Big Plays as Black (or Gray) Swans

[PatsFanInVa]

So I'm reading Taleb's The Black Swan and just finished Fooled by Randomness.

Everybody can weigh in, but I'm especially interested in those who've read his thinking.

It's striking to me that the Pats continually win very big games by very small margins. Our SB wins (and the two losses) are great examples.

To the extent that BB talks about the Pats' "philosophy" he has emphasized the role of the big play: Defending against it, usually -- and more left unspoken, seeking to optimize our opportunities to make them.

If you think about it, they're as important on offense as defense, especially when you're doing one of those 90 yard marches in 45 seconds on the clock.

Now, there are a lot of little things we do from the point of view of moving normal bell-curve events toward our side of the distribution: Minimize penalties, emphasize execution, continued/continuing focus on situational football so that every player is alert and aware to both responsibilities (do your job) and opportunities (the big play - see M. Butler.)

But I'd posit that the bend-don't-break style (lots of zone, boo hoo), is like an application of Black Swan theory to football. To wit: You maintain an "anti-fragile" position in relation to exposure to the "black swan" (really a gray swan, because they happen every game, just with a lot of unpredictability); you put yourself in position to benefit from the "gray swan."

In between, you absorb the small losses (e.g., your defense can yield yards not points.)

These books are old enough that their risk management principles would be known by BB and company by now - and of course, the most likely scenario is that these principles were developed independently, since "Fooled by Randomness" was being written while we were starting our first run of SB dominance.

But regardless of whether there was cross-pollination... anybody else see the similarities?

(Clearly, I need this SB to get here already...)

 

[Clonamery]

I didn't read the book (I have enough trouble with the length of your posts) but I thought Natalie Portman was excellent in the movie version of the Black Swan.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

So I'm reading Taleb's The Black Swan and just finished Fooled by Randomness.

Everybody can weigh in, but I'm especially interested in those who've read his thinking.

It's striking to me that the Pats continually win very big games by very small margins. Our SB wins (and the two losses) are great examples.

To the extent that BB talks about the Pats' "philosophy" he has emphasized the role of the big play: Defending against it, usually -- and more left unspoken, seeking to optimize our opportunities to make them.

If you think about it, they're as important on offense as defense, especially when you're doing one of those 90 yard marches in 45 seconds on the clock.

Now, there are a lot of little things we do from the point of view of moving normal bell-curve events toward our side of the distribution: Minimize penalties, emphasize execution, continued/continuing focus on situational football so that every player is alert and aware to both responsibilities (do your job) and opportunities (the big play - see M. Butler.)

But I'd posit that the bend-don't-break style (lots of zone, boo hoo), is like an application of Black Swan theory to football. To wit: You maintain an "anti-fragile" position in relation to exposure to the "black swan" (really a gray swan, because they happen every game, just with a lot of unpredictability); you put yourself in position to benefit from the "gray swan."

In between, you absorb the small losses (e.g., your defense can yield yards not points.)

These books are old enough that their risk management principles would be known by BB and company by now - and of course, the most likely scenario is that these principles were developed independently, since "Fooled by Randomness" was being written while we were starting our first run of SB dominance.

But regardless of whether there was cross-pollination... anybody else see the similarities?

(Clearly, I need this SB to get here already...)

Every athletic contest is a story: It has a prelude, a beginning, a middle and an ending. Moments, or plays, that are crucial to the outcome are going to happen throughout, and which are unpredictable beforehand. So, to win, you must be prepared for any strategic situation, and you must be able to execute without being hindered by inevitable distractions.

In a close contest, the final period or quarter will determine the outcome. Factors like focus, attention to detail and confidence will usually elevate one participant over the other.

Even before the invention of the forward pass, these elements have always decided the outcome of football games. Poor and/or one-sided officiating can affect this, and all the pro leagues have struggled with this at one time or another.

"Always finish the game" is a Patriots mantra under Belichick, whether they're way ahead late in the game, or way behind as they were in Kansas City three years back, when they nonetheless got big plays from JoJo and Gronk, which were positive signs.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

In basketball, you never pretend you're going to hold Elgin, Wilt, MJ or LeBron under thirty in any given game. But what the Celtics have successfully done is set a tone, or create an environment defensively which makes the opponents' offense uncomfortable - even as they're scoring points, or in the case of football, gaining yards.

