The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more. Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews
In the original Village Voice article Lorenzana is quoted as follows: "Are you saying that just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?"
Truly it is a shame that this "genetically" beautiful woman can't get exactly the attention she wants but no more. Oh how the beautiful suffer so. What has become of this once great nation of ours?
It's my opinion that Suarez reaction was both intentional AND reflexive. Soccer players (non-goalies) are very often put in a position on the goal line to prevent goal, on corner kicks for example, and almost never blatantly handle the ball in this way. It is my belief that Suarez as well as the other Uruguayan players were communicating with each other to stop the ball from going into the goal "by any means possible", just prior to the corner kick. When the ball came towards Suarez's feet the first time, he blocked it away with his legs. When the ball could only be cleared off the line by use of the hands, that is what he (and the other Uruguayan player also) tried to do.
I doubt he makes that 2-handed reflexive save that way if he had not intended to include it in his set of possible actions, before the play started, just as he would not have made that same play during a corner kick in the first few minutes of the game.
Betfair gives Chile a 62% chance to qualify for the next round. Silver gives an 88% chance. Betfair gives 66% chance to switzerland. Silver gives 42%. The reason? Silver has WAY more faith in the underdogs in this tournament than the bettors do. Spain and Switzerland are big favorites going into the final round 1 games Friday. Silver has Spain at 43% to win the game and Switzerland at 37% for the other game. Silver's system does not at all reflect the way the bettors think about the games in this tournament.
Players are often given yellow cards for diving. Unfortunately, not nearly often enough. There was a yellow to a Chilean player just today for a dive. The player accepted it without complaint, as he knew he was guilty.
I also believe that punishment in the form of cards or suspensions for "simulation" (diving) should be assigned by video review after every game.
Amateur gamblers feel "hot" and "cold" all the time at the blackjack tables. As much or more so than these professional athletes. I was lucky enough to win $80 one time in about 10 minutes at low stakes blackjack one new orleans night, and my friends, highly educated elite college graduates, insisted that i need to keep gambling cause i was "hot". The feeling of power when rolling sevens at a craps table with a crowd cheering you on, even if you are wining only $5 a hand, is near indescribable. After rolling a few in a row, you the dice just look like beach balls coming at ya, baby.
FWIW, there have been a few players who have come out after they played in the NFL. Tuaolo, Kopay, and Simmons at the very least. I very much doubt, that with almost 2000 current NFL players, the number of current gay players is "close to zero".
I would not be too surprised if there were some inverse correlation between weight and homosexuality. However, I would be shocked if this correlation were so extreme as to yield zero current NFL players.
Also, i don't see how this thread is news. Ian Roberts came out as gay on a much bigger stage 15 years ago in Australia.
And... I'm trying to come up with another sport in which Serena would not have been immediately ejected for what she actually said to the line judge. I can't think of one.
Serena said in the post game interview that she misheard what the linesman had supposedly related to the chair judge, and that she does not know what was actually said (i.e., whether it contained the phrase "kill you"). I watched this as well as Serena's' previous outburst live as they happened. As far as I know, there is no other evidence that the line judge said those words to the chair judge, and no evidence therefore that she was lying, or even mistaken. I have not read all the news about this event, however, so I may not have the whole story.
Are we really having a debate about whether a shortstop can get to more balls if he plays deeper or not? Really?
From a random baseball coaching website, but you can find this info anywhere:
"Shortstop: The three basic positions are deep, mid-way, and playing in. When the shortstop is playing deep, they are back at the grass. The advantage of this positioning is the player has more range to field balls, but the disadvantage is on slow hit balls the fielder has farther to run to get to the ball..."
Tango's question makes little sense to me... if you can field any ball (grounder, liner, fly, whatever) up until the point it stops rolling (meaningless of course in real baseball terms) the ideal position would be somewhere in mid-left field. That is, assuming the batter swinging away like he would in a normal baseball game.
"Let me restate the obvious: A fielder will try to position himself so that he optimizes win expectancy. Hence double play depth, holding a runner on first, infield in, more controversially guarding the line and playing “no doubles” defense in the outfield."
Yes I know all this, but i was just trying to simplify the situation. By your logic, and presumably Joe Morgan's logic, when would a fielder ever position himself further back, thereby reducing his ability to get outs (what you laughably say is commonly referred to as "range"), but increasing win expectancy? Note that in all your examples except guarding the lines, the fielder is playing in to increase win expectancy at the expense of "range"". In my apparently limited understanding of baseball, the infielders are generally furthest back with no one on base, at the time when win expectancy and what you call "range" are simultaneously maximized.
For Joe Morgan's quote to make sense, the fielder would have to be playing way back, willing to allow the runner to reach first more often, in order to increase the chance of doing something else to help his team win. All snark aside, there must be some defense like this, even if it is relatively uncommon.
"When you play deep as an infielder, you cut down on your range”.
To use the term "range" as a proxy for "ability to make defensive outs" is first of all, a butchery of the specific term range, and more importantly, it makes his statement completely useless. Obviously a fielder will try to position himself so that he optimizes outs. By playing deeper, he sacrifices "time to the ball" to the benefit of "range". Morgan's statement is either exactly backwards, as MGL says, or totally meaningless.
Guy/28: Yes it is sometimes true that those 2 factors you mention can have an apparent "negating" effect at times. However, this absolutely does not mean that time remaining in a basketball game has little effect on the outcome until the last few remaining minutes of the game. Clearly it breaks down at the extremes (i.e. 20 point lead with 10 minutes left vs 20 point lead after 1 quarter, or tie game with 10 minutes left with one team a heavy pregame favorite vs. odds at the start of the game when the score is 0-0).
I suppose it is possible that, if one were to look at aggregate data for many games between teams of various strengths, it might appear that time remaining was not a major factor in determining the outcome, due to the nature of the 2 often negating variables mentioned. However, in an individual game this is not so.
Brian finds that the WP in NCAA basketball is a function of the point differential and NOT the time left in the game, other than in the last few minutes.
I used to do live in-game betting for basketball at the ncaa and nba level. A 10 point lead with 10 minutes to go in the first half is hugely different than a 10 point lead with 10 minutes to go in the game. 2 of the biggest factors for odds of winning are of course point differential and time remaining. Relative team strength (I usually used pregame point spread as a proxy) would be the third factor.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but all other things being equal, a taller player has a (slight) physical disadvantage at making free throws compared to a shorter player. This is due to the fact that a ball shot by a taller player is released at a point further from the floor, and thus will come down on to the rim at a faster velocity, making it less likely to be the beneficiary of a "shooter's roll" if it is not a swish or near swish. This is the main reason free-throws shot underhanded have a much higher success rate, and why really any NBA player who has a poor free throw percentage really ought to try shooting them underhanded.
This article discusses it:
"http://discovermagazine.com/2008/the-body/07-physics-proves-it-everyone-should-shoot-granny-style"
(for some reason i cannot get the links to show up on your site tango without major effort. not sure why...)
Maybe I am missing something.
From Wikipedia: (emphasis mine)
"In economics, the marginal product or marginal physical product is the extra output produced by one more unit of an input (for instance, the difference in output when a firm's labour is increased from five to six units)."
and "Marginal Revenue (MR) is the extra revenue that an additional unit of product will bring."
It seems pretty clear from this that if one can assume a static roster size, that adding Franceur must also mean subtracting another player. So the MRP for "adding" Franceur would be something like the MRP of Franceur - the MRP of a player that can be had for the minimum league minimum.
I know most of you know this already. Why doesn't JC?
re: Gymnast height. I think it is very important to remember the two main reasons gymnasts are short (and therefore usually extremely young when female). 1) Ratio of upper body strength to overall weight. and probably just as importantly 2)Being shorter allows for less required angular momentum for spinning lenghtwise (head over feet), allowing them to do flips (especially with legs extended) much more easily.
As for ballerinas, they actually MUST normally be "average" height (between 5'3" and 5'7") for the population, or they will not be eligible for many major companies throughout the world.
Finally figure skaters are seldom shorter than 5'2".
I don't believe height is a significant factor for motor control for these athletes.
Perhaps we are going through a special time during which there are a glut of late birthdays just by chance, but so far, for 2000-2001, 2005-2006, and the 30 games of 2008, I see no bias at all towards the first half of the year for Canadian-born points leaders.
Of the 200 points leaders in 2005-2006, i found 94 born in Canada.
Jan-Mar: 16, Apr-Jun: 31, Jul-Sep: 30, Oct-Dec: 17.
I don't have good access to a database that lets me know who played Canadian Junior Hockey, or even who exactly is Canadian, only where the players were born. So for that reason my numbers could be slightly different.
Interesting numbers. I would guess, from looking at the current data (and your graphs) that this bias has been slowly disappearing over time. We know the current first half to second half ratio for the whole league is about 58% to 42%. By your numbers that means 55% first-half babies in the top players. My guess is that it is even less now as scouting and player evaluation gets more and more sophisticated. At any rate, you say enough players for 4 new franchises, I say enough for maybe 1 or 2 more. I think maybe the answer is somewhere in there. But by Gladwell's quote (that I cited above), he very explicitly says "twice as many adult hockey stars". That means enough for 30 more franchises. He is off by a factor of 10.
I looked at 2000-2001 because it was the first season on the sortable stats at espn.com (or I think it was anyway).
2000-2001 Canadian-born points leaders (92 out of 200 total players born anywhere).
Jan-Mar: 19, Apr-Jun: 25, Jul-Sep: 29, Oct-Dec: 19.
2000-2001 Canadian-born "average time on ice" leaders (90 out of 200 total).
Jan-Mar: 20, Apr-Jun: 22, Jul-Sep: 26, Oct-Dec: 22.
2000-2001 Canadian-born "average time on ice" bottom tier (136 out of 200 total)
Jan-Mar: 35, Apr-Jun: 52, Jul-Sep: 27, Oct-Dec: 22.
None of the data that you have presented, none of it, breaks players down by how good they are relative to the league (NHL). All of your data treats all NHL players the same. You have completely missed the point of my long and tedious explanations. Furthermore, while historical data is certainly interesting and important and gives a larger sample size, the critical question is whether or not we are being impacted today. Thus "running the numbers back to 1980", while admirable, is not necessarily all that relevant if we have enough of a sample with fewer years of data.
Too small a group of players? Sigh. You really just won't get it will you? I have already given you the breakdown by "average time on ice" for 400 out of the 735 players listed on espn.com.
