THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

NFLPA lawsuit against collusion

The “spirit” of the salary cap was broken, the NFL fined teams that went over a(n apparently) non-existing, but “secret” cap.  This sure seems like a big deal, the way it’s reported. 

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Rooney Mara’s father: the end of kickoffs?

I love how progressive the NHL and NFL are about rule changes.  Their competition committees get big fanfare, and results are evident.  NBA too I think, from what I’ve followed. 

So, Giants owner Mara, who is part of the competition:

John Mara has served on the NFL Competition Committee for a dozen years and during that time its most vital mandate has remained unchanged. Player safety has been and will continue to be at the forefront of all committee discussions and decisions.

“That’s the first, second and last thing that we’re concerned about,” Mara said.

That’s a fantastic mission statement to have.

“One thing we did determine is that by moving the kickoff to the 35 yard-line it reduced the number of returns, but reduced the number of concussions by 40 percent,” Mara said. “So I don’t think you’ll see that rule change. The kickoff is by far the most dangerous play that we have in our game. The hits are pretty violent and they come from all different directions. There are guys running full speed, that’s the problem. That’s why we put the rule in. It shortens the field a little bit and it cuts down the number of returns.”

Some coaches – particularly those who employ the league’s best return specialists – as well as several returners voiced their displeasure after the spot of the kickoffs was moved up. They are not as vocal now.

“There was no support for moving the kickoff back to the 30 yard-line,” Mara said. “I think everybody was convinced by the statistics. The interesting thing was that, yes, we moved the kickoff to the 35 and, yes, that caused far fewer returns and poorer field position for the offense, but scoring was not affected (an average of 44.36 points were scored per game, virtually the same as the 2010 average of 44.07). The game we have right now is as wide open a game as we’ve ever had. The fact that field position went backward had no effect on scoring. So there really is no sentiment for moving it back to the 30.”

Mara can envision a day when a far more radical change is made and NFL games are played without kickoffs.

“We had a lot of discussions about whether we should eliminate it and if we did what we could do in its place,” he said. “There’s no consensus on it right now, but I could see the day in the future where that play could be taken out of the game.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Beyond wins and losses: incorporating score differential

This is just a crazy thought I had.  I haven’t tested it.  Maybe someone out there can run the numbers.  You get 9 points for a win, and then one bonus point for every run differential up to a maximum of 6 bonus points.  So, win by 1, and you get 10 points.  Win by 6 (or more), and you get 15 points.  So, if you win three games by 1 run, or you win two by 6, and lose the third game, you get 30 points either way.

There are three points to consider when constructing this:
1. How many points for a win, your base level (*)

2. What score differential to cap?

3. Do you give points for losing close games, or do you get zero points whether you lose by 1 or 6?

(*) In my case is 9, which is a pleasant number as far as baseball is concerned.  I kind of did a trial and error to see what numbers would seem reasonable, and once I saw that I was coalescing toward 9, I decided that’s a good enough number.  My guess is that you can do this for any sport, and set the number as the average number of points per game.  In baseball, it’s about 9 runs per game (4.5 for each team).  I’d bet you can do the same thing in NHL and use 6 as the base level, and then cap it off at half of that, so that the range in NHL would be 7 to 10 or 11.  NFL is probably 42 points as the base, so the range would be say 43 to 63 (maximum differential of 21 points).  NBA?  I dunno, say have a base of 200 points, with a range of 201 to 220 or something.

So, I’d like to see a bit of work from the Straigh Arrow readers, if you like to play around with stuff like this.

Monday, March 19, 2012

After just getting done with Linsanity and Tebowmania, what’s the next wave that a team will squash?

Peyton Manning.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Impact of the length of a match on the home-site advantage

I’ll use a hockey example first, and then I’ll switch to baseball.

In hockey, goal scoring follows a Poisson distribution.  If we have two distributions, one with a mean of 3.0, and another with a mean of 2.7, we can figure out how often the one with a mean of 3.0 will have a random value higher than the one with the mean of 2.7.  Ties are broken down in sudden-death OT fashion.  In this case, in a 60-minute game of a 3 goals per game team facing a 2.7 goals per game team, the better team will win 55.3% of the time.

Now, what if a game of hockey was only one period?  Setting aside any “change of pace” argument, we can model this as simply a 1.0 goals per game (that is, a game is 20 minutes, or one-third as long as the standard game) team facing a 0.9 goals per game team.  In that case, Poisson says that the better team will win 53.5% of the time.

As you can see, changing nothing about the sport other than the number of periods, we can drastically alter the home-site advantage.  It’s all based on the number of confrontations.  The longer the game, the more the confrontations, then, the more the gap in talent will override the effect of random variation.

If we look at how often teams are tied heading into the third period, which is the same thing as I’m talking about here with the one-period game, I’m sure we’d see this kind of result, that home-site advantage will drop proportionately as I’m showing here.

