Should We Just Stop Saying 'Analytics'?

Getting upset with journalism institutions who simply refused to incorporate any analytic information as they cover sports is a giant waste of time because they aren't going to change and if you keep shouting at them then their opinions only get worse. The good news is that nothing they say can really hurt you and there's so much to look at on Al Gore's internet that you might not have to see it again. Michael Wilbon is the latest character from the non-movement to go public with his displeasure with those pesky numbers ruining ball and his frustrations stems from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers going for two points after scoring a touchdown to cut the Detroit Lions' lead to 31-23 in the fourth quarter of Sunday's Divisional Round game.

Which is sort of weird because Baker Mayfield's pass failing to find Mike Evans had no impact on the game whatsoever considering Derrick Barnes would seal the game with a pick on the Bucs' next and final possession.

Here's Wilbon's rant which asks very answerable questions with a solid amount of crank.

Here's where it's great to be a waffling, middle-ground enthusiast. Because there are so many people like Wilbon who refuse to learn or adapt but there are an equal amount of advanced-number zealots who come off as even more annoying. Quite obviously any good coach is going to use a combination of sources to make his decisions. Every analytic-driven choice should match the team that's out on the field.

Cris Collinsworth also helpfully and somewhat easily explained why Tampa Bay and most other teams would go for two there. It's almost impossible not to understand why. If successful, you can win the game in regulation. If not, you can go for two again to get the overtime-securing tie. That's it. No abbicus needed. No need to do anything that takes away from the manliness of football.

So what can be done? Well, the answer is actually nothing can be done. Anyone who stubbornly vows to not learn is tough to reason with. We could all get in a room and hammer this out over a cup of coffee in a perfect world yet that isn't happening.

My proposal is this. Let's stop saying analytics. Because it obviously triggers a significant amount of people to the point they can't function. What if we called all of these decisions into question by what the Coaches Book had to say? That could work. If you'll recall, we solved two-point decisions previously by getting everyone to learn that there was a chart coaches could look at for help. Coaches Book sounds official and tough and old-school and like someone's been working really hard to put all that together in a binder. Can we just tell Wilbon and the like that the Coaches Book says Choice A or Choice B improves the chances to win and be done with it?

We'll never know if we don't try.