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 NHL, you start by being part of the old-boys network, according to this current NHL executive, who wrote a book by talking to every living Stanley Cup Finals GM.
The lifetime these men spend building their networks and interacting with peers in various roles also gives them access to insight that helps guide their decision-making.
“At the core, the GM’s are in the information business,” Farris says. “If they can access information from all over the world ahead of other teams, they can gain an advantage. If they’re bringing a player in, they want to have a good read on the situation that the player is coming from and how he might impact the locker room, in addition to his on-ice abilities.”
And long-time, and successful GM, of the Devils, is my kind of guy when he says:
Controlling the flow of information and using it to drive internal decision-making is critical to success, but no optimal method exists that automatically translates to Stanley Cups.
New Jersey’s Lou Lamoriello, currently the NHL’s longest-tenured GM, takes a very different approach than Bowman. Instead of encouraging cooperation and teamwork amongst his staff, he creates information silos to eliminate the groupthink mentality.
“Lou purposely keeps certain people away from each other on the scouting and hockey operations staff,” Farris says. “He’ll say ‘look, the most important thing for you to do is X, go do it’ and he won’t tell anyone else what that guy might be doing because he wants to protect the integrity of the information.”
And this is what happens when you have a cap system:
Toronto has also built their organization around the power of ‘Big Blue’. As a GM in a constrained salary capped system, it’s important to create capacity for yourself. Maple Leafs ownership has given Burke the green light to outspend almost every team in the NHL when it comes to off-ice luxuries.
“Toronto has the best practice facility, a dedicated goalie coach, a player development staff, a scouting staff of 35 when most teams might have 20,” Farris says. “You’re limited in what you can spend in player salaries, but they’re outspending everyone off the ice to try and create a competitive advantage.”
Seinfeld had one of his dozens of classic bits, where the sports fan is simply rooting for laundry. I can’t confirm this is the episode, but it came back #1 on Google. Anyway, I found this amusing, by Dave Berri:
When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can’t.
But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president’s control.
The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn’t an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.
At some point in the late 80s to early 90s, when my favorite players were traded from the Islanders (Hrudey, Lafontaine) and Expos (Raines), I decided that it didn’t make sense to simply root for whatever team I pledged allegiance to. I was rooting for the Whitesox when Raines got there. And I rooted for the Kings when Hrudey got there. And in 1993, when the Canadiens and Kings met, I rooted for Montreal, but I was rooting for them to take 40 shots and Hrudey to allow 2 goals, while Roy would allow 1.
So, do you root for laundry, or do you root for players (people)?
The most difficult would be in national competitions. If USA or Canada plays Italy or Brazil in soccer, and you are a Brazil or Italy fan, what do you do?
If your favorite player is Zach Parise and you can’t stand Sidney Crosby, and you are Canadian, what do you do? (In this last case, there’s no question you are rooting for the flag. It’s simply incomprehensible that you’d root for Parise as a Canadian, even though his dad played on Team Canada, making Parise a dual citizen, who chose team USA).
So, cultural upbringing first? (Let’s you choose Italy or Brazil over USA/Canada.)
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.
Incredible, but because Mattingly did not attest to the correct final score, MLB reversed the game and awarded the win to the Diamondbacks. This happened even though everyone in the stadium was able to see the score.
Oh, sorry, I meant that this happened in a state tournament in golf. Because everyone’s been conditioned to know this rule, been taught this rule, having absorbed this rule, everyone accepts this rule. In fact, I believe this rule was the impetus for George Orwell writing 1984. It’s true. Look it up.
Anyway, the MLB rules committee has proposed this rule, and it’s starting at Little League, so that everyone can be taught the rule, absorb the rule, and accept the rule. Once the conditioning is set, then that’s it, there’s no controversy. All of the hockey fans that will mock the baseball fan for having this rule will face the scorn of the baseball fan because the hockey fan doesn’t understand baseball.
Phil looks at one component, to show how the relative rate of points scored by the home team is dependent on how “easy” it is to score per possession. The easier it is to score, the less the relative rate of points will be earned by the home team. The harder it is to score (the more things have to compound in order for a goal or point to score), then the larger the relative rate of points earned by the home team.
In basketball, the current rules have it that the home team ends up getting 52% of the points. But, Phil changes the rules so that more compounding actions have to happen in order to get points, and he can change that to 54% of the points goes to the home team. Or, he reduces the number of compounding actions so that the home team gets barely more than 50% of the points.
It’s still part of the overall theme of “confrontations”. For example, Nadal’s clay-court advantage is different if we just look at total points earned, as opposed to matches-won. If you count as a “win” each point earned, maybe Nadal wins 150 points on court, while losing 100 or something. That is, he gets 60% of all points scored. But, if you count as a win each game, then he might win say 70% of all games. If you count as a win each set, he might win say 80% of the sets. And if you count as a win each match, he might win say 90% of all matches.
So, you can change the rules, like Phil is describing, to control the home-site advantage. And the compounding effects of the confrontations is how you do it.
Let’s just say that we’re not surprised by the general tone in these posts (except for the choking part, which is always shocking, regardless of who it is).
Bruce Dowbiggin was the Canadian counterpart to American Russ Conway, who together exposed NHLPA union leader Alan Eagleson’s crimes to the world. Imagine Marvin Miller, but who ends up actually being a really bad guy. That’s what happened. So unbelievable that Eagleson still had support from former players.
Anyway, Dowbiggin is interviewed, and asked for five hockey books to recommend, and gives us a bit of history of hockey in the process. An unusual format, but, great insight.
For each of the selections, I want to cherry-pick the quotes a bit and focus on the negative comments on players I consider a “success” (500+ games in the NHL), as well as the positive comments on those who played less than 500 games. I’ll keep them in the order that [NHL Central Scouting Bureau] placed them.
I still remember watching that 4OT game, Islanders/Capitals. I was exhausted watching it, so I can only imagine what it was like for the players to actually play it.
This event looks exactly like it’s part of the game. At worst a dirty hit, and worthy of a penalty, not sure about a suspension, but it could go either way, but still part of assumed risk. Not a criminal case. Chara/Pax, that’s a much better test case than this one.
In what can only be described as a possible path to the future if you let the inmates run the asylum, NHL playoffs have decended into some brutal plays. If the players can get away from speeding or running a red light, then they will. Is Shanahan to blame? Is it too late for him to send the message? Do we need someone to come in tough and hard and settle everyone down? Maybe we need someone like Paul Kariya or Pat Lafontaine to be in charge of punishment.
Gabe and I wrote this a while ago. I was hoping it to get some broad exposure, but we weren’t able to find any takers. Anyway, it seems to have good timing, especially today.
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.
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date