During the last few weeks, there has been a lot of criticism of the NFL officiating crews, especially the ones working the AFC playoff games. Joey Porter claimed that the league and officials were trying to cheat the Steelers to allow the Colts, and especially QB Peyton Manning and Coach Tony Dungy, to continue their season (see the Freakonomics blog). Others (Woody Paige, for example) just claimed the crews were incompetent and implied (or said straightout, in some instances) that these crews shouldn't have been working anyway, that they weren't good enough to referee such important games.
Officiating plays a role in any baseball, basketball, or football game (other sports as well, but I'll focus on these three). The strike zone of the umpire helps define the pace and style of a baseball game. Does anyone remember the Eric Gregg officiated Livan Hernandez vs. Atlanta Braves playoff! game some years back, when just about every pitch delivered was a strike, as long as it was within 12 inches of the plate? The officials in basketball games, consciously or unconsciously, decide how much contact will be allowed and what players can do with the ball (with regards to carrying and travelling, etc.). Think back to the NCAA semi-final game between Duke University and the University of Connecticut. Two very good teams. One choppy game. Why? A lot of it has to do with the officiating. Football may be influenced more than baseball or basketball. Holding could be called on almost every play. Illegal block in the back could be called on almost every return. Illegal contact and pass interference can be found on most pass plays, you don't even have to look very hard most of the time. Officiating matters.
Missed/blown calls are bound to occur and, hypothetically, they should balance out over time. However, random processes like missed calls can o! ften have a huge impact on a season. San Diego was a good football te am this year. For much of the year, Michael Wilbon (Washington Post, ESPN PTI) claimed the Chargers were the second best team in the NFL (behind the Colts). However, they caught some bad breaks (the blocked field goal against the Eagles returned for a touchdown, e.g.) and ended the year 9-7, two games behind the #6 seed Steelers. Perhaps they ended up 9-7 partially due to being in a good division (with the Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, and Oakland Raiders) and playing a difficult schedule because they were so good last year. But, it is possible there were missed or blown officiating calls in at least two of the games that helped put the Chargers in positions to lose the game, instead of getting a win. If they get more than their share of calls next year and they aren't as good—say they end up 8-8 when they really should have gone 5-11—and they lost out on their chance to go all the way this year, does it really benefit them equally? Sometimes, it does! n't matter just that you get the calls, it matters when you get the calls!
The NFL, NBA and MLB all boast about their training programs and claim that they have the best officials. Why? Why not just have average officials doing the games if they are going to be equally bad for both teams? Because the leagues don't want bad calls, they don't want missed calls, and they don't (we have to assume, for now) want biased calls. They especially don't want missed calls when it doesn't take any more time to get the calls right (that's why shots at the end of quarters in basketball are reviewed, even if they aren't really that close).
So, if the NFL is going to go through the hassle of having coaches throw red challenge flags onto the field and of having referees go to the sideline booth, why not help them get the calls right in a timely manner. A 3-D rendering should simplify the review process, improving accuracy and decreasing the length of the review. P! erfect! Similarly, technology to help umpires with the strike zone an d check swing calls should reduce whining, complaining and pouting by the hitters, pitchers and coaches, along with removing the bad part of the human element from the process. Yes, I'm talking about things like the 1990s Braves strike zone. Now, if there was just a way to even the playing field in basketball as it applies to star treatment on fouls.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Pay for Play, and Play for Pay
Let's fix sports ... all of them (or at least football, baseball, and basketball). One year contracts with pay based on your previous year's play and your current year's play. A bonus for both the teams and players that stay together. Thus, if Chicago Bulls guard Kirk Hinrich is worth $5 million in a given year, he might get $6 million if he's been with the Bulls for 5 years, but would only get $4 million if he put up the same numbers for a new team. Continuity in sports is important, and should be rewarded. It is important for fan-player-team relationships and the overall product, since familiarity with teammates is usually a good thing.
The NFL has a problem in that players are tied into contracts, while the teams can cut players during their contracts. Basketball and baseball have guaranteed money, which doesn't lead to guaranteed performance. Terrell Owens signed a 7-year, $49 million contract, but he wouldn't have come close to $7 million this year, ! even if he hadn't been suspended without pay for the later part of the season. The players should be protected. They should have some recourse if they overperform their deal, just like the teams do if players underperform. It should be an equitable system.
In baseball, here are some names: Chan Ho Park, Kevin Brown, Jeff Bagwell (the Astros are trying to get him to retire so they can recoup $15.6 million of his $17 million salary for 2006). Then, there are Manny Ramirez, Miguel Tejada and everyone else who wants to change his location. Let them. In the NBA, Allan Houston, Anfernee Hardaway, Grant Hill, Carlos Boozer. Injuries happen, but teams shouldn't be hindered for years because of them.