We can see that with baseball as well.  Now, baseball doesn’t follow a Poisson distribution, but we can model it as well.  A 9-inning game gives us a .540 win%, while a 1-inning game would give us a .520 win% (which is close to the empirical result).

We can go through this with any sport, and the same thing will happen.

This is most clear in tennis, where the chance of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic losing a 5-set match to someone other than the other two guys is much smaller than losing a 3-set match.  For example, say that the big 3 is up 2 sets to 1 against the #20 seeded player.  What is the chance that they would end up winning one of their next two sets?  It’s going to be pretty high.  Now, suppose the #20 seeded player is up 2 sets to 1 against one of the big 3.  What is the chance that this #20 seeded player is going to win one of his next two sets?  I don’t know what it is, but it’s DEFINITELY less than when the roles are reversed.

If Tiger in his prime had a 33% chance of winning a four-round tournament, then what’s the odds of him winning a single-round tournament?  It’s definitely less than 33%.  Probably something like 10%.  That is, if you looked at each day’s results, I’d bet that Tiger in his prime won something like 10% of his rounds (if he won 33% of his tournaments).  Something like that.

So, when people compare the home-site advantage of various sports, and trying to explain why one sport has a “higher” advantage than another, it’s meaningless.  It’s entirely dependent on the number of confrontations.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

RB Draft evaluation

I read enough that I got annoyed, that I didn’t want to read on too intently.  So, rather than give it my full treatment, I’ll just leave it to you guys to work your magic.

To be clear: I am at this time offering no opinion as to the overall article.  I’m just annoyed at one paragraph, and it turned me off.

Maybe you guys will inspire me to give it a second chance.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Taiwanese Animation Video Of The Week

I love these guys.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Gladwell v Bloggers: 1% v 99%

Ah, the old Dave Berri conclusion just won’t die, will it?

As you’d expect, the early draft choices got a lot more playing time than the later ones. Even disregarding seasons where they didn’t play at all, and even *games* where they didn’t play at all, the late choices were only involved in 1/4 as many plays as the early choices. Berri and Simmons don’t think that’s a problem. They argue—as does Gladwell—that we should just assume the guys who played less, or didn’t play at all, are just as good as the guys who did play. We should just disregard the opinions of the coaches, who decided they weren’t good enough.

That’s silly, isn’ t it? I mean, it’s not logically impossible, but it defies common sense. At least you should need some evidence for it, instead of just blithely accepting it as a given.

That’s the difference between a subject matter expert and someone who is given data and doesn’t understand the selection bias of the data.  (And so, shockingly, presumes there is no selection bias in the data.)

Here’s the punch in the face to Gladwell, Berri, and anyone who keeps spouting their nonsense:

As best as I can tell, the most valuable draft pick in MLB is whoever drafts the #1390th pick as a position player.  That’s because the AVERAGE number of HR hit by ALL position players that made it to MLB is 427.  427 HR as the average?  Yes, it’s true.  Did I forget to mention that only ONE position player who was drafted #1390th has made it to MLB?  That’s irrelevant.  Because, we must assume that the player who DID make it MUST be representative of those that did NOT make it.  So, the difference between Mike Piazza playing and Tim Casper, Damon Lembi, and Brad Smith NOT playing in MLB is… I dunno… luck?  Maybe it is.  But, the chances that Casper, Lembi and Smith were equals of Piazza?  The chance of that is close to zero.  Maybe at the time they were drafted, with the imperfect information available, they were equals.  But, either there was a gross misvaluation, or, shockingly, Piazza, as a human being, developed.  He learned.  He improved.  These guys are not automatons. 

Piazza is not representative.  He’s an exception, not only in terms of opportunity to play, but then in terms of performance of his play.

To argue that the average QB in the 1st round has the same performance, per play, as the QB in the nth round is ridiculous, if we limit ourselves only to those who ended up playing in the NFL.  It presumes that the QB who did not play in the NFL is equal to those who did play in the round they were selected in.

It’s an embarrassing argument to make, and if it takes one million bloggers to get it through the heads of those who don’t want to listen, then so be it. 

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Is Tiger Woods like Team Canada (in hockey)?

Poz made the point that Tiger only cares about being the best.  That simply being #11 is the same thing as being #10: nothing.

I was reminded of when Team Canada lost the semi finals, and so, were relegated to the Bronze medal game.  And they lost that game.  To Team Canada, if you don’t win Gold, then it doesn’t matter if you get Silver, Bronze, or nothing.  That was the narrative that was built-up anyway.

When Canada’s Donovan Bailey and company won the 1996 track-relay ahead of the heavy favorite Americans, it wasn’t that Canada won Gold and USA won Silver, but that USA LOST the Gold.  It’s as if being second-best for heavy favorites is tantamount to being a loser.

