Category Archives: Sports Econ

Amazing Stuff I have Read (and would like you to read)

Posted on by
3

Currently I am involved with an assortment of projects.  So my ability to contribute in this forum (or for any other blog I am involved with) is limited.  Although I am not writing much on-line (I am writing quite a bit elsewhere), I am still reading stuff.  And here is some of the stuff I have read recently (in case you are interested…)

Let’s start with something from Jonathan Weiler.  At the Huffington Post, Jonathan writes about people who think Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson are somehow comparable.  The entire post is well worth reading.  But I want to highlight two particular points.  The first is about Bill James:

In his last Baseball abstract, Bill James, the pioneering baseball statistician and godfather of the Sabermetric revolution had a righteous rant about the fact that Andre Dawson was named the NL MVP in 1987. James opined about Dawson’s selection “there are occasions in your professional life that make you think you’re not making any progress. The election of Andre Dawson as the National League’s MVP is one of mine.” James noted that people criticized him all the time for an over-reliance on statistics at the expense of “intangibles” and the “little things.” James pointed out, however, that Dawson’s selection had nothing to do with intangibles or the little things (particularly since the Cubs finished in last place in 1987) — it had to do with the fact that the “Hawk” hit 49 homers and drove in 137 runs and that MVP voters overwhelmingly voted for players with high RBI totals. In other words, whether they admitted it or not, their votes were based on statistics — and really, one statistic. And James argued, if we’re going to rely on stats to evaluate players, we should understand what it is we’re relying upon. James insisted that if you took all of Dawson’s measurable contributions into account as well as the context in which he was playing — Wrigley Field — you’d know that he wasn’t one of the thirty best players in the National League in 1987.

And then a few paragraphs later Jonathan says the following:

Listen to any coach talk about winning basketball. What will they talk about? Intensity and heart and all that good stuff, of course. And again according to their peers, Magic and Kobe were each off the charts in those terms. What next will coaches say? Good shot selection. Rebounding. Being unselfish and moving the ball. And we have good data for evaluating those things — rebounding, assists-to-turnovers, shooting percentage. And on those fronts, the two players are not comparable.

Again, the entire column is well worth reading.  Especially for people who really think Kobe ranks somewhere near Magic.

Of course, Jonathan’s work is not the only thing I have read lately.

The coverage of Jeremy Lin continues.  Certainly we have spent a fair amount of time discussing Mr. Lin in this forum.  And here are three more stories worth noting:

First, the amazing Ty Willihnganz (more on him in a moment) makes an important observation.  One reason Lin looks so great is that the other options for the Knicks at point guard are just awful.

Alan Reifman –who has a new book called “Hot Hand: The Statistics Behind Sports’ Greatest Streaks” (which I hope to discuss in more detail soon) – has a blog that focuses on the subject of “hot hands”.   And currently he has a short post noting that Lin’s recent ability to hit shots is somewhat unusual.   Of course, the turnovers from Lin… (that’s another story for another day).

And finally on the subject of Lin, David Tufte – my colleague at Southern Utah University (who also has a blog) – has a short post on Lin’s high school coach: What a riot: Jeremy Lin’s high school coach bought the rights to the URL linsanity.com a couple of years ago, because he thought it a good investment for when Lin made it big in the NBA.

Beyond the subject of Jeremy Lin, let me note again the amazing work of Ty Willihnganz at the Courtside Analyst.  This is a website that I think definitely doesn’t get enough attention.  And yet, every few days Ty puts up some fairly amazing analysis.  Here is some of his recent work:

Again, Ty’s work is always interesting.   So if you are looking for something to read, check out the Courtside Analyst.  Of course, don’t stop reading all the wonderful stuff in this forum.

- DJ

Checking in on a Prediction

Posted on by
Reply

Economists aren’t known for getting predictions right.  Nevertheless, we keep trying. 

My latest prediction – which was revealed in an article by Ron Dicker at Huffington Post – was that television ratings for NBA games this Christmas would exceed the ratings seen for games played on Christmas last year.  This prediction — made a few weeks ago — was motivated by the research I published with Martin Schmidt on the impact labor disputes have on attendance.  As we noted in The Wages of Wins, fans may say during a labor dispute that they will hold a grudge, but the data makes it clear that this is an empty threat.  Although this research was about attendance, I predicted we would see a similar story with respect to TV ratings.  And as I revealed today in my latest at Freakonomics…. well, go read the post. 

I will add this bit of information.  In the 33 days since the NBA lockout ended, we have had more than 90,000 page views at the Wages of Wins Journal (according to WordPress).  From November 26 to December 28 of 2010 (or last year at this time), this blog only had about 53,000 page views.  This is somewhat surprising, since NBA games were actually being played for this entire time period in 2010.  But one suspects that fans became very interested in the NBA once the lockout ended. 