I'm not trying to get player salaries reduced. Sure, they are, at times, outrageous and it would be nice if they were a little lower. Keep the average salary the same (or close to the same level), but redistribute the money to the people who earn it. Mayb! e you would see fewer people working hard in their contract year (like Austin Croshere) and then wasting away the rest of their career because they are set for life. Does anyone really think the Mets got their money's worth from CF Carlos Beltran in 2005? If you are consistent (like Kevin Garnett, Alex Rodriguez, Allen Iverson), you'll get a consistent check. Hopefully, this system will help persuade players to devote enough time during the off-season to at least stay in shape, maybe even improve.
In order to restrict player movement, projected salaries would be used if a cap is necessary, like in the NBA and NFL which have salary caps. Thus, you can not stockpile expensive talent. In MLB, I guess you could go without the cap, and continue to have the Yankees recruiting more than their fair share of the talent, like a premier college team. The key concept of the cap would be its restriction on player movement, not on having the best players.
Initially, everyone on their current team doesn't count at all against any ! cap. Likewise, draft picks don't count against your cap, and neither do trades (although, a governing body would have to approve all trades to make sure they are reasonable). Every year, everyone is a free agent, and they are free to move around the league. As a team, you can sign players that have a sum of projected salaries of less than or equal to the salary cap. These players will count against the cap for some number of years, with their cap number staying the same, or decreasing, over time, depending on performance.
For instance, say the Cleveland Cavaliers decide to reunite LBJ and Carlos Boozer. James wouldn't count against the Cavs cap, but Boozer would. How much? Based on his recent production, perhaps his projected salary for the season would be $4.5 million, since he should be healthy, but hasn't been the last couple years, but when he is playing, he's very productive. So, he'll count $4.5 million against the cap his first year. If he continu! es to be injury plagued and doesn't produce much, his projected salary and cap number will reduce, until he goes off the books after 5 years (or if he retires). However, if he returns to his role as a prominent power forward in the league, averaging near 20 points and 10 rebounds per game, his salary will climb. But, the Cavs will only have a $4.5 million cap hit for the 5 year duration, despite Carlos being paid much more than that for his production. Thus, teams will not have their hands tied by injuries, nor will they be penalized for having their players improve during their stay.
Oh, injuries. Currently, they ruin careers, but not finances. In this system, injured players won't be thrown under the bus, but they won't be paid like productive players either. Salaries will be reduced, quite dramatically, down to a base level, which will be the compensation until a player reaches a predetermined age which is the end of a reasonable career, probably in the 35-40 range. The compensation may be something like 50% of previous 3 ! years average, then 30%, 20%, 10%, base (or the base if the initial salary wasn't that high), with the base being something like $150K, a very nice salary, considering you don't have to do anything.
Obviously, the system needs some tweaking and further analysis, but it's hard to argue with the basic idea.
The NFL has a problem in that players are tied into contracts, while the teams can cut players during their contracts. Basketball and baseball have guaranteed money, which doesn't lead to guaranteed performance. Terrell Owens signed a 7-year, $49 million contract, but he wouldn't have come close to $7 million this year, ! even if he hadn't been suspended without pay for the later part of the season. The players should be protected. They should have some recourse if they overperform their deal, just like the teams do if players underperform. It should be an equitable system.
In baseball, here are some names: Chan Ho Park, Kevin Brown, Jeff Bagwell (the Astros are trying to get him to retire so they can recoup $15.6 million of his $17 million salary for 2006). Then, there are Manny Ramirez, Miguel Tejada and everyone else who wants to change his location. Let them. In the NBA, Allan Houston, Anfernee Hardaway, Grant Hill, Carlos Boozer. Injuries happen, but teams shouldn't be hindered for years because of them.
I'm not trying to get player salaries reduced. Sure, they are, at times, outrageous and it would be nice if they were a little lower. Keep the average salary the same (or close to the same level), but redistribute the money to the people who earn it. Mayb! e you would see fewer people working hard in their contract year (like Austin Croshere) and then wasting away the rest of their career because they are set for life. Does anyone really think the Mets got their money's worth from CF Carlos Beltran in 2005? If you are consistent (like Kevin Garnett, Alex Rodriguez, Allen Iverson), you'll get a consistent check. Hopefully, this system will help persuade players to devote enough time during the off-season to at least stay in shape, maybe even improve.
In order to restrict player movement, projected salaries would be used if a cap is necessary, like in the NBA and NFL which have salary caps. Thus, you can not stockpile expensive talent. In MLB, I guess you could go without the cap, and continue to have the Yankees recruiting more than their fair share of the talent, like a premier college team. The key concept of the cap would be its restriction on player movement, not on having the best players.
Initially, everyone on their current team doesn't count at all against any ! cap. Likewise, draft picks don't count against your cap, and neither do trades (although, a governing body would have to approve all trades to make sure they are reasonable). Every year, everyone is a free agent, and they are free to move around the league. As a team, you can sign players that have a sum of projected salaries of less than or equal to the salary cap. These players will count against the cap for some number of years, with their cap number staying the same, or decreasing, over time, depending on performance.
