tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-97207592024-03-07T00:00:09.046-05:00Ultimate Strategy & CoachingWelcome. This site primarily is concerned with coaching ultimate and ultimate strategy, but over the years we’ve discussed just about anything involving running after a piece of plastic.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-56443015803115029292019-03-09T20:59:00.001-05:002019-03-09T20:59:20.525-05:00Freeze Tag Ultimate and Micro Freeze Tag I had an idea a long time ago that some teams were good at reading dead-disc situations and other teams were bad. By "dead-disc" I mean any stoppage where there had to be a check. It felt like some teams/players could just immediately understand where the disc should go before it is tapped in and then throw it there to a receiver that was on the same page. Perhaps a better example as a coach are the times that players fail to recognize the obvious place to deviate from a scheme on a stopped disc.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I felt like it came down to readying a defense, but how do you develop that skill? I came up with a game that, despite being years old, I have literally never played. The game is Freeze Tag Ultimate and the rules are simple. You play ultimate, but each time the mark is set they yell "freeze." At that point then start counting down from five to zero. During this time no one is allowed to move, not even the person with the disc. When the mark gets to zero they start to count up, with a stall count of 5. Still, people are not allowed to move with the exception of the mark and the thrower. All cutters and defenders must stay still until the disc is thrown. At that point everyone is allowed to run and we continue the process when the next mark is set (if no mark is set then multiple passes can happen without freezing).<br />
<br />
The idea is that the person with the disc gets a chance to see where their offenders are, where the defenders are, and where they can get the disc too. Similarly, the defenders can assess the situation and try to decide what is likely to be thrown so they can pounce on it. By slowing this process down and giving people time to think about it you can let people develop that skill of "reading" the situation.<br />
<br />
Well, today I thought of an adjustment to it that might make this game better, or at least different. Rather than playing on a full field, it should be played in a small box (maybe 20x20) to shift the focus. This doesn't help you realize the full field stopped disc situation, but it does give some utility in the reset game. Maybe there should be a shorted clock, but the idea is that over these short ranges you have to read less-obvious advantages and throw different throws. While I might just air the disc out to the best space in the larger version, Micro Freeze Tag is going to force me to throw short-range touch passes.<br />
<br />
As I write this I can think of one more benefit of this type of game (which I don't know when I'll ever get to play, so this might all be bunk). Especially in Micro Freeze Tag, where there is less space to work with, you can have a good discussion about how you move when you aren't the person being throw to. In a full field there is plenty of thought about getting downfield to provide a continuing pass, but in Micro it feels like the game will be more about small shifts in the way that you move in a zone. So, when the other person catches it, we want to make sure that we are giving them options in multiple places (whatever that looks like for us). I think there might be something here.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-35223572666128772932018-05-28T10:48:00.002-04:002019-03-09T19:47:11.179-05:00Down By TwoOne of my favorite activities to do at a practice is something called Game Flow. I won't go into the whole thing here, but it ends with a game of Down By Two.<br />
<br />
You'd be surprised how many games come down to one team being down by two goals near the end of the game. A fantastic example of this is the UNC/Oregon Men's College Semifinal that happened yesterday. The conceit of Down By Two is obvious: one team is down by two (12-10 or 13-11) in a game hard to 15. There are two levers to play with: who is down, who is pulling. The pulling really matters. Being down two and pulling is a harder game to play.<br />
<br />
So why play this game? I said that many games come down to this, but many games come down to 4-3, so why don't we practice that? The idea is that a late game differential is emotionally different than a mid-game differential. You have to think and behave differently when you are down by two late in order to win the game. Prior momentum is irrelevant, as teams can quickly develop or kill momentum with a single goal at this stage. Everything feels amplified, and that is something teams need to practice. Pulling with a two point lead feels different, as the game is about emotionally maintaining balance and confidence as you close out a lead. Receiving down two is a little different because you know you are going to have to get a break eventually to win this game. I could talk about this for a while, but the point is that the mental states are different and worth practicing.<br />
<br />
Watching the UNC/Oregon game reminded me of that. Often I feel like I make up things and try them with little feedback on how they go. Sometimes players tell me things, but I don't really trust them to give me honest opinions in the moment. Once a player commented that Nethercutt gets his teams to play 4v6 often. It was incredibly gratifying because I have no idea if that game is actually beneficial, but at least one person smarter than me thinks it is worth doing, so that is something. So seeing the score 13-11 and watching Oregon lose reminded me that Down By Two is a pretty important game and that skill is valuable. Now to figure out if my crazy red zone is really worth it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-5024651257237914532018-02-10T10:26:00.002-05:002018-02-10T10:26:45.932-05:00Defining Space and How We Access ItAs I get older I feel like my thoughts then to be broader. While my youth was spent dissecting the minutia of how to play better handler defense by slightly changing the position of my body, now I spend more time thinking about broader strategy elements like how to structure and effective poach. I think part of this comes (at least for me) with a reduction in ability. Who am I to say how to best position your body to stop an up-line cut? I'm old and have creaky joints so I can barely stop anyone (and more importantly have to fall back on tricks that younger players might not have to). I guess this doesn't have to do with the specific topic at hand, and there is probably more to get into in this topic. But the point is that I've spent a good bit of time thinking about space in ultimate and I wonder if I can codify some terms and ideas regarding the offensive use of space in this game.<br />
<br />
First, let's talk about roles in defining space. For the most part we are going to be talking about active space as an area that cutters use in an attempt to get the disc. There are lots of ways to access active space (which are covered in the cutting tree that I never finish), but all of them require a particular active space. There are other types of space, but we aren't going to be too concerned about those in this discussion.<br />
<br />
Offensive structures are the first attempt to define space (active space being their primary focus). A vertical stack splits the field in two vertical active spaces, with one (the open side) being the most active and the other being used. It then finds success by switching which active space is being used as quickly as possible. More on that later. Horizontal stacks split the field into a near and a far space, both of which are accessible from the start. However, as this offense (or any spread offense) continues the spaces shift and it becomes a larger, central active space (closer to the original position of a split stack). Side stacks choose one lane and maximize it as much as possible. The point is that offenses try to define active space with their structure.<br />
<br />
Defenses understandingly try to limit defensive space with their positioning, marking and poaching schemes. Let's use a vertical stack as a structure to talk about. In a vertical stack the offense is try attempting to create two vertical lanes ~17 yards wide and space at the back. The mark attempts to stop one of those lanes by "forcing" a direction, and the defenders likely play a yard or two off their person, narrowing the lane to maybe ~12 yards. Maybe they bracket the last person to reduce the size of the deep active space. In the case of a side stack, maybe they throw a person into the active lane to poach, reducing the active space. Not to mention that once a cutter is in motion the defending player then attempts to reduce the space for you to throw the disc based on their proximity and speed relative to the offender. The point is that defenses attempt to reduce space through schemes and athleticism.<br />
<br />
Now let's get to the real point of the article: how do teams try to access space. It is different for every offensive structure, and beyond that it is different for every team. There are may ways to be successful at accessing space (some might call this "getting open" but since the theme is space I'm going to call it "accessing space). Likewise there are many ways to fail at it. But I think in general we can break down all of these methods into three main categories. You can access space through cutting prowess, through throwing prowess through shifting the location of the disc and by shifting the landscape of the field through player movement. The last is the one I am most interested in, but we need to explain the others as a reference.<br />
<br />
First, cutting prowess. This is how many offenses, and especially most side stacks, operate to use space. Put a great cutter out there, let them juke and confuse their defender and eventually explode open. It helps if you can offer two readily available active spaces (or partition your space into two sections like under/deep) so the cutter can threaten one thing and take the other. But in the end, it is about the ability of your cutter to get open. <br />
<br />
Second, throwing prowess. This was on display (I think, I should watch it again) during the 2017 USAU Mixed National Finals where Amp was consistently using short breaks to the front of the stack to open up the offense. The idea is that a person with the disc is also critical in defining the active space. Your horizontal offense might attempt to open up initial deep strikes, but if your center handler can't throw it deep then you haven't successfully opened that space. This happens near the end zone, where many offenses (looking at you CFS) will just throw a pass to open space and have the cutter run on. This also happens when Brodie is trapped on the flick side of a vertical stack and just throws a hammer to the break (and undefended) lane. We are pretty comfortable with the idea that certain throwers change the spatial environment on the field through breaks, hucks and just gutsy throws.<br />
<br />
Third, shifting the location of the disc. Let's call this what it is, swinging the disc. The idea is that vertical space gets more congested the longer a disc is in a third of the field, which inherently means that other space is opening up. If we aren't all throwing Brodie's hammer to the breakside, then moving the disc laterally is another way to access what was previously blocked space. That isn't the only way this can happen. In a stiff headwind your horizontal stack might not attack the deep space as effectively as in a neutral wind. But running your resets upfield (almost like and up-line cut) allows your handlers to shorten the distance for the huck and then opening up that space. We talk about moving the disc to change landscape often. "High side" is probably the thing that I yell most from the sideline (thanks Nancy Sun and Alex Snyder).<br />
<br />
The fourth one is the one that I don't think we spend enough time thinking about. We think about cutter movement as accessing space and clearing space, but often those are still the active spaces in the general structure of the offense. There are instances that are maybe not thought enough about, where the offense opens up new space because of native player movement. Many of these instances are involved in plays. A sweep in a horizontal stack is designed to vacate space on one half of the field while a player from the other half enters that space. A split (or "red sea" as we called it in high school) in a vertical stack takes the front/back two cutters out to either side so the third person cuts in/deep. The very premise of the split stack I run is based on how this concept works on a mixed team. <br />
<br />
The concept, to be more concrete, is that defenses understand the spaces you are trying to open up through your structure. They position to limit your cutting ability. They mark to reduce your ability to throw to spaces they don't want the disc. All of those things can happen to limit your space, and we are good at them. But all of those things require an understanding of the active space. But by moving cutters you can open up space that wasn't there before, and therefore the defense might not have been ready to defend. As a result cutters, who might understand this shifting space, can easily get open there in a new way.<br />
<br />
Let's take a specific example that isn't from a set play. The game of adjustment and counter-adjustment in the side stack is fun to play since it has been a dominant offense for the past 5-8 years. One thing that started to happen is that when the lane is crowded the disc will swing and the stack will sweep to the other side. This takes the space that was previously occupied by the stack and turns it into the active space. Let's now think about the person defending the back to the stack. That person is clearly defending deep because there is a lot of clutter in front of them and defenders that could help if their person cuts under. But why would they? That space isn't even open because all of the offenders are there. But when they move that space opens up and that offender in the back of the stack is open by player movement rather than cutting or throwing (ok, technically there was also disc movement and the counter to this is easy because you just keep your poach towards the top of the side stack in place to cap the cutter and then you are done . . . but there are more examples where it is all player movement but this one happens natively rather than in a play). This method (similar to disc movement or throwing prowess) allows a person to get open without being a great cutter, but also is hard to defend. That is especially the case when this happens in the middle of offensive flow rather than a set play.<br />