Like Gladwell, you seem painfully un-numerically savvy. Of course there will be some correlation between points per game and birth month, even if only the bottom tier of players are biased by birth month. Why is this? Simple. Even the bottom tier of the league, for which we all know there is bias, scores some points per game.
I see where you went wrong. Outliers, P 268: "If Canada had a second hockey league for those children born in the last half of the year, it would today have twice as many adult hockey stars. Now multiply that sudden flowering of talent by every field and profession. The world could be so much richer than the world we have settled for."
This argument is astounding for its stupidity. Apparently Gladwell does not understand the concept of diminishing returns. It would be amusing if it weren't so insidious. Here he pretends returns would not diminish at all (full returns), but in an earlier case (basketball players over 6'6") he pretends you get no returns at all for extra height. In other words, he comes to whatever conclusion suits his worldview, despite the fact that anyone can see his conclusions have no basis in reality. Gladwell is simply not a serious writer about these subjects and I am beginning to think he does much more harm than good.
I just want to clarify... in the preceding 3 posts the numbers were for the top or bottom number of players in each category, ignoring anyone not born in Canada. Thus there are only 100 Canadian-born players in the "top 200 by ATOI" list, and only 114 in the "bottom 200 by ATOI" list.
As of today in this year's NHL:
Top 200 Canadian-born players by ATOI (average time on ice).
Jan-Mar: 22, Apr-Jun: 29, Jul-Sep: 29, Oct-Dec: 20.
Bottom 200 Canadian-born players by ATOI.
Jan-Mar: 37, Apr-Jun: 36, Jul-Sep: 22, Oct-Dec: 19.
Bottom 100 Canadian-born players by minutes played.
Jan-Mar: 18, Apr-Jun: 17, Jul-Sep: 13, Oct-Dec: 10.
So, if we have two junior leagues instead of one, we swap a few bench warmers around? Let me know if I am missing something crucial.
More quick tallies from this season's NHL: top 50 canadian-born penalty minutes leaders by quarter.
Jan-Mar: 14, Apr-Jun: 9, Jul-Sep: 9, Oct-Dec: 4.
Almost none of these guys are leading the league in points and minutes. Anyone surprised? Most people would not consider these the most "hockey-talented" (so to speak) players in the league.
Note one other interesting fact. A much higher percentage of these players were born in Canada than that of the points and minutes leaders. That speaks to Tango's bias against European players. Once again, the lower tiers of the league seem to display the birthmonth bias while the upper tiers do not. Now why should we have two junior leagues again?
I got the NHL numbers 31% (Jan-Mar) and 19% (Oct-Dec) from YOUR CHART! Then I extrapolated the 27% (Apr-Jun) and 23% (Jul-Sep) from those first 2 numbers.
We know there is bias in the Canadian junior leagues. However, my contention was that this bias would not be nearly so evident in the top ranks of NHL Hockey. My quick tallies of NHL leaders seems to back this up. The only way to really tell if the "Matthew Effect" (cumulative advantage) plays an important role in Hockey is by seeing if the advantage increases as one goes up in the Hockey ranks. All the evidence I have seen shows exactly the opposite. The higher up you go in Hockey in Canada, the less birthmonth seems to matter.
You could also simply say that the Junior coaches give more ice time to the players that are better simply because they are older (thus bigger, faster, and stronger, and more experienced). So age bias in a junior league alone is not evidence of a "Matthew effect". If Gladwell is right, then by the time the January players get into the NHL, they really ARE better than the December players, and thus should get more ice time even in the NHL, thus increasing their advantage. There would be no reason to expect the relative numbers of Jan vs Dec players to even out for points and minutes leaders.
Canadian-born players in the 2008 NHL draft by year quartile and round:
1st Round Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 4, Jul-Sep: 1, Oct-Dec: 6.
2nd Round Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 6, Jul-Sep: 5, Oct-Dec: 2.
3rd Round Jan-Mar: 10, Apr-Jun: 5, Jul-Sep: 3, Oct-Dec: 1.
I am not sure i want to turn this into a real study, but it seems with these small sample sizes there seem to be some patterns emerging. The higher the ceiling for the player, the less birthmonth seems to matter. This is what you would expect if birhtmonth were more a tiebreaker than a determining factor.
I continued a bit with my quick tallies.
Birthdates of all goalies that played enough to qualify for the "goals per game average" list: Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 5, July-Sep: 4, Oct-Dec: 4.
Extending point leader list to top 100 instead of 50 I get Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 20, July-Sep: 14, Oct-Dec: 13.
For minutes leaders top 100 (probably a few player overlap with above list now) Jan-Mar: 12, Apr-Jun: 14, July-Sep: 13, Oct-Dec: 12.
All numbers for Canadian-born Hockey players only.
If you had separate leagues for players born in the second half of the year, then you’d have almost twice as many athletes to pick from. Whether you think the issue is natural talent or hours devoted to playing, registering twice as many players at a young age will give you twice as many good players later.
I don't understand your thinking here at all. Are you trying to tell me that none of the players in the second league would be taken from the pool of players currently in the first league? So... double the coaches and the money and everything else? By this logic, why not have a league for each day of the year? Then you would have 365 times the number of players to choose from.
More realistically, let's use the numbers you have on your blog post to get a better idea. You have 31% of players in the NHL from Jan-Mar, and 19% from Oct-Dec. So let's say maybe 27% from Apr-Jun and 23% from Jul-Sep. That means 58% from the first half of the year and 42% from the second half. If you had two junior leagues, one for each half of the year, the idea is you would equalize that to 50/50, in effect replacing 8 players per 100 from Jan-Jun with ones from July-Dec. My suggestion is that the 8 players per 100 added in from July-Dec would virtually all be rank and file NHL types, and not truly standout talents (for the NHL anyway). I find it unlikely that the Gretzky's born July-December would not have gotten the very best training and ice time throughout their young careers. If I am correct, it makes very little difference to the overall quality of the league if you replace 8 players per 100 at the margins with ones who would be very slightly better had they been given the opportunity. I assume, as in MLB, there are many players of borderline NHL caliber that just have not been lucky enough to make the league, all waiting in the wings, so to speak.
I don't understand your question. I readily acknowledge there is bias in these leagues. This bias, not incidentally, is reflected in most junior sports organized this way throughout the world. My question to you is: "Does this bias affect the overall quality of the NHL in a meaningful and significant way?" I see little evidence of that.
Like i indicated earlier, other types of biases (against European players for example), might have important and lasting effects for future generations of NHL players. I fail to see how a bias by birth month could have effects that last into the future. The only affects are ones that should be readily apparent right now. I am not convinced.
But what about guys like Mike Piazza, who are late bloomers?
The implication in Outliers is that these guys would have no chance, regardless of their birthdates, as they would have missed out on all the crucial playing time and training necessary for success very early in their lives.
Outliers, P 156 (on becoming a successful "outlier") "That's an unstoppable combination. That's like being a hockey player born on January 1.".
Curious, I looked at the top 50 point scorers and top 50 minutes leaders for this season in the NHL, and ignored anyone who was not born in Canada. The results by quartile? According to my quick tally, there were 25 Canadian born players in the top 50 scoring leaders. Jan-March: 4, April-June: 9, July-Sept: 9, Oct-Dec: 3. For minutes leaders (almost all defensemen, so pretty much an entirely different sample even though the numbers look similar). Jan-Mar: 5, April-June: 8, July-Sept: 8, Oct-Dec: 4. For the minutes leaders, not a single Canadian-born player was born in January.
Outliers, P31: "So What do you do if you're an athletic young Czech with the misfortune to have been born in the last part of the year? You can't play soccer. The deck is stacked against you... Those born in the last quarter of the year might as well give up on hockey too."
It is this kind of hyperbolic discourse about predestination by circumstance that is so irritating about the book.
In anecdote after anecdote Gladwell implies and sometimes outwardly states that there is a threshold for greatness, above which more innate talent (be it IQ, height for basketball players, or musical talent or whatnot) confers essentially no advantage. P 39: "The striking thing about Ericsson's study is that he and his colleagues couldn't find any 'naturals', musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did. Nor could they find any 'grinds', people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn't have what it takes to break into the top ranks." P 79: "Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn't seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage". P 80: "What Hudson is saying is that IQ is a lot like height in basketball... A basketball player only has to be tall enough". There are more anecdotes about nobel prize winners, etc. Gladwell minimizes the role of innate ability at every chance he gets.
I did look at your post and I know there is a bias. All well and good. What I would like to see explained is if we should be especially concerned as members of a community (in this example, as fans of NHL Hockey) that we are missing out on the best players somehow because of this bias. My inclination is that we don't miss out on such truly great hockey talents very often because of the birthdate cutoff, as I was attempting to show from using the Czech National Team. For the "rank and file" of the NHL to have a slightly higher percentage of birthdates from earlier in the year does not seem, to me, to be much of a travesty. From what we know of talent distribution for MLB and other top sport leagues, my first inclination would be to think that mostly marginal talents are being "squandered", so to speak, but likely not many truly elite talents. These will rise to the top despite early bias in their careers. Sure it is a shame for the individual who could have been a borderline NHLer had he been born in January and not November, but does the league as a whole suffer if you replace a few players at the margins? I am not convinced. Much more interesting to me is Tango's investigation into the bias against players from Europe v. their North American counterparts.
Another footnote from Gladwell: "A physically immature basketball player in an American city can probably play as many hours of basketball in a given year as a relatively older child because there are so many basketball courts and so many people willing to play. It's not like ice hockey, where you need a rink. Basketball is saved by its accessibility and ubiquity." While I don't know enough about hockey in Canada to say whether this is accurate or not, it sure sounds wrong to me. And furthermore, since Gladwell is essentially equating bias in hockey with bias in European soccer, i would like to hear his "explanation" for why soccer is harder to play across Europe than basketball is in a U.S. city.
I just read part of this book last night. Gladwell's cherrypicking of examples is beyond infuriating. His footnote regarding Harvard admissions is laughable for both its numerical errors and the its implication that Harvard looks only at standardized test scores and class rank as sole criteria for admissions. He frequently overstates or otherwise butchers the results of scientific studies to fit the story that he would like to tell. And this is all coming from a person (me) who basically agrees with the general viewpoint of the book.
