Sports conventional wisdom and the information age

[LordMortis]

We need a sports forum...

So as not to annoy people in talking baseball with the fact that staying on topic doesn't interest me

There are a long long long list of thing things I don't understand in sports, like what is the math for "going for it on forth down" both for short punts and for trying to get 7 as opposed to probably getting 3.

Google is your friend. Here is just one analysis. There are many, many others.

Edit: And here's one for the NFL specifically.

Those are the tangibles I wonder about. I also wonder about the greater effect on the game. If the conventional wisdom is a secondary goal after scoring the most points is time of possession, which gives you more opportunity to score and wears down you opponents defense positions more while keeping your fresh, doesn't it stand to reason that you should look for ways to maximize the amount offensive plays in your game? 4th and 4 midfield and I'm down by six or up by four? Field goal say 30/70 and punt might get you 15 yards of better defensive position? So let's punt makes no sense to me. It seems like the worst of possible worlds.

This probably doesn't belong in the MLB thread anymore, but I'm not sure who you are arguing against. Actually, I'm not 100% sure I know what you are arguing. The numbers agree that punting makes no sense - you should go for it in a close game if you are at midfield and have 4th and 4.

I'm not really arguing against. I just don't get why 4th down wisdom works the way it does for a more than one reason and you are showing me others wonder the same thing and there are at least some metrics that support their thinking. I don't make millions of dollars in an industry making billions of dollars to make decisions about winning, where winning means even more money and loyalty from your customers. So I have assume my wondering is pointless and yet I wonder. How much does keeping your opponents defense on the field really wear them down? Why don't you do more no huddle or "hurry up" offense, planning series of plays in a row with built in substitutions and then adapting or having the QB break the series as necessary. What are the numbers on going for 2 and for various levels of going for it 4th down and how would they change if you game planned for it and eventually your opponent account in their game plan for your going to for it?

Things that mystery when they seem like they should be very understandable often pull me in.

Like if the shift is the current wave in baseball, why haven't batting orders and player selection adapted as a result?

why is too much to ask most relievers to pitch two or heaven forbid 2 1/3 innings if they are lights out for one or two or three outs?

[stessier]

How much does keeping your opponents defense on the field really wear them down?

A lot. Case study: Super Bowl 51.

Why don't you do more no huddle or "hurry up" offense, planning series of plays in a row with built in substitutions and then adapting or having the QB break the series as necessary.

The good teams do.

What are the numbers on going for 2

538 has you covered.

and for various levels of going for it 4th down

Previously asked and answered.

and how would they change if you game planned for it and eventually your opponent account in their game plan for your going to for it?

It probably wouldn't change. The analysis is based on expected points and I don't know how you can design a defense that is somehow better on 4th down because you know they are going for it on 4th down. It's not like it's a surprise when it happens now - the defense is going to be set up regardless.

Like if the shift is the current wave in baseball, why haven't batting orders and player selection adapted as a result?

Why do you think they haven't?

why is too much to ask most relievers to pitch two or heaven forbid 2 1/3 innings if they are lights out for one or two or three outs?

There is a lot of writing suggesting closers should be used more than they already are. That was the A's entire game plan for their play in game against the Yankees.

[LordMortis]

Why do you think they haven't?

My lens for this is very small, I guess. I haven't watched that many games in the last three years and all the games I watched involved the Tigers. While I have seen the shifting evolve to become the norm, I haven't seen line ups and strategies change. Like in the smallest lens possible, the Tigers have a DH, VMart who should be retired anyway now plays (played) with an additional handicap . VMart is a switch hitter. And an unbelievably good contact hitter with no power and speed any more. Rather than switching against the shift, he switches against the pitcher and has a bloop single become a predictable out every time at bat. Like clock work. Ausmus was supposed to be a young numbers manager "playing for 162 games" and yet I watch and not comprehend how the numbers are derived.

[stessier]

Why do you think they haven't?