<br />
So what does long diatribe mean aside from I need to go back, edit it and add pictures to further this idea? It is worthwhile to think about how your team accesses space and whether or not it makes sense for your personnel and team ethics. It is worth knowing that some modes of accessing space require different skill sets. It is important know ways to use all four methods for accessing space in different situations for different offensive structures. Not all four are easy at all times, and some structures really limit different modes of getting open. I'm growing increasingly partial to the fourth because it works regardless of your cutters and throwers ability. The flip is that it requires people to be really aware of the field. But everything has its drawbacks. <br />
<br />
I'll try to clean this up at some point, but I had it on my mind and wanted to get it out before I forgot.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-50858569826756631702018-02-02T20:31:00.001-05:002018-02-02T20:31:42.648-05:00Further review on PT totals between Revolver, Ring of Fire and USXJacob's comment in the last post started this, and after spending some time trying to figure it out I decided that I can't add pictures to a blogger comment. So I started a new post. <br />
<br />
The gist of the conversation was that I would have liked a more even PT distribution between players during the finals (although I understand why it wasn't flat and commend Tallis Boyd on doing a great job with a difficult task). Jacob asked if that was all that uncommon, so I look at particular games that he suggested. Here are the graphs, where the y-axis is the number of points played. For reference, the Revolver-Ring game was a slow bleed where Revolver won 13-10. The USX final was a closer affair until the very end, when we won 13-11. Graphs (Revolver, Ring, USX, respectively).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtsfWFf_77MAEdfQnGyNXnIbsK_IUiMcJJgBwL4UWPwxUNLnj7JK9rUSuAsAar4lXaZm5L51UGS_5NJB51ApSDM6j6uhd3JFNNp5YPzAOcvHmp_jXwhh9WgBSbFE0JduTWPkO9/s1600/chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtsfWFf_77MAEdfQnGyNXnIbsK_IUiMcJJgBwL4UWPwxUNLnj7JK9rUSuAsAar4lXaZm5L51UGS_5NJB51ApSDM6j6uhd3JFNNp5YPzAOcvHmp_jXwhh9WgBSbFE0JduTWPkO9/s320/chart.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNANR_eKo4pz4TSbqTGZptY0AUaCfpyEUcN22E5_mS-s92X8N6zUrE4vaNYDAdEqw9GB8yOBIsjg1K_v14RnxEnp18cj788NxpeCwQllez4rq4OKgSverW4QJNlqIR7f9TILTi/s1600/chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNANR_eKo4pz4TSbqTGZptY0AUaCfpyEUcN22E5_mS-s92X8N6zUrE4vaNYDAdEqw9GB8yOBIsjg1K_v14RnxEnp18cj788NxpeCwQllez4rq4OKgSverW4QJNlqIR7f9TILTi/s400/chart.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFmHc21iKHLaB-3PhosHxb499JhsYxC2MpTq1aWMtdEbuvDWqvTBLLS6WZkoIQG0yhkMsyvftF8roFLtUgX_82bQnNLvU2xGliSKJwXOFUzJYJNtNzkGQWCKtWWbYFVSTEVua-/s1600/chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFmHc21iKHLaB-3PhosHxb499JhsYxC2MpTq1aWMtdEbuvDWqvTBLLS6WZkoIQG0yhkMsyvftF8roFLtUgX_82bQnNLvU2xGliSKJwXOFUzJYJNtNzkGQWCKtWWbYFVSTEVua-/s400/chart.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
From the looks of it, Jacob is right that the USX point distribution isn't that different from the others. A better question would be if it was different from our semi-final against Canada. One thing that might be worth paying more attention to is where the ramp starts. For USX our minimum point were 3 out of 24 (1/8 of the points). For Revolver the minimum was 3 out of 23 (stupid prime numbers), while the Ring one was 1 out of 23 (ignoring the 0's which might have been injured players). It would seem that the starting position of the ramp would likely determine how steep it could be.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
One other thing that is really worth pointing out, is that a more flat distribution isn't "better." In this case it was something that we might aspire to, but that doesn't mean we are playing a better form of ultimate or have a higher chance of winning.</div>
<span id="goog_338741369"></span><span id="goog_338741370"></span><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-19681921534330987032018-01-27T14:13:00.000-05:002018-01-27T14:13:03.979-05:00A few more numbers for USX '18I ran a few more numbers for the finals again Japan and I thought I would share them<br />
<br />
Point distribution among players wasn't as flat as I would like. Two players only played 3 points, while four players played 10+. The ramp between those two levels was pretty even, but I wish playing time was a little more even. It is a difficult ask as those sort of things tend to fall away in the finals and during a tournament when there are many ofter things going on.<br />
<br />
Possessions per goal for each team were decent, but not excellent. USX needed (on average) 2.77 possessions to score and Japan needed 3.18. It is always true that the team with the lower number during a game wins, so there isn't much behind a comparison of these numbers. Comparing it to previous college and club teams it falls within the range of expectation for college teams (where playing 2 is elite college and 3+ isn't unheard of) and I wouldn't expect to be at the front of that number since there isn't a ton of time to gel and the competition is better. It is pretty bad for a club team, although I haven't looked at those numbers for the mixed division in particular.<br />
<br />
The number that is most interesting to me is percentage of possessions ending in an unforced error (defense doesn't touch the disc). USX had consistent numbers in the first and second half around 43-45%, which again isn't that bad (but could really be a lot better). The impressive thing for me is that in the 2nd half Japan had a number of 21.4% That is very elite. That means 1 out of every 5 possessions ends in an unforced error (which includes hucks that go too far). If a team I am coaching has that number then we are either winning, both teams are playing lights out, or they are getting blocks. The latter was the case this time, as we were able to slightly grow a lead despite the Japanese playing relatively error free ultimate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-71133979198782509682018-01-24T11:36:00.001-05:002018-01-24T11:36:16.852-05:00Gender Contact Ratio (3rd cycle)This past January I was fortunate enough to have another wonderful experience coaching the USA U24 Mixed team (USX). We won a gold medal, like the previous two years, but this cycle was very different from the past two.<br />
<br />
This was the first iteration with no founding players. Last cycle we had returners that had shaped the teams existence and this was the first official passing of a torch to new leaders for whom this was already an "established" thing. This time we took a smaller roster, slightly eschewing the "more people means more fun" mentality for the possibility of a tighter knit team. This cycle also was captive by the times and far more interested in gender equity than teams in the past. All of these things are probably worth talking about at some point, but for now we will divert from the last one to look at the same thing I have looked at the past two, gender contact ratio.<br />
<br />
The same caveat applies as before: there isn't a "perfect" number that represents the most "equitable" style of play. We can't make hard conclusions about the involvement of both genders from this number, but it does help us check our perception of reality and talk about broad topics.<br />
<br />
The context of the game was similar to last cycle. It was windy, but not too oppressive. Japan used their women more effectively (at least in my opinion) than Australia did in 2015. Our team was more conscientious about using our women, and we had more female handlers than we had ever had. In 2013 we could argue having 3 female handlers, with really only Sophie being a true center handler in the bunch. This group decided early on that we had really good female center handlers and threw the first pass to them without any instruction from us. This time we had Hardy, KJ, T-Lo and Anna all acting as handlers and all taking turns getting centered to. Japan also utilized a zone that required a lot of patty-cake from our handlers (or maybe it was the handlers that we had at the time) because we weren't going to swing around their 3-3-1 as easily. This patty-cake often featured male handlers getting lots of touches. <br />
<br />
The numbers for this game were pretty surprising. I felt like we were more equitable with our distribution, not as a mantra but rather because we were opening up good space and willing to throw passes. I often talk about how my anecdotal measure of success for a mixed team is how willing they are to throw a 20-30 yard under to a woman who is well guarded. It shows a level of trust, openness of space, and also a recognition that small spaces are ok sometimes. I felt like this team leaned in to that principle well and was often throwing big gainers to their women. Those women didn't turn around and boost it as much as I would like, but at the same time they weren't always resetting the disc either, so I think it is a structural problem in how we were running the offense.<br />
<br />
To the numbers. In this game there were a total of 417 touches (as compared to 252 and 180 in the past two cycles . . . patty-cake). Of those 417, 157 were by women. This breaks down to 37.6% of the touches or a contact ratio of 1.66 times as many touches for a man as compared to a woman. If we look at the past two cycles we had numbers of 3.00 (2015) and 2.53 (2013). I know I said that this number doesn't well correlate with better play, but I can't help but feel that we threw to women more often and this number supports it. No doubt part of it is getting people in places to shine, but we were consistently throwing difficult passes to small windows and hitting women. We also did a better job of clearing out space downfield so that strings of female passes could occur before a male defender and offender crowded the picture. <br />
<br />
It is worth noting that these numbers include a few points against that Japanese zone where we had a high number of touches and since much of that was between three men (Brett, John and Matt) it skews the numbers a bit. Women were still key players in those points, but not in the patty-cake that was most of the touches and rather in the key outlet and through passes that actually moved the disc. One such possession had 27 touches by women as compared to 52 touches by men. Another was 18/47, respectively. I thought about taking these points out, but they are real points that affected touches, so I felt they should stay in.<br />
<br />
On thing that is worth looking at is a comparison of the final to the semi-final. After the semi against Canada there was a clear feeling by members of the team that we "hadn't used our women well." While that is amorphous and certainly isn't completely embodied by this ratio, it was the feeling by the players and we were a little surprised. Looking back at the film the first time it felt like there were plenty of places where only men were touching the disc, but that it was largely a structural issue (cutters too far away and reset defenders able to get too close) than a broader failure to throw to women. Watching the film again looking at contact ratio, the semifinal was less balanced than the final (showing that we cleaned things up) but not terribly so. The ratio was 2.24 touch for men for each by a woman. That is better than both other finals, although it is markedly worse than our final this cycle.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean? I feel like I got this job in part because I was able to well describe a way that I thought we could best showcase mixed ultimate, not by ignoring gender and treating everyone the same, nor by over leveraging particular advantages (see Bad Larry mid2000s who ran 4 women so their men had more room to homey) but by saying that if we put people in the right places and throw to them in a system that creates space for everyone, we can all get better. It is a "total is greater than the sum of the pieces" approach. I feel like we did that in the past, and while watching these two games again more critically I do feel that we made many refinement errors (didn't run our redzone particularly well, suffered from handler creep, etc.) we did a better job of getting everyone space at times and throwing passes to everyone. That, combined with a better balance of genders in each position, and a focus on gender equity, is likely part of the reason we ended up getting more people involved.<br />
<br />
Again, that doesn't mean that the road to victory is having a ratio of 1, or that this is the only way to win these games. But as a person who hopes to live up to values of inclusion, and recognizes that there are times that I fail, looking at the Gender Contact Ratio for this cycle makes me think that we did a pretty good job.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-82713211382388213482017-08-05T08:48:00.003-04:002017-08-05T08:48:47.416-04:00US Open 2017: Brute Squad vs. RevolutionI got a chance to watch the live stream of this excellent game between two great teams. There was a lot of hype about how this might be a bracket game at worlds next summer, and that Maddy Frey can't seem to catch the disc standing up. But I wanted to talk a bit about the strategy of the game, and in particular how I think Revolution might be changing the direction of women's ultimate in the next few years.<br />
<br />
One key element in this discussion is that Revolution is athletic to the point the Brute Squad didn't have a decisive advantage . . . at least that is what listening to the commentators you might think. I think Brute is actually more athletic from top to bottom, but Revolution employs a style of defense that highly leverage their athletes in a way that Brute doesn't. So it doesn't matter that Brute can trot out Becky, Kami and Lien when Mosquera can guard all three with the way they play defense.<br />
<br />
On its face, Columbia does and excellent job poaching, leaving Mosquera to guard the deep space while other cutter defenders only chase a woman deep for two strides before breaking off and finding a new threat to take. That isn't really new. What is new, and what warrants further analysis is the success that Revolution has with it against even the best teams in the world. <br />
<br />
There are times when the defenders are super close, especially on handlers, and then there are times when offenders are wide open. Normally, when we see US and Canadian teams try this there is a failure point where the poached player gets the disc and it starts to crumble. But that doesn't seem to happen against Revolution. It only marginally happened against Columbia in the World Games final (and didn't happen in the pool play game where Columbia beat the US).<br />
<br />
