Monthly Archives: July 2010

Notes from a Panel Discussion on Blogging About Sports and Economics

Posted on by
28

A few weeks ago, the annual meeting of the Western Economic Association was held in Portland, Oregon.  From what I understand, this is second largest meeting of economists (the meetings of the American Economic Association are the largest).  To put the size of the meeting in perspective – the NAASE (North American Association of Sports Economists) — along with the International Association of Sports Economists — sponsored sixteen sessions where 62 papers on sports and economics were presented (and critically discussed).  All these papers, though, only represented about 7% of all the papers presented at the WEA.

These other papers aren’t really the focus of this current post.  In fact, the sports papers aren’t what I want to talk about either.  In addition to all the NAASE sessions, we also had a panel discussion on the subject of blogging about sports and economics. 

The panel discussion was at 8:15am on July 1st.  It was my intention to post a comment on this discussion soon after the panel was over (at 10am).  But after the panel I had to chair a session (from 1o:15am to 12pm), attend two meetings of the NAASE (from 12:15pm to 2:30pm), meet with Rob Simmons (we are working on a number of projects), meet with a potential publisher of my next book, and then go to dinner with about 20 sports economists (followed by another meeting with a different co-author).  So posting on July 1st didn’t happen.  It also didn’t happen on July 2nd (very busy that day), July 3rd (yep, more stuff to do at the meetings), or July 4th (traveling all day and I was tired).  And then after I got back from the meetings it turned out I had other stuff to do that I had been neglecting (due to all the stuff I had to do for the meetings).

So here it is, 19 days later and I still haven’t written anything about this discussion.  And that’s too bad, since it was a great discussion.  At least, I think it was great.  After 19 days, I am not sure I remember all that we said.

Let me see if I can jog my memory by first noting the participants in the panel.  We begin with our moderator.

Dennis Coates – Professor of Economics at University of Maryland-Baltimore County and contributor to the The Sports Economist blog (named one of the Top 30 economics blogs by the Wall Street Journal in 2009).  Dennis was also the first President of the NAASE.

And here are the panelists:

  • Kevin Arnovitz – journalist and frequent NPR contributor, who currently writes for ClipperBlog and TrueHoop.
  • Brad Humphreys – Professor and Chair in the Economics of Gaming at the University of Alberta and contributor to The Sports Economist blog. Brad also served as President of the NAASE in 2009-10 and is a co-editor of Contemporary Economic Policy.
  • Justin Wolfers – Associate Professor of Business and Public Policy at The Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania), frequent NPR commentator and contributor to the Freakonomics blog.  Justin has also written for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune.  In addition, he has appeared on the Today show and numerous other television and radio programs.  In sum, Justin is really famous (for an economist).
  • David Berri – Yes, that’s me.  Just to be official…. Associate Professor of Economics at Southern Utah University and co-author of Stumbling on Wins and The Wages of Wins.  Plus I write for The Wages of Wins Journal (obviously) and the Huffington Post. I am also the current president of the NAASE.

Okay, those were the people on the panel.  Now, what did we talk about?

During our discussion I was actually taking notes (again, with the plan to post something that day).  Unfortunately, my note taking skills have diminished over time (and I am not sure they were that great to begin with).  So again, what I have to say about this discussion may not entirely capture all that was said.

With that caveat in mind, here is my recollection of what we had to say about the various questions and topics raised by our moderator (and members of the panel as well as the people in our audience).