For instance, say the Cleveland Cavaliers decide to reunite LBJ and Carlos Boozer. James wouldn't count against the Cavs cap, but Boozer would. How much? Based on his recent production, perhaps his projected salary for the season would be $4.5 million, since he should be healthy, but hasn't been the last couple years, but when he is playing, he's very productive. So, he'll count $4.5 million against the cap his first year. If he continu! es to be injury plagued and doesn't produce much, his projected salary and cap number will reduce, until he goes off the books after 5 years (or if he retires). However, if he returns to his role as a prominent power forward in the league, averaging near 20 points and 10 rebounds per game, his salary will climb. But, the Cavs will only have a $4.5 million cap hit for the 5 year duration, despite Carlos being paid much more than that for his production. Thus, teams will not have their hands tied by injuries, nor will they be penalized for having their players improve during their stay.
Oh, injuries. Currently, they ruin careers, but not finances. In this system, injured players won't be thrown under the bus, but they won't be paid like productive players either. Salaries will be reduced, quite dramatically, down to a base level, which will be the compensation until a player reaches a predetermined age which is the end of a reasonable career, probably in the 35-40 range. The compensation may be something like 50% of previous 3 ! years average, then 30%, 20%, 10%, base (or the base if the initial salary wasn't that high), with the base being something like $150K, a very nice salary, considering you don't have to do anything.
Obviously, the system needs some tweaking and further analysis, but it's hard to argue with the basic idea.
That's a 4 point swing!
The two we don't get, and the two they get. I've been hearing garbage like this since I was in high school. I had a great high school basketball coach. However, he, like many others, just didn't get the picture when it comes to how events fit together.
Let's imagine, just so we have some numbers, that NY is ahead of Chicago 98-90 and NY has the ball. If NY turns the ball over, they forfeit the chance to score on the possession. It's possible that they would have hit a 3 (101-90), a 2 (100-90), or made 1 FT (99-90). Sure, there are other scenarios, like getting fouled while making a 3, missing the FT and getting the rebound, so it's 101-90 and NY still has the ball. That, however, is unlikely.
After the turnover, let's say Chicago gets a 2, to bring the game down to 98-92. Ah ha! Instead of 100-90, it's 98-92. Instead of NY leading by 10, they lead by only 6. It's a 4 point swing!
No, that's just poor reasoning. Here's the starting! situation again: NY leads 98-90 and has the ball. Following the turnover and Chicago basket, we then have: NY leads 98-92 and has the ball. It's a 2 point swing.
What if NY did not turn the ball over? Well, let's assume they score a basket to make it 100-90. However, it's Chicago's ball now, and if they score (which they do in the other scenario), it is 100-92. So, comparing to the 98-92 score when you turn the ball over, it's a 2 point swing.
Obviously, turnovers, especially careless ones, are not good for a basketball team. They often lead to easy baskets ... turnovers are often like just giving the other team a couple points. But, announcers (and coaches), please stop blowing them out of proportion!
Note: Basketball is different from football because the scoring chances on each possession aren't equal—there's no field position in basketball. For example, Champ Bailey's intercepti! on of Tom Brady in the Broncos' win over the Patriots was probably wor th more than the 7 points it led to (on the touchdown run) because the Patriots did not score and started their next possession returning a kickoff, rather than being positioned in the Broncos red zone. This gets into conditional probability—given the situation, what is the expected value of the current possession—, which is applicable to basketball, but is more intuitive in football games.
News flash! A little data analysis reveals that turnovers are bad. Looking at all the NBA games during a 3-day stretch in January, the average for points off turnovers on a given possession is a little over 1.1 (on Jan. 22, the average was 1.15; on Jan. 23, the avg. was 0.99; and on Jan. 24, the avg. was 1.16). Looking at a few of the NBA teams (7, to be exact ... unfortunately, writing for this blog is not my only focus these days), the range of points per possession (PPP) (calculated using points per game, field goal attempts, offensive rebounds, free thr! ow attempts, turnovers, and a free throw factor) is 1.01-1.08 PPP. Thus, while turnovers are bad, it isn't as bad as a lot of people think. It's because you give up an average of about 1.15 points per turnover (much closer to 2 if you give up a bunch of uncontested lay-ups and dunks).
Let's imagine, just so we have some numbers, that NY is ahead of Chicago 98-90 and NY has the ball. If NY turns the ball over, they forfeit the chance to score on the possession. It's possible that they would have hit a 3 (101-90), a 2 (100-90), or made 1 FT (99-90). Sure, there are other scenarios, like getting fouled while making a 3, missing the FT and getting the rebound, so it's 101-90 and NY still has the ball. That, however, is unlikely.
After the turnover, let's say Chicago gets a 2, to bring the game down to 98-92. Ah ha! Instead of 100-90, it's 98-92. Instead of NY leading by 10, they lead by only 6. It's a 4 point swing!