What is new about their defense is the success rate they have of not losing track of a player in a good space. Revolution, whether by practice or just something innate, is super efficient at making their switches, knowing when to stay and when to leave, and being ready to explode to get the D at the right time. It must be a nightmare for opposing offenses because it feels like offensive cadence is broken.<br />
<br />
Like I said, this warrants more analysis. It could be that the solution is easy and this defense falls into the category of the Japanese no-mark zone where it is potentially difficult unless you have a plan. But it also could be that this defense has more merit than a one off and more teams start to implement not just the general structure of the defense (most elite teams have a poachy look to throw at out, at least to mess up your pull play) but tunnel down and figure out the principles of the defense.<br />
<br />
Then again, it could just be that Revolution is so athletic that this works and when you try it with your club team it doesn't. It would be interesting to see something like this tried on the men's side of things, since we have good examples in both women's and mixed. But, like I said, this warrants more analysis. Stay tuned and we'll see what comes up.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-85859140683280126162016-06-24T14:47:00.001-04:002016-06-26T08:05:38.727-04:00Stupid Games (part 3: Frisketball)I have been playing Frisketball since 2011 when a bunch of Paideia Juniors and I made it up after our season ended in the spring. We could only get a handful of people, and didn't want to drive out to a field or put on cleats. So we needed something akin to pickup basketball where you could almost always play (on the same field) and people could come and go with little disturbance to the overall game. Frisketball was created and is best played with between 4 and 8 players.<br />
<br />
The rules started almost identical to Hot Box. The playing field is the basketball court. The goal is to complete a pass to your team inside of the paint. That is it. Super simple.<br />
<br />
In the past few years we have evolved the rules a little bit, making the game more like basketball and finding other tweaks. Here are the basic rules that we always play with.<br />
<br />
- Stall is 7<br />
- Picks are discouraged, but so is calling picks<br />
- Neither offense nor defense can stand in the paint for more than 3 seconds<br />
- If you throw the disc in the hoop it is a goal (good luck)<br />
- Double-teams are allowed<br />
<br />
The game is all about shifting spaces and the rectangular nature of the goal makes scoring interesting. It is a game that encourages fast play, creative throws, and offering appropriate help defense. <br />
<br />
A 2-on-2 game is hard because the defense will always play towards the paint and with only one other person as a viable target it becomes difficult to find useful attacking space (but there is plenty of reset space).<br />
<br />
A 3-on-3 game is exciting because there can be lots of swinging to shift attack angles, but there still aren't enough people for you to rest too much.<br />
<br />
A 4-on-4 game is tough because the defense can clog so effectively. The offense needs to be much more coordinated, which can be very rewarding.<br />
<br />
The game can also be full or half-court depending on numbers and available space.<br />
<br />
A few of the alternate rules that we have installed in the game:<br />
- No over-and-back: in a full court game once the thrower establish one point of contact beyond the half-court line if they go backwards (either with a pivot or a pass), it is a turnover.<br />
<br />
- Out of bounds: if any point of contact for the thrower is on or beyond the out of bounds line it is a turnover. This includes stopping with the disc after you catch it (it also creates interesting trap situations on defense).<br />
<br />
- 10 second rule: in a full court game the offensive team has 10 seconds (from in-bounds possession of the disc) to get the disc past the half-court line. This 10 seconds can be counted by anyone on or off the field, and must be counted down from 10 to avoid confusion with the stall<br />
<br />
- 2 point line: in a full court game, if a goal is thrown from beyond the half-court line it is worth two points<br />
<br />
- Jump ball: in a full court game, to start the game you can have a jump ball at center court. If the disc hits the ground without being caught then the team going away from the side where it lands starts with the disc at its current location.<br />
<br />
Frisketball is really tremendous fun. People who are bad at ultimate can still be good at frisketball. It is easy to play with all ages and across gender. It isn't a lot of running, but is incredibly tiring. It can be physical or gentle depending on how you want to play it. If you give it a go and have feedback please don't hesitate to post it as a comment. All of those expanded rules were the rules of just having fun with it, so more collaboration is encouraged.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-63723476844020990042016-06-01T20:14:00.000-04:002016-06-09T19:32:43.188-04:00Stupid Games (part 2: BruteBall?)Ok, I've got a few tweaks to scrimmages lined up, but since it has been almost a month since my last post I'll go with something that is more unique. I cannot claim credit for this game. At best I could give credit to Noah Cohen, but I think he learned it from someone in North Carolina. Patrick Hard went to school in NC, so let's pretend he invented it.<br />
<br />
The game's name is still up in the air. Noah called it "honey pot" . . . I am not calling a game that I might be teaching middle school kids by that name. From now on I will refer to it as BruteBall (please someone leave a better name in the comments).<br />
<br />
The game feels similar to KanJam in that there is a can (in this case a larger, circular trashcan). But unlike KanJam it isn't a passive game about throwing and deflection. It also isn't symmetric. The game is played with exactly 3 players. Each possession two are on offense and one is on defense. The offenders are trying to put the disc in the trashcan in pretty much any manner they can, but the disc can't cross the plane at the top of the lid while it is still in someone's hand. So you literally can't jam the can. <br />
<br />
Like ultimate, you can't travel when you have the disc and you have a stall (in this case 6 seconds). But unlike ultimate, the defender doesn't have to mark in order to stall. You would think that scoring happens when the offense puts the disc in the can, but that isn't the case. Each possession, a point is scored for the defender if there is a turnover. Then the defender rotates to a new person and you start a new possession. The only rules for the defender are they they cannot cover the can with their body/arms. Games are played to whatever you like, but 5 seems to work pretty well.<br />
<br />
To start a possession the defender just tosses the disc somewhere in the playing area and the game starts. The playing area can be as large as you like, but must completely surround the can. It doesn't have to be a circle where the can is the center, but the can needs to be accessible from all sides.<br />
<br />
So what is this game about. It might seem like the thing to do defensively is to just sit at the can. There are no rules preventing you from doing that, but it will allow the offense to get really close to the can, and then it only takes the offender getting the disc around your body and dropping it in to score. You might logically think that the thing to do is to stall while playing tight defense on the other offender. But then you leave an uncontested throw for on offender and if the other one sneaks past you then it is an easy goal.<br />
<br />
Instead the thing to do is to figure out the balance between the two. You play the lane to block a direct shot while trying to also contest a pass to the other offender, all while stalling. So this game is working on help defense and controlling angles (I guess . . . it is mostly just fun).<br />
<br />
That is it for another installment of Stupid Games. I'll come back next month with something else . . . maybe with pictures.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-30449497797997462842016-05-04T11:12:00.003-04:002016-06-09T19:32:22.740-04:00Stupid Games (part 1: 4v6)I wonder how many multi-part posts I can start before I finish any of them?<br />
<br />
I like playing games, and I like making games. It is one of the things that I really enjoy about coaching. Finding the right tweak or an existing drill (or whole-cloth new drill) to teach the specific thing you are trying to get at is a ton of fun.<br />
<br />
One game that we created is called 4v6. I'd make a diagram of it, but the diagram is incredibly boring. 4v6 is played in a box of four cones approximately 10yds by 12 yds. The team of six is on "offense" and is simply trying to keep the disc alive (no turnovers). The team of four is on "defense" and is trying to generate as many turns as possible. The game is played for a short amount of time (5 minutes) where the offensive team is always on offense. In the event of a turn, the disc goes back to the offensive team. The defense scores one point for each turnover. After the 5 minutes is over the two teams switch and the second defensive team tries to beat the first defensive team's score.<br />
<br />
The stall is 5, but you don't have to be marking to stall the person with the disc. All offensive players must have one point of contact with the ground at all times. This basically means no running or jumping. The defensive team does not have this restriction. This really helps because the defensive team can "guard" four of the five non-throwing offensive players and can run to get the fifth.<br />
<br />
A few other rules/tweaks we have tried:<br />
-Have two teams of four and keep two people as permanent offense.<br />
-No patty-cake rules where you can't throw back to the person who threw to you unless the count is over three (basically no back and forth with another player)<br />
-Changing the size of the box. This really matters depending on disc-skill and athleticism. With Chain I had to use a larger box because the defenders were so fast.<br />
-Changing the number of players. Really the game should be called "N+2" because the offense should always have two extra players. That means the defense can't shut down everyone and has to work together to cover the extra open offender.<br />
<br />
If anyone still reads this blog and has questions, comments or suggestions about this game please don't hesitate to leave them below. 4v6 is far from perfect, but it does work on some good ultimate skills in a focused fashion.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-68677565556686421232016-04-30T14:12:00.002-04:002016-04-30T14:12:21.111-04:00Statistics Update, and a note on subbing patternsI really should be working on the cutting tree, but with my coaching future in question and the high school season in full swing I have tabled that to work on some other things. <br />
<br />
I have continued collecting data on what I think is are some novel statistics. After a year of tracking these things, I have actually gotten a somewhat reasonable set of data and I feel like conclusions can start to be made. <br />
<br />
The first one I've talked about before: it is percentage of possessions that result in an unforced error (%UE). Conceptually this is "bad," but not necessarily directly correlated with score. In a windy game the %UE might go up very high, even if the teams are really good. Unlike "breaks" or "offensive efficiency," you can lose a game where you have a better %UE. Categorizing %UE is a little subjective, but I have been using the rule of if the defense gets a hand on it then it was "forced." Everything else falls in "unforced" and is counted. Paideia's average %UE for the season so far is ~47%, which is pretty good. Basically we give up the frisbee just under half of the time we have it . . . sounds bad, but when compared to individual games where the number is 60+% this is fine.<br />
<br />
Since I had enough data to try this, I have wondered what this does correlate with. Anecdotally we would assume that this correlates with wins because the lower your %UE the less you are "screwing up." But I decided to take it one step farther and run a correlation with the final point differential of the game. As I get more games I have been updating the data, and it currently has an R^2 value of 0.385. Honestly I don't know if that is "good," and everything I read tells me that just looking at the R^2 value isn't enough to deem good or bad anyway. But the important thing that I note is how that number goes up. In general, aside from the data collected at a windy tournament, the correlation coefficient is getting larger as I enter more games and we play in more tournaments. I'll keep taking the data, and seeing if %UE is actually a reasonable indicator of team success (without being trivial because it IS team success . . . looking at you "breaks").<br />
<br />
I also have continued to play around with number of possessions per goal (PPG). There isn't as much useful data there. I have lots of good number for my team, including a drubbing by Amherst where we played well (-9, but a good -9) and had a 6.2 and a horrible game against Grady (-2, but we played like shit) and also had a 6.2. PPG isn't useful in a single game because it is just the score. If you win PPG you won that game. But I am curious if in general teams with lower average PPGs beat opponents with larger average PPGs. In order to figure that out we would need more data from multiple teams, not just the data from one.<br />
<br />
Lastly I have started using the score sheets from the past two years worth of Paideia games to build a win probability matrix. Basically my win probability (WP) is the likelihood of the team with X winning when the score is X-Y. To expand this beyond one team I had the volunteers for Paideia Cup track the order of scores so they could be entered. So far the only parameter of win probability that is being tracked is current score state, but eventually with enough data it might be expanded to more parameters. The goal is to be able to figure out which points are, on average, important. Anecdotally, after a few games were entered, the likelihood of winning games when you were up 9-7 was 0% (again, only a few games) and if you were ahead 10-6 it was 100%. That means at 9-6 this point "really matters" and maybe it is worth brining in your best players. Obviously those numbers will change when more games are entered, which is what I am doing for much of May.<br />
<br />
