Mathematician, Data scientist @SumerSports. A simple mind thinks everything that didn't happen couldn't have happened. Tweets/opinions are my own.

Germany
Joined January 2017
Lots of analytical draft analysis comes with a lot of uncertainty due to small sample sizes and the league changing over time. Hence I thought of a method to compute the value of draft picks intrinsically. Here it is: pff.com/news/draft-2023-nfl-…
17
18
9
148
618,600
If you wonder why PSG was scheduled to have a home game on the same day: PSG didn't want to move to Stade de France in 1998 because "it lacks the soul of soccer". Quite ironic reasoning in hindsight.
6
3
182
46,687
Playoff leverage for week 7, sorted by most impactful games. I will follow up with a couple of notes on how to compute playoff leverage, because a lot of other numbers that you'll see are larger by a factor of 1.3-1.6
3
6
45
9,586
The reasons we do dynamic ratings for a simulation: 1. Good way to not be overconfident based on current extreme ratings. 2. it's also just a simple tuning lever (the update factor K) to adjust the simulation framework when it lands way off compared to other simulations.
1
1,153
This doesn't mean that those dynamic updates necessarily reflect reality. The leverage chart above fixes this problem, i.e. it shows the true leverage based on win or loss alone, I wanted to explain how, but thread is already long af. Might follow up at another point.
2
2
1,043
So I watched the game in re-live this morning and I just skipped to the third quarter after AJ Brown's catch with 2 seconds left. Won't recommend.
2
26
4,393
sheesh that's diabolical
Saw the clip where Travis Hunter explains how he “fake stumbles” when undercutting a route to trick QBs into throwing the ball - he says he intentionally squats low and leans over looking off center to make it seem like he tripped or got caught slipping on a route. Went back and realize he did it to CJ Stroud on the EndZone interception and Stroud realizes what happened immediately.
17
159
5,723
551,604
Even more diabolical to publicly talk about that, because QBs might hesitate the next time he really gets beat, lol
2
3
192
9,930
Series conversion rate for offenses and defenses, opponent-adjusted.
3
7
29
20,237
Classic of example of the number of losses signals skill. There are of lot quarterbacks, including many with decent NFL careers, who wouldn't have gotten to 122 losses if put in Stafford's shoes (because they wouldn't have gotten to 245 games)
7
95
5,518
I will never understand why coaches always try to bring this to the logical or even philosophical level, because sorry, but that reasoning just ain't it. Just say you don't trust the numbers, because you have a better feel for your play calls and players and that's fine.
Kyle Shanahan says a 51% analytics recommendation won’t convince him to go for it because he gets one shot, not an hour at a blackjack table “I don’t want to hear about it if it’s 51% of the time we should go for it.” “As I always say, I’m not sitting here playing Blackjack for an hour with no one else at the table, and eventually I’ll get 51% of it. Like, I have this one try, and I have a feel for it. I’ve been doing it too long.” “But what I want to know from him, when it’s not a feel, when it, no, this is 98%. We don’t even need to talk about it. So we don’t need to talk about it. Tell me when it’s that, and I’ll just do it.”
53
5
2
170
48,700
Maybe that's also what he meant, because he mentions that he's been doing that for a long time, but I just can't get over the "I have only one shot" part of the argument.
7
23
3,437
mandatory follow up reading. same TL;DR: Attack the model results, not the logic behind the concept. xitter.cf/Timo_NFL/status/211279…
This is a common misconception worth talking about. The model that spits out the win probability is actually factoring in the variance. That's the whole point. Here is an easy example: You're at the 2-yard line, down 3, 1 second to play. xitter.cf/roy1993/status/2112685…
2
5
1,224
This is a common misconception worth talking about. The model that spits out the win probability is actually factoring in the variance. That's the whole point. Here is an easy example: You're at the 2-yard line, down 3, 1 second to play. xitter.cf/roy1993/status/2112685…
Replying to @Timo_NFL
But some decisions have more variance built into them. The better EV play could have much higher variance and perhaps not be worth it. I honestly don’t know how variance plays into these individual decisions, but it doesn’t seem to be discussed much if at all. Thoughts?
8
4
1
80
12,443
The difference here is that the utility function in life is not expected money in the bank, it's living a good life and that's damn near impossible with a million in debt and when that happens 99.9% of the time, you don't take the bet.
1
5
1,600
The utility function in a football game is winning the game, so I hate to be absolute, but the EV of the winning probability function is indeed the end-all-be-all (with the exception of the point I made about injury risk, which even pushes many decision towards aggressiveness!)
3
13
1,804