No, that's just poor reasoning. Here's the starting! situation again: NY leads 98-90 and has the ball. Following the turnover and Chicago basket, we then have: NY leads 98-92 and has the ball. It's a 2 point swing.
What if NY did not turn the ball over? Well, let's assume they score a basket to make it 100-90. However, it's Chicago's ball now, and if they score (which they do in the other scenario), it is 100-92. So, comparing to the 98-92 score when you turn the ball over, it's a 2 point swing.
Obviously, turnovers, especially careless ones, are not good for a basketball team. They often lead to easy baskets ... turnovers are often like just giving the other team a couple points. But, announcers (and coaches), please stop blowing them out of proportion!
Note: Basketball is different from football because the scoring chances on each possession aren't equal—there's no field position in basketball. For example, Champ Bailey's intercepti! on of Tom Brady in the Broncos' win over the Patriots was probably wor th more than the 7 points it led to (on the touchdown run) because the Patriots did not score and started their next possession returning a kickoff, rather than being positioned in the Broncos red zone. This gets into conditional probability—given the situation, what is the expected value of the current possession—, which is applicable to basketball, but is more intuitive in football games.
News flash! A little data analysis reveals that turnovers are bad. Looking at all the NBA games during a 3-day stretch in January, the average for points off turnovers on a given possession is a little over 1.1 (on Jan. 22, the average was 1.15; on Jan. 23, the avg. was 0.99; and on Jan. 24, the avg. was 1.16). Looking at a few of the NBA teams (7, to be exact ... unfortunately, writing for this blog is not my only focus these days), the range of points per possession (PPP) (calculated using points per game, field goal attempts, offensive rebounds, free thr! ow attempts, turnovers, and a free throw factor) is 1.01-1.08 PPP. Thus, while turnovers are bad, it isn't as bad as a lot of people think. It's because you give up an average of about 1.15 points per turnover (much closer to 2 if you give up a bunch of uncontested lay-ups and dunks).
Innovative idea:
We could, however, change the rules of basketball so that four-point swings were the norm. It would work like this: Every time a field goal (or other possession-ending event) occurs, the ball is inbounded from half court according to the possession arrow. Now, if you blow your chance to score and the other team gets a lay-up, they also immediately get the ball at half court. This situation is a close analog of the stretch run head-to-head match-up, where a win against your rival is two games better in the standings than a loss. Only one team can win head-to-head. And only one team can score on each "possession".Bench Artest!
Last year, Ron Artest cost the Pacers a shot at the NBA Championship by taking a few shots at fans in Detroit. This year, his trade demand and subsequent activities have contributed to the Pacers underachieving. Then, when the Pacers and Sacramento Kings agree on an Artest for Peja trade, Artest's agent says he doesn't want to go to Sacramento. First, he wants out of Indiana. Then, he doesn't (he stated a couple days after his initial demand that he wanted to stay with Indiana). Then, he doesn't want to go to Sacramento. After a little coaxing, he'll go anywhere ... and he ends up in Sacremento!
David Stern should step in. Antonio Davis gets a 5-game suspension for making sure his wife is okay. Ron Artest doesn't have to do anything and he's still getting paid. Stern should take Artest out of play. He should be banned from the league and should have to ask for reinstatement, as should any player who doesn't want to play for a given team (Jim Jackson comes to mind). The Pacers will be rewarded with a supplemental draft pick in the next draft, the position to be determined by the league office. Some people around the league believe Artest is a top-10 talent. Thus, the Pacers would receive a very good draft pick.
Jim Jackson wouldn't report to the New Orleans Hornets last year, and essentially forced them to trade him (he ended up in Phoenix). Why is there a salary cap? Why is there a draft? Why not just let everyone play for whatever team they want? Two words: competitive balance!
On a somewhat related note, Chris "Birdman" Andersen was dismissed from the NBA for violating the substance abuse policy. That's fine. I've never been a "Birdman" fan, in spite of the fact that he seems to be following me around. He played for the Nuggets when I was in the Denver area and ended up playing in Oklahoma City for the Hornets, who are now the local team in my new area. Frankly, I'm not all that surprised that he was on something. However, does it make sense for someone to be dismissed from the league for at least two years (players can seek reinstatement after two years) for testing positive for cocaine or LSD when a player who incites a brawl and fights with fans only gets the remainder of one season. OKC news coverage had a fan saying that Andersen should be suspended because athletes are role models, so using drugs is unacceptable.
Now, don't get my message wrong. I don't think players should use illegal drugs, including illegal (and banned) performance enhancers. But, who would know if Chris Andersen spends his nights smoking crack or strung out on LSD? I hadn't given it a whole lot of thought, and I'm pretty sure most people didn't come home from Hornets games thinking "Chris Andersen is awesome, and he uses cocaine, so I should too!" Ron Artest incited a brawl, which most sports fans in the U.S. have probably seen a dozen times. Then, this year, he forced his way out of Indiana (although he probably doesn't see it that way). Artest is a black eye for the league. Chris Andersen was, before being outed and dismissed, a little bruise concealed by clothing.