My lens for this is very small, I guess. I haven't watched that many games in the last three years and all the games I watched involved the Tigers. While I have seen the shifting evolve to become the norm, I haven't seen line ups and strategies change. Like in the smallest lens possible, the Tigers have a DH, VMart who should be retired anyway now plays (played) with an additional handicap . VMart is a switch hitter. And an unbelievably good contact hitter with no power and speed any more. Rather than switching against the shift, he switches against the pitcher and has a bloop single become a predictable out every time at bat. Like clock work. Ausmus was supposed to be a young numbers manager "playing for 162 games" and yet I watch and not comprehend how the numbers are derived.

A couple of things:
1) Sometimes a manager ignores numbers even if they are supposed to be a wunderkind
2) Sometimes a manager is just bad
3) You can't really switch against the shift. Like, once you go in the batters box, you're stuck against the shift they put on you. Assume he goes out of the box and switches sides - then they reverse the switch. It's like the switch pitcher who went against the switch hitter - they kept flipping back and forth until they decided one had to declare and then the other got to switch (I can't remember how they decided which one got stuck declaring first). Presumably the batter would take his best stance against the pitcher with the plan of pulling it against the shift. Rarely works though because the numbers that dictate the shift are based on the guy's inability to hit the ball places not part of the shift (although Big Papi used to do it!).

[gameoverman]

I'm no expert, I can't quote percentages and such, but as a long time football fan I've noticed that the answer to a lot of these questions can be intertwined with other things.

For instance, constantly running no huddle requires that your team has the personnel for that. You won't be substituting any players, so you better have 11 players who can do it all on offense for you. Not only that but injuries do happen. So you actually need more than 11 no huddle players, you need enough to replace the starters if necessary. There's the cost factor too, you have a salary cap to deal with, so you better hope those no huddle players come cheap. Also, what if your head coach isn't into a no huddle game plan? Not all head coaches coach the same type of gameplay.

On stuff like going for it on 4th down, or trying an onside kick, there are intangibles besides mere percentages of success or failure. If I'm facing 4th and short, the presence of a beast running back on my team will have a major impact on my decision regardless of the percentages. A head coach who is under pressure to produce wins now might be more likely to take chances compared to a coach who feels secure in his job.

[LordMortis]

Why do you think they haven't?

My lens for this is very small, I guess. I haven't watched that many games in the last three years and all the games I watched involved the Tigers. While I have seen the shifting evolve to become the norm, I haven't seen line ups and strategies change. Like in the smallest lens possible, the Tigers have a DH, VMart who should be retired anyway now plays (played) with an additional handicap . VMart is a switch hitter. And an unbelievably good contact hitter with no power and speed any more. Rather than switching against the shift, he switches against the pitcher and has a bloop single become a predictable out every time at bat. Like clock work. Ausmus was supposed to be a young numbers manager "playing for 162 games" and yet I watch and not comprehend how the numbers are derived.

A couple of things:
1) Sometimes a manager ignores numbers even if they are supposed to be a wunderkind
2) Sometimes a manager is just bad
3) You can't really switch against the shift. Like, once you go in the batters box, you're stuck against the shift they put on you. Assume he goes out of the box and switches sides - then they reverse the switch. It's like the switch pitcher who went against the switch hitter - they kept flipping back and forth until they decided one had to declare and then the other got to switch (I can't remember how they decided which one got stuck declaring first). Presumably the batter would take his best stance against the pitcher with the plan of pulling it against the shift. Rarely works though because the numbers that dictate the shift are based on the guy's inability to hit the ball places not part of the shift (although Big Papi used to do it!).

Thinking about this more, I do think they have reacted, just in a way I didn't expected. I am guessing the strikeouts up home runs up is in part the planned reaction to the shift. You can't shift in the to the stands to all or nothing, rather emphasizing players who can hit and hit opposite field and bunt as table setters.

You won't be substituting any players,

Is that a rule that I'm ignorant of? I'd love to see that kind of clockwork in play calling where you know you're subbing on this planned progression and trying to watch the defense adjust on the fly.

