from Amazon
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
It’s not the data, it’s the sport
David Berri tries to make his case:
The past six years of Huff’s career demonstrates a great deal of inconsistency. So which Huff did the Tigers add? Are they getting the player ranked in the top 10% in 2008? Or is it the player ranked in the bottom 10% in 2009? It seems likely that even Huff isn’t sure. Huff’s job is to hit a round ball with a round stick, and that’s simply not an activity that can be predicted easily. In the Wages of Wins we noted that the stories of Ariza and Huff are not unique. The numbers attached to players in basketball are simply more consistent than the numbers we see in baseball. And this means that decision-making should be easier in basketball.
...
If only people in baseball had the data we see in basketball.
I agree with everything, except for the last line. The reason that you get more consistency is simply because of the nature of the sport. Suppose, for example, that a tennis match lasted only one set. That is, a set is a match. Would Federer win 88% (or whatever it is) of his matches? No, of course not. If he’s winning 88% of his matches because he’s winning 65% (or whatever it is) of his sets, then having a one-set match means he’d only win 65% of the time. Similarly, if you had 7-game or 9-game matches (spread say over two days) then he’d win 95% or 99% of his matches. He’d look unbeatable (except for when he plays Nadal).
Basketball is like that. 48-minutes is simply way too long a game compared to the 9-innings in baseball. A 9-inning game in baseball is like say a 20-minute game in basketball. If that’s all you had with basketball, then you’d probably have a similar uncertainty as with baseball. Baseball and hockey are comparable in terms of how much randomness affects the performance of teams (and presumably players).
Indeed, you can manipulate how often the better team will win based on how long or short you make the confrontations. I suspect the main reason that you don’t see 5-set matches for women (I don’t buy the endurance reason) is that if you did it, you’d rarely have any upsets. As it is, there is probably less turnover among top women’s tennis players than top men’s tennis players.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date