Monthly Archives: September 2011

A Perfect Sports Weekend!

Posted on by
3

That's not a football or basketball!

Dave Berri is the General Manager of the Wages of Wins Network.  He is a Professor of Economics at Southern Utah University, lead author of both “The Wages of Wins” and “Stumbling on Wins”, and past president of the North American Association of Sports Economists.

Hear that? It's the sound of Dave Berri WINNING

When sports economists are asked why they study sports, the answer quickly focuses on the immense data sports provide.   Such data allows one to study a host of issues of interest to economists (even those who don’t like sports).

Although such answers are necessary when confronted by economists who don’t like sports (i.e the real nerds in economics), let’s be honest.  We study sports because we like sports.

As a sports fan I definitely follow in the “Seinfeld tradition”.  What that means is that I definitely root for the clothes (as Jerry Seinfeld once noted about sport fans).  And because I have moved a bit in life, there are many clothes I follow.

For example…

  • I grew up in Detroit so I follow the Tigers, Lions, Pistons, and Red Wings.  I also follow the Michigan Wolverines.
  • I spent my teenage years in Nebraska, so I follow the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
  • I went to graduate school at Colorado State (where I met my wife), so we also follow the Rams.
  • And we chose to come to Southern Utah University a few years ago, so we also follow the Thunderbirds.

Given all these teams, it is likely that on any given weekend during the football season, someone will make me happy and someone will make me sad.

Except for this weekend.  This past weekend… well, let’s say it went well.

  • The Tigers swept the Minnesota Twins and are now 10 ½ games up in the Central Division (and are tied for the second best record in the American League).
  • The Colorado State Rams defeated Northern Colorado (Colorado might proved to be a bit more difficult next weekend).
  • Southern Utah defeated Sacramento State.  My family attended this game and were worried that Sacramento State – who defeated Oregon State last weekend – would be very tough.  But the T-Birds dominated, winning 35-14.  Our quarterback – Brad Sorensen – may be drafted by an NFL team in the future.
  • Nebraska struggled to defeat Fresno State, but ultimately prevailed.
  • Michigan did not look good against Notre Dame.  But thanks to an amazing 4th quarter, the Wolverines managed to defeat the Irish.
  • And today – while the Tigers were sweeping – the Lions went down to Tampa Bay and dominated the Buccaneers.  Yes, the Lions only won 27-20.  The final score, though, was not entirely indicative of how the Lions played.  After Tampa took an early lead, the Lions seemed to have their way with the Buccaneers.

With the Lions’ victory, my “perfect” weekend was complete.

At least, until I looked up what Nebraska Wesleyan did this weekend.  I attended NWU as an undergraduate.  And unfortunately, they lost this weekend.  I would note, although I had friends on the football team twenty years ago, I never really followed the Prairie Wolves (who were called the Plainsmen when I attended) football team.  But if I did, then my weekend was still almost perfect.

By the way, prior to this weekend I always held an irrational belief that all my football teams couldn’t win on the same weekend.  So after Michigan won last night, I thought the Lions were doomed.  Of course, such a belief is silly.  And thankfully, silly got shot down this weekend.

Then again… if I am this happy this weekend, what chance do my teams have next weekend? Yes, irrational thoughts are hard to eliminate.

- DJ

P.S. I also worked for three years at Coe College, and they also lost this weekend.  Like Nebraska Wesleyan, though, I never followed football much at Coe.

One last note… Cal-State Bakersfield – where I worked before SUU – doesn’t have a football team.

Renaldo Balkman makes the same mistakes with Puerto Rico

Posted on by
2

Turns of Burger King is my favorite fastfood burger too!

One of my favorite players is Renaldo Balkman. On his brief stint with the Nuggets he played very well in limited minutes to help the Nuggets to one of their best seasons. Before that he played well in limited minutes on a terrible Knicks team. Unfortunately his NBA career is likely over (or at the very least he will reduced to being a bench warmer). When I tell people Renaldo Balkman played great for the Nuggets I often have my sanity questioned and frankly that’s not hard to believe. Here’s Balkman’s per game stat line during his best NBA season (which was with the Nuggets in 2009)

  • 14.7 Minutes per game
  • 5,0 Points per game
  • 6.0 Rebounds per game
  • 0.9 Steals per game
  • 0.6 Assists per game
  • 0.4 Blocks per game
  • 0.7 Turnovers per game
  • 1.8 Personal Fouls per game

These numbers do not exactly scream greatness. However if we look at his per minute stats and his “advanced” shooting numbers we get a different tale

  • 0.225 Wins Produced per 36 minutes (0.299 WP48)
  • 12.2 Points per 36 minutes on 58.5% TS
  • 9.4 Rebounds per 36 minutes
  • 1.6 Assists per 36 minutes
  • 2.2 Steals per 36 minutes
  • 1.1 Blocks per 36 minutes
  • 1.5 Turnovers per 36 minutes
  • 4.5 Personal Fouls per 36 minutes.

