**** The Official FSU vs. LSU Game Day Thread ****

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,000
71,486
113
It saddens we to see that our fanbase has become so jaded that they can't enjoy a big win over an SEC team on the road without looking for every little thing they can find to bitch about.
Who didn't enjoy the win ed? Or are you talking about people in the room with you?
 

LBoogie28

HR All-American
Feb 5, 2007
3,047
3,430
113
At least @Nole Lou is consistent. Claimed Norvelle made the “right” decision on 4th down last year that resulted in a turnover on downs…and ND hanging 7 right after (short field). Because analytics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole

Tenacious E

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2001
34,154
39,911
113
I’d be careful if I was the media. Kelly might make them watch practice in a scissor lift during a windstorm
At about the 1:08 mark of my post above “holtz” complains that BK didn’t have time to write him a letter but had time to send a kid up in a cherry picker in 85 mph winds to kill him.
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,214
11,032
113
I've never spent any great deal of time looking at, reading, or researching the analytics. On what are they based?

I'm not a huge analytics head, but the basic premise is that we have hundreds of thousands of historical actual plays, so we have the data to see the results of those plays and the impact they had on winning. Score, time remaining, field position, and likelihood to to convert the situation are all factored in to calculate expected points derived from a decision and increasing/decreasing the percent chance to win. It's based on masses of real game data.

So, like let's say that you've got 4th and 2 and the opponent's 30 yard line. Based on a gazillion previous instances, we know the expected points per drive for each decision. I'm just making these up, but it might be something like:

Punt: -.12 expected points (zero points expected and the chance your opponent scores on a return or block)
Field Goal: +1.7 expected points (3 points x 60% chance of making the kick - chance it's blocked/returned)
Go: + 2.7 expected points (75% chance of making it x expected points from 1st and 10 at the 28)

Having the ball 1st and 10 at the 28 might have an expected points per drive of 4pts, so with a 75% chance of making it, the go for it call yields +2.7 expected points.

And it extrapolates out to ensuing possessions. So if you are 4th and goal at the 1, part of calculation is that if you fail, the opponent gets the ball at their 1. And that yields its own expected points down the line, between the chance of a safety or turnover for a touchdown, plus the expected points of getting your next possession around midfield. So the calculus changes at the end of the half, because if there are 30 seconds left, you do NOT get the additional expected points on your next possession. (That's why I was surprised the 1st half 4th and goal was a GO by the book, there was only like a minute left, so you lose the expected benefit of your next possession field position. I would have no problem if Norvell overrode the book there (like he does plenty)).

Now, you obviously still have to know your team. Is your kicker great, so making a field goal is more like 80%? Have you had no answers to short yardage all day so you don't think you can convert the historical average of that down and distance? What's the weather like? Is your starting center hurt? All those things have to be factored in as a coach.

What it AVOIDS having factored in are things that shouldn't be. Such as they way the game was coached when you were coming up. What the talk radio guys are going to say about it. What happened last year in a similar situation. Your natural tendency toward risk avoidance or swashbuckling. Soft/fake factors like momentum or confidence. Tradition.

Many of the results of this have already been mainstreamed. 30 years ago, you might have a team like UGA churning up 6 yards per play for two quarters, and then punt without a thought at 4 and an inch at the 50. Nobody expects that anymore. Nobody would decline a roughing penalty on a 30 yard made field goal today, but a few decades ago any coach that would "take the points off the board" was considered dangerously reckless.

Other game situations are not as normalized...but they will be. This is as inevitable as the shift in baseball and the three point shot in the NBA. Literally ALL the momentum is toward analytics.

A couple caveats...I believe that if you go by straight computing, there are situations that do not have enough of a base size for "the computer" to be accurate. Like, 4th and 12 from your own 30 in the second quarter. The "computer" might call that a go...I would imagine that there simply isn't enough base size of teams going for it there to have a reliable base size, and it probably has mostly fake punts factored in. Pretty much nobody would go there, you still have to use your brain.

Also, its going to take some time, but the masses of data reflect pre-analytic times, and eventually DEFENSIVE response to analytics will change numbers. So, for say 4th and 2 from your own 45...the massive balance of data reflects situations in which the defensive players and coaches were almost certainly caught at least somewhat off guard by the offense staying off the field. They probably had to rush a defensive call in, they might not have had their preferred personnel, etc. In today's game, when that situation comes up, the staff is no doubt prepared for the possibility of a go call. So the book might say 50% chance of converting, but you have to know that it's probably more like 45% today or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,214
11,032
113
Also, one of the reasons I get the heat that Norvell (and other coaches get on this) is a dedication to the philosophy of it, even when your team is sucky.

