The NFL’s Best-Looking Team

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

A Major Loss for Fans of the Detroit Lions

Dave Berri offers the following about Tom Kowalski and the Detroit Lions.

Tom Kowalski you will be missed.

On most mornings I go on-line and check out the latest on the Detroit Lions at MLive.com.  This is certainly part of the routine when something is normally going on with the Lions (i.e. during the draft, training camps, preseason, and regular season).  But it’s also part of my routine during the off-season.

The primary reason MLive.com has become a part of my daily routine is Tom “the Killer” Kowalski.  Kowalski has covered the Detroit Lions as part of the Michigan media since 1982.  For nearly 30 years he has covered the ups (very few of these) and the downs (quite a few of these).  And his reporting is not just part of the season, but also a major part of the off-season.  It is not a stretch to say that most days, Kowalski manages to offer a story that gives Lions fans a much needed information fix.

This morning began like any other.  After a weekend where Kowalski offered numerous stories about the Lions-Patriots game on Saturday night, this morning Kowalski filed a story examining how Matthew Stafford performs in the hurry-up offense.

After reading this story, I took the kids to school, did my morning work-out, and then did my morning bike ride. After an interview with a reporter from the United Arab Emirates (about labor problems in sports), and a brief phone call with a co-author about some research, I went and taught my two Monday classes. At 2pm I returned to the office, and once again, checked in with MLive.com.  Because Kowalski often files more than one story a day, I often go to this website in the afternoon to see if there is any more news on the Lions.

Unfortunately – much to my dismay – there was indeed major news.  Tom Kowalski had passed away.  Kowalski was only 51 years of age.  And as you can guess, his death was an immense surprise.

And as you can guess, it also leaves fans of the Lions very sad.  I am clearly not the only one who has relied on Kowalski for news on the Lions.  As MLive.com reported today, Kowalski’s work on the Lions was not only the most popular stories on the Lions.  And it wasn’t just the most popular reporting at MLive.com on sports.  Kowalski’s work was also the most popular work on any topic reported on by MLive.com.

And Kowalski didn’t just impact fans of the Lions.  MLive.com gathered a number of Twitter responses to this news.  As one can see, these responses came from members of the sports community from around the nation.  In essence, is you wanted a story on the Lions, everyone – a list that includes fans of the Lions and members of the national media – knew you turned to Kowalski.

Just hours before he passed away, Kowalski gave what is now his final radio interview on the Lions.  In this interview he argued the Lions are not quite as good as fans of this team would like to believe after the trouncing of the Patriots on Saturday night.

In classic Kowalski fashion, he let out a deep, bellowing laugh as one of the hosts predicted the Lions would finish the season 12-4. 

“Wow,” Kowalski responded. “You are aware that they start with three of their first four on the road, and two teams in their division were in the NFC Championship game last year?” 

After getting burned a few years back with his now famous 20-wins-in-two-years prediction, Kowalski wasn’t willing to make another bold prognostication.

“Here’s the problem. Everybody sees they went from zero to two, from two to six, so it’s just going to be a natural progression,” Kowalski explained. It doesn’t work that way. I picked them to be 8-8.”

Kowalski reminds the listener how difficult is to win consistently in the NFL.

“It’s difficult to get over the hump,” Kowalski explained.  ”A lot of teams get right on the edge, but they can’t get over the hump. For you to think this team is going to go from six wins to 12 wins, or even 11 wins, I think it’s crazy.”

While his expectations were tempered, Kowalski was looking forward to the product the Lions are going to put on the field this season. 

“I think they’re going to be a good team,” Kowalski said. “I think it’s going to be one of the most fun teams to watch in years, because I think they’re going to score a ton of points.”

Despite Kowalski’s words of wisdom, fans of the Lions are still hoping this season is going to be something special.  And we are all very sad to learn that Kowalski – after nearly thirty years of reporting on the Lions – will not be here with us to see this.

- DJ

Commenting on ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating (QBR)

That's not a football!

 

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.

 

Earlier this month, ESPN introduced the Total Quarterback Ranking (QBR).  This metric was developed by a number of people at ESPN (led by Dean Oliver) in an effort to replace the NFL’s current quarterback rating system.