Anyway, regarding birth month, another likely cherrypicked example given in the book is the Czech U-20 2007 soccer team that performed well in the championships that year. Only 3 of the 15-20 players had birth months in the second half of the calendar year. Gladwell: "At the national team tryouts, the Czech soccer coaches might as well have told everyone born after midsummer that they should pack their bags and go home." The implication, of course, is that the Czech system is so rigid that essentially half the talent is being squandered and has no chance of becoming great "outliers." Hmm... how then to explain the current composition of the Czech national soccer team (not U-20, but the very best Czech players of all ages)? This info is available on soccernet.com and other sites... anyway Jan-March: 5 players, April-June: 5, July-September: 2, October-December: 5. Of course, perhaps the Czech system has changed dramatically in the last 5-10 years and has become far more rigid, but there are more likely explanations that have to do with Gladwell himself.
The irony is that Gladwell implies in another part of the book that 10,000 hours of effort at a task is far more important than innate talent itself in determining who will become an "outlier". I am not sure even he believes this, as it seems to contradict his first implication that Hockey talent is being squandered. If innateness is a small factor, why worry if you focus all your efforts on people born in the first half of the year? The results should be approximately the same.
I would love to hear your opinion about the Canadian Hockey stuff Tango, as it is something I know little about.
Finally, I would just like to say that I am a regular reader of this and other good analytical baseball sites because of the effort taken by Tango, MGL, and many others not to produce results based on biased samples, and to be very careful, and as "scientific" (for lack of a better word) as possible when performing studies on baseball. If only Gladwell exhibited a fraction of this responsibility and restraint. All I could think about when reading this book was: even most amateur scientists and sabermetricians I know would never be so bold, irresponsible, and arrogant to present data in this shoddy manner.
I only saw 1.5 innings of that game last night. so i have almost no opinion on most of it. However, the one thing that really struck me is exactly what MGL said above: if Lidge is going to come in and throw 80-90% sliders, how is it that the 3-4-5 hitters can't even get one good swing in? They looked absolutely clueless at the plate, especially Pena and Longoria. i was flabbergasted.
mgl, this is one thing that has always annoyed me. There are so many people that are extremely well versed in betting for all of these sports, but somehow the various networks seemingly want to pretend that betting doesn't exist or something, so they employ people ignorant of the very basics to talk about it. just another example of how poor the quality of tv information. examples abound.
Here is an idea that i love, but likely most people would hate. Since it is completely impractical of course the point is moot, but here it is anyway: Get rid of the outfield fences altogether and make all home runs be of the "inside the park" (so to speak) variety. Who doesn't want to see Big Papi huff around the bases while Ichiro chases down his 550 foot bomb to the gap? I'd like to see more of a premium placed on speed and defense, and this seems one way to achieve that.
Carmona did the same thing (lose velocity) in game 2 of this series, as I was paying very specific attention to his velocity in that game. His fastball was 96-98 in the first, and lost about 1 mph per inning. In the fifth he was throwing 92-94 before they pulled him. He did dial it up a bit to Ortiz (I believe) in the third.
It was my opinion (maybe not worth a lot) that he was overthrowing early and hence a little wild. He seemed to be very tired when he had pitched near 100 pitches and was removed.
I am quite willing to concede 2 batters as it really is not that important to me... just something I was wondering about. I do however question the effective use of FLI for some of the most important reliever situations.
It seems to me like some of the most important mid-inning baseball pitching changes occur after consecutive batters reach base, very often with 2 outs (as there are more likely to already be runners on base with 2 outs). In other words, whether justified or not, pitching changes will more often occur after two "worse than average" results than they would after two "average" results. It seems like looking ahead two average batters is kind of missing the point.
I guess what I am trying to say is that LI itself still seems more useful than FLI for a decision about warming up a reliever. Were I a manager making these decisions, I would look at the possible LIs for various results of the next couple of ABs that might be the most relevant for my decision (and indeed, as a live-event gambler this is often what I did), rather than looking at a FLI that takes the average LI of all possible results.
That leaves 120 minutes to face about 80 batters, or 1.5 minutes per batter.
This is on average of course. Some pitchers slow way down with men on base in any situation. Surely they could be instructed to do so in an emergency. With 4 or more pitches in the AB, and 45 seconds per pitch, 2 minutes for other delays (mound visits by the manager to talk to the pitcher, a separate one by the catcher). I really don't see why it would always take more than one batter for a team that really wanted to make a quick change. Obviously, you wouldn't take such extreme measures unless the leverage skyrocketed all of the sudden, so it wouldn't necessarily even come into play more than a couple of times a week.
In general you'd want 2 or 3 batters. But do you really NEED more than 1, especially as you could have warned your ace that he might be needed before the inning started?
How long does it actually take to warm up a reliever, considering all the "tricks" that teams pull when they desperately need to get their guy in fast? It seems like in an emergency situation, relievers can be ready in the space of one more batter (if the batter has just reached, a reliever can be ready for the batter after the new one coming up). Kalk's FLI assumes two more batters, but as he seems to be mostly talking about sudden high leverage situations, do we really need to assume two batters have batted in the interim and not just one?
I admit that I have not always paid enough attention to how relievers warm up so I could be mistaken.
Hurdle and Melvin are making mgl look very smart just now--on opposite sides of the coin. Hurdle pulled Morales for a PH with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 2 out, down 1 run, and the PH comes through with a lucky hit. Melvin leaves Owings in (all good reliervers relatively well rested, off day tomorrow) to face a fire, third time through the lineup in the 5th, and gets badly badly burned.
Having read the article myself now, I agree with Nate that James at least appears to be "proceeding from the notion that baseball has its competitive balance dynamics right". Most people I speak to seem to agree that there is not enough parity in the regular season but too much in the playoffs.
Also, the notion that the NBA is too predetermined is anything but a new one. Even the Nets' Jayson Smith famously said something to that effect 10 years or so ago (paraphrasing): God doesn't even care about the NBA until the playoffs.
I really happen to enjoy the NFL's ratio of skill/chance in a game and season setting, and also the importance of each individual game.
For comparison to Tango's list above (since 1994-1995, 13 seasons 156 playoff teams, approx 31 teams in the league, or about 5 appearances on average per team)
AFC
teamID n
IND 9
NE 9
PIT 8
MIA 7
DEN 7
KC 5
JAX 5
NYJ 5
BAL 5 (1 as original CLE)
BUF 4
SD 4
TEN 4
OAK 3
CIN 1
CLE 1 (joined as expansion 1999)
HOU 0 (joined as expansion 2002)
NFC
GB 9
PHI 8
DAL 7
SF 7
MIN 7
TB 6
NYG 5
STL 5
SEA 5 (1 in AFC)
CHI 4
DET 4
ATL 4
CAR 3
NO 2
WAS 2
ARI 1
Part of my point about the 3 innings possibly being significant is that Marmol had only given up 3 home runs in 69 ML innings this year. Since I was unaware of his AAA stats, his 2 in the playoffs almost doubled his home run rate! Obviously with batters faced numbers this small it seems like a large regression is probably in order anyway, but it is easy to imagine how 3 innings could be significant if a relief pitcher were to give up a ridiculous amount of homeruns (say 6) in those innings after having only given up 3 all year.
It seems like a factor in any decision making process must be the uncertainty one has for the various projections involved. In an obviously contrived scenario, let's say you have 2 options to start against an excellent pitcher (say Webb) in the deciding game of a series. In option 1, you have an absolutely known quantity who is guaranteed to give up exactly 3 runs in every 7 innings of work. In option 2 you have a mostly unknown quantity who you know averages exactly 4 runs in 7 innings of work, but sometimes gives up many more or many fewer runs. If this uncertainty is large enough, it seems like starting option 2 would be the better option for this particular game despite the average projection of option 2 being worse than that of option 1.
I'm not at all implying that this must be a factor in the Marmol v. Zambrano discussion. It just seems like some specific decisions require not only the averages (means) but also the standard deviations of projected performances involved for correct analysis.
Looking at Marmol's minor league stats I see that he has also pitched 41 very good innings this year for the Iowa Cubs in AAA PCL which should at least partially answer my question above.
mgl: yes, I understand 3 IP is not terribly significant in general. What surprises me, then, is how a below average projection for Marmol coming into the season can change into an excellent projection after only 69 IP this season. 69 is also not an awful lot of innings.
If one were to include Carlos Marmol's 2007 post season stats into his projection going into next year, it obviously would not look quite as good, as he has so far given up 3 hits, 3 walks, 3 runs, and 2 home runs in 3 innings (with 6 strikeouts). He only had 69 IP in the regular season this year, so 3 IP is not insignificant.
Do any projection systems use post season stats? It seems like they would be useful in situations like this.
Sherwood: I can't speak for anyone else obviously but the move to take out Francis immediately after having him bat was either so boneheaded that there really can be no debate whatsoever (making discussing it uninteresting) OR there was some mitigating factor that nobody in the media was made privy to (e,g, he stiffened up running out his grounder) because the Rockies ended up winning.
I don't know much about the Cubs, so I don't know who could have pinch hit for Zambrano.
Another factor, of course, is that the game was tied and could easily have gone to extra innings, meaning some lesser pitchers would have pitched high leverage innings. Even if the Cubs were to take the lead in the 8th, who were they planning to pitch in the 8th and 9th innings? It seems to me all of these pitchers must be at least as good options as Zambrano after 85 pitches for this decision to be the right one.
mgl: I was wondering what you thought of the decision to take out Zambrano for the bottom of the 7th in game 1 of the Cubs/D-Backs. I realize Marmol has been fantastic this year, but that is only one years worth of stats (as you point out above). Is he really projected to do better than Z in that situation? The answer better be a resounding yes, as the game was still tied and Zambrano had only thrown 85 pitches (and looked very good in doing so FWIW). It should be noted that Piniella left Z in to hit for himself just an inning earlier... with 2 outs and the bases loaded.
Tango: Not sure how complex you want these ratings to be, but not all interceptions are remotely equal.
If you watch Peyton Manning enough, you realize he takes far greater risks on 3rd down, especially 3rd and long, as an interception downfield in that situation is far less costly than one on 1st down. Jay Cutler, the young QB for the Broncos, has yet to figure out when to force the ball into coverage, as evidenced by some extremely questionable decisions on first down against the Bills last weekend, only one of which (luckily for him, IIRC) was intercepted. Also, Cutler may have cost his team a shot at the playoffs with a very poor decision to throw into coverage in the flat (on first down) leading to an interception and TD against the 49ers in the final game of last season.