  • What is the purpose of blogging? This is the big issue facing academics who blog.  We are not paid to blog.  So it is not entirely clear why we bother.  Justin, though, offered a couple of explanations for why academics engage in this activity.  First, blogging allows one to communicate academic research to a non-academic audience.  It also helps one learn how to write (something academics are not generally taught in graduate school).  None of us noted an inner need to seek attention (because that is not why anyone blogs and no one should suggest otherwise!!).  Kevin had a different take on this question (and I will get to that in a moment).
  • What is the appropriate length of a blog post?  Related to the previous discussion was Justin’s observation that a 400-word limit (which apparently Freakonomics imposes) really forces one to learn how to be concise.   Brad also confirmed the notion that blog posts should be about 400 words.  Readers of this forum, though, know that I have trouble restricting my posts to less than 1,000 words.  In fact, this post might pass the 1,500 word mark.
  • How long does it take you to write a blog post? Brad argued that his blog posts at the Sports Economist only take 20 minutes to write. Justin found that assertion hard to believe.  In fact, Justin said if Brad started writing a blog post right now, 20 minutes later he would definitely still be writing.  I also don’t think Justin bought my argument that my blog posts don’t require much time at all, since I tend to write these as I watch television at night (not sure I buy that argument, either… but it’s what I said).
  • What is the role of blogging and the sports media? Kevin not only came to the panel, but he hoped to come to a number of sessions.  Unfortunately – unlike the rest of us – his job kept him away from much of the meeting (apparently stuff was happening in the NBA around the beginning of July).  Still, he did have much to say about the role of blogging for the sports media.  Two issues he raised:  First, Kevin emphasized that he saw part of his work – and the work of Henry Abbott at TrueHoop – was to bring statistical analysis to basketball fans.   In fact, one was left with the impression that this was a significant part of the TrueHoop mission.  Kevin also noted the role blogging plays in the media.  In the past, journalist wrote a story and that was it.  Now the people employing journalists expect reporters to blog, tweet, etc… Kevin didn’t think many members of the media liked this trend (although one definitely got the impression that Kevin liked all of this stuff).
  • Statistical Analysis and Sports: Kevin came back on more than one occasion to the topic of how blogs are bringing statistical analysis to a larger audience.  Kevin covers the Clippers, and he noted how statistical analysis was specifically mentioned by the Clippers in justifying their choices on draft night.  Kevin also recounted the story of Kevin Durant being toldhow his performance was viewed by adjusted plus-minus.  Kevin told this story to emphasize the point that historically, statistical analysis typically didn’t find its way to the players.  I should add that Kevin and I did make some effort to discuss how stats can be used to evaluate players in the NBA, but Brad wisely told us to bring the discussion back to the topic at hand (which was not stats and the NBA).
  • On the subject of comments:  We had quite a discussion on the topic of the value of comments from the readers.  In general, comments were seen as having benefits and costs.  Here are some of the issues raised: 
    • Justin offered three rules for reading comments: 1) Make sure you have a thick skin, 2) comments will let you know if you failed in your effort to communicate, and 3) comments can also further the conversation.  The issue of having a thick skin was raised more than once.  We all seemed to agree that you cannot present work to the general public without a thick skin.
    • Justin also mentioned briefly the idea of having readers vote on the quality of comments.  This would draw attention to the “best” comments and cause the less useful comments to fade to the bottom of the queue.  Not sure how this is technically done, but it sounded like an interesting idea.
    • It was noted that comments probably are not an accurate cross-section of your readers (most readers don’t comment).  From what I recall, there was also not much enthusiasm for responding to comments from readers.  For example, it was argued (not sure by who) that one is often better off just ignoring the comments.  I would note that I do read all of the comments (or almost all) offered in this forum.  And I do respond from time to time (although, I am not sure that’s always a good idea).  My sense, though, was that my fellow panelists were not in the habit of actually responding to reader’s comments in the comments section of a blog post.
    • On a related note, I also noted how odd it was responding to people who adopted some of the “unusual” names you see in the comments section.   
    • Brad noted that he had to spend time policing comments at the Sports Economist (in other words, comments can tax a person’s time).  The issue of policing comments has led some people – like Greg Mankiw – to eliminate comments at his blog.  Basketball Prospectus also doesn’t seem to allow comments at their Unfiltered Blog (at least, I can’t see where one would comment).  So the downside to comments have led some people to just eliminate this feature from their blog.  All of the people on our panel, though, allow comments on their blog.

