|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 1, 2015 15:55:57 GMT -6
If you think it helps you, and maybe it does, keep doing it. Fantom What do you suggest? Appreciate the feedback--the discussion helps me-- I guess Football, like education, has a ton of factors that bring or prevent success-- I know when our district started looking a some pieces of data we improved dramatically--it brought focus and clarity of purpose for everyone---were the factors of focus the only things that brought success---no but it brought us together to work toward a common goal and the results were positive. Are there other factors--yes--but without asking the question we would have never improved in the ways we have as a top school in the county.... I am trying to find what works with this line of thinking for football...and people like you have tons of experience and knowledge to share and exchange I appreciate your insight and assistance! ryanculloty be careful when you start comparing educational data analysis to football. I would wager the reason you "improved" as a district was because instead of trying to educate a child, you started to try and improve data. They changed the scoreboard so to speak, and for a while, you guys weren't trying to "score" Now, all of the educational "reform" programs and "success" stories are generally related to that concept. The educational process isn't necessarily improving, it is just now focused on the metric. Then scores on that metric go up, and people think they have accomplished something. In football, the evaluation metric has never changed. Team with most points when time expires is winner. Now, some things have changed, such as rules. Perhaps an argument can be made that evaluating data based on rule changes might reveal some things (such as data showing the pitch phase of a triple option has decreased because of blocking rules, or NFL data becoming heavily skewed towards throwing the ball because of rule changes etc. )
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 1, 2015 16:03:12 GMT -6
How do you determine what a successful play is?
Yards per carry-attempt? Can be skewed by big plays.
Percentage of time play gains an arbitrary number of yards?
A play that gains only one instead of four but scores or gets a First Down is successful.
It's not always how often, but when, too.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Feb 1, 2015 16:36:46 GMT -6
How do you determine what a successful play is? Yards per carry-attempt? Can be skewed by big plays. Percentage of time play gains an arbitrary number of yards? A play that gains only one instead of four but scores or gets a First Down is successful. It's not always how often, but when, too. your right, its a multi-variable problem. off the top of my head...id look to do something like this: success = ((Average Number of Times called per series) / (Number of positive plays)) x ((Number Of First Downs Resulted) + (Number of Touchdowns Resulted)) so its "success value" becomes an arbitrary number...which of course is 100% meaningless unless its compared to your other plays, but it allows you to see potential problems in your play calling.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 2, 2015 13:07:20 GMT -6
Unless you are talking Average Starting Position, Field Position in and of itself is not a "stat" and at any rate is determined by other factors - mostly those in the "hidden yardage" of the Kicking Game.
Average starting field position. It is the one stat that explains the "why" behind the other stats imo. And just knowing that doesn't really help you......it is in knowing, game planning, teaching, and executing the things you need to do to win that battle. This game still boils down to advancement/defense of ground. I love Billick's analysis on the 4 key stats to win a game: 1.) Turnovers 2.) 1st down efficiency 3.) Red Zone Efficency 4.) Explosive Plays Outside of red zone efficiency (which may by the other stat I would adhere to), all these others are about field position.
|
|
|
Post by syphrit7 on Feb 3, 2015 9:12:38 GMT -6
I always talk with our QB about picking up 2 first downs on every drive. Usually we will score in less than 8 plays, or you will change field position.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Feb 3, 2015 10:40:00 GMT -6
Unless you are talking Average Starting Position, Field Position in and of itself is not a "stat" and at any rate is determined by other factors - mostly those in the "hidden yardage" of the Kicking Game.
