascinating, and educational. That, to me, is infinitely more interesting than say if someone who doesn't have a clue about kicking wrote an article about kicking, posted it here, and asked us for our theories for difference on why the stats tell him that kickers missed more extra points in 2015 than they did in 2014 . . .

I get it and also made it known I respect your knowledge of the sport. I just don't want to see people big league-ing others here and the way you wrote some sentences here or there have been perceived in that way.

[JohnTurney]

Nobody suggested Belichick was a statistical luddite. .

I think that is fair. No one knows the 100% truth, but this is what one of his former defensive players told me, one who won 3 rings with him said. Now, I mentioned the "stats are for losers and he wasn't aware of him saying it, but he did, say it.. Anyway, his response.

"I've never thought of a comment like that would be associated w/ Bill. Our playbook would have certain statistical goals he wanted. In fact, most of our team goals & game plans were based on data & statistics gathered on other successful teams & our opponents. We were expected to keep teams below 17 points, a certain number of yards, interceptions, sacks, fumbles caused, and so on. We were graded each play on a plus or minus basis. Then they figure out the percentage of pluses to minuses & get an overall grade. That's been the case for every team I've played on. I'm sure it's universal."

So, I fully believe that Bill B is less excited about stats than maybe others, but Ernie Adams and his staffs do use certain things, what they are the Pats will never tell. But they do use some stats. So, I 100% agree Bill B is not a luddite, but he's no metrics guys, either, he's a film study guy who it seems picks things he's found that work for his success.

[BernardB]

Went back and read the Blanda and sacks thread and, from my perspective, Matt has taken up residence at an extremist position on stats.

[rhickok1109]

"Statistics always remind me of the fellow who drowned in the river where the average depth was only three feet." -- Woody Hayes

[oldecapecod11]

If anyone remembers that length of line across a swimming pool with those little plastic buoys attached...

Well, at the "3-Feet" end, Woody's pool would have said "Statisticians" and at the other end "Swimmers."

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Nobody suggested Belichick was a statistical luddite. .

I think that is fair. No one knows the 100% truth, but this is what one of his former defensive players told me, one who won 3 rings with him said. Now, I mentioned the "stats are for losers and he wasn't aware of him saying it, but he did, say it.. Anyway, his response.

"I've never thought of a comment like that would be associated w/ Bill. Our playbook would have certain statistical goals he wanted. In fact, most of our team goals & game plans were based on data & statistics gathered on other successful teams & our opponents. We were expected to keep teams below 17 points, a certain number of yards, interceptions, sacks, fumbles caused, and so on. We were graded each play on a plus or minus basis. Then they figure out the percentage of pluses to minuses & get an overall grade. That's been the case for every team I've played on. I'm sure it's universal."

So, I fully believe that Bill B is less excited about stats than maybe others, but Ernie Adams and his staffs do use certain things, what they are the Pats will never tell. But they do use some stats. So, I 100% agree Bill B is not a luddite, but he's no metrics guys, either, he's a film study guy who it seems picks things he's found that work for his success.

This makes a lot of sense. If you have your own grades on your players, then you're not going to be that interested in DVOA or AV. But if it's fourth down, he wants to be in a better position than Barry Switzer and his penetrating analysis of "If we kick it into the wind, they're going to come back and kick a field goal,"

To some extent, the advanced stats are a way for guys on the outside to try and get a peek behind the curtain. Belichick IS the guy behind the curtain.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Not to be left out,

Three statisticians go hunting, and they spot a deer. The first one shoots ten feet to the left. The second one shoots ten feet to the right. The third one yells "We got him!"

[Reaser]

Went back and read the Blanda and sacks thread and, from my perspective, Matt has taken up residence at an extremist position on stats.

Yet, in the sacks thread, I didn't see anyone take a valid position against what I was saying (some eventually and reluctantly agreed) and more importantly I didn't see any great or even merely good counter arguments to what I was saying.

Not sure about extremist position, the most recent CC article I wrote contains stats.

Regardless, my position isn't extremist, it's consistent and born out of how I grew up in football.

Posts are getting way too long in this thread, so here's an overly simplified version of one of many opinions I have on stats - in general, not across he board.

What stats are and do is insufficiency measure nothing more than the end result. Missing out on the very essence of football, what happened on the field. Further, a vast majority of stats leave out a vast majority of the players ON the field (first ex., stats for OL?) ...

Example -
Stats: QB threw int. CB intercepted pass. 20 other players weren't even on the field, according to the stats.
Reality: Numerous and practically infinite possibilities as to how the play, played out. Then just as many possibilities as for the why.

[oldecapecod11]

Then along came a real man, picked up the deer, tossed it in the back of his pick-up and said "Thanks."
The three statisticians were left to diddle with their digits.