One last note on comments… I did note that I have taken the unusual step of essentially turning The Wages of Wins Journal over to the people who previously wrote comments.  And I think that experiment is working out well. 

Beyond these issues, we also spent a bit of time discussing the Dunning-Kruger effect (discussed in this forum and recently at the New York Times) and the issue of “truthiness” (a subject raised in an article Dennis had us read from Public Choice).   This latter discussion centered on the tendency of people going to blogs that already confirmed what they believed. 

Let me close with one last discussion.  This occurred before the panel actually started.  Kevin and Justin briefly discussed the virtue of Twitter.  Kevin says his Twitter feed has quite a following.  Justin wasn’t sure why people bothered.  It was interesting to see – in a discussion of new forms of communication (i.e. blogs) – skepticism of the latest method of communication.  I will add, although Kevin makes a good case for Twitter, I am not planning on doing this anytime soon.  At least – as everyone can see – I can’t see how I could say anything within the limits of Twitter.

Okay, I think that is all I remember.  Hopefully I can offer – in the next few weeks — another comment discussing some of the research that was presented.  In the meantime, I look forward to your comments on this post (and really, I do read these).

Update: Seth Gitter – one of the sports economists at our meeting – also offered a comment on this panel.  Seth, though, was much faster. His comment appeared the day of the panel.

- DJ

Are We Allowed to Say that John Wall Has Yet to Produce?

Posted on by
40

Here is a simple question: Can we separate how a player has performed from how we think he will perform in the future?  For example, I think it is possible to simultaneously argue

Each of these statements is consistent with the objective evidence.  Yet some people seem to think that the third statement above contradicts the first two statements.

One senses the same story could play out with respect to John Wall.  To illustrate, consider the following from Kyle Weidie of ESPN’s Daily Dime.  Weidie has written a review of John Wall’s summer league performance that stands in stark contrast to the statistical analysis offered by Ty Willihnganz.  Weidie’s review notes the following about Wall:

  • … (Wall) performed better than expected in those areas which don’t require physical talents, such as leadership and communication.
  • … this kid has proven he has the unquestionable mental capacity to succeed.
  • … In his first game action since the NCAA Tournament, Wall averaged 23.5 points, 7.8 assists, 4.0 rebounds and 2.5 steals over four contests.

Thus far, Weidie’s review is quite positive.  In the 9th paragraph of the discussion, though, Weidie finally notes the factors that cause Wall to be listed so low on Willihnganz’s rankings:

  • But he’s clearly not without faults. Wall shot 37.7% from the field and made just 1 of 8 3-point attempts.
  • Turnovers have also been an issue. Wall surely doesn’t want to be like his childhood idol, Allen Iverson*, and give the ball away at a rate of 4.4 times per game his rookie season.

So Wall is a leader and communicator.  And he can score and get assists.  But he had two problems in Las Vegas.  He missed a significant portion of his shots and he kept giving the ball away.

The turnover issue is something we also saw in college.  And unfortunately, turnovers matter in basketball.  When you give the ball to your opponent before you score, you don’t help your team win.

So at this point we can say this about Wall.  His physical skills suggest that he has a great deal of potential.  But so far, that potential hasn’t translated into actual production.  Wall was not particularly productive in college.  And he wasn’t productive in summer league.

Now it’s very important to emphasize what I am saying.  I am not saying – and I repeat, I am not saying – that Wall will never be a great basketball player.  What I am saying is that in college and summer league he was not a great basketball player (again, I am differentiating what Wall has done from what he might do in the future).

And I am trying to emphasize that ignoring missed shots and turnovers for eight paragraphs paints a misleading picture of Wall’s actual performance.  Missed shots and turnovers really matter in basketball.