As people say, rules are rules. The rules should be followed. It's my opinion that bad (and/or stupid) rules should be changed (like any rule that would prevent the Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd pass from being a TD). It's time to overhaul sports. Get Chris Andersen some help. Drugs can be a serious problem. Don't ban him from the league, that's as stupid as him using the drugs in the first place!
David Stern should step in. Antonio Davis gets a 5-game suspension for making sure his wife is okay. Ron Artest doesn't have to do anything and he's still getting paid. Stern should take Artest out of play. He should be banned from the league and should have to ask for reinstatement, as should any player who doesn't want to play for a given team (Jim Jackson comes to mind). The Pacers will be rewarded with a supplemental draft pick in the next draft, the position to be determined by the league office. Some people around the league believe Artest is a top-10 talent. Thus, the Pacers would receive a very good draft pick.
Jim Jackson wouldn't report to the New Orleans Hornets last year, and essentially forced them to trade him (he ended up in Phoenix). Why is there a salary cap? Why is there a draft? Why not just let everyone play for whatever team they want? Two words: competitive balance!
On a somewhat related note, Chris "Birdman" Andersen was dismissed from the NBA for violating the substance abuse policy. That's fine. I've never been a "Birdman" fan, in spite of the fact that he seems to be following me around. He played for the Nuggets when I was in the Denver area and ended up playing in Oklahoma City for the Hornets, who are now the local team in my new area. Frankly, I'm not all that surprised that he was on something. However, does it make sense for someone to be dismissed from the league for at least two years (players can seek reinstatement after two years) for testing positive for cocaine or LSD when a player who incites a brawl and fights with fans only gets the remainder of one season. OKC news coverage had a fan saying that Andersen should be suspended because athletes are role models, so using drugs is unacceptable.
Now, don't get my message wrong. I don't think players should use illegal drugs, including illegal (and banned) performance enhancers. But, who would know if Chris Andersen spends his nights smoking crack or strung out on LSD? I hadn't given it a whole lot of thought, and I'm pretty sure most people didn't come home from Hornets games thinking "Chris Andersen is awesome, and he uses cocaine, so I should too!" Ron Artest incited a brawl, which most sports fans in the U.S. have probably seen a dozen times. Then, this year, he forced his way out of Indiana (although he probably doesn't see it that way). Artest is a black eye for the league. Chris Andersen was, before being outed and dismissed, a little bruise concealed by clothing.
As people say, rules are rules. The rules should be followed. It's my opinion that bad (and/or stupid) rules should be changed (like any rule that would prevent the Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd pass from being a TD). It's time to overhaul sports. Get Chris Andersen some help. Drugs can be a serious problem. Don't ban him from the league, that's as stupid as him using the drugs in the first place!
Monday, January 23, 2006
What if?
The Steelers beat the Broncos 34-17 yesterday. Statistically, Ben Roethlisberger had a fantastic day (21-29/275/2/0) while Jake Plummer struggled (18-30/223/1/2). Imagine if Champ Bailey had intercepted the pass Roethlisberger threw off his back foot, behind receiver Hines Ward. At worst, Denver would have had the ball near mid-field. It's entirely possible that Bailey would have ended up in the end zone, staking the Broncos to an early lead. Luckily for Roethlisberger, his pass was so bad that Bailey was unable to adjust to it (it was behind Hines Ward, so Bailey overran it slightly) and it bounced off him up in the air, with the end result being a completion to Ward. Then, later that drive, Roethlisberger threw a ball up for grabs on third down that was nearly intercepted, the ball was knocked out of the defenders hands by the receiver before he was able to come down with it. The end result of all of this, as well as the reversal of the Parker fumble, was the Steele! rs going up 3-0 and the Broncos receiving a kickoff, starting with average field position.
Jake Plummer did make some bad throws, although the Larry Foote interception was as good a defensive play as it was a bad decision by Plummer. Plummer also fumbled twice, although once was while he was being sacked on 4th down, so it was inconsequential. Big Ben was fortunate on a number of ill-advised throws, while Plummer wasn't. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes. However, don't look at the final score, or the stat lines and say that Plummer choked and Roethlisberger was amazing. It's not that simple in this case, and it rarely is, although Jake Delhomme was pretty bad, and Matt Hasselbeck was pretty good, in the Seahawks win over the Panthers.
Jake Plummer did make some bad throws, although the Larry Foote interception was as good a defensive play as it was a bad decision by Plummer. Plummer also fumbled twice, although once was while he was being sacked on 4th down, so it was inconsequential. Big Ben was fortunate on a number of ill-advised throws, while Plummer wasn't. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes. However, don't look at the final score, or the stat lines and say that Plummer choked and Roethlisberger was amazing. It's not that simple in this case, and it rarely is, although Jake Delhomme was pretty bad, and Matt Hasselbeck was pretty good, in the Seahawks win over the Panthers.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Even if you have people's respect, you don't want to acknowledge it. Then, you can't play the "We don't get any respect" card. Without it, what would players talk about in press conferences following wins?