However Balkman made several crucial errors in his career that have resulted in him becoming a bench warmer.

  • He contributed in ways other than scoring. Scoring gets you noticed. Other things may not.
  • He played for a bad team initially.
  • He played limited minutes.

What we can notice about these “mistakes” is that none are really Renaldo’s fault. As he was drafted by the Knicks he had no choice but to play for them. Balkman also can’t help that popular perception is on scoring. Finally, it turns out coaches decide who gets minutes and who doesn’t (and not always correctly).

I was very excited to hear that Balkman was playing for Puerto Rico in the FIBAS Americas tournament. If he played well then there might have been hope for him to rekindle his NBA career. It turns out if we look over his numbers, Balkman is actually playing rather well

  • 15.0 Points per 36 minutes with a 53.9% True Shooting
  • 10.3 Rebounds per 36 minutes
  • 1.7 Assists per 36 minutes
  • 4.8 Personal Fouls per 36 minutes
  • 2.6 Personal Fouls per 36 minutes
  • 3.3. Steals per 36 minutes
  • 1.9 Blocks per 36 minutes

Of course the real issue comes down to minutes. Balkman is not playing 36 minutes a game. Instead he is playing 18.9 minutes a game. He is also not playing on a team that is destroying the competition. While Puerto Rico did make the semi-finals, they have lost their shot at an Olympic bid via this tournament (I think, please correct me if I am wrong). So Balkman ends up in the same spot. He is playing productively.  But again, he is not playing enough minutes or on a team with a high enough profile to help his case. So I suspect my dreams of a Balkman comeback will not come to fruition. I’ll always have 2009 at least.

-Dre

Dre Alvarez (@nerdnumbers) is a Co-Editor for the Wages of Wins Network and is also in charge of handling the stats data. He’s a long time fan of Colorado Sports, depending on the weather. He’s an even bigger fan of the stats, data and all things nerdy.

Even Former Superbowl Champions May NOT Know What They’re Doing

Posted on by
3

The New Orleans Saints and Green Bay Packers are both recent Superbowl champions. We might expect that their coaching staff knows what they are doing. However, when looking at a simple judgement call – going for it on fourth down – I question if even the best of the best in the NFL have a complete grasp of the game.

A fun tale from Stumbling on Wins and Scorecasting is the story of coach Kevin Kelly. He is a high school coach in Arkansas who hates punting or going for field goals. He blindly flies in the face of conventional wisdom. And Kelly’s team tends to win a large number of football games.

Kelly’s approach seem to follow from the research of economist David Romer.  Back in 2006 (in the Journal of Political Economy) Romer employed some fairly sophisticated math and examined when a team should go for it on 4th down.

Romer’s research indicates that much of the time, going for it is the right decision.  As the above figure indicates, if you are past midfield you should probably always go for it if you have less than four yards to go. And even if you are on your side of the field, going for it can be a good decision.

Let’s take a brief review of Thursday’s NFL opener and see how these teams did relative to what Romer uncovered.

  • Green Bay punted from their own 20 with 10 yards to go – right call
  • New Orleans punted from Green Bay’s 45 with 14 yards to go – right call
  • Green Bay punted from their own 27 with 3 yards to go – wrong call
  • New Orleans punted from their own 22 with 14 yards to go – right call
  • Green Bay punted from their own 37 with 16 yards to go – right call
  • Green Bay punted from New Orleans 37 with 4 yards to go – wrong call

How about Field Goals?

  • New Orleans kicked a field goal from Green Bay’s 12 with 4 yards to go – wrong call
  • New Orleans kicked a field goal from Green Bay’s 20 with 15 yards to go – right call

Finally how about going for it on 4th down?

  • New Orleans went for it on 4th down with 1 yard to go on Green Bay’s 7 – right call

Now if we review Thursday’s game we find 9 situations where the tough choice of going for it came up. The current champs made the right call 50% of the time. The Saints — or the former champs — fared slightly better with a 80% correct rate.  And that means — according to Romer’s research — the Packers and Saints were incorrect at least 33% of the time.