While a play-by-play, value-added approach such as the one Football Outsiders uses to measure QB performance is inherently tainted by random fluctuation that is interpreted as "clutchiness", such a ranking does underscore the incredible difference in value for interceptions at different times/downs/yards to go in the game. Quarterbacks have a lot of control over when to force a ball into coverage, and some of that control is reflected in these value added stats.
I care. I just finished watching the game and am a marginal Giants fan. Or at least I thought I was. Oh well, at least it's always fun to see what Bonds will do.
Regarding hot streaks, most athletes themselves seem to believe they are "in the zone" when they are hot. There are many examples like this old cliche from Eric Byrnes:
When you're really, really hot," Byrnes says, "it can almost look like a beach ball.
While it is impossible to completely discount this experience from one's armchair, there is another class of people that believe something very similar: inveterate gamblers, even those involved in games requiring no input from the gambler, such as craps.
It is a very real phenomenon that a shooter in craps will believe they are on a hot streak when they are shooting sevens repeatedly. Hell, even I have been tempted to believe it while playing $5 craps, and it goes against my nature completely. For some reason it is very hard to attribute anything to luck, even when it must be so. After all, even Einstein said "God does not play dice."
I think that one missing aspect here is that Wie was knocking out around 300 yards with her drives when she was 13 years old. That would put her in the top 10 in average drive FOR THE PGA today. So if she wanted to give the PGA a try, why not, she’s hitting the ball farther than most of them.
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. Take a closer look behind the curtain of the hype machine. Wie has always consistently hit it significantly shorter than the men who compete. see this link
Still don't believe me? There are now a multitude of stories regarding her coach Ledbetter's attempts to lengthen her swing (with arguably disastrous results) so that she could compete at PGA events. From Leadbetter himself (a for-Wie biased observer):
Michelle hits the ball 280 yards under normal conditions, so she is only average length on the men's tour. She knows she has to get longer and stronger to compete--and she's definitely up for the challenge. Michelle's turning 16 on Oct. 11, and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg as far as her potential is concerned.
Remember, Leadbetter is talking here about the most impressive aspect of Wie's game, not the weakest.
Furthermore, Wie wouldn't even be the longest hitter on the LPGA tour were she even a member, and never, even at the top of her game, would have been the longest hitter. see here
The hype surrounding Wie has always been that of POTENTIAL not present ability, a potential that unfortunately has not (yet) been fulfilled. The only debate really should be "how much does potential greatness justify present preferential treatment. As Wie's female competitors get younger, longer, and better, we are beginning to see the answer.
Tango. I want to point you to this article written today on the Wall Street Journal online.
wsj article.
With all due respect to Els and other golfing experts, his statement "give her a couple of years... she can play on this tour" (at age 16!) is the kind of hyperbole that those with any perspective on youth prodigies in sport and the normal difference in male vs female ability at the highest level ought to have cautioned against.
Another example is Freddy Adu, over whom sponsors and (American) "experts" gushed while those with more experience in these matters (mostly British analysts who had seen multiple flameouts) took a "let's wait and see" attitude. He is no longer the top prospect in USA soccer.
Tango. Thanks for your reasonable discussion in this matter. As always you are a true gentleman.
"The issue should be with the exemptor and not the exemptee". -- I think this cuts to the heart of the matter re: Wie. It is my contention that sponsors and the media and whoever else have been (perhaps innocently) complicit in foisting upon us the idea that Wie was destined for unique "once-in-a-generation" greatness, and therefore deserved all the fame and money (and exemptions) that came her way. In retrospect there were some excellent reasons for skepticism in this regard, including ones that have been heavily discussed in the media and don't need repeating here.
There are a few more reasons for skepticism that to me seem underreported or merely hinted at:
1)Much of Wie's extreme advantage at a young age came from her height. She essentially stopped growing upwards at age 13.
2)Women in most sports generally seem to reach their peak at an earlier age than men. Extrapolating Wie's career path by comparing it to boy's her age may have been inappropriate.
and perhaps most importantly:
3)As far as I can tell, we have just passed through a "generational gap" in women's golf. Not too many years ago the best female golfers were older and stronger and far less athletic, seemingly relying on experience and size/strength to excel, and eschewing (to some degree) athleticism and "natural ability". The landscape of women's golf has changed dramatically and Wie seems to have been one of the first of the new generation. In other words, Wie is not nearly so unique as we were led to believe, but merely is/was one of the very best of a new generation of golfers, the majority of whom are very significantly better than the previous generation.
Ironically, the more Wie struggles, and the more young and younger good female golfers keep coming through the pipeline, the more I believe that Wie and her family made the right decision to grab as much fame and money as they could before the illusion of her uniqueness was shattered.
Do I blame Wie herself for all this? No. But I do weary of the attention she gathers at all times, as it seems to detract from the action on the course, as well as offends my concept of fairness. Perhaps some of the male "caveman" pros feel this way too and just express it very poorly.
Tango. I understand your discomfort with the "caveman"-like comments of some of the male pros (and others). However, I believe that many people have a legitimate problem with one person being singled out for exemption after exemption without having proven he OR she is worthy of the honor in any way except popularity.
I have no problem with a woman being given a sponsor's exemption. Indeed I was intrigued by Annika's attempt against the men and rooted for her enthusiastically. I do however sincerely believe that Wie has never demonstrated the ability to compete against the men nor do I think she would have been able to qualify for the men's tour via Q-school.
Furthermore, I also do NOT believe that if her age and skill level and golfing experience were exactly the same, only she were male, that she would have received the number of sponsor's exemptions that she has. This is my point, the fans and sponsors are enthusiastic about seeing a woman (girl) compete because it makes a great story. They would be less enthusiastic if she were male.
The appearance of fairness and having earned your place is actually far more important to people than you are giving credit for. As for not hearing about players or others having issues with men being given exemptions, my guess is that part of the reason is that Wie is such a hot-button issue that everyone is asked about it, so everyone's opinion gets heard. Probably there are some issues with other exemptions that nobody else really cares about.
Incidentally, if you take the 1000th best male golfer in the world, how many tries do you think it would take before he made the cut on a PGA tour event?
It just seems awfully unfair of you to label every claim against whether Wie should play against men as sexist or backward, especially now that those who claimed there would be the issue of her psyche (which I actually thought was WAY overblown) seem to have been remarkably prescient.
btw. Craig Perks won the Player's Champinoship in 2002 and so has been able to keep his tour card for the last five years even though he is now a terrible (for a pro... far worse than number 1000) golfer. But those rules were in place before he won the championship, and so he has not received any preferential treatment.
I still don't understand your logic, Tango, and it seems especially ridiculous now.
Michelle Wie has only experienced every benefit due to her age and gender. I understand that this is not true for most women, but it certainly is true for her.
Also, Craig Perks had to qualify somehow for the PGA tour. Do you think there was ever a time that Michelle Wie could have? If she had taken the time to qualify, I can assure you the animosity towards her would have been far, far less.
I have absolutely no problem with any woman competing with men at any competition whatsoever so long as they have earned their position there, and not been given it for the sake of enriching sponsors (or anyone else for that matter) at the cost of true competition.
Maybe I am confused, but how does a great PBP engine help you pick the results of a game before it starts?
OK, maybe in baseball it can. But in football? I think it would be currently impossible, based on the variables involved in football, to have the input for such a simulator anywhere near precise enough to do such a thing. In fact, if I were to build a PBP simulator, the first version would start by using the vegas line as one of the input parameters, and work from there.
No need to check total number of games played.
It is now week 13. So 12 weeks have been played, that's 11 games and 1 bye week for each team (as all teams have had their bye weeks).
11 games for each pair of teams (16) is 176 total games played so far in 2006.
I'm sure your point stands, MGL, (as although an excellent one, it should be obvious to everyone already) but it would be nice to see the actual numbers.
Sure it's true that she generates so much animosity solely because she is a woman, and that is simply detestable. You must also admit though that the only reason she is getting the sponsor's exemptions is because she is a woman. It's not like the cavemen (of which sadly there are many) were the first to dispense with the gender blindness.
I hope she does well and shuts all those idiots up. I have one major problem with the whole sponsor's exemptions thing, and this has nothing to do with Wie in particular. The reason I love sports so much is that it is essentially a meritocracy where the level of subjectivity is very low. I realize that sports is entertainment, but most would admit that giving a sponsor's exemption to Bill Murray would be going too far. So Wie is a great golfer and will eventually win on the tour. I don't know much about qualifying, but is it that hard for her (considering how good she is) to qualify the way everyone else does?
What I'm saying is basically very simple: when money and entertainment start to replace pure competition I start to lose interest. I find it satisfying when travelling gets called for Jordan the same way it does for the rank and file, when Maddux doesn't get the strike call simply on reputation. This environment where the famous personalities get all the advantages severely cuts into my enjoyment of the competition.
There have been numerous remarks by pundits stateside (not sure about the rest of the world) about how Zidane's actions "cost his team the game, championship, cup, etc" While certainly an unforgivable and foolish move, Zidane's lapse of professionalism likely only cost his team a few percentage points of WE, considering that there were only a few minutes of OT left and the likelihood that the game was going to penalty kicks was very high (I'd say almost 80% or more). Certainly Zidane would be an asset in PKs, but not that much over the sixth best PK taker on the team. And if you look at waht actually happened in PKs, the Italians didn't miss any of their kicks, making Zidane's mistake even less costly from a bacwards looking point of view.
Finally, all the talk of what Materazzi might or might not have said is virtually irrelevant. There seems to be only a very few things that can be said on the pitch that are truly unacceptable by soccer standards, and apparently he said none of these things.
In the original Village Voice article Lorenzana is quoted as follows: "Are you saying that just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?" Truly it is a shame that this "genetically" beautiful woman can't get exactly the attention she wants but no more. Oh how the beautiful suffer so. What has become of this once great nation of ours?
A responsible headline? (auntbea) —
The headline now reads: "Miss. school board reverses race-based election policy ". Probably they received a bunch of complaints.
NHL Rule 26 + World Cup of Soccer (auntbea) —
It's my opinion that Suarez reaction was both intentional AND reflexive. Soccer players (non-goalies) are very often put in a position on the goal line to prevent goal, on corner kicks for example, and almost never blatantly handle the ball in this way. It is my belief that Suarez as well as the other Uruguayan players were communicating with each other to stop the ball from going into the goal "by any means possible", just prior to the corner kick. When the ball came towards Suarez's feet the first time, he blocked it away with his legs. When the ball could only be cleared off the line by use of the hands, that is what he (and the other Uruguayan player also) tried to do. I doubt he makes that 2-handed reflexive save that way if he had not intended to include it in his set of possible actions, before the play started, just as he would not have made that same play during a corner kick in the first few minutes of the game.