Impact on subbing patters is the end goal of WP is to help me inform subbing patters. I did something similar last year and it made me realize that leaving our "best" players on the field for three points was a waste. I've used that to adopt a subbing style that keeps people rested, gives new players more responsibility and hopefully bends development curves upwards with a goal of stabilizing the 4 year sinusoidal graph that is "team quality." But using that pattern had gotten us four straight losses to in-town rival Grady High School. We knew we would play them in the State Championship so we practiced and implemented a different subbing pattern that looked more like a club/college offense/defense system. We won all of our games by 9+ en route to a state championship.<br />
<br />
I don't want to use that system all of the time, because it means some people are never on the field for an offensive point, and I think that hurts their development. But having that information is interesting when coupled with WP numbers. Maybe there is a time when a shift happens from a more team oriented subbing pattern to a more success driven pattern? Figuring out when that switch should happen feels just as valuable as figuring out that our "best" players have a terrible conversion rate when they have been on the field for 3 points.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-41429109326744415072016-02-18T13:54:00.005-05:002019-06-12T06:17:53.462-04:00The Cutting Tree: 2 - Jab Cut<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i>This is an excerpt of a larger document detailing the 9 branches of the cutting tree. It is not a finished product, but I am putting it here to work on formatting and field any comments people have. </i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></span>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-cc7bd2d7-f565-d940-44c0-a686879619a2"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="267" src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/sksfe4kygj-zrK3geYkc04w/image?w=182&h=267&rev=15&ac=1" style="border: none; transform: rotate(0rad);" width="182" /></span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="274" src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/sLMmmdL8fGQhIgXUTq5cBww/image?w=182&h=274&rev=17&ac=1" style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0.00rad); border: none; transform: rotate(0.00rad);" width="182" /></span><img height="277" src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/sw-J5IsS6TzfyX-pIVQGwiQ/image?w=182&h=277&rev=11&ac=1" style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0.00rad); border: none; transform: rotate(0.00rad);" width="182" /></span></span><br />
<br />
Jab Cut - The jab cut is done by making a jabbing motion typically in a lateral direction to your frontal plane. This creates the illusion of running in that direction, while it also loads your leg to push and move in the opposite direction. In this move you are trying to exploit your defender’s tendency to (over)react to your movement and put them in a weak-reaction state. As a result it is important to think about the purpose and placement of your jab in terms of your defender. <br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>A jab is meant to generate a hip-turn, pause, or weight-shift by your defender.</li>
<li>A jab towards the frontal plane of your defender will possibly generate a back-step.</li>
<li>A jab along the frontal plane of your defender may generate a hip turn, but it also might cause the defender to shuffle and maintain their positioning.</li>
<li>A jab at a 45 degree angle to their frontal plane (an attacking jab) will force a clear hip turn. At worst, assuming the defender absorbs it well, it will generate a hop backwards.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Placement of the jab (especially the 45-degree jab) with respect to the outside foot of your opponent is also important. A placement outside the space between the defender’s feet (footbox) will likely create a drop-step or a hip-turn. A placement inside the footbox will likely create a backpedal.<br />
<br />
The last, most important component of the jab step is the acceleration out of the step. It is your acceleration out of the jab that creates a majority of your separation. The jab is simply reducing the reaction of your defender, allowing you to start your acceleration before they can react. Loading your jab foot properly, and being able to generate force from that in the desired direction allows you to get separation from your defender.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Here are some examples of a jab cut:<br />
<br />
<script javascript="" src="https://assets.gfycat.com/gfycat.js" text="" type=""></script>
<img class="gfyitem" data-id="TediousBareGnat" />
<br />
<script javascript="" src="https://assets.gfycat.com/gfycat.js" text="" type=""></script>
<img class="gfyitem" data-id="PhonyJoyfulAracari" />
<br />
<script javascript="" src="https://assets.gfycat.com/gfycat.js" text="" type=""></script>
<img class="gfyitem" data-id="EntireGaseousAphid" />
<br />
A note about the last cut: it isn't very effective. The cutter gets open, and gets the disc, but because they are in front of their defender their jab didn't really change the defender's reaction before motion. In the first two the jab is perpendicular to the defender's frontal plane (first video is into the frontal plane and the second video is away) causing the defender to generate momentum perpendicular to their frontal plane and in the wrong direction.<br />
<br />
This one shows a double-jab (which is still a jab) more parallel to the frontal plane of the defender and causing a hip-turn.<br />
<br />
<br />
<script javascript="" src="https://assets.gfycat.com/gfycat.js" text="" type=""></script>
<img class="gfyitem" data-id="WarpedAllCuckoo" />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-373844080527640662016-02-15T20:28:00.001-05:002016-02-15T20:31:04.521-05:00The Cutting Tree: Introduction<i>A few years ago, on Skyd, Mike "MC" Caldwell wrote an article titled "The Cutting Tree." My excitement was through the roof, as the implied cutting tree surely was like a football cutting tree and it would not only allow for common vernacular but be a coaching tool that could truly improve youth development. <a href="http://ultfris.blogspot.com/2014/03/mike-caldwells-cutting-tree-and-cutting.html" target="_blank">I wrote a post about it then</a> and mentioned that Kyle and I would be working on something. Well, two years have passed and while I haven't been working on that exclusively, I have made some progress and think it is time to start putting this out. So here is a rough introduction to what will hopefully be a discussion about cutting as a skill.</i><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Welcome to the Cutting Tree. This is an attempt to codify a language for cutting so that coaches can better develop training programs to create superior cutters. One problem that slows development in our sport is that we often lack a common language set, especially across regions. This leads to lost time as players/coaches have to explain what they mean to each other before real understanding can be achieved. Think of the number of times you have drawn out what a “question mark cut” is to another player. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That said, here's what this is not. I am not advocating for teams to lose their special vernacular. Calling an upline cut a beta, shooter or power cut is fine. But I think being able to trace those names back to a common motion helps development. Additionally, this is by no means a tutorial for how to cut effectively. That will take tons of practice using methodologies that are not described here. Rather the following is a set of practicable tools that a cutter can use on the way to being more effective. </span></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-cc7bd2d7-e763-bded-5315-f2dc32709592" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First we should define “cut” for the sake of this article. From here on when I refer to a “cut” I am talking about a specific pattern of movement (feet, legs and momentum) designed to get separation from a defender. All of these cuts will not get the same type of separation in all different situations and against different styles of defense. But the purpose of developing this language is so that we (as coaches) can more easily discuss movement against a defender and what type of cuts make sense in a particular offensive scheme or situation. </span></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is a tendency while reading this to want to refer to particular, situational cuts. Above, the “up line” cut was referenced as an example even though it doesn't fi our criteria for a "cut." The “up line” cut is not mentioned again in this document because it is situational (the location of the disc, offender and force are required). Instead the following breaks down and names the possible ways to execute an upline cut. You might gain separation from your defender using the same method for different situational cuts (continuation, scoring, etc.). The hope is that by naming these methods for gaining separation we might also be able to better train the right method for the right situation (something that is already done at many clinics and in many huddles).</span></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are a total of 9 different cuts described here. The differences in the cuts are at times minimal, and one could argue that some of them should be collapsed into one cut. On the other hand some would argue that there are other cuts that aren’t described in this document that should be included. Both stances are correct on some level, but it is important to remember that this isn’t a definitive guide but rather the start of a conversation.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br /></span></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here are the 9 cuts:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1 - Straight Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2 - Jab Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3 - Check Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4 - Double Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5 - Press Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6 - Seal Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">7 - Elbow Cut</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">8 - Slice Cut</span></div>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">9 - Cross Cut</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>And that is that. There are nine sections to the tree. Currently I am going through video trying to find more examples of each cut. Diagrams and descriptions are mostly written, and might end up here in a piecemeal fashion. At some point I will probably get Ultiworld to publish it if I think it is ready. By no means am I doing this alone. Kyle Weisbrod, Miranda Knowles, Jason Simpson and Andy Loveseth have all been asked for their opinions and their contributions have been incredibly informative. Originally the "tree" was a scattered mess, which is exactly the opposite of its purpose. Also I need to thank my wife for proof-reading this and helping me not sound like an idiot despite my best efforts.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-58058034512954883702015-08-04T09:48:00.003-04:002015-08-04T09:48:48.687-04:00Gender Contact Ratio (two years later)So we had another cycle of U23 mixed. We won gold again, but didn't win the spirit award. Two years ago I put down some numbers regarding the number of touches our women had compared to our opponents in the finals (Canada). I figured I would run some of the same numbers to see how we "did" this time.<br />
<br />
Anecdotally I felt like we used our women well this cycle, perhaps as well as we did in 2013. While we had fewer women around the disc (Claudia, Sophie and Tash in 2013 and only Q and Clare in 2015) we did a great job having more effective female cutters downfield. Also the finals were significantly less windy than in 2013, which gave us more confidence in throwing to our women. I can't remember a single instance of a woman missing a pass and not getting thrown to next time we were open. It is something that our team focuses on (putting people in places to succeed and giving them that chance when it is there) and both cycles really delivered on it.<br />
<br />
In contrast the Aussies were running a different offensive style that was better suited for mixed exploitation (in that it used the fact that there were different genders on the field better) but used the women less.<br />
<br />
Let's see how the numbers look. There were 252 points of contact (catches) for USX and of that 62 were by women. That breaks down to about 25% and is therefore a contact ratio of 3:1. So for every contact by a woman there were three by a man. The Australians had 118 points of contact with only 15 by women. That is a very low 13% or a 8:1 contact ratio. We also noted that of our 17 goals, 13 were on possessions where a woman touched the disc, 4 were caught by women and 6 were thrown by women.<br />
<br />
We also noted that it took us 34 possessions to score 17 goals (exactly a 2.00 Possessions Per Goal that I felt indicated the difference between elite and good college teams) while the Bluebottles (which is apparently a jellyfish) scored 4 out of 33 possessions. <br />
<br />
Again, I have no idea what any of this means. I think Australia's success (which I guess I should write about at some point) shows that a more balanced contact ratio doesn't necessarily indicate success. But one of our goals was to use our women to win games and these numbers feels like they support that.<br />
<br />
Of interesting note, our contact ratio is actually worse than it was in 2013. I feel like much of that is due to the occasional use of a 4-2-1 wall zone defense by the Australians. Canada played almost exclusively man in 2013, and while zone defense did allow Q more touches, that was only on the lines where she was on the field. There were two points where we didn't have a line conducive to female handling on the field against their softer zone. Those points involved a ton of short passes between un-marked men for basically zero yards. Looking at the touches during those points there were 82 touches but only 16 were by women (leading to a ratio of 33:8 or 4.125:1). Removing those points from the previous data leads to a contact ratio of 2.7:1. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-62700322759042144332015-06-12T11:03:00.000-04:002015-06-12T11:03:21.346-04:00What Is The Value of a Break?So what is the value of a break? Every point in ultimate is worth one point in the game, so it seems like the answer to that question you be "one." But in the elite game we all expect offensive holds and cherish breaks.<br />
<br />
