Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
WarGhost21

Jacoby Brissett Impressions (Perma Merge)

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

FYI, here's a breakdown of Vegas gaming revenues by type from October.

Slot machines: $693 million

Blackjack: $125.4 million

Baccarat: $76.2 million

Roulette: $40.4 million

Craps: $31.7 million

Sports: $29.5 million

Three Card Poker: $11 million

 

To be clear, this is revenue right? Not profit. 

 

Also feel like we've gone completely down a wormhole and I really should say let's get back to the actual topic :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

They dont have thier own analytics, because the sports book has all of them. 

 

They better interpret them, or they bet against them.

 

You are a straight up clown.

 

Btw, the revenue is lower because it's much  harder for them to win. Why?

 

SUBJECTIVE

Feel free to call names lol...... for your reading pleasure below.

 

Ever heard of Benter? He created his own analytics. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

 

And a little more for your reading pleasure

https://sportsanalyticssimulator.com/articles/more-bettors-using-sports-analytic-handicapping-tools/

 

Heck, here's a youtube video on how to create your own basic model...

 

Edited by SteelCityColt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

... for your reading pleasure below.

 

 

I think it's worth noting, that there is a difference between playing the market and playing the event if that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

To be clear, this is revenue right? Not profit. 

 

Also feel like we've gone completely down a wormhole and I really should say let's get back to the actual topic :lol:

actually, my mistake. those are "wins".

yup, sorry for helping with the wormhole :-)... back to colts..

here's the link to the numbers though if you're interested

https://www.playnevada.com/3490/nevada-casino-revenue-october-2018/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I'm on board, and was one calling for more PA this past game in real time.  I recall a football outsiders article that concluded-

 

"The difference in the effectiveness of a team's passing game using play-action relative to without play-action is unrelated to the frequency or effectiveness of the team's rushing. The vast majority of teams have more yards per play on play-action dropbacks than on non-play-action dropbacks."

 

Yet coaches apparently still believe they have to have more attempts and a higher proficiency before PA will be effective. OTOH, If it was 100% effective, I think at least one coach would have adopted it and made hay, and thus create another 'copy cat' effect.

 

 

That's the exact thing I've criticized Reich for. This is the thing he used to justify his desire to make the run game better during the off season even though all the evidence shows running more and run success don't affect the success of passing on playaction plays. 

 

I wish some of the journalists would just ask him why he thinks that because all the available research I've seen goes directly against his statements. Now maybe they have some internal research that says otherwise, but I just would like to know if they have such studies or if Reich is just another one of the old guard of coaches that parrots outdated talking points that have been disproven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's the exact thing I've criticized Reich for. This is the thing he used to justify his desire to make the run game better during the off season even though all the evidence shows running more and run success don't affect the success of passing on playaction plays. 

 

What would you say if I told you that rushing yards per attempt actually has very little direct effect on whether you win a game of football or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Yet coaches apparently still believe they have to have more attempts and a higher proficiency before PA will be effective. OTOH, If it was 100% effective, I think at least one coach would have adopted it and made hay, and thus create another 'copy cat' effect.

 

 

I think there's a ceiling somewhere, and I bet it's somewhere north of 50% of passing plays, which no team has reached. Yet. The Cowboys were making a run for it early, then retrenched. The Rams are a mess, and maybe McVay is afraid of his OL not being able to protect; and I should note that Goff had one of the highest time to throw averages last year, so they're not exactly a quick throwing play action team, so it's not surprising they've pulled back.

 

You can't realistically do it every passing play. At a certain point the pass rush will sell out and your sacks will go through the roof, especially in the red zone where there's less threat of getting behind the defense.

 

In 2016, the Falcons were at 27%, and that was seen as pushing the limits. Matt Ryan won MVP and they went to the SB. Last year, the Rams were at 36% and that was seen as radical; Goff was an MVP candidate for two thirds of the season, and they went to the SB. My point is not that high play action means you'll go to the SB. My point is that NFL teams haven't really tested the limits of play action. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

What would you say if I told you that rushing yards per attempt actually has very little direct effect on whether you win a game of football or not.

I know... I've posted those same studies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stitches said:

I know... I've posted those same studies here.

 

I'm just working up a long form off the back of some of the convos on here and the lack of correlation between RY/A and winning is surprising. But it if course doesn't factor in things like the threat of a run has on opening up the passing game, or being able to control ToP etc etc. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SteelCityColt said:

 

I'm just working up a long form off the back of some of the convos on here and the lack of correlation between RY/A and winning is surprising. But it if course doesn't factor in things like the threat of a run has on opening up the passing game, or being able to control ToP etc etc. 

 

Controlling ToP is another good topic. It has little correlation with winning. It can be a good strategy if used properly and if you're scoring on offense, but it's overrated. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Superman said:

 

Controlling ToP is another good topic. It has little correlation with winning. It can be a good strategy if used properly and if you're scoring on offense, but it's overrated. 