Average starting field position. It is the one stat that explains the "why" behind the other stats imo. And just knowing that doesn't really help you......it is in knowing, game planning, teaching, and executing the things you need to do to win that battle. This game still boils down to advancement/defense of ground. I love Billick's analysis on the 4 key stats to win a game: 1.) Turnovers 2.) 1st down efficiency 3.) Red Zone Efficency 4.) Explosive Plays Outside of red zone efficiency (which may by the other stat I would adhere to), all these others are about field position. i just dont understand how you can quantify "Explosive Plays" - seems to me, thats more of an anomaly then something you can capture and control. because so many other variables have to line up perfectly (most of which your team cannot control) to make that happen...some of which are: --mistake by X number of defenders --field position (its exponentially harder to make an "Explosive" play the closer you get to either endzone.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 3, 2015 12:17:40 GMT -6
Average starting field position. It is the one stat that explains the "why" behind the other stats imo. And just knowing that doesn't really help you......it is in knowing, game planning, teaching, and executing the things you need to do to win that battle. This game still boils down to advancement/defense of ground. I love Billick's analysis on the 4 key stats to win a game: 1.) Turnovers 2.) 1st down efficiency 3.) Red Zone Efficency 4.) Explosive Plays Outside of red zone efficiency (which may by the other stat I would adhere to), all these others are about field position. i just dont understand how you can quantify "Explosive Plays" - seems to me, thats more of an anomaly then something you can capture and control. because so many other variables have to line up perfectly (most of which your team cannot control) to make that happen...some of which are: --mistake by X number of defenders --field position (its exponentially harder to make an "Explosive" play the closer you get to either endzone. The first thing I would say is the study is simply noting which statistics correlate most strongly with winning. Can you find/guess at what creates that statistic is another item. I know if I turn the ball over more than my opponent, I lose. How does one go about fixing both sides of that equation for their team? EXPLOSIVE PLAYS To me, this is all about being deliberate in your offensive play calling. If you chart your first down play calls, and you see that you have ran the ball to the TE-side on every first down through 1 1/2 quarters, then you can see that you may be developing a tendency. What some people fail to realize is sometimes a defense is subconsciously clued into your tendencies. It doesn't have to a case where the opposing coach notices this and relays it to his players........stimulus, response often gets us reacting more quickly than pure data anyways. So, your awareness of your tendencies allows you to break them (Counter Trey Weak, PA pass, etc.), and you may have the numerical advantage for an explosive play. When you EYEBLINK CONDITION the defense, you set them up to be out of position, which equates to big plays. At least that is the way I look at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 17:22:51 GMT -6
explosive plays to me is wearing the discipline of a defense out. The defensive end/outside linebacker get tired of Marshawn lynch getting2, 3, 4. That defensive end or outside linebacker decides he is going to lay down the law and off to the races goes Lynch, or Wilson keeps it and runs for 25.
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Feb 3, 2015 17:44:30 GMT -6
Alright, im not going to get into some kind of statistical debate. The numbers and equations are Greek to me.
But - I will give a +1 for first down efficiency. Not a highly charted or easily charted stat. But I if you average 5 yards on first down, you're probably gonna win. Its a big goal for me each game. I will start to chart it more next year. But the 3rd/4th down conversion success tends to correlate with 1st down success. And on first down you are usually running basic, routine plays. If you're gashing them on 1st, you're probably winning the game.
So ya my big ones- 1. Turnovers/ Pts off turnovers 2. First down yards per play 3. 3rd/4th down success
|
|
|
Post by ryanculloty on Feb 7, 2015 13:07:24 GMT -6
old article I found on my email today:
Want to win on Saturday? Dominate these five statistics There are a lot of statistics in football. Some of them matter (turnover margin) more than others (time of possession). Identifying the relevant from the irrelevant and then building a team to pursue those statistical advantages will lead to a lot of happy locker rooms. This much is simple.
SB Nation stats guru Bill Connelly has identified five statistics that most simply correlate with an advantage on the scoreboard when the clock hits quadruple zeroes.
1. Have more explosive plays than your opponent, and you'll win 86 percent of the time.
Connelly analyzed yard per play numbers from every regular-season college football game in 2013 (nearly one million plays in all) and found that teams with a per-play advantage as small as 0.5-to-1 yard win 72 percent of the time, by an average of 7.7 points. Hold an edge of 1-to-1.5 yards per play, and you'll win 86 percent of games, with an average margin of victory by 13.2 points. The numbers get more slanted from there, up to a 5-yard per play advantage leading to a 100 percent victory rate by an average of 51 points.
2. Stay ahead of the chains better than your opponent, and you'll win 83 percent of the time.
In the stats community, a successful play is defined as 50 percent of the necessary yardage on first down (1st and 10 to 2nd and 5), 70 percent of necessary yardage on second down (2nd and 7 to 3rd and 2), and 100 percent of necessary yardage on third and fourth down.