Then again… last year the primary writer in this forum was me.  And this year, other people are doing almost all the writing. So maybe this all simply reflects a change in the talent level in this forum :)

- DJ

How to Choose a Market in Sports

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago, Arturo and Devin – in two separate posts – wrote about which markets deserve and don’t deserve an NBA franchise.   These posts considered a few objective factors about a market in ascertaining where the NBA should locate its teams.

Today at Freakonomics, I took a very different approach.  Currently in North American sports leagues, the existing owners in each league determine whether or not the league should enter a new market.  In contrast, European sports leagues – like the English Premier League – rely upon market forces to make this decision.

Although individuals – like Arturo, Devin, and the owners – can consider a variety of factors in making this decision, I do not think (echoing the arguments of Friedrich Hayek) that an individual – or a committee – can do this job as well as a market.  For example, I think it is entirely possible that a smaller market could support a team if the people in this market are especially interested in NBA basketball.  In contrast, a team in a larger market might struggle to find success if the people in the market are not generally enthusiastic and/or the ownership of the team does a poor job of selling the team.  The latter appears to be the case in New Orleans, where ticket sales seemed to improve when the NBA assumed ownership of the team.  In other words, one of the problems in New Orleans might have been incompetent owners (a problem we also see historically with the LA Clippers).

Beyond invoking Hayek (not one of my favorite economists of all-time, but someone who certainly understood the problems of central planning), my post also links how teams are allocated to the history of labor disputes in North American sports.  And although I have little hope that what I suggest will ever be adopted, hopefully it does give people something to think about.

Let me close by thanking Matthew Phillips.  Matthew is an editor at Freakonomics, and he is the person who makes my recent posts in that forum look (and read) so good.  Today, unfortunately, is Matthew’s last day at Freakonomics and I would just like to thank him in this forum for all his help.

- DJ

The Moneyball Bible and Other Sunday Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

That's not a football or a 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.

Over the past few days I have seen a number of stories where I thought: “that would make for a good blog post.”  But then I got busy doing something else (spending time with my wife, daughters, and dog, teaching classes, working on various research projects, etc…). And so the posts haven’t been written.

So tonight I thought I would just gather the stories I found and offere a brief story with the link.  In essence, all my ideas have been reduced to a Sunday Bullet list.

The above story is from Dan Peterson at Science 2.0 (Stacey Brook .  Peterson’s story is about the new Moneyball movie (starring Brad Pitt as Billy Beane).  Beyond discussing Billy Beane’s work in baseball, he also notes how Beane has worked in soccer. And then Peterson transitions to basketball, where he refers to The Wages of Wins as the Moneyball-bible of the APBR movement.  Here is all that Peterson has to say:

 Not to feel left out (or safe from scrutiny), the NBA now has its own sport-specific zealots.  The Association for Professional Basketball Research (APBR) devotes its members time and research to finding the same type of meaningful stats that have been ignored by players, coaches and fans.  They, too, have their own Moneyball-bible, “The Wages of Wins ” by David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook.  David Berri’s WoW journal/blog regularly posts updates and stories related to the current NBA season and some very intriguing analysis of its players and the value of their contributions.

None other than Malcolm Gladwell, of Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers fame, provided the review of Wages of Wins for the New Yorker.  One of the main stats used is something called a player’s “Win Score” which attempts to measure the complete player, not just points, rebounds and assists.

Win Score (WS) = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF.   (Points, Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Field Goal Attempts, Free Throw Attempts, Turnovers, Personal Fouls)

WS is then adjusted for minutes played with the stat, WS48.  Of course, different player positions will have different responsibilities, so to compare players of different positions the Position Adjusted Win Score per 48 minutes or PAWS48 is calculated as: WS48 – Average WS48 at primary position played.  This allows an apples to apples comparison between players at a position, and a reasonable comparison of players’ values across positions.

Will these statistics-based approaches to player evaluation be accepted by the “establishment”?  Judging by the growing number of young, MBA-educated GMs in sports, there is a movement towards more efficient and objective selection criteria.  It appears the evidence-based general manager is here to stay.

 

Yes, the Peterson story is my favorite in this list.  But it is not the only story I want to note.

Here are some football stories I found interesting.