 

As I've just found out! Makes some logical sense, in that if you come up against an explosive offense they don't need the ball for long to hurt you.

 

Remember Miami? Not the latest horror show, but 2009 where we won holding the ball for like 15 minutes? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

I carry water and fetch footballs.

 

Would it matter what I said? If I told you I taught heads up tackling then you would either not believe me or drag me into an argument about whether or not that's coaching. 

 

Idc if you respect my opinions. I'm just offering them because this board has become a cesspool of complaining and moaning about what is actually a pretty good football team anyways, and I just cant help myself. Feel free to ignore me.

It takes two to argue.  Anyway, we've made an * of ourselves enough.  Let's be done with this and do what we should have done a long time ago and agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SteelCityColt said:

 

As I've just found out! Makes some logical sense, in that if you come up against an explosive offense they don't need the ball for long to hurt you.

 

Remember Miami? Not the latest horror show, but 2009 where we won holding the ball for like 15 minutes? 

 

14:53 : 45:07. Epic.

 

Only 35 total offensive plays, 23 passing attempts from Manning, we only had 7 third down attempts (Miami had 15 conversions), but we had 10 yards/play compared to their 5, and points per play were outrageously in our favor. Pretty much all the traditional stats people say you need to win -- rushing yards, third down, ToP, etc., went in Miami's favor. Except turnovers -- we had none, they had 1.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=290921015

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Feel free to call names lol...... for your reading pleasure below.

 

Ever heard of Benter? He created his own analytics. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

 

And a little more for your reading pleasure

https://sportsanalyticssimulator.com/articles/more-bettors-using-sports-analytic-handicapping-tools/

 

Heck, here's a youtube video on how to create your own basic model...

 

He created a statistical model, not new analytics. The book had those same analytics before he did. He just interpreted them better.

 

Through SUBJECTIVE REASONING

 

You just cant understand the simplest things. It's funny to me. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

To be clear, this is revenue right? Not profit. 

 

Also feel like we've gone completely down a wormhole and I really should say let's get back to the actual topic :lol:

yes this is not a gambling forum, dont we have a misc. place for this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

He created a statistical model, not new analytics. The book had those same analytics before he did. He just interpreted them better.

 

Through SUBJECTIVE REASONING

 

You just cant understand the simplest things. It's funny to me. 

 

 

No, they all share the same data, or inputs..... 

 

Here's the definition of analytics.

Quote

the systematic computational analysis of data or statistics.

 

Benter created his own model for systematic computational analysis of the same data/stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

What would you say if I told you that rushing yards per attempt actually has very little direct effect on whether you win a game of football or not.

then would passing yds per attempt not be the same result? then why are some on here complaining about our qbs yrds per attempt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

then would passing yds per attempt not be the same result? then why are some on here complaining about our qbs yrds per attempt? 


Not at all. There’s a much stronger correlation between winning and passing yards per attempt. It gets even stronger when you make it Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:


Not at all. There’s a much stronger correlation between winning and passing yards per attempt. It gets even stronger when you make it Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt.

you seem to contradict yourself to suit your own agenda, and have a habit of talking in circles to make your point valid, it does not make a lot of sense when you do this. how do any of us know what has to do with winning? if we could figure it out on paper with math we would not have to play the games. a yard in football is the same ground or passing it is still three feet , 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

As I've just found out! Makes some logical sense, in that if you come up against an explosive offense they don't need the ball for long to hurt you.

 

Remember Miami? Not the latest horror show, but 2009 where we won holding the ball for like 15 minutes? 

ToP matters on several fronts:

 

1. if you have high time of possession it assumes you would have to run a lot of plays to get that time of possession, you cannot run a few plays and have high ToP... generally if you run a lot of plays, it means you are moving the ball, if you are moving the ball you are more likely to score. 

 

2. if your express goal is to extend drives and move the ball in slow methodical way(i.e. a lot of run plays - consistent but relatively small gains, rather than explosive plays), it has the effect of shortening the game. By that I mean it results in fewer possessions, both for you and for your opponent. When people say "the Colts kept Mahomes on the sidelines" all it really means is the Colts reduced the number of possessions by being able to move the ball slowly and methodically. Reduced number of possessions means increased variance. Increased variance generally means better chance for the worse team to win than in regular situation. Think of of it this way - the more possessions there are in a game, the more chances there are for the better team to assert its dominance. The longer a game goes(or the more possessions) the better the chance that the better team will win.

 

With that said ToP for ToP sake doesn't really give you much simply because no matter how much time you use the opponent still gets roughly the same number of possessions so if the opponent is better than your slow methodical offense with their explosive offense, over large enough samples it wouldn't matter if you possessed the ball more, unless you manage to move the ball better with your slow style than the opponent with their explosive style. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

It was a joke dude. 