[Lorini]

That's the problem with the shift. Manfred, the head of the MLB expected players to adopt to the shift and they haven't in a way that fans find acceptable. The obvious answer is to bunt, but instead the players are all trying to launch the ball to the other hemisphere, resulting in a tremendous increase in strikeouts (this is the first year ever where there were more strikeouts than runs).

The managers want the shift outlawed or changed fundamentally, which I can understand. When the third baseman is within 5 feet of the first baseman or other totally weird formations then the game seems out of whack. In American football, the lines (defensive and offensive) have to line up in a certain way. Why not the infield in baseball? I'd much rather see traditional baseball than players all over the infield.

[Jaymann]

I have no problem with player shifts. It's like when they bring all the outfielders up when any ball hit to the outfield wins the game. It's all risk and reward. Smart players and coaches will figure out how to exploit the weaknesses.

[Lorini]

You have to look at American football practices in the context of the game (I assume we all know that). So no, it's not always the right thing to go for it on fourth down or to try an onside kick. Note however that players are just better athletes against an onside kick. Back in the day you could depend on some lumbering football player to toddle down the field trying to knock down the ball. Not anymore. They are still big but they are much faster than they used to be, making the onside kick far more dicey. Now you have to depend on the opposing team to be completely blindsided and that's just not likely.

I didn't read the links but I'm sure there's some percentages describing the successes and failures of going for it on fourth down. But to me it's too situational to make broad statements about. It's a risk/reward thing and if the reward is big enough (ie you lose the game if you don't go for it on fourth down) then you should go for it. Going for it when you're leading I think is a lot more suspect, although I'm sure there might be reasons to do it.

As far as wearing down the defense, it depends I'd think a lot on the temperature of the field. If it's 104F on the field then wearing down the defense might work if your offense doesn't pass out, but if you're in a closed dome, then that's not a factor. Analysts love to talk about that as if the offense isn't wearing out as well, as if somehow being on offense means you have infinite energy. Thus I don't pay attention to stuff like that as it's stupid (imo of course).

And don't get me started on yards. Conventional wisdom is that you should measure football success by yards, the analysts constantly talk about yards. Except not all yards are equal. ESPN has some statistical analysis on this which frankly should be used instead of yards but is not. It's something that really annoys me in broadcasts, it's near useless information instead of talking about yards that count, yards that help a team win a game, like third and 5 and getting those 5 yards vs third and 20 and getting 5 yards. Huge difference.

[Lorini]

I have no problem with player shifts. It's like when they bring all the outfielders up when any ball hit to the outfield wins the game. It's all risk and reward. Smart players and coaches will figure out how to exploit the weaknesses.

They haven't done that except to try to hit home runs. Forget about ground balls and hitting a line ball. Those balls will be caught by the shift. So hit home runs, but then they don't put the ball in play.

The bunt is the obvious answer but players don't get paid for bunting so they don't want to do it.

[coopasonic]

Is there a video of this "shift" thing you sports people are talking about? I'm just curious.

Note: I don't intend "sports people" as a pejorative despite how it may sound. I mean maybe a little bit for people that watch baseball...

[stessier]

As far as wearing down the defense, it depends I'd think a lot on the temperature of the field. If it's 104F on the field then wearing down the defense might work if your offense doesn't pass out, but if you're in a closed dome, then that's not a factor. Analysts love to talk about that as if the offense isn't wearing out as well, as if somehow being on offense means you have infinite energy. Thus I don't pay attention to stuff like that as it's stupid (imo of course).

[/quote]

That's just not true. Defensive players run more than the offense on any given play because they have to rally to the ball. When Tyreek Hill caught that last long TD pass this weekend, at least three Pats DBs started sprinting after him. The rest of the WRs just watched. Had there been another play, those DBs would have been more tired than the WRs they were covering.

Again, look at SB 51 - the Atlanta defense absolutely was more tired than the Pats offense at the end of that game and they were on the field for the same number of plays. They were in a dome at reasonable temperatures, too.