Yes, it is possible that in the future Wall’s shots will fall and the turnovers will stop happening (and it is possible this won’t happen as well).  But until that happens, one shouldn’t tell us how great Wall has been.  He hasn’t been good (and yes – once again—that doesn’t mean he won’t be good in the future).

Let me close with one last note… some might argue that people are simply impressed with Wall’s potential.  And Durant’s improvement “proves” that people are able to see past low levels of production early in a player’s career.   The counter-argument to that line of reasoning is the long list of players in NBA history who people claimed had “potential”, but who never developed into productive players.  In sum, there are no guarantees with respect to John Wall.  He may someday be a productive point guard.  He might also turn into the next Stephon Marbury (or Allen Iverson).  At this point, I am not convinced people really “know” Wall’s future in the NBA.

- DJ

* – one should note that it is a good sign that a player who hopes to be a future star does not wish to be like Allen Iverson.  I suspect, though, that if Wall puts up the same numbers Iverson put up in 1996-97, Wall will be named Rookie of the Year in 2011.

The Winners and Losers (thus far) in the NBA’s Free Agent Market

Posted on by
38

Editor’s Note: Arturo Galletti has been tracking the NBA’s free agent market. Recently he reported at his blog – Arturo Silly Little Stats (part of the Wages of Wins Network)– the teams he believes have been the winners and losers in the free agent market (thus far). For those who have not been reading Arturo’s analysis, this is re-posted below:

As of now about 60% (260 wins) of the projected wins available (410 Wins) on the Free Agent market are off the board. So I felt it was a good time to update the table and put down some early thoughts.

First off, The Updated Free Agent Guide

Winners & Losers

Here’s my quick table on winners and losers:

Quick Thoughts & Grades by Team :

  • Miami: Enough has been said about Miami in this space and elsewhere but let me add: Wow,just wow. My Grade: Eleventy
  • Golden State : A forum on whether or not you like David Lee. Dorell Wright is good. My Grade: A, no selection bias here.
  • Detroit: Detroit kept Ben Wallace. That’s real forward looking  . My Grade: C
  • Chicago: The Bulls did not get exactly what they wanted but they still massively upgraded. Chicago went two of three (Boozer and Brewer are wow, korver not so much). My Grade: B+
  • Phoenix: Classic Suns pantsing the league on childress and cutting payroll. The only reason I withhold an A is Frye. Looking at their roster they may not be done yet. My Grade: B+ for now
  • Orlando: The Magic were good but they could be great it all depends on coach Stan Van playing Redick more over the corpse of Vinsanity My Grade: B- for questionable minute allocation
  • Lakers: As a Celtics fan, #$#%% #@%@@!!!! And they stole a guy in the 2nd round of the draft (Caracter). The Kobe deal (not included on the list as it happened in-season) could be the turd in the punch bowl in the future.  My Grade: A+
  • Houston: Again better than it looks. The Yao extension is worth a hundred million easy to that franchise.  My Grade: A+
  • Milwakee: Sneaky. Makes a good team, better and deeper. Fear the Deer! My Grade: B for Bucks
  • Boston: Better on paper. I heart Pierce & Allen but they sure are creaky. Love me some pocket kryptonite. Jermaine O’Neal? Just Ugh! The Rondo Deal (again not counted in the total as it happened in-season ) keeps a passing grade. My Grade: C for Creaky Celtics
  • Toronto:Meh My Grade: D for doubt they’ll make the playoffs
  • Charlotte: Sneaky. Young above average PF on the cheap (Thomas). Could be good but they need to start him. The rumor on Shaun Livingston would give them an A for me. My Grade: B for Brown
  • Denver: Meh again My Grade: D
  • Knicks: New York deserves and will get their own post. I will say that by breaking even they lapped the regime of Lord Thomas My Grade: Watch this space later
  • Nets: Throwing some good money after bad. They’re getting a new GM though My Grade: D comrade
  • Dallas: Cuban seem to delight at paying full price on day old cheese. Yes it tastes good now they’re past the expiration date Grade: D for Dirk is Dissapoint
  • Minnesota: Khan and Free Darko, a marriage made in comedy heaven. I feel for Love. Grade: F
  • Atlanta & Memphis: Question, what Free Agent contracts were signed that were immediately untradeable? Answer: Joe Johnson & Rudy Gay Grade: Z for Zombie franchise killer contracts.