You took a shot at those who defend JB.

Even went as far as calling us trolls.

IMO it did not come off as a joke being you wasn't clear that it was a joke. 

Maybe a lol or a hahawould have made it clear? 

Both of our comments were sarcastic so there it is. 

No problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stitches said:

ToP matters on several fronts:

 

1. if you have high time of possession it assumes you would have to run a lot of plays to get that time of possession, you cannot run a few plays and have high ToP... generally if you run a lot of plays, it means you are moving the ball, if you are moving the ball you are more likely to score. 

 

2. if your express goal is to extend drives and move the ball in slow methodical way(i.e. a lot of run plays - consistent but relatively small gains, rather than explosive plays), it has the effect of shortening the game. By that I mean it results in fewer possessions, both for you and for your opponent. When people say "the Colts kept Mahomes on the sidelines" all it really means is the Colts reduced the number of possessions by being able to move the ball slowly and methodically. Reduced number of possessions means increased variance. Increased variance generally means better chance for the worse team to win than in regular situation. Think of of it this way - the more possessions there are in a game, the more chances there are for the better team to assert its dominance. The longer a game goes(or the more possessions) the better the chance that the better team will win.

 

With that said ToP for ToP sake doesn't really give you much simply because no matter how much time you use the opponent still gets roughly the same number of possessions so if the opponent is better than your slow methodical offense with their explosive offense, over large enough samples it wouldn't matter if you possessed the ball more, unless you manage to move the ball better with your slow style than the opponent with their explosive style. 

TOP is one of those stats that proves my point that stats by themselves are somewhat misleading

 

      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

you seem to contradict yourself to suit your own agenda, and have a habit of talking in circles to make your point valid, it does not make a lot of sense when you do this. how do any of us know what has to do with winning? if we could figure it out on paper with math we would not have to play the games. a yard in football is the same ground or passing it is still three feet , 

 

How am I contradicting myself? Rushing Yards per Attempt is a discrete and different metric to Passing Yards per Attempt. They measure different things. 

 

I didn't really want to share this as it's part of a bigger piece of work I'm doing for the forum but here's the numbers:

 

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.1&permmsgid

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.2&permmsgid

 

This is 10 seasons worth of data (352 data points, 2,816 games), charting win % against the rushing yards/attempt for the team that season and then the passing yards per attempt. There is much more correlation to the latter. 

 

The correlation gets even stronger when you look at Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt:

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.3&permmsgid

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, stitches said:

With that said ToP for ToP sake doesn't really give you much simply because no matter how much time you use the opponent still gets roughly the same number of possessions so if the opponent is better than your slow methodical offense with their explosive offense, over large enough samples it wouldn't matter if you possessed the ball more, unless you manage to move the ball better with your slow style than the opponent with their explosive style. 

 

Pretty much this. I think being able to control possession is useful as a tactic not a strategy. Very low correlation to win %.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

How am I contradicting myself? Rushing Yards per Attempt is a discrete and different metric to Passing Yards per Attempt. They measure different things. 

 

I didn't really want to share this as it's part of a bigger piece of work I'm doing for the forum but here's the numbers:

 

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.1&permmsgid

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.2&permmsgid

 

This 10 seasons worth of data (352 data points, 2,816 games), charting win % against the rushing yards/attempt for the team that season and then the passing yards per attempt. There is much more correlation to the latter. 

 

The correlation gets even stronger when you look at Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt:

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.3&permmsgid

 

There are several other factors that need to be given to understand things

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

There are several other factors that need to be given to understand things

 

Of course, for example as I posted earlier, the threat of the run is important to the passing game. 

 

But from a statistical standpoint it's fairly significant and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Stats aren't necessarily the answer, but they can help guide asking the right questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

How am I contradicting myself? Rushing Yards per Attempt is a discrete and different metric to Passing Yards per Attempt. They measure different things. 

 

I didn't really want to share this as it's part of a bigger piece of work I'm doing for the forum but here's the numbers:

 

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.1&permmsgid

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.2&permmsgid

 

This 10 seasons worth of data (352 data points, 2,816 games), charting win % against the rushing yards/attempt for the team that season and then the passing yards per attempt. There is much more correlation to the latter. 

 

The correlation gets even stronger when you look at Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt:

0?ui=2&ik=fece2f4582&attid=0.3&permmsgid

 

your math has no bearing on who wins games, stats are based on history not future results, you cant figure in turnovers , bad calls, and great plays. that is why we play the games instead of picking a winner with math based on history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

your math has no bearing on who wins games, stats are based on history not future results, you cant figure in turnovers , bad calls, and great plays. that is why we play the games instead of picking a winner with math based on history.

