schlomoseamus (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} schlomoseamus) wrote,@ 2006-01-30 11:42:00 |
|
The Court Jester
It is possible that the most rarified and insular bunch of technocrats in America today are the men (for they are all men) who comprise the coaching staffs in the National Football League. They are so curmudgeonly, arrogant, and conservative that the acceptance of new ideas into their ranks is usually an epochal event. Recently some new ideas have come into their thinking, but in ways that have never happened before. I wanted to write about this a little bit. Even those of you who don't like football, but like ideas, should appreciate the entry.
But to tell you that story I have to tell you this one.
Football is unbelievably complicated and requires more planning than any other major sport (SeamusDad winces with pain every time his son makes such assertions, but it is true). Essentially football games are comprised of about one hundred and twenty bone-jarringly violent set plays involving twenty-two players acting simultaneously at top speed for ten or fewer seconds. Soccer, in comparison, has set plays from a static start for perhaps 5% of the total playing time. In football, teamwork and execution are everything, and, as in all set plays, the opportunity to carefully plan the execution leads to increased complexity and reliance on accepted and proven methods that simplify and rationalize their execution.
Understanding this helps explain why most coaches are as conservative as they are. Changing a system that has done well for years is a painful experience and requires the exploration of enormously difficult permutations. It also might not work. Moreover, like most technocrats who understand a system far more deeply than anyone else who is not in their field, coaches have very little time to waste on non-coaches. What can such amateurs really understand about football? In short, they are experts operating in a complex system and have all the advantages and drawbacks that experts enjoy and suffer. At the end of they day they respect precedent and results (results being defined as that coach being beaten by a new approach or system) almost exclusively.
Recently, however, Gregg Easterbrook, aka the Tuesday Morning Quarterback, seems to be having influence on the game in ways that break this established pattern. Easterbrook has a wonderful grasp of the game, and my enjoyment of football has increased enormously because of his column. He is, however, not a coach. In fact he probably hasn't coached teams at higher than a pee-wee level in his entire life. Yet folks seem to be listening to him. Easterbrook is also not a rah-rah guy. He calls it like he sees it, and he is deeply critical of decisions coaches make that seem to hurt their teams' chances of success in order to protect their own reputations. His bugbears include blitzes, passing during ball-control situations, punting late in the game, kicking field goals late in the game, and the fourth down conversion attempt. He is clear and quite direct when writing on these topics. Here's an example of his thoughts on fourth down conversions from his week 14 column:
"Coaches boom a punt on fourth-and-1 because they think it's the "safe" thing to do. Actually it's the risky thing. Three quarters of NFL fourth-down runs gain a first down (74 percent in 2004, to be exact). This means punting on fourth-and-1 in opposition territory passively surrenders a chance of a drive that produces points, in order to hand the ball over to the other side. Plus when coaches go for it in situations like this, they send the message they are challenging their players to go win the game. When coaches order a mincing fraidy-cat punt, they send the message they expect to lose and are already thinking about how to shift blame at the press conference. "Game over" in my notebook on the first series -- well Jax, at least you set some kind of record."
He's right. Coaches live in a pressurized environment where they are often judged for things that discourage the more aggressive decision. Ever since Easterbrook has been beating this drum, however, coaches seem to be behaving more aggressively on fourth down. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but my subjective perception is that football teams -- at ALL levels -- went for it this year at a much higher rate than ever before. The only deciding factor that I can see is that Easterbrook in his column made it his major theme of the year, writing about it more in this season than any one before it. I think that the meme was heard, and has spread.
Why are the technocrats listening to this man? I think it has to do with who he is, and how he presents himself. Consider the iconic image that is part of his weekly title:
A kinda funny-looking guy with a big butt and nerd glasses who can't catch the football. For the record, Easterbrook is rather better looking than this, and when you hear or see him speak this is not one's first impression. To me that suggests that Easterbrook knows what he's doing.
Being the student of history and human nature that he is, Easterbrook understands that in the court of NFL royalty, where the coaches are knights and the owners are kings, he can only make an impression by being the role of the jester, the clown. The singer voices difficult truths by being a character, masking them in humorous ways, and never, NEVER implying that he is in any way a threat to those in power. If Easterbrook were a coach saying the things he does, he'd have a target on his back every week, and other coaches would feel so threatened by his insinuations that they would reject his arguments out of hand entirely because of who was expressing them. Hence the jester image. Eventually the court listens to the jester, even if they don't know it.
He also changes all of those around the court. Easterbrook is read not only by coaches, but also by owners, sports broadcasters, and just about everyone else who is drawn to the odd cerebral aspects of this bone-crunching sport. He is wise, he is non-threatening, he is fun to read. And ironically enough, this situation gives everyone the chance to make the "right" choice: coaches can point out to their employers that they were trying to win football games because they have statistics to back it up, and they have a common context with which to make the argument. The media has something to hang onto. And we, the true amateurs, understand the beauty of the game a little more. Easterbrook is the ultimate oracle of the football gods. Long may he clown.
