There was a weird, I don’t know, kerfuffle this week. Actually, I wouldn’t call it a kerfuffle. It was a blip. But it tugged at the seams of some important stuff.
Here’s how it went:
- Michael Wilbon became exasperated on ESPN’s “Pardon the Interruption” while discussing how analytics were employed in two-point decision made by Tampa Bay during the Lions-Bucs NFC divisional game.
- Wilbon’s point was quickly dismissed as a grandpa rant. (It wasn’t.)
- Greg Olsen responded on Twitter/X by noting that this sort of conversation is why network broadcasters need to be able to explain analytics and how they’re used by NFL teams.
- Olsen was absolutely, 100% correct.
And that brings us to Tom Brady, because — well, because you knew it would.
Next NFL season, it’ll almost certainly be Brady, not Olsen, in FOX’s No. 1 broadcast booth opposite Kevin Burkhardt. That has been in the works for the better part of two years, and there’s no element of surprise there, and nobody’s getting knotted up over it. It’s happening.
But here’s hoping that Brady, the future Hall of Fame quarterback, is able to take his 23 seasons of pro experience and actually translate them into language that football-watchers understand and can appreciate. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
And to the point of this discussion, it’s going to fall to Brady — and the color analysts in most of the other NFL network partner broadcast booths — to break down analytics (“football math,” if the term analytics irritates you) into bite-sized morsels that fans can handle. Because Olsen has it right in almost every regard.
Wilbon was responding to Bucs coach Todd Bowles’ decision to go for two points with the Bucs trailing the Lions 31-23 in the fourth quarter. “The analytics say go for it,” Wilbon said. “Do the analytics say go for it no matter who’s going for it? So if you and I were on the field, the analytics say go for it?
“It’s the stupidest, laziest, lamest thing I’ve heard for reasoning in competition. And I hate when announcers just buy it without questioning it.”
Olsen’s response on social media was measured. “This is just further proof how vital it is that announcers continue to educate the viewers on the current approach to NFL football,” the analyst and former Pro Bowl tight end said, noting Wilbon’s remarks. “It isn’t announcers being ‘lazy.’ It’s the way the game is being played and is here to stay. The game evolves. Not sure why people push back?”
That last question is essential. Because even if some folks think Mike Wilbon was hitting Old Man Yells At Cloud levels of frustration (hey, he’s on TV; that’s showbiz), he was really putting out the same question as millions of fans.
Good rule of thumb: If you figure that most people are wondering the same thing that you’re wondering, you should probably discuss it right then and there — on the air.
Wilbon was asking whether the math on going for two in such situations works the same for every team in the NFL. In other words, do analytics constantly apply evenly across the board in sports? If they don’t, how do coaches or coordinators or play-callers determine which risk is acceptable and which isn’t?
That isn’t statheads taking over a sport; it’s a game that uses numbers all the time to help inform decisions. Any responsible NFL broadcast is going to include somebody who can understand how numbers are currently being used and to what end, and be able to explain the basics to a curious viewer. That’s pretty much what Greg Olsen was saying.
We didn’t used to have rules interpreters on broadcasts, either. NFL productions evolve.
The math on Bowles’ decision isn’t horribly controversial. It’s also not hard to explain, if you keep it simple. During this NFL season, teams going for two points were successful 55% of the time, producing 1.1 points per attempt. When they kicked the extra point, the conversion rate was 96%, but the points per attempt went down (obviously) to 0.96.
Long story short, Bowles wanted to go for two in order to position his team to beat the Lions in regulation, and he knew he was going to need two TDs to get there either way. One two-point conversion — again, with a solidly better than 50-50 chance during the season — could tip the scale. That was a factor worth discussing. Bowles clearly didn’t want to ask the Bucs to go to overtime against Detroit’s offense, playing at home, so the math on two-point tries suddenly swung into view.
That’s cool. That’s sports. It is using numbers to put a team in position to win, and without question it is informed by the Bucs’ assessment of their own offense and their ability to actually make a two-point try stand up.
Tom Brady experienced and helped make that sort of calculation many, many times in the course of his career. Beginning next season, it’ll be his job to explain football thinking to casual viewers in a way that helps them enjoy a broadcast and want to stick around.
Greg Olsen is right — analytics are here to stay. And Wilbon is right to want to know more. If the analysts themselves want to stay around as well, they need to be able to explain the numbers, and to tell folks why they matter.
Mark Kreidler is a national award-winning writer whose work has appeared at ESPN, the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and dozens of other publications. He’s also a sports-talk veteran with stops in San Francisco and Sacramento, and the author of three books, including the bestselling “Four Days to Glory.” More of his writing can be found at https://markkreidler.substack.com. He is also reachable on Twitter @MarkKreidler.