 

I mean ANY/A does figure in turnovers... but cool beans. It's not my math, it's the factual objective record and I never held up that it was of predictive value. Instead it's about assessing what metrics are of more importance than others. 

 

Are you arguing that there isn't significantly more correlation of being able to pass well vs run well when it comes to winning? 

 

It's not like this is 1692 and this is magic ya know :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Of course, for example as I posted earlier, the threat of the run is important to the passing game. 

 

But from a statistical standpoint it's fairly significant and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Stats aren't necessarily the answer, but they can help guide asking the right questions. 

That is all I have said and am being told that I am crazy

    
    Stats are one piece of a puzzle that is successful player/team


 

in my world using stats alone(esp. for such a long period of time) gets you discredited 

   I wrote numerous papers and had many discussions were I had  to use or produce hard evidence to support my view

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I mean ANY/A does figure in turnovers... but cool beans. It's not my math, it's the factual objective record and I never held up that it was of predictive value. Instead it's about assessing what metrics are of more importance than others. 

 

Are you arguing that there isn't significantly more correlation of being able to pass well vs run well when it comes to winning? 

i am saying history is not a factor in who wins games and there are many ways to win games , passing is just one of the tools that can cause you to win or with an int cause you to lose and historical stats cant predict this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

in my world using stats alone(esp. for such a long period of time) gets you discredited 

   I wrote numerous papers and had many discussions were I had to had to use or produce hard evidence to support my view

   

 

I don't disagree with this. But there seems to be an abject knee jerk dismissal of stats. They're useful for being able to challenge and explore things that have probably been held to be true based of purely anecdotal evidence. They may confirm that view, or they may make you question it. 

 

The ToP discussion above is a good example of how it can work well. ToP doesn't translate well into winning, but it prompted a discussion of how it is very useful in other ways. As in it provides a starter for a conversation about how things work pragmatically on the field. 

 

Why I didn't want to get into stuff without the wider piece of work as you need to look at lots to get an idea of the fuller picture, even just from the stats. For example... rushing yards might not matter as much, but being an efficient (1Ds, TDs, conversions) running team does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

i am saying history is not a factor in who wins games and there are many ways to win games , passing is just one of the tools that can cause you to win or with an int cause you to lose and historical stats cant predict this.

 

Yes... what you're talking about is a very small sample, i.e. one game. This is about over a longer sustained period of time (season or seasons), there is very much things that are successful that teams tend to have in common. Some is common sense, like having a positive points differential, some things aren't as obvious until you look at the dataset. 

 

Do you know what R squared signifies (genuine question)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I don't disagree with this. But there seems to be an abject knee jerk dismissal of stats. They're useful for being able to challenge and explore things that have probably been held to be true based of purely anecdotal evidence. They may confirm that view, or they may make you question it. 

 

The ToP discussion above is a good example of how it can work well. ToP doesn't translate well into winning, but it prompted a discussion of how it is very useful in other ways. 

 

Why I didn't want to get into stuff without the wider piece of work as you need to look at lots to get an idea of the fuller picture, even just from the stats. For example... rushing yards might not matter as much, but being an efficient (1Ds, TDs, conversions) running team does. 

There has also been a force feeding of stats too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

There has also been a force feeding of stats too

 

So it's wrong to try and substantiate why you think something? You don't have to engage with the discussion around the stats if you don't wish. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Yes... what you're talking about is a very small sample, i.e. one game. This is about over a longer sustained period of time (season or seasons), there is very much things that are successful that teams tend to have in common. Some is common sense, like having a positive points differential, some things aren't as obvious until you look at the dataset. 

 

Do you know what R squared signifies (genuine question)? 

Since players come and go and offenses change basing athletic stats on such a large time period can be problematic     
      It would probably be more effective using a coaching tenure or player career

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

Since players come and go and offenses change basing athletic stats on such a large time period can be problematic     
      It would probably be more effective using a coaching tenure or player career

 

    

 

You know that is season to season right? Or are you suggesting you can't assess a team over a season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

So it's wrong to try and substantiate why you think something? You don't have to engage with the discussion around the stats if you don't wish. 

No it is wrong when there are posters who call anyone who wants Disregard anyone who wantsto push the brake on the use of stats alone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

No it is wrong when there are posters who call anyone who wants Disregard anyone who wantsto push the brake on the use of stats alone 

 

Have I done that to you? Or have I tried to have a reasonable conversation with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

You know that is season to season right? Or are you suggesting you can't assess a team over a season?

Season to Season can be problematic because Coaches, Offensive schemes, and players Might change every year

 

     For example

        Just 20 years ago Princeton had run the same Offense since 1986 but in the 20 years since PCHS has had 7 different coaches and Os

8 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Have I done that to you? Or have I tried to have a reasonable conversation with you?

It was not you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...