Inverting Punting Questions

Typical analytic situation have three potentials for improvement (or, competition).

  1. Better data, think motion tracking in football or hockey.
  2. Better models, think the shift from batting average to on-base-percentage.
  3. Better people, think the 1980’s shift when Edward Thorpe began competing with other Ph.D.

However, the largest potential gain in analytics (at least sports, circa 2020) is the implementation. It’s no use coming up with a good idea if you can’t get it into the portfolio.

Richard Sherman and Chris Collinsworth offer a stopgap solution. Talking about the Pittsburgh Steelers decision to punt on fourth and one from the forty-six, “If you’re the Cleveland Browns you’re definitely relieved,” said Sherman, “shoot you only needed a yard, you can fall for a yard on most defenses.”

This idea has been around a long time in sports, Bill Simmons has spoken about it often on his podcast; what does my opponent fear the most? I’ll do that.

Some NFL teams have solved the implementation obstruction with a direct line from the analytics department to the coach. Teams slower to adopt and adapt can take the idea of inversion and just ask one of their coaches. It would be great to see a head coach ask his defensive coordinator if the offense should stay on the field, or indeed if they should punt.

Note, I listened to Thorpe’s A Man for All Markets and while long, it was good particularly because it was read by him!

An easy way to change your mind.

This idea is related to Tyler Cowen’s idea of ‘meta-rationality’ which you read about in this pay-what-you want pdf.

Perhaps there’s no better time to see, sort, and participate in over reactions than week one of the NFL. Though I only watch a full game or two a year, there are a lot of lessons from the likes of Mike Lombardi, Bill Belichick, and questions like, should running backs run the forty-yard-dash? (Narrators: meh).

So, after week one of the NFL, how much should someone change their mind?

There were two comments from Wharton Moneyball related this this exact question.

First, the hosts wondered why the small but powerful vitamin D study wasn’t getting more attention. Their guess was a combination of things including excessive dosing, strong priors, sample size, and general application (the participants were already hospitalized but went to the ICU at a much lower rate with treatment).

While people may have strong beliefs about the efficacy of vitamin D it doesn’t hurt to go for more walks, while the weather holds at least. Whether or not someone believes in vitamin D, walking can’t hurt.

Late in the episode, Cade Massey and Josh Hermsmeyer noted the impressive week one play of Gardner Minshew. While both are rooting for his success, there’s no ‘go-for-a-walk’ equivalent for updating beliefs. Base rates suggest we stay closer to home until Mr. Minshew racks up some road wins.

Lastly is this study about teacher expectations. “(U)nbiased (i.e., accurate) beliefs can be counterproductive if there are positive returns to optimism or if there are socio-demographic gaps in the degree of teachers’ over-optimism, both of which we find evidence of.” Want better results from students? Have higher expectations than the data suggests.

The easiest way to change your mind is to make changing your mind inexpensive.

The hardest way to change your mind is to attach ideas to yourself. Jason Zweig calls this thinking “identity protective cognition,” and said, “If you are not judging the validity of ideas by long-term, objective, peer-reviewed evidence then you are just protecting your own identity and it’s foolish.” 

If vitamin doesn’t affect covid health, it still doesn’t hurt. If high expectations don’t affect student results, it still doesn’t hurt. If extrapolation from week one of the NFL doesn’t predict season success it does hurt.

Related: Make small poker bets.