According to Connelly's data, teams that held an advantage as small as 0.5 to 5 percent (that is, 5 more of their plays were more successful than their opponent's) won nearly 60 percent of the time. Hold a 5-10 percent edge? You'll win three out of every four games, by an average of 10.6 points per game. Move the needle up to a full 10 percent, and you'll win 91.5 percent of the time, by an average of 17.3 points per game.
3. Win the field position battle, and you'll win 72 percent of the time.
Teams that held a field position advantage as small as 3-to-6 yards were able to crawl a 59.8 percent chance of victory this season. Even a 0-to-3-yard advantage produced a 54.1 percent chance. The number you really want to shoot for is six yards; teams that held a 6-to-10-yard edge won 78.3 percent of the time, by an average of 15.7 points.
4. Finish drives better than your opponent, and you'll win 75 percent of the time.
Not every drive will be successful, but those that are need to be cashed in. Connelly charted every drive that proceeded past the opponent's 40-yard line and found that teams that magic line was four points per trip. Achieve an average of greater than four points for every trip past your opponent's 40, and you'll probably win. Don't, and you'll lose.
Teams that held an advantage of 1-to-2 points per 40-yard line penetration (that is, score 1-to-2 points more than your opponent on every trip) and you'll win 74.7 percent of the time, by an average of 11.4 points. Achieve a 3-to-4 point advantage, and you'll win 96 times out of 100, and usually by five touchdowns.
5. Win the turnover battle, and you'll win 73 percent of the time.
This one is the simplest. Hold a +1 in the turnover margin, and you'll have a .645 winning percentage. Want a sure-fire way to win eighty percent of your games? Win the turnover margin by two or more. Incedentially, the difference between a +2 and a +3 turnover margin was ultimately microscopic. Teams with a +2 edge held a .786 winning percentage, while teams with a +3 advantage finished at .789.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 7, 2015 14:34:18 GMT -6
Great stats, Coach Culloty.
But again - does not help coaches on the HOW of to do them.
Which is what really matters.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 7, 2015 15:20:25 GMT -6
old article I found on my email today: Want to win on Saturday? Dominate these five statistics There are a lot of statistics in football. Some of them matter (turnover margin) more than others (time of possession). Identifying the relevant from the irrelevant and then building a team to pursue those statistical advantages will lead to a lot of happy locker rooms. This much is simple. SB Nation stats guru Bill Connelly has identified five statistics that most simply correlate with an advantage on the scoreboard when the clock hits quadruple zeroes. 1. Have more explosive plays than your opponent, and you'll win 86 percent of the time. Connelly analyzed yard per play numbers from every regular-season college football game in 2013 (nearly one million plays in all) and found that teams with a per-play advantage as small as 0.5-to-1 yard win 72 percent of the time, by an average of 7.7 points. Hold an edge of 1-to-1.5 yards per play, and you'll win 86 percent of games, with an average margin of victory by 13.2 points. The numbers get more slanted from there, up to a 5-yard per play advantage leading to a 100 percent victory rate by an average of 51 points. 2. Stay ahead of the chains better than your opponent, and you'll win 83 percent of the time. In the stats community, a successful play is defined as 50 percent of the necessary yardage on first down (1st and 10 to 2nd and 5), 70 percent of necessary yardage on second down (2nd and 7 to 3rd and 2), and 100 percent of necessary yardage on third and fourth down. According to Connelly's data, teams that held an advantage as small as 0.5 to 5 percent (that is, 5 more of their plays were more successful than their opponent's) won nearly 60 percent of the time. Hold a 5-10 percent edge? You'll win three out of every four games, by an average of 10.6 points per game. Move the needle up to a full 10 percent, and you'll win 91.5 percent of the time, by an average of 17.3 points per game. 3. Win the field position battle, and you'll win 72 percent of the time. Teams that held a field position advantage as small as 3-to-6 yards were able to crawl a 59.8 percent chance of victory this season. Even a 0-to-3-yard advantage produced a 54.1 percent chance. The number you really want to shoot for is six yards; teams that held a 6-to-10-yard edge won 78.3 percent of the time, by an average of 15.7 points. 