[stessier]

Is there a video of this "shift" thing you sports people are talking about? I'm just curious.

Note: I don't intend "sports people" as a pejorative despite how it may sound. I mean maybe a little bit for people that watch baseball...

Here's a good explanation.

[Lorini]

As far as wearing down the defense, it depends I'd think a lot on the temperature of the field. If it's 104F on the field then wearing down the defense might work if your offense doesn't pass out, but if you're in a closed dome, then that's not a factor. Analysts love to talk about that as if the offense isn't wearing out as well, as if somehow being on offense means you have infinite energy. Thus I don't pay attention to stuff like that as it's stupid (imo of course).

That's just not true. Defensive players run more than the offense on any given play because they have to rally to the ball. When Tyreek Hill caught that last long TD pass this weekend, at least three Pats DBs started sprinting after him. The rest of the WRs just watched. Had there been another play, those DBs would have been more tired than the WRs they were covering.

Again, look at SB 51 - the Atlanta defense absolutely was more tired than the Pats offense at the end of that game and they were on the field for the same number of plays. They were in a dome at reasonable temperatures, too.
[/quote]

OK I see what you are saying. More of the defensive players have to be active than more of the offensive players, even though the offense has to be active, they can spread the energy use around better than the defense. Thanks for the examples.

[LordMortis]

That's the problem with the shift. Manfred, the head of the MLB expected players to adopt to the shift and they haven't in a way that fans find acceptable. The obvious answer is to bunt, but instead the players are all trying to launch the ball to the other hemisphere, resulting in a tremendous increase in strikeouts (this is the first year ever where there were more strikeouts than runs).

It took typing it out and thinking about it to see exactly what you came to say... or to speculate it anyway....

It's a risk/reward thing and if the reward is big enough (ie you lose the game if you don't go for it on fourth down) then you should go for it. Going for it when you're leading I think is a lot more suspect, although I'm sure there might be reasons to do it.

That what I'm trying to understand. Why is the risk/reward almost universally better for punting (or a field goal attempt)? I can't reconcile that.

[Jeff V]

In sports, "conventional wisdom" is one way to apply spin when an undesired outcome is achieved. There are a number of reasons a closer might be highly effective for a couple of outs -- pitching style/speed radically different than the previous pitcher, for example. He might not lose any velocity during a second inning pitched, but the batters might be more in tune and better prepared. Maybe it doesn't matter -- dude strikes out 6 in a row, everyone is happy. Does anyone laud the manager for bucking conventional wisdom? Probably not. Dude gives up a couple of long balls to start the second relief inning though and suddenly it's WTF manager, why did you leave him in? Conventional wisdom says yank the bastard after his one inning of work!

There are situations that defy statistical analysis. For example, The Bears give up 4th down conversions and 2 point conversions approximately 100% of the time. But woe be the one coach who fails to convert on say, a 4th and 25, and become sole statistic bucking the local trend (but very much covered in "conventional wisdom" and the league-wide statistical trend).

[Scuzz]

Good stats are based on a large amount of data, but there is always the outlier.

I hate the shifts, I hate the analytics used in creating 4 hour 12 pitcher games and I hate the modern strike out or HR mentality.

Get off my lawn.

[stessier]

As Scully explained - shifts have been around since the 1870s. You're not that old.

[Lorini]

As far as risk/reward goes for FG's and punts, there are only a few (one?) formations permitted for those plays, so it’s a lot easier to predict.

[Lorini]

Good stats are based on a large amount of data, but there is always the outlier.

I hate the shifts, I hate the analytics used in creating 4 hour 12 pitcher games and I hate the modern strike out or HR mentality.

Get off my lawn.

Just like you don’t live your life on outliers, they don’t either:)

[stessier]

As far as risk/reward goes for FG's and punts, there are only a few (one?) formations permitted for those plays, so it’s a lot easier to predict.

I'm really not trying to follow you around and correct stuff, so please don't take this personally.