World Cup odds (auntbea) —
Betfair gives Chile a 62% chance to qualify for the next round. Silver gives an 88% chance. Betfair gives 66% chance to switzerland. Silver gives 42%. The reason? Silver has WAY more faith in the underdogs in this tournament than the bettors do. Spain and Switzerland are big favorites going into the final round 1 games Friday. Silver has Spain at 43% to win the game and Switzerland at 37% for the other game. Silver's system does not at all reflect the way the bettors think about the games in this tournament.
FIFA Monarchy of edicts and proclamations continues (auntbea) —
Players are often given yellow cards for diving. Unfortunately, not nearly often enough. There was a yellow to a Chilean player just today for a dive. The player accepted it without complaint, as he knew he was guilty. I also believe that punishment in the form of cards or suspensions for "simulation" (diving) should be assigned by video review after every game.
Curtis Granderson's take on hitters being hot or cold... (auntbea) —
Amateur gamblers feel "hot" and "cold" all the time at the blackjack tables. As much or more so than these professional athletes. I was lucky enough to win $80 one time in about 10 minutes at low stakes blackjack one new orleans night, and my friends, highly educated elite college graduates, insisted that i need to keep gambling cause i was "hot". The feeling of power when rolling sevens at a craps table with a crowd cheering you on, even if you are wining only $5 a hand, is near indescribable. After rolling a few in a row, you the dice just look like beach balls coming at ya, baby.
Professional male athlete of a team sport comes out (auntbea) —
FWIW, there have been a few players who have come out after they played in the NFL. Tuaolo, Kopay, and Simmons at the very least. I very much doubt, that with almost 2000 current NFL players, the number of current gay players is "close to zero". I would not be too surprised if there were some inverse correlation between weight and homosexuality. However, I would be shocked if this correlation were so extreme as to yield zero current NFL players. Also, i don't see how this thread is news. Ian Roberts came out as gay on a much bigger stage 15 years ago in Australia.
Why is it that people just can't tell the truth... (auntbea) —
And... I'm trying to come up with another sport in which Serena would not have been immediately ejected for what she actually said to the line judge. I can't think of one.
Why is it that people just can't tell the truth... (auntbea) —
Serena said in the post game interview that she misheard what the linesman had supposedly related to the chair judge, and that she does not know what was actually said (i.e., whether it contained the phrase "kill you"). I watched this as well as Serena's' previous outburst live as they happened. As far as I know, there is no other evidence that the line judge said those words to the chair judge, and no evidence therefore that she was lying, or even mistaken. I have not read all the news about this event, however, so I may not have the whole story.
Joe Morgan and Jon Miller (or is it Joe Miller and Jon Morgan)... (auntbea) —
Are we really having a debate about whether a shortstop can get to more balls if he plays deeper or not? Really? From a random baseball coaching website, but you can find this info anywhere: "Shortstop: The three basic positions are deep, mid-way, and playing in. When the shortstop is playing deep, they are back at the grass. The advantage of this positioning is the player has more range to field balls, but the disadvantage is on slow hit balls the fielder has farther to run to get to the ball..." Tango's question makes little sense to me... if you can field any ball (grounder, liner, fly, whatever) up until the point it stops rolling (meaningless of course in real baseball terms) the ideal position would be somewhere in mid-left field. That is, assuming the batter swinging away like he would in a normal baseball game.
Joe Morgan and Jon Miller (or is it Joe Miller and Jon Morgan)... (auntbea) —
"Let me restate the obvious: A fielder will try to position himself so that he optimizes win expectancy. Hence double play depth, holding a runner on first, infield in, more controversially guarding the line and playing “no doubles” defense in the outfield." Yes I know all this, but i was just trying to simplify the situation. By your logic, and presumably Joe Morgan's logic, when would a fielder ever position himself further back, thereby reducing his ability to get outs (what you laughably say is commonly referred to as "range"), but increasing win expectancy? Note that in all your examples except guarding the lines, the fielder is playing in to increase win expectancy at the expense of "range"". In my apparently limited understanding of baseball, the infielders are generally furthest back with no one on base, at the time when win expectancy and what you call "range" are simultaneously maximized. For Joe Morgan's quote to make sense, the fielder would have to be playing way back, willing to allow the runner to reach first more often, in order to increase the chance of doing something else to help his team win. All snark aside, there must be some defense like this, even if it is relatively uncommon.
Joe Morgan and Jon Miller (or is it Joe Miller and Jon Morgan)... (auntbea) —
"When you play deep as an infielder, you cut down on your range”. To use the term "range" as a proxy for "ability to make defensive outs" is first of all, a butchery of the specific term range, and more importantly, it makes his statement completely useless. Obviously a fielder will try to position himself so that he optimizes outs. By playing deeper, he sacrifices "time to the ball" to the benefit of "range". Morgan's statement is either exactly backwards, as MGL says, or totally meaningless.
Being behind is a good thing? (auntbea) —
Guy/28: Yes it is sometimes true that those 2 factors you mention can have an apparent "negating" effect at times. However, this absolutely does not mean that time remaining in a basketball game has little effect on the outcome until the last few remaining minutes of the game. Clearly it breaks down at the extremes (i.e. 20 point lead with 10 minutes left vs 20 point lead after 1 quarter, or tie game with 10 minutes left with one team a heavy pregame favorite vs. odds at the start of the game when the score is 0-0). I suppose it is possible that, if one were to look at aggregate data for many games between teams of various strengths, it might appear that time remaining was not a major factor in determining the outcome, due to the nature of the 2 often negating variables mentioned. However, in an individual game this is not so.
Being behind is a good thing? (auntbea) —
Brian finds that the WP in NCAA basketball is a function of the point differential and NOT the time left in the game, other than in the last few minutes. I used to do live in-game betting for basketball at the ncaa and nba level. A 10 point lead with 10 minutes to go in the first half is hugely different than a 10 point lead with 10 minutes to go in the game. 2 of the biggest factors for odds of winning are of course point differential and time remaining. Relative team strength (I usually used pregame point spread as a proxy) would be the third factor.
A skill that does not improve generationally (auntbea) —
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but all other things being equal, a taller player has a (slight) physical disadvantage at making free throws compared to a shorter player. This is due to the fact that a ball shot by a taller player is released at a point further from the floor, and thus will come down on to the rim at a faster velocity, making it less likely to be the beneficiary of a "shooter's roll" if it is not a swish or near swish. This is the main reason free-throws shot underhanded have a much higher success rate, and why really any NBA player who has a poor free throw percentage really ought to try shooting them underhanded. This article discusses it: "http://discovermagazine.com/2008/the-body/07-physics-proves-it-everyone-should-shoot-granny-style" (for some reason i cannot get the links to show up on your site tango without major effort. not sure why...)
Francoeur (auntbea) —
Maybe I am missing something. From Wikipedia: (emphasis mine) "In economics, the marginal product or marginal physical product is the extra output produced by one more unit of an input (for instance, the difference in output when a firm's labour is increased from five to six units)." and "Marginal Revenue (MR) is the extra revenue that an additional unit of product will bring." It seems pretty clear from this that if one can assume a static roster size, that adding Franceur must also mean subtracting another player. So the MRP for "adding" Franceur would be something like the MRP of Franceur - the MRP of a player that can be had for the minimum league minimum. I know most of you know this already. Why doesn't JC?
2B v 3B (auntbea) —
re: Gymnast height. I think it is very important to remember the two main reasons gymnasts are short (and therefore usually extremely young when female). 1) Ratio of upper body strength to overall weight. and probably just as importantly 2)Being shorter allows for less required angular momentum for spinning lenghtwise (head over feet), allowing them to do flips (especially with legs extended) much more easily. As for ballerinas, they actually MUST normally be "average" height (between 5'3" and 5'7") for the population, or they will not be eligible for many major companies throughout the world. Finally figure skaters are seldom shorter than 5'2". I don't believe height is a significant factor for motor control for these athletes.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Perhaps we are going through a special time during which there are a glut of late birthdays just by chance, but so far, for 2000-2001, 2005-2006, and the 30 games of 2008, I see no bias at all towards the first half of the year for Canadian-born points leaders. Of the 200 points leaders in 2005-2006, i found 94 born in Canada. Jan-Mar: 16, Apr-Jun: 31, Jul-Sep: 30, Oct-Dec: 17. I don't have good access to a database that lets me know who played Canadian Junior Hockey, or even who exactly is Canadian, only where the players were born. So for that reason my numbers could be slightly different.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Interesting numbers. I would guess, from looking at the current data (and your graphs) that this bias has been slowly disappearing over time. We know the current first half to second half ratio for the whole league is about 58% to 42%. By your numbers that means 55% first-half babies in the top players. My guess is that it is even less now as scouting and player evaluation gets more and more sophisticated. At any rate, you say enough players for 4 new franchises, I say enough for maybe 1 or 2 more. I think maybe the answer is somewhere in there. But by Gladwell's quote (that I cited above), he very explicitly says "twice as many adult hockey stars". That means enough for 30 more franchises. He is off by a factor of 10.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I looked at 2000-2001 because it was the first season on the sortable stats at espn.com (or I think it was anyway). 2000-2001 Canadian-born points leaders (92 out of 200 total players born anywhere). Jan-Mar: 19, Apr-Jun: 25, Jul-Sep: 29, Oct-Dec: 19. 2000-2001 Canadian-born "average time on ice" leaders (90 out of 200 total). Jan-Mar: 20, Apr-Jun: 22, Jul-Sep: 26, Oct-Dec: 22. 2000-2001 Canadian-born "average time on ice" bottom tier (136 out of 200 total) Jan-Mar: 35, Apr-Jun: 52, Jul-Sep: 27, Oct-Dec: 22.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
None of the data that you have presented, none of it, breaks players down by how good they are relative to the league (NHL). All of your data treats all NHL players the same. You have completely missed the point of my long and tedious explanations. Furthermore, while historical data is certainly interesting and important and gives a larger sample size, the critical question is whether or not we are being impacted today. Thus "running the numbers back to 1980", while admirable, is not necessarily all that relevant if we have enough of a sample with fewer years of data.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Too small a group of players? Sigh. You really just won't get it will you? I have already given you the breakdown by "average time on ice" for 400 out of the 735 players listed on espn.com. Like Gladwell, you seem painfully un-numerically savvy. Of course there will be some correlation between points per game and birth month, even if only the bottom tier of players are biased by birth month. Why is this? Simple. Even the bottom tier of the league, for which we all know there is bias, scores some points per game. I see where you went wrong. Outliers, P 268: "If Canada had a second hockey league for those children born in the last half of the year, it would today have twice as many adult hockey stars. Now multiply that sudden flowering of talent by every field and profession. The world could be so much richer than the world we have settled for." This argument is astounding for its stupidity. Apparently Gladwell does not understand the concept of diminishing returns. It would be amusing if it weren't so insidious. Here he pretends returns would not diminish at all (full returns), but in an earlier case (basketball players over 6'6") he pretends you get no returns at all for extra height. In other words, he comes to whatever conclusion suits his worldview, despite the fact that anyone can see his conclusions have no basis in reality. Gladwell is simply not a serious writer about these subjects and I am beginning to think he does much more harm than good.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I just want to clarify... in the preceding 3 posts the numbers were for the top or bottom number of players in each category, ignoring anyone not born in Canada. Thus there are only 100 Canadian-born players in the "top 200 by ATOI" list, and only 114 in the "bottom 200 by ATOI" list.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
As of today in this year's NHL: Top 200 Canadian-born players by ATOI (average time on ice). Jan-Mar: 22, Apr-Jun: 29, Jul-Sep: 29, Oct-Dec: 20. Bottom 200 Canadian-born players by ATOI. Jan-Mar: 37, Apr-Jun: 36, Jul-Sep: 22, Oct-Dec: 19.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Bottom 100 Canadian-born players by minutes played. Jan-Mar: 18, Apr-Jun: 17, Jul-Sep: 13, Oct-Dec: 10. So, if we have two junior leagues instead of one, we swap a few bench warmers around? Let me know if I am missing something crucial.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
More quick tallies from this season's NHL: top 50 canadian-born penalty minutes leaders by quarter. Jan-Mar: 14, Apr-Jun: 9, Jul-Sep: 9, Oct-Dec: 4. Almost none of these guys are leading the league in points and minutes. Anyone surprised? Most people would not consider these the most "hockey-talented" (so to speak) players in the league. Note one other interesting fact. A much higher percentage of these players were born in Canada than that of the points and minutes leaders. That speaks to Tango's bias against European players. Once again, the lower tiers of the league seem to display the birthmonth bias while the upper tiers do not. Now why should we have two junior leagues again?