Ben Roethlisberger pulled it out of his back pocket and slammed it down on the podium Sunday, following the Pittsburgh Steelers' win over the Denver Broncos. He claimed no one gave them a shot against the Bengals, Colts, or Broncos. He is probably convinced the whole world is picking the Seahawks to win the Superbowl. If there is a team that does not get the respect they deserve after compiling a fantastic record, it's the Squawks. Seattle, despite being at home and the number one seed in the NFC, was a slight underdog according to a lot of the prominent analysts, who liked Carolina's toughness and physical nature.
The Steelers had to go on the road for all three of their playoff games because they didn't win enough games in the regular season. They weren't given the #6 seed in the AFC because the selection committee didn't deem them worthy of a higher seed. This isn't the NCAA tournament, where who you play matters and seeding is a sort of magical process, carried out by a bunch of people in a room, doing who knows what. The Steelers and Bengals split their games in the regular season, with each team winning on the road. So, I find it hard to believe that nobody thought they would win that game, especially with the stigma (deserved or not) attached to first-time QB's in the playoffs (Carson Palmer, who did well ... except for that whole torn up knee thing). Indianapolis is another story. I think the Steelers were the underdog in that one, although no one thought the matchup was as lopsided as Big Ben himself, who stated something to the effect that the Steelers would have to play their A+ game just to beat the Colts' B- game. In both games yesterday, the home team was favored slightly by the oddsmakers, almost entirely due to the location of the games. If the Panthers and Steelers had been at home, the lines would have been almost exactly the opposite. Thus, the people in Vegas believed the teams were essentially equal ... on neutral fields, the games probably would have been pick 'ems.
The Steelers had the best record in the AFC a year ago and lost to the Patriots in the AFC Championship. This year, they were healthy, and peaking, at the right time and made it to the Superbowl, where they are an early 5-point favorite. Congratulations, but don't try to convince anyone that you (the team) didn't have anyone believing in you.
Ben Roethlisberger pulled it out of his back pocket and slammed it down on the podium Sunday, following the Pittsburgh Steelers' win over the Denver Broncos. He claimed no one gave them a shot against the Bengals, Colts, or Broncos. He is probably convinced the whole world is picking the Seahawks to win the Superbowl. If there is a team that does not get the respect they deserve after compiling a fantastic record, it's the Squawks. Seattle, despite being at home and the number one seed in the NFC, was a slight underdog according to a lot of the prominent analysts, who liked Carolina's toughness and physical nature.
The Steelers had to go on the road for all three of their playoff games because they didn't win enough games in the regular season. They weren't given the #6 seed in the AFC because the selection committee didn't deem them worthy of a higher seed. This isn't the NCAA tournament, where who you play matters and seeding is a sort of magical process, carried out by a bunch of people in a room, doing who knows what. The Steelers and Bengals split their games in the regular season, with each team winning on the road. So, I find it hard to believe that nobody thought they would win that game, especially with the stigma (deserved or not) attached to first-time QB's in the playoffs (Carson Palmer, who did well ... except for that whole torn up knee thing). Indianapolis is another story. I think the Steelers were the underdog in that one, although no one thought the matchup was as lopsided as Big Ben himself, who stated something to the effect that the Steelers would have to play their A+ game just to beat the Colts' B- game. In both games yesterday, the home team was favored slightly by the oddsmakers, almost entirely due to the location of the games. If the Panthers and Steelers had been at home, the lines would have been almost exactly the opposite. Thus, the people in Vegas believed the teams were essentially equal ... on neutral fields, the games probably would have been pick 'ems.
The Steelers had the best record in the AFC a year ago and lost to the Patriots in the AFC Championship. This year, they were healthy, and peaking, at the right time and made it to the Superbowl, where they are an early 5-point favorite. Congratulations, but don't try to convince anyone that you (the team) didn't have anyone believing in you.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Stats, the Enemy of Common Sense
I am writing as I watch the Redskins - Seahawks game (the post got lost in the review process for a week), hoping that the Redskins hold onto their 3-0 first half lead until halftime. Then, with any luck, Seattle will come back and beat Washington, thus ending Joe Gibbs' streak of consecutive wins in playoff games his team leads at the half.
Earlier today, I was watching Duke struggle with Clemson. Here's an astounding stat for you, Clemson shot 6-21 from the FT line. Yes, 28.6% (I rounded the repeating decimal) on free throws! Even more appalling than the Tigers efforts from 15 feet was Len Elmore's index for rating college basketball players. Unfortunately, I didn't have the tape recorder going. I need TiVo! Fortunately, I remember the gist of the index. Elmore made a comment that scoring average is not the only meaningful statistic. Thank you Captain Obvious! Elmore ingeniously (sense the sarcasm?) combined scoring average, rebounds, assists, blocks,! and top 25 wins (multiplied by 3) to determine the best college basketball players. Duke players Sheldon Williams and J.J. Redick top the list, not necessarily surprising since they each got 15 points for their 5 wins against top 25 teams.