All the regular formations are allowed for both, it's just there are a few that are optimum for the desired outcome. QBs punt on third down out of any formation on occasion.

But it has to be a legal formation. Pats/Indy fans will never forget this formation (not for a punt, but it could have been). Not legal.

[Lorini]

I wasn’t sure thus the ?

I don’t mind being corrected with factual information. I always want to learn. Opinions are a somewhat different thing but I can learn there too

[Scuzz]

Good stats are based on a large amount of data, but there is always the outlier.

I hate the shifts, I hate the analytics used in creating 4 hour 12 pitcher games and I hate the modern strike out or HR mentality.

Get off my lawn.

Just like you don’t live your life on outliers, they don’t either:)

But you notice that even Roberts, who seems to base everything on stats went against them yesterday, with the starting line up (true, he may have somehow been tipped off to the Brewers pitching strategy) and in his use of Kershaw.

In what stat world does Kershaw bat in the 7th with 98 pitches thrown. And then he lets him run the bases. That was all pure Roberts trying to conserve his bench. That was not stat driven.

[Scuzz]

As Scully explained - shifts have been around since the 1870s. You're not that old.

I would agree shifts have been around for a long time and have been used on a few players but the use of shifts in the past is nothing like they are used today. The brewers went into a shift against Bellinger yesterday that basically put the 2B in right field. On a grounder he would have never been able to throw Bellinger out at first.

And nobody used to shift against the .220 hitter with no power. Now they literally shift against 90% if the lineup.

[stessier]

As Scully explained - shifts have been around since the 1870s. You're not that old.

I would agree shifts have been around for a long time and have been used on a few players but the use of shifts in the past is nothing like they are used today. The brewers went into a shift against Bellinger yesterday that basically put the 2B in right field. On a grounder he would have never been able to throw Bellinger out at first.

And nobody used to shift against the .220 hitter with no power. Now they literally shift against 90% if the lineup.

Okay, but what don't you like about them? That they are effective against hitters? Or just that it is "new"?

Along the same lines, what other innovations should be illegal? The knuckleball? Gloves with webbing?

[LawBeefaroni]

Beating the shift is simple. Hit it where they ain't. If you can't do that, maybe you're not qualified to be playing major league baseball. Changing rules isn't the answer.

[LordMortis]

Beating the shift is simple. Hit it where they ain't. If you can't do that, maybe you're not qualified to be playing major league baseball. Changing rules isn't the answer.

That was my original implied thought about lineups and batting orders not adapting to the shift but I think Lorini and just sitting and typing changed my thought on this. It would seem stess' question might have been right one. It seems they have adapted. Instead of better using players that hit "the other way" or bunt, to spread the infield and outfield the way it was intended, adapting means "swing for the fence". The numbers on strike outs and homeruns align with that theory. You can't shift over the wall. In that way they've adapted, and it's just not the adapting I find interesting, even if everyone loves a home run.

[Scuzz]

As Scully explained - shifts have been around since the 1870s. You're not that old.

I would agree shifts have been around for a long time and have been used on a few players but the use of shifts in the past is nothing like they are used today. The brewers went into a shift against Bellinger yesterday that basically put the 2B in right field. On a grounder he would have never been able to throw Bellinger out at first.

And nobody used to shift against the .220 hitter with no power. Now they literally shift against 90% if the lineup.

Okay, but what don't you like about them? That they are effective against hitters? Or just that it is "new"?

Along the same lines, what other innovations should be illegal? The knuckleball? Gloves with webbing?

I think they use stats to the detrement of the game itself. But I don't blame managers for using them. Eventually it will lead to players learning to hit the ball to all fields again. You will see .220 hitters quit trying to hit 25 HR's and you will get .250 hitters who hit 10 HR's.

I see what Counsel did with Miley yesterday to be a gimmick. He kind of broke the gentlemens agreement managers had regarding starting pitching. I don't see MLB doing anything about that, but you might see MLB require at least two infielders be on each side of second base if the game turns any more to the K or HR way of playing. I think that is really boring baseball.

