First throw turnovers are statistically most likely because first throws are the most common throws. Much in the same way car accidents are much more likely to take place nearby your place of residence.
I can't estimate the distribution but it wouldn't be surprising if it were logarithmic in shape.
Does feel like there's a bit of survivorship bias at play here. But I do agree with the overall premise of rejecting the work around or hero feeling and embracing the simple stuff.
But I think what I'm trying to say is not "you see more 1st throw turnovers than [x]th throw turnovers". I agree that would be true for the reasons you mentioned.
But rather I'm trying to say something like "I estimate the completion percentage on first throws is [92%, say] when in an optimal offense it would be [98%, say]"
I think that's a completely reasonable hypothesis, given the dead disc conditions. I'm not super in the weeds with ufa, but I wonder if their data is rich enough to test this.
Still I think you're overarching point on how to respond to this is spot on. Do the easy stuff! Drives me crazy when people don't.
My guess is if all things were equal, it turns into a standard probability problem. Aka chances of event N occuring x consecutive times.
You'd just treat each pass as an independent event with some probability P of completion. But probably worth studying to see if there's a true difference in rate.
Agree with basically all of the article! Just one question: is this not considered an easy throw in your mind? https://www.youtube.com/live/VECI6-nS96Y?t=1851&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Maybe I'm not aware of the wind conditions, but an unguarded throw to the force side(?, the mark seems flat at best) seems like low hanging fruit (compared to the doublewide bravo examples that were somewhat defended). Maybe the cutter should have come a little shallower to give an easier option if it was very windy
No I don't really disagree with you! I don't really think there was anything wrong with that decision, I more included it just for the tidbit of the announcer talking about first throw turns in the same game where I didn't like their approach on a different play (the one I highlighted above it).
Not really sure what happened on that turnover. The receiver seemed weirdly un-ready given that they were standing there wide open on the (sort of) open side. Thrower maybe could've put more touch on it too. But yeah don't think it was a bad decision, just included for the commentator discussion.
Particularly agree with frustration toward handlers who get poached on the open side and there's no attempt to just get free power position and a 10 yard gainer. Crazy that the meta hasn't evolved enough to punish this to stop these open side poaches.
I’m not *against* “pull plays”, per se. What I do think is dumb, though, is giving up free yards in order to run a pull play that’s maybe going to get you those same yards at best. First maximize the free yards, then run your pull play (if you feel the need to have one). Here’s how I put it in a previous discussion I was part of:
>> I think this matches my mental model of what pull offense "should" look like. Start with a "kick return"/aggressive attack where you get as many free yards as quickly as possible. When that slows down, the downfield cutters should be expected to be aware enough to time their activation to keep things going smoothly.
"
------------
I think what I would add on to that... At this point I expect any defense good enough to win a championship is just not going to be dumb enough to give up deep shots off the pull.
That being said, I'm sure it can work against lower level teams that aren't playing team defense. I think I'm just not as interested in writing about what works in those situations as I am in writing about the ideal of what frisbee could/should be (and/or sometimes already is at the highest levels). And in that world especially, staring downfield waiting for your deep shot to develop after the pull is a recipe for failure.
First throw turnovers are statistically most likely because first throws are the most common throws. Much in the same way car accidents are much more likely to take place nearby your place of residence.
I can't estimate the distribution but it wouldn't be surprising if it were logarithmic in shape.
Does feel like there's a bit of survivorship bias at play here. But I do agree with the overall premise of rejecting the work around or hero feeling and embracing the simple stuff.
Good comment thanks!
But I think what I'm trying to say is not "you see more 1st throw turnovers than [x]th throw turnovers". I agree that would be true for the reasons you mentioned.
But rather I'm trying to say something like "I estimate the completion percentage on first throws is [92%, say] when in an optimal offense it would be [98%, say]"
I think that's a completely reasonable hypothesis, given the dead disc conditions. I'm not super in the weeds with ufa, but I wonder if their data is rich enough to test this.
Still I think you're overarching point on how to respond to this is spot on. Do the easy stuff! Drives me crazy when people don't.
What if the data were controlled for number of passes per pass in the point? Do you think that would change the percentages?
My guess is if all things were equal, it turns into a standard probability problem. Aka chances of event N occuring x consecutive times.
You'd just treat each pass as an independent event with some probability P of completion. But probably worth studying to see if there's a true difference in rate.
Agree with basically all of the article! Just one question: is this not considered an easy throw in your mind? https://www.youtube.com/live/VECI6-nS96Y?t=1851&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Maybe I'm not aware of the wind conditions, but an unguarded throw to the force side(?, the mark seems flat at best) seems like low hanging fruit (compared to the doublewide bravo examples that were somewhat defended). Maybe the cutter should have come a little shallower to give an easier option if it was very windy
No I don't really disagree with you! I don't really think there was anything wrong with that decision, I more included it just for the tidbit of the announcer talking about first throw turns in the same game where I didn't like their approach on a different play (the one I highlighted above it).
Not really sure what happened on that turnover. The receiver seemed weirdly un-ready given that they were standing there wide open on the (sort of) open side. Thrower maybe could've put more touch on it too. But yeah don't think it was a bad decision, just included for the commentator discussion.
Particularly agree with frustration toward handlers who get poached on the open side and there's no attempt to just get free power position and a 10 yard gainer. Crazy that the meta hasn't evolved enough to punish this to stop these open side poaches.
How do you feel about pull plays, especially plays designed to create deep shots?
Good question, the only thing I remember ever specifically writing about pull plays is in this article... https://someflow.substack.com/p/why-collecting-pulls-matters
"
I’m not *against* “pull plays”, per se. What I do think is dumb, though, is giving up free yards in order to run a pull play that’s maybe going to get you those same yards at best. First maximize the free yards, then run your pull play (if you feel the need to have one). Here’s how I put it in a previous discussion I was part of:
>> I think this matches my mental model of what pull offense "should" look like. Start with a "kick return"/aggressive attack where you get as many free yards as quickly as possible. When that slows down, the downfield cutters should be expected to be aware enough to time their activation to keep things going smoothly.
"
------------
I think what I would add on to that... At this point I expect any defense good enough to win a championship is just not going to be dumb enough to give up deep shots off the pull.
https://someflow.substack.com/p/i-still-think-its-crazy-youre-falling
Smart Ds know to do the "junk" stuff against your pull play. For example look at what Revolver did this past year:
https://someflow.substack.com/p/notes-revolver-vs-machine
That being said, I'm sure it can work against lower level teams that aren't playing team defense. I think I'm just not as interested in writing about what works in those situations as I am in writing about the ideal of what frisbee could/should be (and/or sometimes already is at the highest levels). And in that world especially, staring downfield waiting for your deep shot to develop after the pull is a recipe for failure.
oh man I love when you write things I can just send to players and coaches and be like, okay yeah do this :D
Another banger LT