It is possible that the most rarified and insular bunch of technocrats in America today are the men (for they are all men) who comprise the coaching staffs in the National Football League. They are so curmudgeonly, arrogant, and conservative that the acceptance of new ideas into their ranks is usually an epochal event. Recently some new ideas have come into their thinking, but in ways that have never happened before. I wanted to write about this a little bit. Even those of you who don't like football, but like ideas, should appreciate the entry.
But to tell you that story I have to tell you this one.
Football is unbelievably complicated and requires more planning than any other major sport (SeamusDad winces with pain every time his son makes such assertions, but it is true). Essentially football games are comprised of about one hundred and twenty bone-jarringly violent set plays involving twenty-two players acting simultaneously at top speed for ten or fewer seconds. Soccer, in comparison, has set plays from a static start for perhaps 5% of the total playing time. In football, teamwork and execution are everything, and, as in all set plays, the opportunity to carefully plan the execution leads to increased complexity and reliance on accepted and proven methods that simplify and rationalize their execution.
Understanding this helps explain why most coaches are as conservative as they are. Changing a system that has done well for years is a painful experience and requires the exploration of enormously difficult permutations. It also might not work. Moreover, like most technocrats who understand a system far more deeply than anyone else who is not in their field, coaches have very little time to waste on non-coaches. What can such amateurs really understand about football? In short, they are experts operating in a complex system and have all the advantages and drawbacks that experts enjoy and suffer. At the end of they day they respect precedent and results (results being defined as that coach being beaten by a new approach or system) almost exclusively.
Recently, however, Gregg Easterbrook, aka the Tuesday Morning Quarterback, seems to be having influence on the game in ways that break this established pattern. Easterbrook has a wonderful grasp of the game, and my enjoyment of football has increased enormously because of his column. He is, however, not a coach. In fact he probably hasn't coached teams at higher than a pee-wee level in his entire life. Yet folks seem to be listening to him. Easterbrook is also not a rah-rah guy. He calls it like he sees it, and he is deeply critical of decisions coaches make that seem to hurt their teams' chances of success in order to protect their own reputations. His bugbears include blitzes, passing during ball-control situations, punting late in the game, kicking field goals late in the game, and the fourth down conversion attempt. He is clear and quite direct when writing on these topics. Here's an example of his thoughts on fourth down conversions from his week 14 column:
"Coaches boom a punt on fourth-and-1 because they think it's the "safe" thing to do. Actually it's the risky thing. Three quarters of NFL fourth-down runs gain a first down (74 percent in 2004, to be exact). This means punting on fourth-and-1 in opposition territory passively surrenders a chance of a drive that produces points, in order to hand the ball over to the other side. Plus when coaches go for it in situations like this, they send the message they are challenging their players to go win the game. When coaches order a mincing fraidy-cat punt, they send the message they expect to lose and are already thinking about how to shift blame at the press conference. "Game over" in my notebook on the first series -- well Jax, at least you set some kind of record."
He's right. Coaches live in a pressurized environment where they are often judged for things that discourage the more aggressive decision. Ever since Easterbrook has been beating this drum, however, coaches seem to be behaving more aggressively on fourth down. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but my subjective perception is that football teams -- at ALL levels -- went for it this year at a much higher rate than ever before. The only deciding factor that I can see is that Easterbrook in his column made it his major theme of the year, writing about it more in this season than any one before it. I think that the meme was heard, and has spread.
Why are the technocrats listening to this man? I think it has to do with who he is, and how he presents himself. Consider the iconic image that is part of his weekly title:
A kinda funny-looking guy with a big butt and nerd glasses who can't catch the football. For the record, Easterbrook is rather better looking than this, and when you hear or see him speak this is not one's first impression. To me that suggests that Easterbrook knows what he's doing.
Being the student of history and human nature that he is, Easterbrook understands that in the court of NFL royalty, where the coaches are knights and the owners are kings, he can only make an impression by being the role of the jester, the clown. The singer voices difficult truths by being a character, masking them in humorous ways, and never, NEVER implying that he is in any way a threat to those in power. If Easterbrook were a coach saying the things he does, he'd have a target on his back every week, and other coaches would feel so threatened by his insinuations that they would reject his arguments out of hand entirely because of who was expressing them. Hence the jester image. Eventually the court listens to the jester, even if they don't know it.
He also changes all of those around the court. Easterbrook is read not only by coaches, but also by owners, sports broadcasters, and just about everyone else who is drawn to the odd cerebral aspects of this bone-crunching sport. He is wise, he is non-threatening, he is fun to read. And ironically enough, this situation gives everyone the chance to make the "right" choice: coaches can point out to their employers that they were trying to win football games because they have statistics to back it up, and they have a common context with which to make the argument. The media has something to hang onto. And we, the true amateurs, understand the beauty of the game a little more. Easterbrook is the ultimate oracle of the football gods. Long may he clown.