I wanted to get a better sense of breaks because I was looking at Draymond Green's plus minus rating from game four of the NBA finals and adjacent to the stat was his real plus minus. While we can easily look at an ultimate players normal plus minus (stat heavy leagues like the AUDL have those values on their stats pages already), but how can we adjust those numbers?<br />
<br />
I guess we could do some sort of heavy adjustment talking about when the break happens, but that seems a step too far right now. Let's just set a simple bar and see if people tear it apart in the comments.<br />
<br />
First, it is silly to think about most elite ultimate as single point endeavors. I don't have the numbers in front of me (this is part of a different project for this summer) but if the Possessions Per Goal (PPG) metric for a team is greater than two it means they will need two possessions to score and that somewhat means that a single turnover is likely on any given point. I ran the college numbers for ~12 games this season, and it seems like the most elite college teams can operate at sub 2.0 PPG, so let's assume that club teams can do similar or better. What that leaves us with is that a turnover in a possession is still unlikely (again, data unlikely) which holds with our expectation of club where offensive holds are expected. <br />
<br />
With many elite club teams operating with an offensive line and a defensive line it makes more sense to think of a "round" of ultimate as being a two point exchange. At any given time the actual "score" of the game should reflect that exchange, and one way to do that is to include half-point into the scoring system. For example, if you receive the pull and throw a goal making the score 1-0, the score is actually +0.5 (where the plus indicates your team's value, it would be -0.5 for the opponent). Upon the opponent scoring it would be driven back to +0.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this comes from a mental game as a coach, where you tell your team that a lead isn't as big as it thinks it is. Being up 4-3 but pulling means you aren't up at all. But at the same time the half-score offers something that just pure breaks doesn't allow, an indication of who will win. True, games are won by the number of breaks you get. Sure, if you get <u style="font-weight: bold;">more</u> breaks than your opponent then you will win the game. But if we just track breaks then who wins with a score of 0? The team that wins the flip! So there is good cause to think that is terms of game states the flip is worth +0.5.<br />
<br />
Game state isn't the same as plus minus. The point of looking at the value of the flip is that it shows you the value of the change of "serve" of the game: +0.5. So if we treat an offensive hold as +1 (which seems like a good baseline) then we can argue that a break should be worth +1.5. <br />
<br />
That is a simple formula. A players plus minus is: (O-points scored+1.5*D-points scored)/points played.<br />
<br />
I suppose we could go with a more mathematically complicated model where we scale the break multiplier based on the number of breaks in a game. Something along the lines of<br />
<br />
(O-points scores+(1.5-0.1*Game D-Breaks Scored)*D-points scored)/points played<br />
<br />
This would reduce the value of your break based on the number of breaks in a game. That kind of makes sense, and perhaps allows the statistic to be used on a wider level of play. In games where offensive holds are difficult the value of a break would eventually get below 1, making it less valuable than an offensive hold.<br />
<br />
So what are we trying to do with this statistic? The number can only fluctuate between 0 and 1.5 and would seem to measure the value of a point with a person on the field. Odds are your best offensive players are going to be just above 1.0 while a defender with a number greater than 1.0 is a godsend.<br />
<br />
I've got some film to watch to look at PPG in the club division. Maybe I'll go through some college games and track this or track it while I am following a few club games.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-47929132914264851162015-04-09T20:35:00.001-04:002015-04-09T20:35:14.010-04:00Looking at numbersI have a job for the Atlanta based AUDL team the Atlanta Hustle. I think my title is technically "advance scout" which basically means I'm going to look at film and try to give assessment docs to the coach so he can map out practices and strategy. <br />
<br />
Anyway, the GM is a numbers guy, so I think I'll need some numbers/video to back up my assessments. Good thing the later is my strong suit. The former I need some work on, so that is what I have been doing recently.<br />
<br />
I have a poor relationship with ultimate statistics. I loved the work that Ultiworld did <a href="http://ultiworld.com/2013/08/13/quantifying-player-value-introducing-expected-contribution-and-ranking-the-2013-nexgen-team/" target="_blank">a long</a> <a href="http://ultiworld.com/2013/02/06/jam-it-in-new-ultiworld-scoring-charts-show-nexgens-endzone-dominance/" target="_blank">time ago</a> through tracking every flipping pass in NexGen games. But that app is dead, and I don't really know to do with a chart that shows me a team's scoring probability based on field position. I guess it could expose that a team is particularly weak in the coffin corner, but in general I don't know what else I can get from that information. <br />
<br />
So this high school season, since I am a sub-called, I decided to play around with statistics for the team. We haven't been having our most successful year so I started tracking the number of unforced errors and the number of possessions. It hasn't really righted the ship, but it is interesting what the numbers show.<br />
<br />
First a bit on "unforced errors." In order to get around the tricky subjectivity problem I decided that if the defense doesn't touch the disc it is an unforced error. There are some strange things that fall into that category that make the numbers hard to really analyze. For example a punt in the wind is considered an unforced error, as is a high stall punt that no one touches. Also a jump-ball that the defense doesn't actually touch (but they clearly influenced the play) counts as an unforced error. It would make sense to fix some of these issues, but then we get into the subjectivity of "was that a punt or a huck too far?" Or "how much did the defender actually influence that drop?" These are things that I want to avoid so I'm keeping it pure.<br />
<br />
Basically unforced errors are possessions that end with you giving away the disc, which means you aren't making the defense take it from you, which is a bad thing . . . right? So I took the number of unforced errors, divided by the number of possessions and we now have UE% which tells us the percentage of possessions that end in unforced error.<br />
<br />
For Paideia that number was frighteningly high (~50% or more at times) which pointed out how we were really beating ourselves. If we could improve on that number then we would at least be asking more of our opponent. I don't want to get into Paideia's season, but it has been having a good impact. One other thing I was able to track was what I am calling our "Conversion Rate" which is just the number of possessions divided by the number of scores. An average of this over multiple games tells us how many times we need the disc (on average) in order to score. <br />
<br />
<i>Here is where I feel like I got into something that was useful, tracking possessions. In the past many teams have been concerned with offensive holds and defensive breaks. But a defensive break that requires 4 possessions to score isn't the same as break that only takes one. I think moving away from line-based statistics and moving toward possession based statistics will offer some new insights to analyzing the sport.</i><br />
<br />
After playing with this for a little bit I wondered what was a reasonable UE%? Did it change per level of play? So I set off looking at college games from this season. I have made it through just over 20 games and here is what I have found.<br />
<br />
The average UE% of the games that Ultiworld has filmed is around 30.79%. The funny thing is that the average for a winning team isn't any lower than that of a losing team (30.75% vs 30.83%). What is even more interesting is winning the UE% battle isn't a good indicator of success. Plenty of teams have won their games despite having a worse UE% than their opponent. I guess this would speak to the idea of there being "good" turnovers. This metric still gives us a glimpse of how many times on average a good/elite college team will just give you the disc back. Looking at the similar numbers for the college women's game and the club games might provide more support for what we assume (better levels of play make fewer "mistakes").<br />
<br />
The real insight came from conversion rate. First of all, looking at the conversion rate of a single game is boring. Because possessions for each team are never more than one away from each other if you win the game you won the conversion rate. This is one of the things I hate about certain statistics like "breaks" and "turns." Guess what, if you get more breaks than your opponent you won the game. If you commit fewer turns, you won the game.<br />
<br />
But this metric did offer some insight over a number of games. For example, there seems to be a clear line between the best teams and the next step down. Elite teams (Pitt, Oregon, UNCW) have a conversion rate that is typically sub 2.00. Other teams tend to operate above that mark, with some of the worst being as high as 3+ (which is where my high school team operates at times). It is no surprise that the average for winning teams would be lower than that for losing teams. Conversion Rate basically tells you the number of possessions you need to score (on average) so winning means a lower number. The winning teams have an average of 2.06 while the losing teams have an average of 2.47. There are some teams that lose with a CR below 2. Those are typically good, or at least efficient, games.<br />
<br />
What I'm curious about now is how good a predictor average CR for a pair of teams is for the game's outcome. In general does the team with the lowest CR win future games. How should standard deviation of CR play into that calculation. Washington has a poor CR (2.41) but was able to post one sub-2.0 number. Could they get hot and beat an elite team by putting up their best efficiency number (1.83). Pitt (1.76!) has a fairly stable CR, so the likelihood of getting a "bad" game out of them seems low. <br />
<br />
I feel like there is some room for innovation there. Given enough data we could look at the effect a "good defensive team's"impact on opponent's CR as compared to that opponent's average CR. Anyway, I have to go. Hopefully I didn't ramble too much.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-1755740495413960032015-04-09T19:17:00.000-04:002015-04-09T19:17:40.677-04:00The re-emergence of the pivot reset (Incomplete)Two years ago I would have argued that I watch about as much film on ultimate as anyone with a job (there was no way that I could keep up with some high school kid's youTube binging). That isn't really the case anymore with the proliferation of film through the now defunct NexGen, <a href="http://skydmagazine.com/" target="_blank">Sky'd</a> and <a href="http://ultiworld.com/" target="_blank">Ultiworld</a>. I still watch a lot of film, but I find less of a need to spout off about things that I see now that there are other (arguably more capable) people doing that.<br />
<br />
But watching the Stanford women's team's games from this year's Stanford Invite I saw the re-emergence of a move that has been building for a few years, and so I feel the need to point it out.<br />
<br />
When explaining a vertical stack I will at times refer to the person at the front of that stack as the "Pivot." The idea is that when the disc swings from one third to the other the top of the stack is the rotation point (pivot) of that swing. We all know what a reset is. <br />
<br />
The pivot reset is by no means a new idea. I first learned of it over a decade ago from a former Godiva player, who used it over a decade before that as the primary reset style. So let me have a brief history lesson while understanding that despite playing for 20+ years I'm talking about things older than myself and am bound to get something wrong.<br />
<br />
There was a time when the concept of having a player behind the disc seemed ridiculous (at least to me). We want to move the disc forward, so that is where the people should be. If a person couldn't get open by 10 (which was longer back then) then we would punt. While my team was stuck punting some teams had figured out how to reset the count from the front of the stack. One of those teams was Lady Godiva.<br />
<br />
The idea of Godiva's reset structure was that the first two people in the stack were the resets. If flow couldn't continue those people would run a specific pattern. This involved cutting forward to break your defenders positioning (either by turning their hips or getting them to backpedal) then a 90 turn to either side. The next person would then do the same to the other side. Weaklings would default to the open side, which would still work often. But Godiva players were good at throwing the around so they would use that break often.<br />
<br />
This isn't exactly a pivot reset, but lays the groundwork for what happened almost 20 years later. The vertical stack changed drastically in the 90's (Tiina, help me out here and tell me how wrong I am). We moved resets behind the disc because there was more space there and the forward reset died off a bit. Then horizontal offenses became en-vogue and the whole structure of resets changed for a while. <br />
Some college teams, and maybe even some club teams would run a front of the stack reset, but it had moved out of the zeitgeist. As few as 6 years ago I started noticing more New England college teams running it, perhaps as Godiva players started coaching or because defenses became bad at it. There were evolutions to the system, and it didn't much look like what Godiva ran decades before. (This was probably a good choice because what Godiva ran required solid discipline and excellent timing, which are not abundant in the college division).<br />
<br />
Instead teams were often running it with a backfield reset as well. The backfield would serve as a primary, and if that wasn't working then they would shift to the front. This made tons of sense and was a logical continuation of a horizontal reset scheme where you look at one side and if that doesn't work you check with the other side that is running counterflow. <br />
<br />