While Redick and Williams are probably two of the top college basketball players, contriving some index and pulling it out in the middle of the Duke game to show that they are the top two seems just a little, well, contrived. Is a player on a lesser team with similar numbers to either Redick or Williams less deserving of accolades because the name "DUKE" or "NORTH CAROLINA" doesn't appear across his chest? If Duke faces Miami and Redick and Guillermo Diaz have similar numbers but Duke wins, should Redick rate higher on people's charts because he has McDonald's All-Americans helping him out?
The major problem with Elmore's index is that he neglects a lot of statistics (FG %, 3-PT %, FT %, TO, etc.) and did not cor! relate the ones he used to wins and losses (I do not have any proof of this, but I'm assuming the weightings of 1.0 on all the player stats are fairly good evidence). What is the actual value of each point scored with regard to team performance? Is each point the same value as each assist, as Elmore is suggesting (even though he may not realize he is doing that)? Steve Nash's NBA MVP last year makes you think assists are pretty valuable. I doubt it is the other way around, i.e. because we think assists are valuable, Steve Nash won the MVP. Anyone who watches the Suns play knows how important Nash is to that team, and his value is seen through assists.
Statistics are fun to analyze, but in this era of fantasy sports, they are often misused. Statistics must be put into context to be meaningful, and this framework is often missing when stats are delivered on game telecasts, sports news, or sports talk shows. Roger Clemens had a very good year in 2005. However, if you just look at his 13-8 record, it's a solid season, nothing th! at blows you away. However, record is a team stat, incorporating what you do on the mound as well as how the offense does against the opposing pitcher. Additionally, wins can be lost if relievers don't hold onto your lead. Clemens had an ERA of 1.87, a 1.01 WHIP, and a 0.198 BAA. In 2001, Clemens was 20-3 with the New York Yankees. Was his 2001 season better? Probably not, his ERA was 3.51 and his BAA was 0.246. I doubt that Yankees team got shut out numerous times throughout the season like this most recent Astros team. Is Muhsin Muhammed (Chicago Bears WR) a worse receiver this year than last? Possibly. However, is it not possible that having Kyle Orton at QB and a conservative offense were more important to his decline in production? Does anyone really think Adrian Peterson (University of Oklahoma RB) was worse this year than last? Personally, I'd chalk his lack of production up to a high ankle sprain, one-dimensional offense (at least early in the year) and ! injured and inexperienced offensive line. Check out the second half a gainst Oklahoma State is you have any doubts about his abilities.
Rebounds, steals and blocks do not tell the whole story when it comes to how good a basketball player is on defense. Like many things in sports, and other fields, it is hard to quantify defensive prowess using statistics, at least the ones that are readily available. Even adding opponent's points per game, shooting percentages, assists, and turnovers will not be enough, although it would invariably help. Hopefully, in the coming months we (my brother and I) can help create frameworks for analyzing the increasing mass of statistics available. Until then, try to use some common sense and take things with a grain (or pound) of salt, and watch the games. Often, what you see with your own two eyes is far more valuable than anything you can find on the stat sheet.
Earlier today, I was watching Duke struggle with Clemson. Here's an astounding stat for you, Clemson shot 6-21 from the FT line. Yes, 28.6% (I rounded the repeating decimal) on free throws! Even more appalling than the Tigers efforts from 15 feet was Len Elmore's index for rating college basketball players. Unfortunately, I didn't have the tape recorder going. I need TiVo! Fortunately, I remember the gist of the index. Elmore made a comment that scoring average is not the only meaningful statistic. Thank you Captain Obvious! Elmore ingeniously (sense the sarcasm?) combined scoring average, rebounds, assists, blocks,! and top 25 wins (multiplied by 3) to determine the best college basketball players. Duke players Sheldon Williams and J.J. Redick top the list, not necessarily surprising since they each got 15 points for their 5 wins against top 25 teams.
While Redick and Williams are probably two of the top college basketball players, contriving some index and pulling it out in the middle of the Duke game to show that they are the top two seems just a little, well, contrived. Is a player on a lesser team with similar numbers to either Redick or Williams less deserving of accolades because the name "DUKE" or "NORTH CAROLINA" doesn't appear across his chest? If Duke faces Miami and Redick and Guillermo Diaz have similar numbers but Duke wins, should Redick rate higher on people's charts because he has McDonald's All-Americans helping him out?
