[Goose]

So the question is: "what level of information is sufficient to know it's worth switching?" What my comment is suggesting is that it takes a great deal of valuable information to justify a switch. Since that's the case, if it's worth making the switch in game 3, it was probably also worth making the switch before the season began.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Performance in a game and performance on the practice field often differ substantially. Some guys play perfectly in practice and then make lots of mistakes in real games. Both we and the coaches see the game mistakes, but the coaches may know that represents unexpected failure and we do not. It may be a "substantial" change to them. Also, there are error bars, often big ones, associated with decisions about who plays where and when. It is partially "gut feel" in many close competitions. Little things can change the balance.

So it wasn't, at least for outside observers, conclusive at all. Of course coaches have access to information we don't. That means, often, we should give the benefit of the doubt, particularly if coaches have strong track records. But we shouldn't always give that benefit of the doubt. Sometimes coaches with strong track records do stuff like, "bring in a QB specifically to serve as a backside blocker of a play." Then you question them. That's what makes a remark like mine sensible. Which I think it is, even if it isn't strictly speaking right.

I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

[Goose]

So the question is: "what level of information is sufficient to know it's worth switching?" What my comment is suggesting is that it takes a great deal of valuable information to justify a switch. Since that's the case, if it's worth making the switch in game 3, it was probably also worth making the switch before the season began.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Performance in a game and performance on the practice field often differ substantially. Some guys play perfectly in practice and then make lots of mistakes in real games. Both we and the coaches see the game mistakes, but the coaches may know that represents unexpected failure and we do not. It may be a "substantial" change to them. Also, there are error bars, often big ones, associated with decisions about who plays where and when. It is partially "gut feel" in many close competitions. Little things can change the balance.

So it wasn't, at least for outside observers, conclusive at all. Of course coaches have access to information we don't. That means, often, we should give the benefit of the doubt, particularly if coaches have strong track records. But we shouldn't always give that benefit of the doubt. Sometimes coaches with strong track records do stuff like, "bring in a QB specifically to serve as a backside blocker of a play." Then you question them. That's what makes a remark like mine sensible. Which I think it is, even if it isn't strictly speaking right.

I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."