4. Finish drives better than your opponent, and you'll win 75 percent of the time. Not every drive will be successful, but those that are need to be cashed in. Connelly charted every drive that proceeded past the opponent's 40-yard line and found that teams that magic line was four points per trip. Achieve an average of greater than four points for every trip past your opponent's 40, and you'll probably win. Don't, and you'll lose. Teams that held an advantage of 1-to-2 points per 40-yard line penetration (that is, score 1-to-2 points more than your opponent on every trip) and you'll win 74.7 percent of the time, by an average of 11.4 points. Achieve a 3-to-4 point advantage, and you'll win 96 times out of 100, and usually by five touchdowns. 5. Win the turnover battle, and you'll win 73 percent of the time. This one is the simplest. Hold a +1 in the turnover margin, and you'll have a .645 winning percentage. Want a sure-fire way to win eighty percent of your games? Win the turnover margin by two or more. Incedentially, the difference between a +2 and a +3 turnover margin was ultimately microscopic. Teams with a +2 edge held a .786 winning percentage, while teams with a +3 advantage finished at .789. But...again, is it "Have more explosive plays than your opponent and you will win 86% of the time" or is it really more of a "86% of the time, the team that was better (bigger, stronger, faster, with better fundamentals) executed better, and therefore many of their plays yielded bigger gains" That is where I think those pursuing "moneyball" metrics in football are missing the point. Rather than spending time/effort looking for hidden stats, focus time and effort on making your team bigger/stronger/faster and better at the fundamentals. Not knocking anyone here for the discussion, but I think the way football is played is significantly different than baseball, and as such, I haven't seen much use in the metrics that have been presented. To me, it all seems to be reporting what happened, as opposed to what you should be focused on. Again, just my opinion on this topic, but lets take something like "explosive plays". I have yet to see anyone explain how you coach plays to be explosive, other than the trite cliche' "put athletes in space". I think we all witnessed Ohio State and Ezekiel Elliot the last 3 weeks of the season, and statistically, that was EXTREMELY explosive. Was that something that was engineered, or just the result of good players executing well. Melvin Gordon at Wisconsin-- AVERAGES 16.8 yards a carry against Nebraska, and just a few weeks later, 2.9 yards against Ohio State. Fairly certain they were running the same plays. Why were they no longer explosive? I have witnessed many a HS team regularly have gains of 12-15+ running Power, Iso/Lead, Counter, Trap/Belly/Bucksweep, Inside Veer/Outside Veer. Are those "explosive plays"? Or were they just superior to the competition such that the blockers blocked better and the runner was fast and untouched? Am I being obtuse in this perspective? I am not closed minded, I am all for new and progressive. Same with turnovers. Many teams focus on ball security/do turnover circuits etc. It is very common on the clinic circuit to see coaches from the top teams regarding turnover margin discuss what they do. Then next year, they are not even i the top 20... So, I guess my point is that if you focus on being bigger/stronger/faster (or as big/strong and fast) as your opponents, and you coach fundamentals--you will hit these metrics.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Feb 7, 2015 16:06:30 GMT -6
old article I found on my email today: Want to win on Saturday? Dominate these five statistics There are a lot of statistics in football. Some of them matter (turnover margin) more than others (time of possession). Identifying the relevant from the irrelevant and then building a team to pursue those statistical advantages will lead to a lot of happy locker rooms. This much is simple. SB Nation stats guru Bill Connelly has identified five statistics that most simply correlate with an advantage on the scoreboard when the clock hits quadruple zeroes. 1. Have more explosive plays than your opponent, and you'll win 86 percent of the time. Connelly analyzed yard per play numbers from every regular-season college football game in 2013 (nearly one million plays in all) and found that teams with a per-play advantage as small as 0.5-to-1 yard win 72 percent of the time, by an average of 7.7 points. Hold an edge of 1-to-1.5 yards per play, and you'll win 86 percent of games, with an average margin of victory by 13.2 points. The numbers get more slanted from there, up to a 5-yard per play advantage leading to a 100 percent victory rate by an average of 51 points. 