Those college players eventually move to club, and club defenses get used to particular offenses, so lo-and-behold we can see club teams using this strategy more and more. But still it was more regulated to the northeast than other schemes. Ironside has been using it more and more over the past few years. It is difficult to defend against, especially with the increase in off-hand throws and creative breaks. The pivot defender has to choose between overplaying the breakside to prevent this reset and allowing the openside pass, or play to the openside and risk being exposed by a (tight-windowed) break. I'll get into defending this later.<br />
<br />
But the thing that convinced me that this is coming back was Stanford's use of this system. This is a west coast team utilizing a scheme that is entrenched in northeast history. So apparently someone was paying attention and soon other teams will be as Stanford's women's team looks pretty darn good right now. Despite being understaffed from a roster standpoint, Stanford hung with powerhouse Oregon by using this reset scheme. <br />
<br />
In the clip below (sorry for its length) Annee Rempel (#15) is playing the pivot through a series of throwers. When she gets the disc and throws it, she clears back to the front. When the thrower is in trouble she knows to expect a throw to the break side. She even bites on a Stephanie Lim breakmark flick, thinking that it might be for her.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL_plaRPDMg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dL_plaRPDMg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Is this a model for teams that are under-athletic to compete against large schools and their hulking athletes? Not so fast.<br />
<br />
First let's analyze the modern iteration of this scheme. The primary reset is still behind, but you have a secondary reset at the front of the stack. When the disc is on the wide side of the field the pivot has the skinny lane as an option (something similar to a pocket pass in basketball). When the thrower looks at the pivot they then get the option of juking to get open. When the disc is trapped this system doesn't work as effectively, but you still can use the pivot to replenish a backfield reset when the original reset cuts downline.<br />
<br />
One thing that is particularly difficult about this reset is the possibility of the pivot post. A "post" is basically the same as a post-up entry pass. The pivot is in position and the thrower is just going to put it to a space knowing that the pivot has best line of sight and should be able to get to it first. This post happens often on a backfield reset when the defender is playing straight up. But a pivot post is incredibly difficult to defend without losing position on the pivot. In order to prevent the post you need to be able to see the disc, but you can't see the disc without at least turning 90 degrees on the pivot, which gives them an advantage towards one direction. Due to the short length of the throw, that isn't much time for a defender to recover from that advantage. So to take away the advantage the pivot defender will play straight-up (faceguarding), which opens up the post pass. You can see the issue.<br />
<br />
This is why it was working so well for Stanford. Looking at their percentage of unforced errors per possession in the finals against Oregon it was a jaw dropping 29%. Much of that was because Oregon was getting blocks, but it also means that Stanford was only giving away the disc only three out of ten times. By contrast Oregon's %UE was upwards of 43% (mostly on long hucks). Stanford was able to keep possession and in large part it was due to this reset system and excellent handing.<br />
<br />
And that is really the key to this scheme, you need to have great handlers. They need to have some good throws to tight spaces (such as Monisha White's use of her lefty backhand) and they need to be able to lead a pass well when needed. Your resets (both front and back) need to be able to stay close without clogging lanes. If your back reset creeps in too much they allow their defender to sag into the throwing lane without being punished. If your pivot reset shifts to the openside too early they alert their defender while also crimping the openside pass. <br />
<br />
So I don't think this is a scheme that just any team can work with and expect success. But if you are a team with some incredibly strong handlers with good vision and chemistry (looking at you Texas A&M) this becomes a viable structure that can allow you to hang with more athletic teams while saving your legs for sunday. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-65813626389345133422014-10-22T11:58:00.001-04:002014-10-22T11:58:10.573-04:002014 Club Nationals "Mobility"The exploits of Ghetto Birds/Rhino coupled with the travails of Machine/Polar Bears made me think about the delta between a team's initial seed at nationals versus their final seed. So here is a quick compilation of that data for 2014 Nationals. In the case of ties (3rd place, etc.) I'm following end of season USAU Rankings as the tie-breaker.<br />
<br />
Open:<br />
1. Johnny Bravo (+4)<br />
2. Ironside (+2)<br />
3. Ring of Fire (+3)<br />
4. GOAT (+6)<br />
5. Revolver (-4)<br />
6. Rhino (+1)<br />
7. Chain Lightning (+2)<br />
8. Truck Stop (+6)<br />
9. Sockeye (-6)<br />
10. Doublewide (-2)<br />
11. PoNY (-1)<br />
12. Temper (+3)<br />
13. Furious George (+3)<br />
14. Machine (-12)<br />
15. Prairie Fire (-2)<br />
16. Sub Zero (-5)<br />
<br />
Womens:<br />
1. Scandal (+3)<br />
2. Fury (+2)<br />
3. Brute Squad (-2)<br />
4. Riot (-2)<br />
5. Ozone (+3)<br />
6. Showdown (+4)<br />
7. Traffic (-1)<br />
8. Nightlock (-1)<br />
9. Molly Brown (-4)<br />
10. Schwa (+2)<br />
11. Heist (+0)<br />
12. Underground (+3)<br />
13. Nemesis (-4)<br />
14. Capitals (-1)<br />
15. Green Means Go (-1)<br />
16. Tabby Rosa (+0)<br />
<br />
Mixed:<br />
1. Drag'n Thrust (+1)<br />
2. Seattle Mixed/Ghetto Birds (+10)<br />
3. The Chad Larson Experience (+0)<br />
4. Wild Card (+5)<br />
5. Mischief (+0)<br />
6. Blackbird (-2)<br />
7. Bucket (+1)<br />
8. Santa Maria (+6)<br />
9. Slow White (-1)<br />
10. AMP (+0)<br />
11. Polar Bears (-10)<br />
12. 7 Figures (-6)<br />
13. American Barbecue (+0)<br />
14. The Administrators (+2)<br />
15. Cosa Nostra (+0)<br />
16. D'Oh! Abides (-5)<br />
<br />
If you take the average of the absolute value of the delta then you get a measure of how much the seeding held up. We aren't going to take a sum of squares o that larger movements aren't more heavily weighted, but we need to take the absolute value because it is a zero-sum game. Let's call that metric "Mobility." Here are the mobility numbers for the 2014 Club Championships:<br />
<br />
Men's: 3.6875<br />
Women's: 1.9375<br />
Mixed: 3.0625<br />
<br />
Since all of these numbers are averages it is kind of interesting that Men's had the most Mobility. Women's being the least isn't surprising, and Mixed having a "high" number is totally not surprising given the rampant turnover in that division. <br />
<br />
Machine's drop into Elite status seems fuel the Men's division Mobility, but it isn't that atypical for nationals. While -12 is the largest number in the past five years (in the Open division), there have been other numbers as high as +8 and even -10. If we look at the numbers in the Open division for the past five years we see that the new format doesn't automatically produce more Mobility, and that this year might have been extreme but isn't that far past previous years values.<br />
<br />
2013: 1.9333<br />
2012: 3.1875<br />
2011: 2.8750<br />
2010: 1.7500<br />
<br />
Ignoring last year (when things were pretty much chalk and we had a new format) there as been a five year increase in Mobility in the Open/Men's division. Now, it could be the result of more parity as the talent base has increased over the past five years. Anecdotally, there are fewer teams from the same city attending the Club Championships than there were in the past. That speaks both to a consolidation of talent in those cities and to an increase in talent in other cities (necessitating that consolidation). Let's see what has been happening in the other two divisions:<br />
<br />
Women's:<br />
2013: 1.7500<br />
2012: 2.7500<br />
2011: 2.2500<br />
2010: 1.6250<br />
<br />
Mixed:<br />
2013: 2.6250<br />
2012: 3.3750<br />
2011: 2.2500<br />
2010: 2.6250<br />
<br />
These numbers look like the hold up better to our expectation. The women's division is on average less Mobile and while the Open/Men's division can have its crazy years, it is less Mobile than the Mixed division. What does this all mean? I have no idea. Mobility hinges on the ability to correctly seed the tournament as compared to the final outcome. I don't know if that is actually the goal of USAU. Poor connectivity plagues the Mixed division, which would impact Mobility. But even in the more highly connect Open/Men's there is still a reasonably high Mobility. I guess that speaks to parity?<br />
<br />
It could also relate to who takes placement games seriously. The difference between 12 and 13 is just as significant as the difference between 2 and 3 under this metric, but I imagine those games are not necessarily played with the same level of intensity. Out of curiosity I looked at the Mobility for the top and bottom 8 each year in the Open/Men's division. Here is what I got:<br />
<br />
Top 8 Bottom 8<br />
2014: 3.5 4.25<br />
2013: 2.125 1.625<br />
2012: 2.875 3.5<br />
2011: 2.375 3.375<br />
2010: 2.875 2.875<br />
<br />
Aside from 2013 (which we already said was a chalk year) this shows what we would expect. The lower seeds tend to have more Mobility than the higher seeds. Could this be because teams let their foot off the gas in placement games? Could it be because there is less connectivity amongst the lower seeds so correct seeding is more difficult? Or could it be an increase in parity in the second tier (if not in the first tier)? I have no idea. I was just bored when I though about how far/high some teams fell/rose this year and decided to figure some things out.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-44063276866355740932014-08-07T08:56:00.002-04:002017-04-30T10:28:33.604-04:00The power of the かいひステップI just woke up this morning to literally see the final score of the Buzz Bullets vs Ironside prequarters game at Worlds. Buzz shocked everyone (or at least me) by winning 17-16. Since I wont be able to actually watch the game for a bit I can't really give a good analysis, but while watching the highlight reel I noticed something that <a href="http://ultiworld.com/2014/08/01/breaking-buzz-bullets/" target="_blank">Scion Scone wrote about in an ultiworld article not too long ago</a>. He commented about the way the Buzz generates hucks to odd spaces. We've known that was the case for a while, but I've never really looked at how or why. Usually my time watching Buzz is about seeing how well they get short breaks and their strange, no-mark zone.<br />
<br />
Then watching the highlight reel from the Worlds game I noticed something. Prior to throwing those hucks Buzz turns the wrong way. To further explain, when a player is cutting and catches the disc the direction they turn is typically the shortest path to facing upfield. On an slanted openside cut that means turning over the openside shoulder, on a breakside cut that means turning over the breakside shoulder. This has a great natural feel and can make for quick disc movement because the player's momentum expedites the turn rather than hindering it. I can go on for a while on this, but the important thing is that most cutters turn this way. On all of the dangerous hucks (the one Scion is referencing) Buzz turned the wrong way.<br />
<br />
So why does this matter. Let's imagine a pass going to the open side and a defender trying to get the block (as many Ironside defenders were trying). That defender, especially if it is a well versed Ironside defender, is going to start on the open side and try to fight for open side positioning. That way they are closer to the block without just being flat out faster than their defender. But there is a disadvantage to that tactic. If you don't get the block you are out of position to set the mark because you are on the open side. This is a common problem that happens all the time in the States, and teams try to exploit it. But the amount that you can exploit it is limited if you are still turning with your momentum.<br />
<br />
Again, think about this on an openside cut. If I catch the under and then turn to the open side, my ability to throw a huck to the opposite third is limited. Let's say it is a backhand force, and I catch the disc on the strong side. I turn to throw a backhand and realize that my defender has over-commit to that side. So I've got a wide open flick huck, but my turning momentum (not an actual physical term) is the wrong direction. In order to get power on that flick huck I will have to pivot over and generate new momentum the opposite direction. That takes time. While I wont be marked, I will likely feel pressure and my receiver is getting farther away by the minute.<br />
<br />
But what if I turned the other way? Then my momentum is turning the correct way for that huck. I can drive it farther, and do so faster than if I turned the other way. The speed on that delivery is really key because it can further exploit someone in the same third running away from their defender. If the deep target's defender is on the open side (which they would be, right) then they are out of position for this breakside huck. If I can get the disc out quickly they wont have time to recover. If I pivot the wrong (or actually the right) way then it takes longer and the defender has time to recover (or get sideline help). Think of it as a turn that gets away from your defender. <br />
<br />
So the かいひステップ (Kaihi-step: Kaihi means Avoidance . . . I think), is turning the wrong way on an under cut to push the active space back in the direction (laterally) from where the disc came. Should it be used all the time, no! But using it in a spread scheme when the disc gets near the sideline seems like a potentially good idea. <br />
<br />