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I got the NHL numbers 31% (Jan-Mar) and 19% (Oct-Dec) from YOUR CHART! Then I extrapolated the 27% (Apr-Jun) and 23% (Jul-Sep) from those first 2 numbers. We know there is bias in the Canadian junior leagues. However, my contention was that this bias would not be nearly so evident in the top ranks of NHL Hockey. My quick tallies of NHL leaders seems to back this up. The only way to really tell if the "Matthew Effect" (cumulative advantage) plays an important role in Hockey is by seeing if the advantage increases as one goes up in the Hockey ranks. All the evidence I have seen shows exactly the opposite. The higher up you go in Hockey in Canada, the less birthmonth seems to matter. You could also simply say that the Junior coaches give more ice time to the players that are better simply because they are older (thus bigger, faster, and stronger, and more experienced). So age bias in a junior league alone is not evidence of a "Matthew effect". If Gladwell is right, then by the time the January players get into the NHL, they really ARE better than the December players, and thus should get more ice time even in the NHL, thus increasing their advantage. There would be no reason to expect the relative numbers of Jan vs Dec players to even out for points and minutes leaders.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Canadian-born players in the 2008 NHL draft by year quartile and round: 1st Round Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 4, Jul-Sep: 1, Oct-Dec: 6. 2nd Round Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 6, Jul-Sep: 5, Oct-Dec: 2. 3rd Round Jan-Mar: 10, Apr-Jun: 5, Jul-Sep: 3, Oct-Dec: 1. I am not sure i want to turn this into a real study, but it seems with these small sample sizes there seem to be some patterns emerging. The higher the ceiling for the player, the less birthmonth seems to matter. This is what you would expect if birhtmonth were more a tiebreaker than a determining factor.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I continued a bit with my quick tallies. Birthdates of all goalies that played enough to qualify for the "goals per game average" list: Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 5, July-Sep: 4, Oct-Dec: 4. Extending point leader list to top 100 instead of 50 I get Jan-Mar: 7, Apr-Jun: 20, July-Sep: 14, Oct-Dec: 13. For minutes leaders top 100 (probably a few player overlap with above list now) Jan-Mar: 12, Apr-Jun: 14, July-Sep: 13, Oct-Dec: 12. All numbers for Canadian-born Hockey players only.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
If you had separate leagues for players born in the second half of the year, then you’d have almost twice as many athletes to pick from. Whether you think the issue is natural talent or hours devoted to playing, registering twice as many players at a young age will give you twice as many good players later. I don't understand your thinking here at all. Are you trying to tell me that none of the players in the second league would be taken from the pool of players currently in the first league? So... double the coaches and the money and everything else? By this logic, why not have a league for each day of the year? Then you would have 365 times the number of players to choose from. More realistically, let's use the numbers you have on your blog post to get a better idea. You have 31% of players in the NHL from Jan-Mar, and 19% from Oct-Dec. So let's say maybe 27% from Apr-Jun and 23% from Jul-Sep. That means 58% from the first half of the year and 42% from the second half. If you had two junior leagues, one for each half of the year, the idea is you would equalize that to 50/50, in effect replacing 8 players per 100 from Jan-Jun with ones from July-Dec. My suggestion is that the 8 players per 100 added in from July-Dec would virtually all be rank and file NHL types, and not truly standout talents (for the NHL anyway). I find it unlikely that the Gretzky's born July-December would not have gotten the very best training and ice time throughout their young careers. If I am correct, it makes very little difference to the overall quality of the league if you replace 8 players per 100 at the margins with ones who would be very slightly better had they been given the opportunity. I assume, as in MLB, there are many players of borderline NHL caliber that just have not been lucky enough to make the league, all waiting in the wings, so to speak.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I don't understand your question. I readily acknowledge there is bias in these leagues. This bias, not incidentally, is reflected in most junior sports organized this way throughout the world. My question to you is: "Does this bias affect the overall quality of the NHL in a meaningful and significant way?" I see little evidence of that. Like i indicated earlier, other types of biases (against European players for example), might have important and lasting effects for future generations of NHL players. I fail to see how a bias by birth month could have effects that last into the future. The only affects are ones that should be readily apparent right now. I am not convinced.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
But what about guys like Mike Piazza, who are late bloomers? The implication in Outliers is that these guys would have no chance, regardless of their birthdates, as they would have missed out on all the crucial playing time and training necessary for success very early in their lives.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
Outliers, P 156 (on becoming a successful "outlier") "That's an unstoppable combination. That's like being a hockey player born on January 1.". Curious, I looked at the top 50 point scorers and top 50 minutes leaders for this season in the NHL, and ignored anyone who was not born in Canada. The results by quartile? According to my quick tally, there were 25 Canadian born players in the top 50 scoring leaders. Jan-March: 4, April-June: 9, July-Sept: 9, Oct-Dec: 3. For minutes leaders (almost all defensemen, so pretty much an entirely different sample even though the numbers look similar). Jan-Mar: 5, April-June: 8, July-Sept: 8, Oct-Dec: 4. For the minutes leaders, not a single Canadian-born player was born in January. Outliers, P31: "So What do you do if you're an athletic young Czech with the misfortune to have been born in the last part of the year? You can't play soccer. The deck is stacked against you... Those born in the last quarter of the year might as well give up on hockey too." It is this kind of hyperbolic discourse about predestination by circumstance that is so irritating about the book.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
In anecdote after anecdote Gladwell implies and sometimes outwardly states that there is a threshold for greatness, above which more innate talent (be it IQ, height for basketball players, or musical talent or whatnot) confers essentially no advantage. P 39: "The striking thing about Ericsson's study is that he and his colleagues couldn't find any 'naturals', musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did. Nor could they find any 'grinds', people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn't have what it takes to break into the top ranks." P 79: "Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn't seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage". P 80: "What Hudson is saying is that IQ is a lot like height in basketball... A basketball player only has to be tall enough". There are more anecdotes about nobel prize winners, etc. Gladwell minimizes the role of innate ability at every chance he gets. I did look at your post and I know there is a bias. All well and good. What I would like to see explained is if we should be especially concerned as members of a community (in this example, as fans of NHL Hockey) that we are missing out on the best players somehow because of this bias. My inclination is that we don't miss out on such truly great hockey talents very often because of the birthdate cutoff, as I was attempting to show from using the Czech National Team. For the "rank and file" of the NHL to have a slightly higher percentage of birthdates from earlier in the year does not seem, to me, to be much of a travesty. From what we know of talent distribution for MLB and other top sport leagues, my first inclination would be to think that mostly marginal talents are being "squandered", so to speak, but likely not many truly elite talents. These will rise to the top despite early bias in their careers. Sure it is a shame for the individual who could have been a borderline NHLer had he been born in January and not November, but does the league as a whole suffer if you replace a few players at the margins? I am not convinced. Much more interesting to me is Tango's investigation into the bias against players from Europe v. their North American counterparts. Another footnote from Gladwell: "A physically immature basketball player in an American city can probably play as many hours of basketball in a given year as a relatively older child because there are so many basketball courts and so many people willing to play. It's not like ice hockey, where you need a rink. Basketball is saved by its accessibility and ubiquity." While I don't know enough about hockey in Canada to say whether this is accurate or not, it sure sounds wrong to me. And furthermore, since Gladwell is essentially equating bias in hockey with bias in European soccer, i would like to hear his "explanation" for why soccer is harder to play across Europe than basketball is in a U.S. city.