2. Stay ahead of the chains better than your opponent, and you'll win 83 percent of the time. In the stats community, a successful play is defined as 50 percent of the necessary yardage on first down (1st and 10 to 2nd and 5), 70 percent of necessary yardage on second down (2nd and 7 to 3rd and 2), and 100 percent of necessary yardage on third and fourth down. According to Connelly's data, teams that held an advantage as small as 0.5 to 5 percent (that is, 5 more of their plays were more successful than their opponent's) won nearly 60 percent of the time. Hold a 5-10 percent edge? You'll win three out of every four games, by an average of 10.6 points per game. Move the needle up to a full 10 percent, and you'll win 91.5 percent of the time, by an average of 17.3 points per game. 3. Win the field position battle, and you'll win 72 percent of the time. Teams that held a field position advantage as small as 3-to-6 yards were able to crawl a 59.8 percent chance of victory this season. Even a 0-to-3-yard advantage produced a 54.1 percent chance. The number you really want to shoot for is six yards; teams that held a 6-to-10-yard edge won 78.3 percent of the time, by an average of 15.7 points. 4. Finish drives better than your opponent, and you'll win 75 percent of the time. Not every drive will be successful, but those that are need to be cashed in. Connelly charted every drive that proceeded past the opponent's 40-yard line and found that teams that magic line was four points per trip. Achieve an average of greater than four points for every trip past your opponent's 40, and you'll probably win. Don't, and you'll lose. Teams that held an advantage of 1-to-2 points per 40-yard line penetration (that is, score 1-to-2 points more than your opponent on every trip) and you'll win 74.7 percent of the time, by an average of 11.4 points. Achieve a 3-to-4 point advantage, and you'll win 96 times out of 100, and usually by five touchdowns. 5. Win the turnover battle, and you'll win 73 percent of the time. This one is the simplest. Hold a +1 in the turnover margin, and you'll have a .645 winning percentage. Want a sure-fire way to win eighty percent of your games? Win the turnover margin by two or more. Incedentially, the difference between a +2 and a +3 turnover margin was ultimately microscopic. Teams with a +2 edge held a .786 winning percentage, while teams with a +3 advantage finished at .789. But...again, is it "Have more explosive plays than your opponent and you will win 86% of the time" or is it really more of a "86% of the time, the team that was better (bigger, stronger, faster, with better fundamentals) executed better, and therefore many of their plays yielded bigger gains" That is where I think those pursuing "moneyball" metrics in football are missing the point. Rather than spending time/effort looking for hidden stats, focus time and effort on making your team bigger/stronger/faster and better at the fundamentals. Not knocking anyone here for the discussion, but I think the way football is played is significantly different than baseball, and as such, I haven't seen much use in the metrics that have been presented. To me, it all seems to be reporting what happened, as opposed to what you should be focused on. Again, just my opinion on this topic, but lets take something like "explosive plays". I have yet to see anyone explain how you coach plays to be explosive, other than the trite cliche' "put athletes in space". I think we all witnessed Ohio State and Ezekiel Elliot the last 3 weeks of the season, and statistically, that was EXTREMELY explosive. Was that something that was engineered, or just the result of good players executing well. Melvin Gordon at Wisconsin-- AVERAGES 16.8 yards a carry against Nebraska, and just a few weeks later, 2.9 yards against Ohio State. Fairly certain they were running the same plays. Why were they no longer explosive? I have witnessed many a HS team regularly have gains of 12-15+ running Power, Iso/Lead, Counter, Trap/Belly/Bucksweep, Inside Veer/Outside Veer. Are those "explosive plays"? Or were they just superior to the competition such that the blockers blocked better and the runner was fast and untouched? Am I being obtuse in this perspective? I am not closed minded, I am all for new and progressive. Same with turnovers. Many teams focus on ball security/do turnover circuits etc. It is very common on the clinic circuit to see coaches from the top teams regarding turnover margin discuss what they do. Then next year, they are not even i the top 20... So, I guess my point is that if you focus on being bigger/stronger/faster (or as big/strong and fast) as your opponents, and you coach fundamentals--you will hit these metrics. Agreed, it even says in the beginning of the article that the stats are only correlated with winning, which isn't very helpful. The author found the by product, not the recipe.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 7, 2015 17:09:29 GMT -6