  • It has been reported that Terrelle Pryor’s Wonderlic score was only seven.  Later reports denied this story.  Readers of Stumbling on Wins (not “the bible”, but hopefully a good read nonetheless), might wonder why we care.  Wonderlic scores are somewhat related to where a quarterback is selected in the draft.  But these scores are not related to future NFL performance.  And this shouldn’t be a surprise.  The Wonderlic test doesn’t seem to have much to do with the job of an NFL quarterback.  As I mentioned to someone a few days ago, it would be a bit like asking candidates for assistant professor positions in economics whether they understood the workings of the engine of a Ford Gremlin.  Yes, I know… people like to look at everything before making a decision.  But as we note in Stumbling on Wins, the human mind isn’t designed to look at everything.  Good decision-making requires that information be sorted systematically.  And when something isn’t relevant, it should be ignored (and better yet, not even collected).
  • Mark Martinez is a political science professor I worked with at Cal-State Bakersfield (Mark’s office was down the hall from mine).  Mark generally blogs about politics (not surprising). But he is also a fan of the Oakland Raiders.  So he wants you to know: Ken Stabler Should be in the Hall of Fame
  • Of course, I am a Lions fan.  And for the first time that I can remember, the Lions are not planning on starting any draft picks from the draft in April on opening day.  Part of this is due to injury.  But even without injuries, I am not sure Nick Fairly or Mikal Leshoure would have started on opening day.
  • Perhaps related to the prior point, the odds of the Lions winning the Super Bowl are much better than I can remember.  Here is one website which shows how Detroit’s odds have evolved over the past few months. The Lions opened at 60 to 1.  Now it is 30 to 1 (and I think it was 25 to 1 right after the Patriots game).  Gambling has never been my thing.  But even if one doesn’t want to place bets, Vegas odds do provide us a look into how a large number of people view the likelihood of a certain outcome.  Consequently, academic research in sports economics has made use of posted odds to evaluate what people think an outcome will be before it happens.  Today I want to follow the lead of my colleagues in sports economics.  I am not motivated, though, by the desire to solve some academic problem.  No, I have a far sillier desire.  I just wish to say “Damn those Lions look good!”
  • Of course, the Lions aren’t the only Detroit team to look good.  The Tigers are currently in first place.  Entering tonight’s game, though, the Tigers had only scored 11 more runs than they surrendered this year.  As Lee Panas observed at Tiger Tales, the Tigers in 2011 really aren’t that different from the team we saw last year.  Of course, right after Lee made this observation the Tigers defeated the White Sox 18-2.  And I would add, since the All-Star break, the Tigers have a won-loss record that is similar to what we have seen from the Yankees and Red Sox.  Does that mean the Tigers will do well in the post-season?  Well, post-season baseball is really hard to predict.  If I weren’t a Tiger fan, I wouldn’t predict a title for Detroit.  But as a Tiger fan let me say: “Damn those Tigers look good!”
  • Let me close with a comment on how labor disputes continue to be a part of professional sports.  Yes, we know about the NBA dispute (and I am going to offer more on this soon).  But did you know about professional cricket?  Yes, as Osman Samiuddin notes, professional cricket – like sports in North America – also has labor issues (and yes, I am working on research on this sport as well).

- DJ

Playoffs are really not about the money for the players

Posted on by
8

 

Darren Rovell – of CNBC — examined how much an NFL player gets paid for winning the Super Bowl.  As I have noted before, professional athletes are paid for the regular season.  For the playoffs, the players are paid according to the playoff bonus pool.  And as Rovell notes below (where I re-posted his entire column), the bonus money pales in comparison to the top player’s regular season salaries.  In other words, the playoffs aren’t really about money.  This is really about the player’s competitive drive and love of the game. 

Every year, Major League Baseball announces how much the World Series winners get in bonus money for the postseason. This past year, the San Francisco Giants, who beat the Rangers, made $317,631, assuming a player was awarded a full share.

How does that compare to what an NFL player makes? And how much do they get paid in the playoffs versus what they make for the regular season?

NFL players, who win the championship, actually make more if you factor it out on a per game basis than baseball players did this year.

Let’s take a Jets or Packers player for example, who each played an extra game because they played in the Wildcard. They made $19,000 each for the Wildcard game, $21,000 each for winning the Divisional Playoff Game and are guaranteed $38,000 for the Title Game. Should they win the Super Bowl, they’d make $83,000 (losers make $42,000).

So if the Jets or Packers win the Super Bowl, each player will get $161,000 for their playoff run. Break that down by game and it’s $40,250 per game. The Giants played 16 games to win the World Series, so they received $19,852 per game.

The four games of work for Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez or Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is only a portion of their normal game salary. Including the bye week, Mark Sanchez makes $1.52 million for four weeks of the regular season, while Rodgers makes $2.02 million for four games of the regular season.

That means if the Jets win he Super Bowl, Sanchez would only make 10.6 percent of what he would normally make for four regular season weeks versus the playoff weeks. If the Packers win the Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers would only get paid 7.9 percent of what he would normally make for four regular season weeks versus the playoff weeks.

Of course, much of that could be made up with one blockbuster endorsement deal.

One last note… although the winning quarterback in the Super Bowl will earn significant money from endorsements, is this true of the losing quarterback?  What about the quarterbacks that lose in the conference championships?  If the Packers or Jets lose this weekend, they will still have played as many post-season games as the team that defeats them (and appears in the Super Bowl).  But one suspects the endorsement deals for the losers this weekend aren’t really very good.  And that is even more true for the players who are not the quarterback (or other stars on offense).

- DJ