This game was expected to be a match up of two of “best” teams in the NFL. Fantasy fans were happy with the performance of Rogers and Brees.  From Romer’s research, though, we see even the best teams in the NFL still make mistakes. In a game decided by less than a touchdown a touchdown and a two point conversion (editor’s note: thanks Alex!) there is no doubt mistakes like these could have impacted the final score.

Of course, the truth is that the coaches of both the Saints and the Packers will come away happy. They can say their team played a great game.   And although their decisions didn’t conform to Romer’s research, it probably followed conventional wisdom.

Conventional wisdom, though, would seem to be reducing a team’s chances to win.  And that means coaches may be making decisions that most fans like, but not the decisions that maximize the probability of winning.  So  the real truth may be that the coaches appear to know exactly what they’re doing, but keeping up these appearances might be hurting their team’s chances to walk away with a victory.

-Dre

Responding to the NBA

Posted on by
5

 

Why wouldn't we trust the owners?

A few weeks ago I offered a post at Huffington that concluded with the following paragraph:

Let me close by noting that NBA owners have also claimed they are losing money (a claim owners of sports teams have made since the 19th century). Such a claim deserves a post of its own (this is still one of my favorite stories on the subject). For now, I would briefly note that there is good reason to doubt this claim. After all, this is an industry where worker wages are capped (players in the NBA get 57% of revenues), a substantial portion of the NBA’s capital (i.e. sports arenas) is provided by the state, and firms have substantial monopoly power in the market place. Furthermore — and not surprisingly — the industry doesn’t seem to have a problem finding investors. So like the competitive balance claims noted above, the claim of substantial losses is so far not supported by much objective evidence. And that still leaves us with the simple story that people with a great deal of money often would like even more.

This paragraph led Tim Frank — Senior Vice-President of Communications of the NBA — to respond directly to me via e-mail.  Mr. Frank’s response essentially re-stated something that was posted at NBA.com last July.   As one can see, the NBA claims they are indeed losing money.

But as I noted at Huffington Post on Thursday, this argument is missing one key element.   The missing element is persuasive evidence that the league is actually losing money.  All we keep seeing from the NBA is a re-statement that they are losing money.  The actual numbers supporting this story, though, have yet to be presented.

My lastest for the Huffington Post doesn’t just note the primary problem with the NBA’s story.  It also discusses two other issues with the NBA’s story (click on the link to read the story).

I would like to note one issue with my analysis.  One issue I mention is that the link between payroll and wins in the NBA is rather weak.  The model I estimated (not noted at Huffington) looked at the link between team winning percentage and both relative payroll (payroll of the team relative to the league average payroll in a given season) and relative payroll squared.  Such an approach addresses the diminishing returns to spending.  As noted at Huffington, this model explains 12% of the variation in team wins. If we just look at relative payroll (without the squared term), we see that only 5% of the variation in wins is explained by team payroll.  Either approach reveals that much of wins is not explained by payroll.  And therefore another part of the NBA story is not confirmed by the evidence.

Let me close by noting that Chris Sheridan thinks this lockout could be resolved in time for the 2011-12 season to happen.  I think we can all hope Sheridan is right.  Certainly I would rather discuss basketball than these negotiations.

- DJ

The NFL’s Best-Looking Team

Posted on by
2

Beauty Pays?

Daniel Hamermesh’s latest book is Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful.  The book – as the title indicates – examines the link between attractiveness and a person’s economic success.

Hamermesh is a pioneer in this research, and it is this research that inspired a recent paper by Jennifer VanGilder, Rob Simmons, Lisle O’Neill, and myself.  Earlier this year we published a study in Economic Letters that examined how a quarterback’s facial symmetry (a common measure of attractiveness) impacts his wage.  As we have noted in the past, there was a link.  Yes, better looking quarterback – after we controlled for the impact of performance – get paid more.

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Jennifer offers another take on this research.   Reed Albergotti asked Jennifer the following question:  Which NFL team is the best-looking?

Yes, while people debate which team is the “best” before the games start playing, Reed and Jennifer went in a very different direction.  And although their answers don’t really tell us much about future prospects on the field, the answers are interesting nevertheless.  Here is a sample from the article:

  • The Buffalo Bills are the best looking team  (again, not the “best” team, just the “best-looking”)
  • The Kansas City Chiefs are the least attractive
  • The quarterbacks are the second-best looking

For the best looking position, check out the article.

Again, this article is certainly offers a very different look than all the other stories out there at the onset of the 2011 NFL season.  And although facial symmetry doesn’t tell us who is going to win or lose, it does tell us which players are “looking good” out there (and at least for quarterbacks, facial symmetry does impact wages).

- DJ