I'll go through and look at the film soon and try to follow up with some video, but I wanted to get this idea down on "paper" before I forgot it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-8740234346212723142014-07-23T11:27:00.000-04:002014-07-23T11:27:52.951-04:00Practice efficiency: drills vs scrimmagingI felt bad that Martin was the only one posting here these days, and since I've recently gotten back into coaching I figured I should try to get back to posting some...<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While setting up a plan for Southern Revival's 2014 season there were a few restrictions I had to keep in mind. We were incorporating a bunch of new players and we didn't have a ton of practices (3 practices before the series) so the efficiency of practice became really important. Traditionally I tried to break the game down into the simplest level possible then gradually build up complexity. So maybe we'd start with footwork while pivoting and then add in a disc (without throwing), then throwing, throwing with a mark, throwing to a moving cutter and eventually scrimmaging. The idea being you focus on the individual pieces then put them together.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, I'd read recently that this 'common sense' <a href="http://geekdad.com/2014/01/everything-about-learning/">approach to learning was flawed</a>. Instead of focusing on individual skills, you should work on multiple things at once. That way your overall skill increases more, even if an individual skill may not reach the level it would if you focused solely on it. Also, working on multiple skills together you improve the coordination of the skills together.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, I ditched drills (almost) completely in favor of scrimmaging. Practice consists of a brief warmup which may include a drill or two, then scrimmaging broken up with throwing drills (no running) and/or whiteboarding time to allow for recovery between games. The games themselves have different rules to try and focus on different skill sets we want to work on. I'll stop the scrimmage occasionally to point out what we should do in particular situations, and frequently pull individual players aside for some one on one coaching. Players also keep track of how many games they win throughout the day and when we run sprints at the end of practice they can subtract their games won from the total sprints.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here are some of the games I pull from when planning practice:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>3 on 3</li>
<li>5 on 5</li>
<li>7 on 7 with shorter stall counts</li>
<li>7 on 8 (man or zone d)</li>
<li>10 (or 5) pull</li>
<li>extra points for specific tactics (breaking the mark, dump/swing, etc.)</li>
<li>double score</li>
<li>redzone scrimmage</li>
<li>start with the disc trapped, start from deep in own goal, etc.</li>
</ul>
<div>
It's worked out fairly well so far. My biggest concern was having enough bodies to scrimmage but we've had fair attendance so far so it hasn't really been an issue. Number of touches was also a concern. Some players are naturally going to be less involved in full 7 on 7 games whether because they are less skilled or new to the team, and I was worried that this might slow development for those players. To help combat this, we run a fair amount of 3 on 3, particularly early in practice to get everyone involved. I also keep an eye on involvement as practice goes along. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I do think drills have a place and we'll occasionally have voluntary skills/drills practices where we typically don't have enough to scrimmage and we focus more on individual skill development. However, I think it's still important to try and make those drills as game-like as possible and try to incorporate multiple skills into each drill.</div>
</div>
woodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092132397193139652noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-66168765551009031722014-07-21T15:58:00.002-04:002014-07-21T15:58:26.233-04:00Three Ways An Ultimate Team Gets Better In The Off-SeasonHow's that for a click-bait title? I'll go back and change it, but I think is still pretty fitting for the topic at hand. This is something that had been mulling in my head since sitting on Chain's meeting about the upcoming season last Winter. I was listening to a lot of basketball/football podcasts over the summer and I think I may have heard <a href="http://grantland.com/contributors/bill-barnwell/" target="_blank">Bill Barnwell</a> mention these three things at one point or another. Maybe not, though. Fortunately, I got a wall to bounce some ideas off of (thanks Jeremy Goecks) this past weekend at Master's Nationals and I feel a little bit more confident in the ideas.<br />
<br />
Basically there are three ways to improve your ultimate team during the off-season. Those would be drafting, development and free-agency. To add more detail:<br />
<br />
<b>Drafting:</b> Getting college players previously on a weaker team or not playing in the club series to join your team. This could also be the case for out of college players, but the idea is that they aren't really part of the elite-club ecosystem yet.<br />
<br />
<b>Development:</b> Improving the skills and athleticism of the players currently on your roster. Anything that improves your existing team during the off-season counts a player development. While this may seem like the most common way for teams to improve, there is still a pretty wide variance on how well teams develop existing talent.<br />
<br />
<b>Free Agency:</b> Bringing in <i>existing</i> elite-club talent from <i>other teams</i> to play for your team. This could be a result of a job-change/move or just two buddies talking about playing together and then living the dream.<br />
<br />
I guess the point of defining these three methods is so teams (particularly emerging or mid-level teams) can think about these methods and approach all of them during the off-season to make the most progress before practice begins. There is also the side benefit of being able to look at a team's off-season in terms of these three modes of improvement, and really understand how some teams got better. For example:<br />
<br />
The biggest headline for the off-season was Bravo's acquisition of <a href="http://ultiworld.com/editors/2014-denver-johnny-bravo-roster/" target="_blank">what felt like every free agent in the galaxy</a>. They got a big free agency signing last year bringing in Eric Johnson and Nick Lance, pouring it on with Kurt, Matzuka, Lokke, Keegan and your Mom just felt unfair. But here is the thing, it just completed the trifecta of their off-season performance. Bravo is traditionally a strong development team, getting quality points out of players that started young on that team and grew into star positions. Then, they get a bomb draft class for national champion UC-Mamabird. <br />
<br />
Everyone seemed ready to proclaim Bravo as the frontrunner for a national title and 8th seed in the NBA Eastern Conference playoffs and that kind of made sense. But wait a minute, Revolver wasn't exactly sitting on its heels either.<br />
<br />
The Moon Men are traditionally an insanely strong development team. After all that was kind of the whole point to the team (Nick Handler, please tell me if I am wrong about this). And they got good through development. Sure, they hit a great free-agency class a few years ago as well, and that propelled them to the top, but don't discount how strong their development program has been. Players like Little Buddy (Tim Gilligan) and Jordan Jeffrey feel like development successes for Revolver's program. Revolver also had a strong draft class this year, pulling in more former-Polar Bear's players Eli Kerns and Simon Higgins. I am biased, but both of those players a top notch players. I guess you would need to include Cahill in the draft class since he wasn't on a team in the division last year. He's not bad at ultimate and <a href="http://www.usaultimate.org/about/history/awards/spirit_awards.aspx#farricker" target="_blank">I hear he's a nice guy</a>. <br />
<br />
The whole point is that if you were looking at all three of these methods of improvement you would get a better sense of what is really happening during the off-season and not just big reactions to free-agency moves. Bravo had a great off-season, but it wasn't like Revolver was staring at the stars the whole time.<br />
<br />
Back to the first point rationalizing these three methods as pillars for off-season grading. If you look at your team through the lens of these three modes of improvement you might learn a little about your team and be able to make some improvements you wouldn't have otherwise. Let's go around the division and see what trends exist:<br />
<br />
Ironside: strong free agency, good development and occasionally an excellent draft class<br />
<br />
Sockeye: perhaps the best development in the nation(!), decent in terms of free agency and draft class<br />
<br />
Doublewide: used to be a development heavy team, is still in the hangover from a previous free agency bomb and gets solid drafting from the giant state of texas<br />
<br />
GOAT: Great international drafting, I can't really speak to much else<br />
<br />
Chain: Good free agency, baseline drafting and development (wait, isn't that my job . . . shit)<br />
<br />
Ring: Typically strong development, middling drafting and free agency<br />
<br />
Machine: good development, leaning on free agency this year<br />
<br />
You could keep doing this for a while and if you did it for your team you might learn of a deficiency or strength you didn't already know about. I don't think there is really anything all that special in coming up with these methods, but it might help start some conversations that end up being worthwhile. Are you having a down drafting year? put your chips into development. Free agency class not looking so hot? Scour the college to improve your draft class. Back to watching Kill Bill 2, we're at the coffin scene.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-83019289775663112202014-07-07T19:43:00.000-04:002014-07-07T19:43:17.345-04:00Revisiting Film TechniqueHoly crap there is a lot of video of ultimate available now! It is like the first time I walked into a Toys 'R Us and I realized that a whole store could just have toys. I didn't know where to look because <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y" target="_blank">everything was awesome</a>. <br />
<br />
With all of the video out there it now become so much easier to get content to support whatever it is you want to do. Team scouting, instructional videos, highlight reels, etc. But the technique of how to breakdown your film from a technical standpoint is still a barrier. Outside of the coaching skill (and it is a skill that you can get better at) required to <i>see</i> what you need to see in the film, the process of clipping, telestrating and reforming film is tough. I wrote about this for <a href="http://ultfris.blogspot.com/2013/11/day-of-filming-for-worlds.html" target="_blank">Worlds last year</a> and it garnered a whole 2 comments! So either no one reads this blog anymore (which is likely) or there aren't a lot of people really spending time on film study techniques. I know that with the vast amounts of film out there most if not all elite teams are using film to scout and probably to improve their own game. But the extent of that use might be pretty basic (throw the tape in the VCR and press play). <br />
<br />
But since I have been doing a lot of work editing film I've learned a few more things and I thought I would post them here so future film-breakdown-wannabes will be able to stand on my shoulders and still not break 5'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>MPEG Streamclip has become my favorite editing tool again. Mostly because of its superfast clipping mechanism. Basically you watch film, press "I" and "O" to place clipping markers. Then CMD+T (on a mac) trims the clip for you. Save it in any format you want then the special thing is CMD+Z undoes the trimming and you have the full movie back. This basically allows you to live-clip video the first time watching it, especially given MPEG's solid scrubbing tools. There are some glitches, but it sure does beat my original technique (writing down time markers while I watched).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>AVCHD is an awesome format for image quality, but it sucks for editing. I've struggled with different AVCHD converters for the MAC. They all feel like 1990s shareware and don't reliably get me the quality I want. But it turns out that iMovie '11 can read AVCHD as a Camera Archive. Then when you import the movie to iMovie it converts all of the clips in the AVCHD file to separate .MOV files. The .MOV files get saved under your Movie Events folder so you don't have to actually "make" a movie in iMovie to get those files out. Once you have the .MOV files you can go to town in whatever fancy editor you like</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Explain Everything is an educational iPad app that has a really good recording feature. I'm still green with getting it to work well, and its drawing tools aren't as great as other programs, but the ability to draw directly on the picture might push it into the front sport as the telestrator of choice.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is plenty of space for growth in this field. Ultimate is growing in so many other ways (membership, exposure, coaching), this is one way that isn't going to get attention for a while. But eventually how well and quickly you can breakdown film might actually be a thing that kind of matters.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-40675478712494624282014-03-17T20:29:00.003-04:002014-03-17T20:29:44.278-04:00Mike Caldwell's Cutting Tree and "Cutting" as a skillRecently Mike Caldwell wrote <a href="http://skydmagazine.com/2014/03/cutting-tree/" target="_blank">a response</a> in Skyd about his cutting tree Having recently been thinking about how to get our boys to be better technical cutters I was super excited. Mike has been a premier cutter for a long time and if he was going to break down something like the <a href="http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Inside-the-playbook-the-NFL-route-tree.html" target="_blank">route tree</a>, that was going to be huge. Often cutting technique in ultimate gets described as running harder for longer, and that isn't going to work against better athletes (of which there are plenty as you get older, trust me). Mike is a great athlete, but he has also been a premier cutter for a long time and is a tireless workhorse. Surely he has some insight on different ways to get open.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately his piece, while having many excellent points (including one on <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Go_terms#Gote_and_Sente" target="_blank">sente</a></i> which does a good job of explaining who should cut when), doesn't really describe how to cut better in general but rather how to run a certain pattern well. The pattern to run is along the diagonals and sides of a trapezoid. If you go back and watch Sockeye in the mid-2000s it is no surprise that this is the pattern Mike gives you. Their use of isolated thermals as a cutting style to make an aggressively under-cutting alternative to Furious' H-stack was revolutionary and created a pattern that many college teams hope (and fail) to emulate with their offenses. Mike's coaching points of what to think about, how to get better at the pattern are good insight and practice for young cutters. <br />
<br />