When the big moments come down the stretch, your defense will have an advantage.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Every athletic contest is a story: It has a prelude, a beginning, a middle and an ending. Moments, or plays, that are crucial to the outcome are going to happen throughout, and which are unpredictable beforehand. So, to win, you must be prepared for any strategic situation, and you must be able to execute without being hindered by inevitable distractions.

In a close contest, the final period or quarter will determine the outcome. Factors like focus, attention to detail and confidence will usually elevate one participant over the other.

Even before the invention of the forward pass, these elements have always decided the outcome of football games. Poor and/or one-sided officiating can affect this, and all the pro leagues have struggled with this at one time or another.

"Always finish the game" is a Patriots mantra under Belichick, whether they're way ahead late in the game, or way behind as they were in Kansas City three years back, when they nonetheless got big plays from JoJo and Gronk, which were positive signs.

I agree that, because athletes are human, every game is a narrative. Like everything else to do with humans, where their beliefs matter to the outcome, controlling the narrative is absolutely essential to controlling the outcome -- and if you think about it, a persistent belief that anything can happen (good or bad) but that you intend to win (regardless of transitory setbacks), is an advantage - and everybody knows this. But easier said than done.

If you stripped out all narrative (and the NE Pats have been accused of this, in terms of muting emotional ups and downs), gameplan, playcalling, and execution would be all that mattered - in theory.

But the Pats don't strip out narrative; they control it. There's a downside to too heavy a belief that "we're going to win because we say we're going to win." There's a downside to not having enough of that narrative. In any event, you cannot have humans without a narrative in their heads - best that it be a good one!

(And eliminating distractions is also part of the "narrative" function.)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

In basketball, you never pretend you're going to hold Elgin, Wilt, MJ or LeBron under thirty in any given game. But what the Celtics have successfully done is set a tone, or create an environment defensively which makes the opponents' offense uncomfortable - even as they're scoring points, or in the case of football, gaining yards.

When the big moments come down the stretch, your defense will have an advantage.

Think there's any contagion across sports? And back to culcha (in the broad sense)... the air they breathe is Boston air, and Boston's not a land of extreme shows of emotion.

These are probably reaches.

 

[ALP]

Thanks for the book recommendations

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Think there's any contagion across sports? And back to culcha (in the broad sense)... the air they breathe is Boston air, and Boston's not a land of extreme shows of emotion.

These are probably reaches.

It's interesting that Boston is a smaller city jam packed with history and culture, at the same time with fanatical enthusiasm for sports.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Thanks for the book recommendations

I remember at training camp in '85, Craig James said in the off-season, "I ate the book, 'Eat to Win'..."

Well, we did make the Super Bowl that year, anyway

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I've read both books - you should be aware however that Taleb is viewed by the rest of the math/financial community as someone with a chip on his shoulder that doesn't have all that much credibility because he has taken his position to an extreme. He lost money with some hedge funds waiting for a black swan that never arrived in time.

That said, I enjoyed both books.

In terms of football, clearly there are defensive strategies where you minimize the risk of big plays at the expense of conceding easier short plays. Thus you make the distribution of outcomes narrower. Conversely, if you blitz you are fattening both tails - more chance of a sack but also more chance of conceding a big or medium play.

But everything is complicated by the fact you can't become predictable - that's why you have to run the ball even though the expectation on a running play is lower than on a pass play. Running the ball opens up play-action and so what you expect to "lose" on a running play you expect to more than make up on subsequent passing plays.

 

[Tony2046]

Good stuff @PatsFanInVa . Haven't read the book and like your implications but I'd prefer more of a Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code angle in which the Holy Grail wasn't a chalice rather a bloodline of the Great savior. But I guess Tom could have a pet swan if you'd like.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I've read both books - you should be aware however that Taleb is viewed by the rest of the math/financial community as someone with a chip on his shoulder that doesn't have all that much credibility because he has taken his position to an extreme. He lost money with some hedge funds waiting for a black swan that never arrived in time.

I don't take anybody's spin as gospel -- and as I understand it the 4th book in this series, "Anti-Fragile," has been panned. In addition, just as he looked hot in 2008 because The Black Swan came out in 2007, then, splat... I think it's natural he'll look stupid for a while, in terms of market and financial circles. In fact, it's predictable. He assumes he'll lose money between extreme events.