Population of players by birth month (auntbea) —
I just read part of this book last night. Gladwell's cherrypicking of examples is beyond infuriating. His footnote regarding Harvard admissions is laughable for both its numerical errors and the its implication that Harvard looks only at standardized test scores and class rank as sole criteria for admissions. He frequently overstates or otherwise butchers the results of scientific studies to fit the story that he would like to tell. And this is all coming from a person (me) who basically agrees with the general viewpoint of the book. Anyway, regarding birth month, another likely cherrypicked example given in the book is the Czech U-20 2007 soccer team that performed well in the championships that year. Only 3 of the 15-20 players had birth months in the second half of the calendar year. Gladwell: "At the national team tryouts, the Czech soccer coaches might as well have told everyone born after midsummer that they should pack their bags and go home." The implication, of course, is that the Czech system is so rigid that essentially half the talent is being squandered and has no chance of becoming great "outliers." Hmm... how then to explain the current composition of the Czech national soccer team (not U-20, but the very best Czech players of all ages)? This info is available on soccernet.com and other sites... anyway Jan-March: 5 players, April-June: 5, July-September: 2, October-December: 5. Of course, perhaps the Czech system has changed dramatically in the last 5-10 years and has become far more rigid, but there are more likely explanations that have to do with Gladwell himself. The irony is that Gladwell implies in another part of the book that 10,000 hours of effort at a task is far more important than innate talent itself in determining who will become an "outlier". I am not sure even he believes this, as it seems to contradict his first implication that Hockey talent is being squandered. If innateness is a small factor, why worry if you focus all your efforts on people born in the first half of the year? The results should be approximately the same. I would love to hear your opinion about the Canadian Hockey stuff Tango, as it is something I know little about. Finally, I would just like to say that I am a regular reader of this and other good analytical baseball sites because of the effort taken by Tango, MGL, and many others not to produce results based on biased samples, and to be very careful, and as "scientific" (for lack of a better word) as possible when performing studies on baseball. If only Gladwell exhibited a fraction of this responsibility and restraint. All I could think about when reading this book was: even most amateur scientists and sabermetricians I know would never be so bold, irresponsible, and arrogant to present data in this shoddy manner.
Sabermetric Playoffs (auntbea) —
I only saw 1.5 innings of that game last night. so i have almost no opinion on most of it. However, the one thing that really struck me is exactly what MGL said above: if Lidge is going to come in and throw 80-90% sliders, how is it that the 3-4-5 hitters can't even get one good swing in? They looked absolutely clueless at the plate, especially Pena and Longoria. i was flabbergasted.
Sabermetric Playoffs (auntbea) —
mgl, this is one thing that has always annoyed me. There are so many people that are extremely well versed in betting for all of these sports, but somehow the various networks seemingly want to pretend that betting doesn't exist or something, so they employ people ignorant of the very basics to talk about it. just another example of how poor the quality of tv information. examples abound.
Five ways I'd change my sport (auntbea) —
Here is an idea that i love, but likely most people would hate. Since it is completely impractical of course the point is moot, but here it is anyway: Get rid of the outfield fences altogether and make all home runs be of the "inside the park" (so to speak) variety. Who doesn't want to see Big Papi huff around the bases while Ichiro chases down his 550 foot bomb to the gap? I'd like to see more of a premium placed on speed and defense, and this seems one way to achieve that.
I don't usually write things like this, but (since everyone else does) here goes... (auntbea) —
Carmona did the same thing (lose velocity) in game 2 of this series, as I was paying very specific attention to his velocity in that game. His fastball was 96-98 in the first, and lost about 1 mph per inning. In the fifth he was throwing 92-94 before they pulled him. He did dial it up a bit to Ortiz (I believe) in the third. It was my opinion (maybe not worth a lot) that he was overthrowing early and hence a little wild. He seemed to be very tired when he had pitched near 100 pitches and was removed.
Future Leverage Index (auntbea) —
Would you ever warm up a reliever with two outs?
Future Leverage Index (auntbea) —
I am quite willing to concede 2 batters as it really is not that important to me... just something I was wondering about. I do however question the effective use of FLI for some of the most important reliever situations. It seems to me like some of the most important mid-inning baseball pitching changes occur after consecutive batters reach base, very often with 2 outs (as there are more likely to already be runners on base with 2 outs). In other words, whether justified or not, pitching changes will more often occur after two "worse than average" results than they would after two "average" results. It seems like looking ahead two average batters is kind of missing the point. I guess what I am trying to say is that LI itself still seems more useful than FLI for a decision about warming up a reliever. Were I a manager making these decisions, I would look at the possible LIs for various results of the next couple of ABs that might be the most relevant for my decision (and indeed, as a live-event gambler this is often what I did), rather than looking at a FLI that takes the average LI of all possible results.
Future Leverage Index (auntbea) —
That leaves 120 minutes to face about 80 batters, or 1.5 minutes per batter. This is on average of course. Some pitchers slow way down with men on base in any situation. Surely they could be instructed to do so in an emergency. With 4 or more pitches in the AB, and 45 seconds per pitch, 2 minutes for other delays (mound visits by the manager to talk to the pitcher, a separate one by the catcher). I really don't see why it would always take more than one batter for a team that really wanted to make a quick change. Obviously, you wouldn't take such extreme measures unless the leverage skyrocketed all of the sudden, so it wouldn't necessarily even come into play more than a couple of times a week. In general you'd want 2 or 3 batters. But do you really NEED more than 1, especially as you could have warned your ace that he might be needed before the inning started?
Future Leverage Index (auntbea) —
How long does it actually take to warm up a reliever, considering all the "tricks" that teams pull when they desperately need to get their guy in fast? It seems like in an emergency situation, relievers can be ready in the space of one more batter (if the batter has just reached, a reliever can be ready for the batter after the new one coming up). Kalk's FLI assumes two more batters, but as he seems to be mostly talking about sudden high leverage situations, do we really need to assume two batters have batted in the interim and not just one? I admit that I have not always paid enough attention to how relievers warm up so I could be mistaken.
Official Post-Season Strategy Thread (auntbea) —
Hurdle and Melvin are making mgl look very smart just now--on opposite sides of the coin. Hurdle pulled Morales for a PH with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 2 out, down 1 run, and the PH comes through with a lucky hit. Melvin leaves Owings in (all good reliervers relatively well rested, off day tomorrow) to face a fire, third time through the lineup in the 5th, and gets badly badly burned.
The sports world according to Bill James (auntbea) —
Actually, it was Jayson Williams in the quote above, who was famous for his wit before he was famous for his legal problems.
The sports world according to Bill James (auntbea) —
Having read the article myself now, I agree with Nate that James at least appears to be "proceeding from the notion that baseball has its competitive balance dynamics right". Most people I speak to seem to agree that there is not enough parity in the regular season but too much in the playoffs. Also, the notion that the NBA is too predetermined is anything but a new one. Even the Nets' Jayson Smith famously said something to that effect 10 years or so ago (paraphrasing): God doesn't even care about the NBA until the playoffs.
The sports world according to Bill James (auntbea) —
I really happen to enjoy the NFL's ratio of skill/chance in a game and season setting, and also the importance of each individual game. For comparison to Tango's list above (since 1994-1995, 13 seasons 156 playoff teams, approx 31 teams in the league, or about 5 appearances on average per team) AFC teamID n IND 9 NE 9 PIT 8 MIA 7 DEN 7 KC 5 JAX 5 NYJ 5 BAL 5 (1 as original CLE) BUF 4 SD 4 TEN 4 OAK 3 CIN 1 CLE 1 (joined as expansion 1999) HOU 0 (joined as expansion 2002) NFC GB 9 PHI 8 DAL 7 SF 7 MIN 7 TB 6 NYG 5 STL 5 SEA 5 (1 in AFC) CHI 4 DET 4 ATL 4 CAR 3 NO 2 WAS 2 ARI 1
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
Part of my point about the 3 innings possibly being significant is that Marmol had only given up 3 home runs in 69 ML innings this year. Since I was unaware of his AAA stats, his 2 in the playoffs almost doubled his home run rate! Obviously with batters faced numbers this small it seems like a large regression is probably in order anyway, but it is easy to imagine how 3 innings could be significant if a relief pitcher were to give up a ridiculous amount of homeruns (say 6) in those innings after having only given up 3 all year. It seems like a factor in any decision making process must be the uncertainty one has for the various projections involved. In an obviously contrived scenario, let's say you have 2 options to start against an excellent pitcher (say Webb) in the deciding game of a series. In option 1, you have an absolutely known quantity who is guaranteed to give up exactly 3 runs in every 7 innings of work. In option 2 you have a mostly unknown quantity who you know averages exactly 4 runs in 7 innings of work, but sometimes gives up many more or many fewer runs. If this uncertainty is large enough, it seems like starting option 2 would be the better option for this particular game despite the average projection of option 2 being worse than that of option 1. I'm not at all implying that this must be a factor in the Marmol v. Zambrano discussion. It just seems like some specific decisions require not only the averages (means) but also the standard deviations of projected performances involved for correct analysis.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
Looking at Marmol's minor league stats I see that he has also pitched 41 very good innings this year for the Iowa Cubs in AAA PCL which should at least partially answer my question above.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
mgl: yes, I understand 3 IP is not terribly significant in general. What surprises me, then, is how a below average projection for Marmol coming into the season can change into an excellent projection after only 69 IP this season. 69 is also not an awful lot of innings.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
If one were to include Carlos Marmol's 2007 post season stats into his projection going into next year, it obviously would not look quite as good, as he has so far given up 3 hits, 3 walks, 3 runs, and 2 home runs in 3 innings (with 6 strikeouts). He only had 69 IP in the regular season this year, so 3 IP is not insignificant. Do any projection systems use post season stats? It seems like they would be useful in situations like this.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
Sherwood: I can't speak for anyone else obviously but the move to take out Francis immediately after having him bat was either so boneheaded that there really can be no debate whatsoever (making discussing it uninteresting) OR there was some mitigating factor that nobody in the media was made privy to (e,g, he stiffened up running out his grounder) because the Rockies ended up winning.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
I don't know much about the Cubs, so I don't know who could have pinch hit for Zambrano. Another factor, of course, is that the game was tied and could easily have gone to extra innings, meaning some lesser pitchers would have pitched high leverage innings. Even if the Cubs were to take the lead in the 8th, who were they planning to pitch in the 8th and 9th innings? It seems to me all of these pitchers must be at least as good options as Zambrano after 85 pitches for this decision to be the right one.
What stats should we use to represent how good a player IS? (auntbea) —
mgl: I was wondering what you thought of the decision to take out Zambrano for the bottom of the 7th in game 1 of the Cubs/D-Backs. I realize Marmol has been fantastic this year, but that is only one years worth of stats (as you point out above). Is he really projected to do better than Z in that situation? The answer better be a resounding yes, as the game was still tied and Zambrano had only thrown 85 pitches (and looked very good in doing so FWIW). It should be noted that Piniella left Z in to hit for himself just an inning earlier... with 2 outs and the bases loaded.