I think the place that I take issue, or was disappointed by the piece was in the use of the term "tree." The route tree in football is a description of the different paths that a receiver can take within a football offense. The premise is that it contains all of the options for the receiver and that since both the quarterback and the receiver know the same tree they can be on the same page more easily. With that in mind Mike's "tree" kind of holds all of the cuts that Sockeye ran (at least from their cutters) in the early-mid 2000s. But it is more of a flow pattern and less a "tree." In part that is a dilemma of continuous sports like ultimate being put in contrast to segmented sports like football. There isn't a clearing pattern in football, there is a stoppage of play. Maybe flow patterns are ultimate's equivalent to cutting trees, describing broad paths for players to take? In that case, Mike's piece is a description of the old Sockeye flow pattern and is invaluable to players trying to be excellent cutters in that system.<br />
<br />
However I think that cutting and flow patterns are different things. Flow patterns tell you where the next cut should be and where you should go when you are done cutting (or aren't cutting at all). Sockeye's H stack called for hard under cuts through the middle (often at an angle) and clears down the sideline (that could easily be deep cuts). Cutting feels different. Cutting is a move that is designed to create separation between you and your defender and is somewhat independent of the placement of the disc and more about the placement of the space you are trying to access. I digress lest I spend the next 2000 words talking about space.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the big advantages of the football route tree is it tells you how to get where you are going. It involves a discrete cut/movement to get open. Five yards hard out then a 120 degree turn towards the quarter back (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitch_(route)" target="_blank">hitch</a>). Ten yards you then a 90 degree turn across the middle of the field (dig). That is the element that I (perhaps naively) was looking for in Mike's piece and found missing. I think I was hoping for a description of methods that Mike used to get open in different situations (with a defender fronting him, with a defender playing even, from a lateral reset, etc.). What Mike provided really has only one (maybe two) cutting movements: a sharp change in direction at the top and another at the bottom of the trapezoid. But that leaves a lot of different ways to get from A to B unexplained. <br />
<br />
That is one of the other values of the football route tree. Even if a particular offense doesn't use all of the tree (the Packers love their slants but don't throw too many flats), the branches are there for everyone to learn and understand. It establishes the language of cutting in football. Every community has a vernacular for their cuts, but the football route tree is almost universally consistent (sure there are subtle changes between things like a go route and a fade, but there is broad agreement on post, hitch, dig, out, slant, etc.). We currently lack a common language for how to talk about these cuts. What is a scoo or a whoop cut? Is it a double cut or a triple cut?<br />
<br />
So I think what I am going to spend some time on is developing a cutting tree that is about creating separation between you and your defender. I'll talk to various coaches about different ways that they cut in hopes of generating the fundamental movement patterns/breaks that make up all of the cuts. While many offenses don't use most of those cuts, coming up with a common vernacular and skill set to teach young players will hopefully help coaches develop talent faster and help players figure out multiple ways to get open to the same space. This will be quite a little project, but I think there is some really work to be done there. With that being said, what is your favorite cut?<br />
<br />
Extra Note: I've spoken with Kyle about this and I think he and I are going to work to make sure we are using the same names for cutting to start the ball rolling towards a common vernacular. <br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-38702957589821223602014-03-03T10:44:00.000-05:002014-03-03T10:44:11.453-05:00TUFF vs UCF Coin Toss: What To Do With The WindI was reading an <a href="http://skydmagazine.com/2014/03/somber-windy-stanford-saturday-stevinson/" target="_blank">article by Jimmy Leppert</a> on Skyd a second ago and was struck by some of the responses in the comments about a decision Texas had to make after the toss. Apparently, and I hope I am getting this correct since it is all second hand, UCF won the coin toss and decided to take the up-wind side on a very windy day. I guess kudos to Andrew Roca for choosing the correct side, but that was an easy choice. Then Texas, coached by Calvin Lin who has been through his share of games, decides to start on offense. Jimmy, the post's author, states that he was surprised by this decision and then people in the comments state that they would do the same thing.<br />
<br />
So let's go over the rationale for receiving the pull going upwind to start the game:<br />
-You can put your best players on the field going upwind with fresh legs<br />
-You have to score upwind at some point anyway<br />
-You hope that their defense isn't playing well early in the game<br />
-You have the most amount of time to recover from the break that you give up by not scoring<br />
<br />
I think most, if not all, of those fail to hold up to much scrutiny. Let's just give up on the last two, because I think those are the easiest to dismiss (although if I need to in more detail I'll be happy to do so in the comments).<br />
<br />
Let's focus on the 2nd on because that is the one that was being supported in the comments. It is the one that seems to have the best chance of winning against scrutiny. Texas DOES have to score an upwind point to win the game since the lost the coin toss, but not all upwind points are the same. By receiving the pull Texas is likely to start at the brick (as the best scenario) or in the back of the endzone on the sideline (as the worst scenario). Somewhere in the endzone is most likely. Now Texas has to work upwind a full 70+ yards to score against a defense that is set and focusing on D. That is a tall order even though you might have the best pieces in place (point 1) to accomplish that task. UCF gets to set whatever defense they want and knows their assignments prior to the pull. <br />
<br />
If that is how you are going to score your upwind point, the odds are pretty low. Instead lets looks at an alternative: you start on defense. This is the choice that Texas had and didn't take. Here are some of disadvantages:<br />
-"Weaker" defensive players on the field<br />
-You have to get a break from the opponent<br />
-They can always punt to force you to go 70 yards<br />
-Pulling upwind you are likely giving the offense a shorter field to score<br />
<br />
These seem like good reasons to go with the offense, but are they really? The advantages of pulling are pretty decent too. You get to control the tone of the point by setting the defense and as a result you can hope for an unforced error or block such that you get a short field. That seems like the most compelling argument for pulling first.<br />
<br />
If you pull you can try to get them stuck on a sideline and force either lateral throws to get off of the sideline or a straight punt. At worst, if they punt, you have to work no more than 70 yards against a transition defense that may not have their assignments figured out yet (or might have a particular match up you can exploit). At best you can block the punt or force backward passes to reduce your field even more. <br />
<br />
So if you start with the pull you can at worst be in a situation better than if you started on offense, and at best have a situation that is better than all likely ones when you start on offense (I suppose there is a chance that your opponent will shank the pull and give you a short field, but those are super low odds).<br />
<br />
If we go back through the list of advantages of receiving and think about them again I think the decision becomes clear:<br />
<b>-You can put your best players on the field with fresh legs:</b> You can do that while starting on defense, and you can find a way to manufacture that later in the game if need be.<br />
<b>-You have to score upwind anyway: </b>True, but not all upwind scoring opportunities are the same and the possible outcomes for an upwind score are better when you are starting on defense.<br />
<b>-You hope that their defense isn't playing well early in the game:</b> O.k. but if that isn't the case then their transition defense isn't likely to be playing well either. Giving a slow starting defensive line the chance to play the defense of their choice with the opponent going upwind is a pretty friendly start to a game.<br />
<b>-You have the most amount of time to recover from the break that you give up by not scoring:</b> True, but it would also be nice to not need that time.<br />
<br />
I have ignored the mental aspects of starting down a break (likely 0-2 by the time the game gets back on track) mostly because those are so specific to a team's make up. In general it would seem like you would never want your team to be in a position of weakness, but I have played against plenty of teams that seem to find strength in those positions. The subject gets murky very quickly, so best to just leave that alone.<br />
<br />
I guess my outcome is that it is almost always better to start on defense if you are forced to choose going upwind. Maybe I should ask Kyle, I'm sure he's solved this already.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-22534853906879300162014-03-01T20:23:00.000-05:002014-03-01T20:23:11.342-05:00Young Players and StatsThis post is kind of a train wreck, stream of consciousness, piece of nonsense. I'll try to make more sense of it after another tournament.<br />
<br />
Last weekend Paideia finished 4-2 at Deep Freeze, losing in the semis to Carolina Friends School. The two losses were both to the finalists (Holy Family Catholic was the other one) and to teams that will be attending Paideia cup. Probably the biggest struggle for us was how much we had to play young players. They were mostly sophomores (we have 9 on the team) and they had to take tough assignments and handle most of the weekend. They all rose to the challenge, but it was difficult for them. In particular having to at times get upperclassmen to do the "right" thing was hard. How do you tell a senior that they need to get you the disc on the swing when you can't drive yet? I think Tiina would solve this through clearly laying out player expectations, but I don't think Paideia is there yet.<br />
<br />
One thing that I focused on this past weekend was figuring out what stats I wanted to track. I broke my stats down into two different categories: in-game and post-game. The thought was that some stats I needed to be aware of in the middle of a game in order to manage it properly while some stats I didn't really need until the end of a game for trends. The rest of this post is going to be about stats, so I don't want to get too far into the weeds here where there are more enticing weeds up ahead. <br />
<br />
The statistic that I found had the most post-game utility was Unforced Errors. I decided to ditch turnovers this season for UE since those are the easiest for us to control. An Unforced Error was counted every time we had a drop or threw the disc away. Basically a turn over without the defense touching the disc. Tracking raw UE was pretty interesting and showed a team that uses all of its players and hasn't had much on-field practice time. <br />
<br />
But what I am more interested in is thinking about how to track UE in a useful fashion and how to use it as a metric for the over all "quality" of our team. Presumably lowering UE would be good for a team, but it doesn't even necessarily mean that the total number of turnovers went down. One could lower their UE score while still having the same turnovers by simply having the defense get more Ds. That would feel doubly inaccurate because not only would we not be "playing better" as the metric might suggest, but we are actually playing worse because we are throwing more contested throws. So a teams decision making ability affects UE, but I don't know how much that really matters.<br />
<br />
What I really wanted to do is find a way to get meaning out of UE across disparate games. This past weekend we beat Birmingham Forge 11-9 and Catholic High School B 13-0. How do we compare numbers against such a range of opponents? Perhaps the easiest way is to track UE per point, so the fact that there were 19 points in the Forge game and 13 points against CHS-B will be divided out. But that doesn't account for the gap in opponent skill. Without useful rankings in youth ultimate we can't use "strength" as a balancer because we don't know an opponent's strength.<br />
<br />
So I started thinking of different ways to approach getting more meaning out of UE. I came up with some things that I'm confident Sean Childers will be appalled with. But I'm not a statistician, I'm a coach, and I would like to think that Bill Barnwell would at least be happy that a coach is trying to find more meaning in a number.<br />
<br />
I'm stuck between two things to do to UE to give it more meaning. They both related to score, as the best proxy for "strength" I can find in youth ultimate. The first would be to take the delta of the score by the end of the game and use that to modify the number of unforced errors. I think this would take the form of a divisor so that if you are winning by a large margin the value of an unforced error goes down. But what about when you are losing?<br />
<br />
Which brought me to my next idea. The value of an unforced error (or a D?) is at least dependent on the current ratio of scores (with opposing score in the numerator). As an example, if we dropped the disc when the score is tied at 6s that UE would have a value of 1. If the score was 6-3 (so we are winning) it would have a value of 1/2. If the score was 3-6 then it would have a value of 2. I'm not convinced that this number is going to more accurately reflect the value of a turnover, and I know that there are some situations that would break this metric (a punt, for example). But I'm thinking it might do a better job than just raw unforced errors, and there might be a number that we can use from year to year as a metric of "quality."<br />
<br />
NOTE: as a side, this metric would highly value unforced errors when you are losing, which might feel counter to common sense. It also would skew the data early in the game when the ratios could be further away from 1 with similar point differentials. I guess the big questions (that we all think we know the answer to) is whether or not an unforced error is more devastating when down 3-2 or when down 13-12.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2