[d4cohn]

What makes this all the more galling is this.

Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department?  Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.

If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford.  Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.

I definitely think Stanford can (and probably is) using analytics in terms of its game planning and playcalling. We could certainly probably do more though. And with regards to game planning and playcalling when the game is still in doubt, I am in agreement with the notion that we need to throw more, throw to set up the run, not pound the ball into the line etc. However, how Shaw managed that fourth quarter in terms of avoiding turnovers, avoiding sacks, avoiding blocked punts, basically disaster plays was analytics (we had a >83% to win the game throughout the fourth quarter, including in most stretches a >95% to win). Only way we lose that game is a disaster play that gives them a short field, or a turnover for a touchdown. We may not be using analytics as much as I would like, or as much as Whittingham does, or using it enough when the game was in doubt, but the turtle strategy was all about playing the win probability.

[d4cohn]

What makes this all the more galling is this.

Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department?  Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.

If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford.  Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.

I definitely think Stanford can (and probably is) using analytics in terms of its game planning and playcalling. We could certainly probably do more though. And with regards to game planning and playcalling when the game is still in doubt, I am in agreement with the notion that we need to throw more, throw to set up the run, not pound the ball into the line etc. However, how Shaw managed that fourth quarter in terms of avoiding turnovers, avoiding sacks, avoiding blocked punts, basically disaster plays was analytics (we had a >83% to win the game throughout the fourth quarter, including in most stretches a >95% to win). Only way we lose that game is a disaster play that gives them a short field, or a turnover for a touchdown. We may not be using analytics as much as I would like, or as much as Whittingham does, or using it enough when the game was in doubt, but the turtle strategy was all about playing the win probability.