I’ve never liked that point of view.  It’s insulting to your competition, and it ignores the reality that you can’t control your environment, and all the random variation that comes with it.  Gisele says hi.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Win expectancy charts used in football… in 1983!

http://sagarin.com/sports/wham_bam.pdf

Some familiar names, notably Sagarin and Wayne Winston. Football, more than baseball, is a great sport for using win expectancy charts.  Whereas in baseball the pitcher has a large set of pitches and locations to choose from (and won’t even necessarily hit the target), and the batter has to choose to swing or not, and game theory and randomization will play a huge role here, in football you have a much more finite set of choices, and the play is over after the play (as opposed to baseball because of the count).  The clock, penalties, the turnovers, etc, all add great variables that make the win expectancy really valuable for football.

Glove-slap: Kevin.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

When to purposefully lose the lead

According to the incomparable Brian Burke, the Pats should have given up the go-ahead TD at the two-minute warning.

The smartest play of all would’ve been for Belichick to have allowed the touchdown even earlier. The Patriots certainly could have done so on the play prior to Bradshaw’s touchdown run, when he was stopped for a one-yard gain, forcing New England to burn its second timeout. In fact, they probably should have allowed a touchdown as early as the two-minute warning. That’s the point at which the Win Probability of receiving a kickoff down by four or six points (0.23) exceeds the Win Probability of trying to stop the Giants from bleeding the clock dry (0.2). The Patriots would have had almost two minutes, two timeouts, and all four downs available to get a touchdown and steal the win.

Basically, every time out has a certain win value, every second lost has a certain win value, every yard lost has a certain win value.  And Brian is saying that the Pats would have maximized their chances of winning by allowing the TD to happen at the two minute warning.

This is exactly what win expectancy charts (and to a lesser extent, run or point expectancy charts) should be used for.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Explaining NFL OT Rules

I think the ref did a good job of explaining the OT rules.  I’m not sure if there’s a great way of explaining it.  He was pretty clear, and didn’t give too much information in each sentence.  He wasn’t terse, and he wasn’t verbose.  I liked it.

What wasn’t clear is what happens on a safety on the initial drive (reverse?).  Presumably, it should end the game, but maybe there is an exception there as well?

Monday, January 16, 2012

Greatest players: Jordan, Gretzky, Ruth, Pele, and

Willie Mays, Jerry Rice, or Jim Brown.  Poz Poll.

Impressed at the variety of readers at Poz’s site.
1.1 baseball players
0.9 football players
1.1 basketball players
0.9 hockey players
0.6 soccer players

Really, a pretty good spread right there.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

NFL v NFLPA

Uh.... what?!?

Monday, January 02, 2012

Pay-for-play college

A plan.

You don’t like it?  Come up with your own.

Like how it is already?  This thread is not for you.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Market forces v Central Planning

Great stuff on the promotion/relegation system versus USA/Canada system.

If we look to Europe, though, we might see a better approach. To understand it, let’s consider the arguments of Frederich Hayek, who argued that a centrally planned economy can’t work as well as a free market one because the central planner could never have enough information to make adequate decisions. OK, but what does this have to do with sports?

Essentially, North American sports leagues use central planners to determine the location of sports teams. In contrast, European sports leagues rely on the market.
...
If these owners were ever successful, then essentially American owners would be exporting central planning to a market-oriented industry in Europe.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

NFL Rules and Competition Committee

A cool interview that shows that the NFL may very well embrace technology at a more in-depth level.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Differing standards for MLB and NFL regarding steroids

Story, and Patriot’s view:

A revote would be another chance for the spots media to reaffirm its double standard on steroids in MLB and the NFL

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Lining up to buy value-less stock?

Apparently so.  Packers were selling shares at 200$ a pop.

So what does $275 ($250 cost plus $25 handling fee) get a shareholder? Packers stock pays no dividends, can only be sold back to the team (for 2.5 cents), never appreciates in value and affords very limited voting rights.

This is like the Picasso theory, but worse.  People buy Picasso not only for the intrinsic value of the art, but also for the potential to appreciate in value.

With the Packers, that stock certificate has no art value, and is precluded from appreciating in value.  (Unless of course people sell it on the secondary market.)

Basically, it comes down to ownership: having something the other guy wants. 

***

By the way, where do the profits go if there’s no dividends?  Is Andrew wrong about that?

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

This week in zero-tolerance golf rules

High school football player celebrates early, gets flagged for taunting, nullifying the touchdown.  But, everyone agrees: the rule is the rule is the rule.  George Orwell couldn’t have predicted this state of affairs actually becoming reality.

How about we apply this to baseball.  That Kirk Gibson fist pump?  HR rendered obsolete.  Carlton Fisk jumping up and down, waving his hands, only to finally hold them up in triumph?  That’s an out.  Dave Henderson doing his piroutte?  Back to the dugout.  Prince Fielder calling his teammates over so he can use them as bowling pins?  Another out.

And why not.  If the rule is the rule is the rule, then these players are going to learn… the hard way… that you don’t celebrate until after you score, and you do so in a respectful manner.