What do you do when "the book" is based on a historical likelihood of 70% converting 4th and 1, but you have a broke ass OL that makes it probably more like 25%? How far do you deviate from your philosophy and concepts?

This is really a factor in the ND game, and will (hopefully) be less of an issue as time goes on.

I would be fine with a coach that played less analytically until his team was closer to meeting historical averages. That is largely not what Norvell has chosen to do. In his philosophy, it is more important to establish the process so coaches and players know (as much as possible) exactly what to expect and how to best leverage it by the time they are good. Not trying to change the way players play and coaches coach several years into it.

Think of it this way. At this point, Jordan Travis and the lineman have a very strong feel and expectation for what Norvell and staff want to do. On third and 6 on the 50 yard line, and JT has a choice between a tough 7 yard pass and picking up a sure 4-5 yards on a scramble, he knows exactly what the plan is. He knows he can scramble for 5, and then immediately get in position to take the next play, even with tempo.

He doesn't have to force a tough pass on 3rd down. Everyone doesn't have to stand there looking at the sidelines while the coaches debate whether to go or punt before they even call a play. The only uncertainty will be on the defense.

Norvell's gamble is that the benefits of installing this philosophy may have made sucky teams look worse, but improved teams will be better when you get there. To him it was an investment he was willing to make.

I can see the other side of that, and I would begrudge a coach easing into it as the team gets better. I don't know if Norvell's philosophy for playing it right from the start is the right one, but it's not unreasoned or chaotic. It makes sense.

It's like a new coach taking over and having a true freshman quarterback. How much of the passing game do you install? Do you install concepts and call for throws that the QB probably can't make as reliably as you like, or do you hold everything out until he can do it? Do you look more ugly the first year, so that by the time he's a junior and can make every play he knows the knows the playbook by the back of his hand? Or do you want to install a crapload of new stuff in year three when "he's ready for it."

I don't know there's a right answer. Either can backfire. It's a risk reward situation of believing that taking some more lumps early will produce greater benefits later.
 

seminoleed

HR All-American
Mar 29, 2002
2,659
2,767
113
Also, one of the reasons I get the heat that Norvell (and other coaches get on this) is a dedication to the philosophy of it, even when your team is sucky.

What do you do when "the book" is based on a historical likelihood of 70% converting 4th and 1, but you have a broke ass OL that makes it probably more like 25%? How far do you deviate from your philosophy and concepts?

This is really a factor in the ND game, and will (hopefully) be less of an issue as time goes on.

I would be fine with a coach that played less analytically until his team was closer to meeting historical averages. That is largely not what Norvell has chosen to do. In his philosophy, it is more important to establish the process so coaches and players know (as much as possible) exactly what to expect and how to best leverage it by the time they are good. Not trying to change the way players play and coaches coach several years into it.

Think of it this way. At this point, Jordan Travis and the lineman have a very strong feel and expectation for what Norvell and staff want to do. On third and 6 on the 50 yard line, and JT has a choice between a tough 7 yard pass and picking up a sure 4-5 yards on a scramble, he knows exactly what the plan is. He knows he can scramble for 5, and then immediately get in position to take the next play, even with tempo.

He doesn't have to force a tough pass on 3rd down. Everyone doesn't have to stand there looking at the sidelines while the coaches debate whether to go or punt before they even call a play. The only uncertainty will be on the defense.

Norvell's gamble is that the benefits of installing this philosophy may have made sucky teams look worse, but improved teams will be better when you get there. To him it was an investment he was willing to make.

I can see the other side of that, and I would begrudge a coach easing into it as the team gets better. I don't know if Norvell's philosophy for playing it right from the start is the right one, but it's not unreasoned or chaotic. It makes sense.

It's like a new coach taking over and having a true freshman quarterback. How much of the passing game do you install? Do you install concepts and call for throws that the QB probably can't make as reliably as you like, or do you hold everything out until he can do it? Do you look more ugly the first year, so that by the time he's a junior and can make every play he knows the knows the playbook by the back of his hand? Or do you want to install a crapload of new stuff in year three when "he's ready for it."

I don't know there's a right answer. Either can backfire. It's a risk reward situation of believing that taking some more lumps early will produce greater benefits later.

Quality analysis, Lou.
 

cfbfan23

HR All-American
Mar 29, 2002
4,280
7,926
113
How an O-lineman has to handle Verse:

11292156.jpg

11292165.jpg