But thanks for the word of warning. You can never simply expropriate what sounds good and consider the exercise of thinking tidily cleaned up for the duration (of course.)

That said, I enjoyed both books.

In terms of football, clearly there are defensive strategies where you minimize the risk of big plays at the expense of conceding easier short plays. Thus you make the distribution of outcomes narrower. Conversely, if you blitz you are fattening both tails - more chance of a sack but also more chance of conceding a big or medium play.

Predictability vs. unpredictability aside (next para.), I think our boy likes to be in "Mediocristan" when it favors us, and "Extremistan" when that favors us -- note, this is different from saying "When we are desperate we will accept fat tail outcomes."

But everything is complicated by the fact you can't become predictable - that's why you have to run the ball even though the expectation on a running play is lower than on a pass play. Running the ball opens up play-action and so what you expect to "lose" on a running play you expect to more than make up on subsequent passing plays.

Well yes. Also makes different people tired. (Note, you might not make corners much tireder on a run... but you will tire out the front 7).

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Good stuff @PatsFanInVa . Haven't read the book and like your implications but I'd prefer more of a Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code angle in which the Holy Grail wasn't a chalice rather a bloodline of the Great savior. But I guess Tom could have a pet swan if you'd like.

Taleb makes reference to Umberto Eco's library, which he claims to know is full of unread books, which is seriously ballsy given that Eco is an encyclopaedic polyglot himself who puts epigrams on chapters in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and the like.

The reason I mention Umberto Eco's library is that Eco's Foucault's Pendulum might interest you, if you liked the Da Vinci Code, and bothered reading the only unintentionally (probably) fictional, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Brown used as his source material.

In Foucault's Pendulum, a group of academicians try to create a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory that takes into account for all the other conspiracy theories, and they take as their axiomatic unifying principle, "Everything has something to do with the Templars."

Go ahead, prove that it doesn't!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

PS, I have not split my portfolio into 90% T-Bonds and 10% end-of-the-world bets either...

And PPS, his writing would be better if edited. I hope that it was tongue in cheek, but in the prologue to Fooled, he takes the utterly hypocritical tack that the number of sales of that book points to him being right, that he did not need editing. Into the rabbit hole we go; his writing's not as good as it could be, nor sometimes as clear. The 2008 Black Swan event made it popular to read The Black Swan, and also Fooled by Randomness. He's fooled himself, if there is some objective standard out there of "good writing." On the other hand, it is proof that the quality of the writing is not that important to his sales, an argument which he p0ints at, regarding other writers, in his second book. There's got to be a reason to read you, and the Black Swan made him a commodity that can be sold periodically with every downturn in the business cycle.

Given the length of the last (current) bull market, he and his friend Schiller are becoming "due" again, so to speak. Keynes' animal spirits will speak, and like the primitives we are, we will run from the cave fire, imitating their moods. Or not, I suppose.

Maybe this time, trees only grow up.

 

[Clonamery]

In Foucault's Pendulum, a group of academicians try to create a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory that takes into account for all the other conspiracy theories, and they take as their axiomatic unifying principle, "Everything has something to do with the Templars."

Go ahead, prove that it doesn't!

Two things: 1. I see "Talib" instead of Taleb...my brain locks. 2. I imagine Kevin Bacon is a descendant of a Templar Knight.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Two things: 1. I see "Talib" instead of Taleb...my brain locks. 2. I imagine Kevin Bacon is a descendant of a Templar Knight.

I know, it took me forever to stop thinking “Talib.”

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon, 33rx degree Mason... coincidence?

 

[aluminum seats]

It's interesting that Boston is a smaller city jam packed with history and culture, at the same time with fanatical enthusiasm for sports.

Cheers really couldn't have been set anywhere else.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Change it to a coffee shop and it could be Seattle

Oh that's right...

 

[SlowGettingUp]

There's also a relevant metaphor: "A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one important thing." Some teams do their "one thing" really well, while the Pats (the fox) are more adaptable. That makes them less fragile in the Taleb sense. Perhaps one reason why the Pats tend to do better as the game progresses.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

He assumes he'll lose money between extreme events.

It's not just that - it's his extreme posture that no financial modelling at all can work (because of the fat tails) that drives "professionals" crazy. It's an extreme "I'm right and all the rest of the world is completely wrong" belief system.