[Scuzz]

Beating the shift is simple. Hit it where they ain't. If you can't do that, maybe you're not qualified to be playing major league baseball. Changing rules isn't the answer.

That was my original implied thought about lineups and batting orders not adapting to the shift but I think Lorini and just sitting and typing changed my thought on this. It would seem stess' question might have been right one. It seems they have adapted. Instead of better using players that hit "the other way" or bunt, to spread the infield and outfield the way it was intended, adapting means "swing for the fence". The numbers on strike outs and homeruns align with that theory. You can't shift over the wall. In that way they've adapted, and it's just not the adapting I find interesting, even if everyone loves a home run.

I think the shift is a response to the K or HR hitting method. Because in swinging for the fences with every pitch the batter is going to pull the ball most of the time.

[gameoverman]

You won't be substituting any players,

Is that a rule that I'm ignorant of? I'd love to see that kind of clockwork in play calling where you know you're subbing on this planned progression and trying to watch the defense adjust on the fly.

My understanding of no huddle is the offense rushes up to the line to get another snap off as soon as possible. This leaves no time for the defense to substitute players but it means the offense has no time for that either. What would be the point of a no huddle if the offense waits until a couple of their teammates trot off the field and a couple of new ones show up before they line up for the snap?

[LordMortis]

My understanding of no huddle is the offense rushes up to the line to get another snap off as soon as possible. This leaves no time for the defense to substitute players but it means the offense has no time for that either. What would be the point of a no huddle if the offense waits until a couple of their teammates trot off the field and a couple of new ones show up before they line up for the snap?

If the progression of plays and subs are pre planned, the amount of time goes down, giving less time for the defense to react while keeping them gassed. It might add five seconds in between plays rather than 20 or 30 seconds to reset the play. Why does as soon as possible have to excludes subs? Again, this is just things I don't get. If you control the ball and tempo of the game, it seems like a factor you want to take advantage of as much as possible. The more you can make your game into accelerated clockwork, the less the other team can react. Watching playclocks drop from 40 to 1 so audibles and cadence can be run through mystifies me, while it just seems smart to have players who can operate with 6 or 8 plays calls in progression at a time and be able to implement them and this would include subs, especially for your deep route receivers and your backs.

[Scuzz]

If the offense substitutes then the defense must be given time to substitute. But as long as the offense does not substitute they can run plays as fast as the ref can put the ball back into play. One negative of the fast offense though is that the fast offensive team does tend to have their defense on the field for more of the game.

And as I understand it most QB's go to the line with two plays called, thus the QB yelling "Omaha" or some such thing to change to the alternative play.

[LordMortis]

If the offense substitutes then the defense must be given time to substitute.

And there we go. That's my ignorance. /internets

https://static.nfl.com/static/content/p ... lRules.pdf

Nothing quite like vague

DEFENSIVE MATCHUPS FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS
Article 10

If a substitution is made by the offense, the offen
se shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the
defense has been permitted to respond with its substi
tutions. While in the process of a substitution (or
simulated substitution), the offense is prohibited f
rom rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and
snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a
defensive foul (i.e., too many men on the field). I
f, in the
judgment of the officials, this occurs, the followin
g procedure will apply:
(a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Re
feree deems that the defense has had a reasonable
time to complete its substitutions.
(b) If a play takes place and a defensive foul for
too many players on the field results, no penalties
will be
enforced, except for personal fouls and unsportsmanlike
conduct, and the down will be replayed. At
this time, the Referee will notify the head coach th
at any further use of this tactic will result in a pen
alty
for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Note: The quick-snap rule does not apply after the tw
o-minute warning of either half, or if there is not a
substitution by the offense.
(c) On a fourth-down punting situation, the Referee a
nd the Umpire will not allow a quick snap that
prevents the defense from having a reasonable time to
complete its substitutions. This applies
throughout the entire game.