Agreed, it even says in the beginning of the article that the stats are only correlated with winning, which isn't very helpful. The author found the by product, not the recipe. And to be clear, I am not anti-stats, or anti statistical analysis. I just have yet to see someone present things in what I consider a "useful" manner regarding such metrics in football. I think a key issue when trying to apply "moneyball" metrics is to recognize what Billy Beane was trying to do. He recognized he wasn't going to be able to keep high performing (in conventional senses) players on his team due to payroll issues. I think the "moneyball" approach to football isn't accomplished by statistical metrics as much as it is focusing on what your guys CAN do, and avoiding asking them to do what they can't do better than their opponent. For example, Urban Meyer not asking Cardale Jones to do what say Jim Harbaugh asked Andrew Luck to do. Or heck, not asking him to do what he asked Braxton Miller to do for that matter. Perhaps Moneyball in football is better exhibited by not trying to run Power 30 times a game if you don't have a TB making power a dangerous play if he carries it 30 times a game. Perhaps Moneyball in football is Evangel Christian High School subtly shifting their offensive system from the 8 yard shotgun to more of a conventional split back/airraid attack after their string of Top 5 in the country qb's had graduated.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 7, 2015 17:35:01 GMT -6
Understanding what stats are predictive or descriptive and of those, which are actionable is far harder than telling R to run a regression.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 7, 2015 18:27:03 GMT -6
I believe Monneyball is more about personnel decisions and who is worth what value.
I do believe there could be some NFL analysis of rb's and qb's and wr's about who really had the best value.
Moneyball found out that while batting average is the most common stat to determine the value of a hitter, it is actually not the best. On base percentage and slugging are much more important. There could be some analysis of rb's to find out something similar. Maybe ypc is isn't important. Maybe it is most important. Maybe it is runs over 10 yards. I don't know. Just saying that is more what Moneyball is about.
But even if there is some truth to all that, a running back's stats are very much determined by who the oc, line, qb, wr, and defense are on your team. There are no comparable isolated scenerios like an at bat in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on Feb 8, 2015 11:45:43 GMT -6
Again, just my opinion on this topic, but lets take something like "explosive plays". I have yet to see anyone explain how you coach plays to be explosive, other than the trite cliche' "put athletes in space". Agree. Want more explosive plays? Get more explosive players. As an example we like the jet and it's complimentary stuff but if we don't have a real burner as the sweeper we are not getting explosive plays out of it. We tend to underplay play calling's importance on this site due to our humble natures but I think great play calling (which implies great preparation) can help achieve some of these goals such as first down success, red zone success, ball control, tempo and explosive plays especially on a "have not" team. Just like great decisions by the Q on option or pass routes can help achieve these goals also. This has led us to do more situational stuff in practice and drilling the QB reads with rewards for success. It's Turnovers and Penalties that are the wild card for us and they can end up helping David beat Goliath. You can try to coach em out in practice, as someone above has said, but sometimes $hit happens Momentum is so key it would be interesting to keep track of truly "momentum generating plays" (not just turnovers) where the bench really gets jacked and you feel the momentum turn
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Feb 8, 2015 13:04:25 GMT -6
I believe Monneyball is more about personnel decisions and who is worth what value. I do believe there could be some NFL analysis of rb's and qb's and wr's about who really had the best value. We already have this....it's all based on vertical jump numbers. Just kidding guys.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 8, 2015 14:00:18 GMT -6
Vertical jump is probably a decent predictor of performance for skill positions.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 8, 2015 15:29:48 GMT -6
I think the best stats that would predict performance that you can actually control would be things like, percentage of time we lined up correctly vs incorrectly, percentage of time our technique was correct vs. incorrect, percentage of plays where we made an assignment error vs. no assignment errors, percentage of our players who can power clean more than X?, squat more than Y?, etc.
I would agree that most stats in football are extremely dependent on the quality of our players compared to the quality of our opponents, so it seems like the best bet would be to try to quantify things that are controllable by us and are not dependent on the other team as much as possible.
I'd say the more "typical" stats are probably more useful for purposes of comparing from season to season where the sample size is much bigger and the quality of opponent is probably more "smoothed out". For instance, maybe we made a schematic change for one reason or another and want to see if it actually helped in that area, maybe looking at year over year stats gives you some insight about that, IF you feel like the quality of your team was "normal" in each of those years.
|
|