As Dean Oliver noted in explaining QBR, although this measure is new, it clearly builds upon work that has been done in the past.  Specifically, it builds upon the work of Brian Burke at Advanced NFL Stats (work – that Brian often notes – builds upon the work of many others).  In fact, Brian also helped the ESPN people building QBR by explaining the metrics presented at Advanced NFL Stats.

Soon after QBR was introduced, Brian offered an evaluation of this effort at Advanced NFL Stats.  Here is what Brian liked about ESPN’s stat.

  • It includes sacks, running, fumbles and all the other important things that the traditional NFL passer rating doesn’t.
  • It doesn’t double count anything, as the NFL passer rating does with completions.
  •  It is based primarily on EPA (Expected Points Added), which accounts for down, distance, and field position.
  • It is also based on WP (Wins Probability), which considers time and score.
  • It’s a rate stat instead of a cumulative stat.

And here are some issues that Brian has with QBR.

  • It is proprietary.
  • It is unit-less.
  • It is an amalgamation of other stats.

One can go to Advanced NFL Stats for Brian’s complete discussion of these issues.  In this forum I wish to briefly address a different issue.

Brian and I recently co-authored a chapter in a forthcoming academic volume exploring the economics of professional football (a volume edited by Kevin Quinn).  Our chapter focused on how statistics can be used to evaluate players.  More specifically, we looked at the work presented in The Wages of Wins (QB Score and Wins Produced) and also all the wonderful work Brian does at Advanced NFL Stats.

Part of our discussion focused on an issue that any football metric should address.  Does the measure tell us much about future performance?  Decisions are statements about what a player will do in the future.  But if a player’s performance – as measured by any specific metric – is inconsistent, then the metric probably doesn’t help a decision-maker actually make decisions.

To address this issue, we looked at the consistency of various measures utilized to capture a quarterback’s contribution.  QBR was not available when we wrote the chapter (we finished our chapter last April and the book should come out… well, sometime in the future).  But now that we have three years of QBR data, we can now look at the same issue with respect to ESPN’s new stat.

The methodology is follows.  We look at quarterbacks who played consecutive seasons.  We then consider how much of a quarterback’s performance in the current season is explained by what a quarterback did the previous year.  Here are the results Brian and I report in the chapter, with the QBR results added.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first three measures – Expected Points, Win Probability Added, and Success Rate – come from Advanced NFL Stats.  Wins Produced comes from The Wages of Wins (it was updated for this chapter) and QB Rating comes from the NFL.  Of these, the most consistent is Success Rate while WPA is the least consistent.

We also presented the four elements of the NFL’s metric.  As one can see, interceptions per attempt are essentially random (a point made in The Wages of Wins).

Finally we see the ESPN’s measure.  The observations for ESPN’s measure are currently limited. But we can see that in the limited sample we have, ESPN’s metric is more consistent than the NFL’s metric.  It is also more consistent than Expected Points, Win Probability, Wins Produced, and the NFL’s metric.  However, it is not quite as consistent as Success Rate.

Of course, the consistency of all these measures pales in comparison to what we see in the NBA (72% of a player’s ADJ P48 is explained by what he did last year in the NBA).  But it is the case that QBR is an improvement – at least from this perspective – on the NFL’s metric.  And since that was the stated objective, we can argue that QBR is a success.

- DJ

P.S. All that being said, I do think Brian brought up some valid points.  And hopefully those issues can be addressed in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting Freaky with Sports Economics

That's not a football!

Just as a shout out our esteemed General Manager of the Wages of Wins Network – Dr. David Berri – was asked to comment on several sports related economics issues over at the Freakonomics blog and you should check it out if you haven’t already

With the NFL Lockout Just About Over, a Sports Economist Weighs In

Dave was asked to answer a few questions about sports. I’ll give you the question and the short answer and you can check out the full article to read Dave’s full answers.

  1.  Will the lockout impact consumer demand? No.
  2. How does this deal impact the returns to owners and players? The owners get a better deal. The veterans get a better deal. Those with rookie contracts get fleeced.
  3. What will free agency look like once the deal is ratified? Free agency is going be chaotic and messy.
Hope you guys enjoy the article and make sure to leave feedback at the Freakonomics blog if you like what Dave wrote!