QB rating (auntbea) —
Tango: Not sure how complex you want these ratings to be, but not all interceptions are remotely equal. If you watch Peyton Manning enough, you realize he takes far greater risks on 3rd down, especially 3rd and long, as an interception downfield in that situation is far less costly than one on 1st down. Jay Cutler, the young QB for the Broncos, has yet to figure out when to force the ball into coverage, as evidenced by some extremely questionable decisions on first down against the Bills last weekend, only one of which (luckily for him, IIRC) was intercepted. Also, Cutler may have cost his team a shot at the playoffs with a very poor decision to throw into coverage in the flat (on first down) leading to an interception and TD against the 49ers in the final game of last season. While a play-by-play, value-added approach such as the one Football Outsiders uses to measure QB performance is inherently tainted by random fluctuation that is interpreted as "clutchiness", such a ranking does underscore the incredible difference in value for interceptions at different times/downs/yards to go in the game. Quarterbacks have a lot of control over when to force a ball into coverage, and some of that control is reflected in these value added stats.
I took statistics in college... (auntbea) —
I care. I just finished watching the game and am a marginal Giants fan. Or at least I thought I was. Oh well, at least it's always fun to see what Bonds will do.
Streaks (auntbea) —
Regarding hot streaks, most athletes themselves seem to believe they are "in the zone" when they are hot. There are many examples like this old cliche from Eric Byrnes:
While it is impossible to completely discount this experience from one's armchair, there is another class of people that believe something very similar: inveterate gamblers, even those involved in games requiring no input from the gambler, such as craps. It is a very real phenomenon that a shooter in craps will believe they are on a hot streak when they are shooting sevens repeatedly. Hell, even I have been tempted to believe it while playing $5 craps, and it goes against my nature completely. For some reason it is very hard to attribute anything to luck, even when it must be so. After all, even Einstein said "God does not play dice."
Tango, I couldn't agree more. Let's just hope the next phenom is Canadian. That oughta keep the hype here in the states a little more under wraps.Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. Take a closer look behind the curtain of the hype machine. Wie has always consistently hit it significantly shorter than the men who compete. see this link Still don't believe me? There are now a multitude of stories regarding her coach Ledbetter's attempts to lengthen her swing (with arguably disastrous results) so that she could compete at PGA events. From Leadbetter himself (a for-Wie biased observer): Remember, Leadbetter is talking here about the most impressive aspect of Wie's game, not the weakest. Furthermore, Wie wouldn't even be the longest hitter on the LPGA tour were she even a member, and never, even at the top of her game, would have been the longest hitter. see here The hype surrounding Wie has always been that of POTENTIAL not present ability, a potential that unfortunately has not (yet) been fulfilled. The only debate really should be "how much does potential greatness justify present preferential treatment. As Wie's female competitors get younger, longer, and better, we are beginning to see the answer.Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
Tango. I want to point you to this article written today on the Wall Street Journal online. wsj article. With all due respect to Els and other golfing experts, his statement "give her a couple of years... she can play on this tour" (at age 16!) is the kind of hyperbole that those with any perspective on youth prodigies in sport and the normal difference in male vs female ability at the highest level ought to have cautioned against. Another example is Freddy Adu, over whom sponsors and (American) "experts" gushed while those with more experience in these matters (mostly British analysts who had seen multiple flameouts) took a "let's wait and see" attitude. He is no longer the top prospect in USA soccer.
Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
Tango. Thanks for your reasonable discussion in this matter. As always you are a true gentleman. "The issue should be with the exemptor and not the exemptee". -- I think this cuts to the heart of the matter re: Wie. It is my contention that sponsors and the media and whoever else have been (perhaps innocently) complicit in foisting upon us the idea that Wie was destined for unique "once-in-a-generation" greatness, and therefore deserved all the fame and money (and exemptions) that came her way. In retrospect there were some excellent reasons for skepticism in this regard, including ones that have been heavily discussed in the media and don't need repeating here. There are a few more reasons for skepticism that to me seem underreported or merely hinted at: 1)Much of Wie's extreme advantage at a young age came from her height. She essentially stopped growing upwards at age 13. 2)Women in most sports generally seem to reach their peak at an earlier age than men. Extrapolating Wie's career path by comparing it to boy's her age may have been inappropriate. and perhaps most importantly: 3)As far as I can tell, we have just passed through a "generational gap" in women's golf. Not too many years ago the best female golfers were older and stronger and far less athletic, seemingly relying on experience and size/strength to excel, and eschewing (to some degree) athleticism and "natural ability". The landscape of women's golf has changed dramatically and Wie seems to have been one of the first of the new generation. In other words, Wie is not nearly so unique as we were led to believe, but merely is/was one of the very best of a new generation of golfers, the majority of whom are very significantly better than the previous generation. Ironically, the more Wie struggles, and the more young and younger good female golfers keep coming through the pipeline, the more I believe that Wie and her family made the right decision to grab as much fame and money as they could before the illusion of her uniqueness was shattered. Do I blame Wie herself for all this? No. But I do weary of the attention she gathers at all times, as it seems to detract from the action on the course, as well as offends my concept of fairness. Perhaps some of the male "caveman" pros feel this way too and just express it very poorly.
Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
Tango. I understand your discomfort with the "caveman"-like comments of some of the male pros (and others). However, I believe that many people have a legitimate problem with one person being singled out for exemption after exemption without having proven he OR she is worthy of the honor in any way except popularity. I have no problem with a woman being given a sponsor's exemption. Indeed I was intrigued by Annika's attempt against the men and rooted for her enthusiastically. I do however sincerely believe that Wie has never demonstrated the ability to compete against the men nor do I think she would have been able to qualify for the men's tour via Q-school. Furthermore, I also do NOT believe that if her age and skill level and golfing experience were exactly the same, only she were male, that she would have received the number of sponsor's exemptions that she has. This is my point, the fans and sponsors are enthusiastic about seeing a woman (girl) compete because it makes a great story. They would be less enthusiastic if she were male. The appearance of fairness and having earned your place is actually far more important to people than you are giving credit for. As for not hearing about players or others having issues with men being given exemptions, my guess is that part of the reason is that Wie is such a hot-button issue that everyone is asked about it, so everyone's opinion gets heard. Probably there are some issues with other exemptions that nobody else really cares about. Incidentally, if you take the 1000th best male golfer in the world, how many tries do you think it would take before he made the cut on a PGA tour event? It just seems awfully unfair of you to label every claim against whether Wie should play against men as sexist or backward, especially now that those who claimed there would be the issue of her psyche (which I actually thought was WAY overblown) seem to have been remarkably prescient. btw. Craig Perks won the Player's Champinoship in 2002 and so has been able to keep his tour card for the last five years even though he is now a terrible (for a pro... far worse than number 1000) golfer. But those rules were in place before he won the championship, and so he has not received any preferential treatment.
Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
I still don't understand your logic, Tango, and it seems especially ridiculous now. Michelle Wie has only experienced every benefit due to her age and gender. I understand that this is not true for most women, but it certainly is true for her. Also, Craig Perks had to qualify somehow for the PGA tour. Do you think there was ever a time that Michelle Wie could have? If she had taken the time to qualify, I can assure you the animosity towards her would have been far, far less. I have absolutely no problem with any woman competing with men at any competition whatsoever so long as they have earned their position there, and not been given it for the sake of enriching sponsors (or anyone else for that matter) at the cost of true competition.
Expert Picks (auntbea) —
Maybe I am confused, but how does a great PBP engine help you pick the results of a game before it starts? OK, maybe in baseball it can. But in football? I think it would be currently impossible, based on the variables involved in football, to have the input for such a simulator anywhere near precise enough to do such a thing. In fact, if I were to build a PBP simulator, the first version would start by using the vegas line as one of the input parameters, and work from there.
Expert Picks (auntbea) —
No need to check total number of games played. It is now week 13. So 12 weeks have been played, that's 11 games and 1 bye week for each team (as all teams have had their bye weeks). 11 games for each pair of teams (16) is 176 total games played so far in 2006. I'm sure your point stands, MGL, (as although an excellent one, it should be obvious to everyone already) but it would be nice to see the actual numbers.
Win Probability in Football (Auntbea) —
Hey Tango. Is there a chart on Protrade somewhere with even a simplistic version of their win probability? Or is it all behind the scenes?
Michelle Wie, or Why Are Some Men Such Cavemen (auntbea) —
Sure it's true that she generates so much animosity solely because she is a woman, and that is simply detestable. You must also admit though that the only reason she is getting the sponsor's exemptions is because she is a woman. It's not like the cavemen (of which sadly there are many) were the first to dispense with the gender blindness. I hope she does well and shuts all those idiots up. I have one major problem with the whole sponsor's exemptions thing, and this has nothing to do with Wie in particular. The reason I love sports so much is that it is essentially a meritocracy where the level of subjectivity is very low. I realize that sports is entertainment, but most would admit that giving a sponsor's exemption to Bill Murray would be going too far. So Wie is a great golfer and will eventually win on the tour. I don't know much about qualifying, but is it that hard for her (considering how good she is) to qualify the way everyone else does? What I'm saying is basically very simple: when money and entertainment start to replace pure competition I start to lose interest. I find it satisfying when travelling gets called for Jordan the same way it does for the rank and file, when Maddux doesn't get the strike call simply on reputation. This environment where the famous personalities get all the advantages severely cuts into my enjoyment of the competition.
Zidane Speaks (auntbea) —
There have been numerous remarks by pundits stateside (not sure about the rest of the world) about how Zidane's actions "cost his team the game, championship, cup, etc" While certainly an unforgivable and foolish move, Zidane's lapse of professionalism likely only cost his team a few percentage points of WE, considering that there were only a few minutes of OT left and the likelihood that the game was going to penalty kicks was very high (I'd say almost 80% or more). Certainly Zidane would be an asset in PKs, but not that much over the sixth best PK taker on the team. And if you look at waht actually happened in PKs, the Italians didn't miss any of their kicks, making Zidane's mistake even less costly from a bacwards looking point of view. Finally, all the talk of what Materazzi might or might not have said is virtually irrelevant. There seems to be only a very few things that can be said on the pitch that are truly unacceptable by soccer standards, and apparently he said none of these things.