- Arturo Galletti

Summer League Analysis from Ty Willihnganz (the Courtside Analyst)

Posted on by
18

Editor’s Note: For those interested in Summer League results, Ty Willihnganz—of Courtside Analyst (a blog I have included in The Wages of Wins Network)–  has examined some of the numbers.  I have taken the liberty of re-posting his analysis below.  In looking at these numbers, keep in mind that two years ago I did a small study of Summer League numbers and couldn’t find any predictive value from these stats.  Such a study should probably be updated.  For now, though, we need to remember that what we see during the summer might not be telling us anything about a player’s future prospects in the NBA.  That being said, people who think Gordon Hayward and DeMarcus Cousins will be good NBA players can be encouraged by what has happened so far this summer.

Maybe the Bucks got a steal in Tiny Gallon.  Despite his awful turnover problem, he is one of only three rookies who are posting positive adjusted Win Score numbers so far this summer.

I only calculated the numbers for rookies and others whom I was interested in evaluating.  I adjusted each player’s WS to his projected position and then estimated how that number would translate to Marginal Win Score per 48 (this measure is explained by Ty HERE).

A player I was high on in the NBA Draft previous to the last one, PG Ty Lawson, is absolutely dominating.  I do not even know what he’s doing playing in the summer.  I still think the Bucks would have been better off drafting him.  He was on the board when they selected Jennings.

Another player who is a man among boys is the third year player out of Memphis, C Joey Dorsey.  Because of his size he seems to get only minimal respect in the NBA, but he just dominates wherever he plays.

The best rookie so far has been Utah’s Gordon Hayward.  He was exceptional in the Orlando Summer League.  DeMarcus Cousins, the player I was highest on, has proven himself to be a tremendous rebounder, but his True Shooting Percentage has not been high, and he has a turnover problem.

The first number listed is the player’s raw Win Score per48.  The second is his WS48 adjusted for position.  The third is his estimated Marginal Win Score, taking into account that most rookies Opp Win Score is slightly below average.

1. Joey Dorsey…(26.45)…(+13.53)…(+6.45)

2. Ty Lawson…(15.99)…(+9.19)…(+3.24)

3. Gordon Hayward…(14.84)…(+6.55)…(+3.01)

4. Tiny Gallon…(13.42)…(+1.52)…(+0.41)

5. DeMarcus Cousins…(12.52)…(+0.21)…(+0.02)

6. Luke Harangody…(11.57)…(-0.23)…(-0.46)

7. Hasheem Thabeet…(10.90)…(-1.40)…(-0.51)

8. Patrick Patterson…(9.70)…(-1.00)…(-0.92)

9. Evan Turner…(4.55)…(-2.45)…(-1.17)

10. John Wall…(4.34)…(-2.46)…(-1.26)

11. Luke Babbitt…(4.21)…(-3.59)…(-1.43)

12. Damien James…(5.16)…(-4.84)…(-2.14)

13. Wesley Johnson…(2.18)…(-5.32)…(-2.66)

14. Larry Sanders…(4.12)…(-6.98)…(-3.69)

15. Derrick Favors…(4.35)…(-7.55)…(-3.74)

16. Hassan Whiteside…(4.96)…(-8.94)…(-4.12)

Anything below -1.00 MWS48 is bad news for a regular player, and the vast majority of the rookies are below that mark.  The NBA Draft is becoming harder and harder to predict, and less and less valuable it seems.

- Ty Willihnganz