The major problem with Elmore's index is that he neglects a lot of statistics (FG %, 3-PT %, FT %, TO, etc.) and did not cor! relate the ones he used to wins and losses (I do not have any proof of this, but I'm assuming the weightings of 1.0 on all the player stats are fairly good evidence). What is the actual value of each point scored with regard to team performance? Is each point the same value as each assist, as Elmore is suggesting (even though he may not realize he is doing that)? Steve Nash's NBA MVP last year makes you think assists are pretty valuable. I doubt it is the other way around, i.e. because we think assists are valuable, Steve Nash won the MVP. Anyone who watches the Suns play knows how important Nash is to that team, and his value is seen through assists.
Statistics are fun to analyze, but in this era of fantasy sports, they are often misused. Statistics must be put into context to be meaningful, and this framework is often missing when stats are delivered on game telecasts, sports news, or sports talk shows. Roger Clemens had a very good year in 2005. However, if you just look at his 13-8 record, it's a solid season, nothing th! at blows you away. However, record is a team stat, incorporating what you do on the mound as well as how the offense does against the opposing pitcher. Additionally, wins can be lost if relievers don't hold onto your lead. Clemens had an ERA of 1.87, a 1.01 WHIP, and a 0.198 BAA. In 2001, Clemens was 20-3 with the New York Yankees. Was his 2001 season better? Probably not, his ERA was 3.51 and his BAA was 0.246. I doubt that Yankees team got shut out numerous times throughout the season like this most recent Astros team. Is Muhsin Muhammed (Chicago Bears WR) a worse receiver this year than last? Possibly. However, is it not possible that having Kyle Orton at QB and a conservative offense were more important to his decline in production? Does anyone really think Adrian Peterson (University of Oklahoma RB) was worse this year than last? Personally, I'd chalk his lack of production up to a high ankle sprain, one-dimensional offense (at least early in the year) and ! injured and inexperienced offensive line. Check out the second half a gainst Oklahoma State is you have any doubts about his abilities.
Rebounds, steals and blocks do not tell the whole story when it comes to how good a basketball player is on defense. Like many things in sports, and other fields, it is hard to quantify defensive prowess using statistics, at least the ones that are readily available. Even adding opponent's points per game, shooting percentages, assists, and turnovers will not be enough, although it would invariably help. Hopefully, in the coming months we (my brother and I) can help create frameworks for analyzing the increasing mass of statistics available. Until then, try to use some common sense and take things with a grain (or pound) of salt, and watch the games. Often, what you see with your own two eyes is far more valuable than anything you can find on the stat sheet.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Replay considerations
In Saturday's playoff game between Denver and New England, Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey intercepted Tom Brady in the end zone and ran back the full length of the field, only to be knocked out of bounds at the last minute by Patriots tight end Ben Watson. Bailey, channeling Leon Lett, wasn't expecting a hit, and the ball flew from his hand. It was ruled out at the one.
Bill Belichick tossed his red challenge flag on the field, then casually picked it up again and put it back in his sock. He was hoping the replay might show that the ball had gone through the end zone, in which case a touchback would have given the Patriots the ball. But Referee Jeff Triplette came back a minute later and upheld the ruling on the field.
I'm not arguing with the call. I thought it was out in the field of play as well. But I think the primary reason the call was upheld was that the video evidence consisted of two or three angles that were totally inconclusive. I think it's time the NFL incorporated some more sophisticated technology into their replay process. Given multiple camera angles, they could accurately construct a virtual three-dimensional model of the play and then pinpoint the position of the ball when it crossed the sideline, thereby providing the correct call with very high confidence. What are they waiting for?
Bill Belichick tossed his red challenge flag on the field, then casually picked it up again and put it back in his sock. He was hoping the replay might show that the ball had gone through the end zone, in which case a touchback would have given the Patriots the ball. But Referee Jeff Triplette came back a minute later and upheld the ruling on the field.
I'm not arguing with the call. I thought it was out in the field of play as well. But I think the primary reason the call was upheld was that the video evidence consisted of two or three angles that were totally inconclusive. I think it's time the NFL incorporated some more sophisticated technology into their replay process. Given multiple camera angles, they could accurately construct a virtual three-dimensional model of the play and then pinpoint the position of the ball when it crossed the sideline, thereby providing the correct call with very high confidence. What are they waiting for?
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Pass Interference? Yes.
In today's games, there were a couple defensive penalties called on pass plays that the announcers did not like, one on Seahawk Andre Dyson and one on Patriot Asante Samuel. What the announcers failed to realize is that, in each case, the defensive player impeded the progress of the receiver while not attempting to make a play on the ball. Redskin WR Santana Moss faked the post and went for a corner route, only to have Dyson move in front of him and block him because he did not want to get beat for a touchdown. It was equivalent to a blocking foul in basketball, attempting to prevent a driving player from getting to the basket. Dyson did what he wanted, he prevented a Moss TD; Moss would have run right by him if they had not collided. In the Patriots v. Broncos game, Asante Samuel rides Ashley Lelie out-of-bounds. Sure, the defensive player has a right to the spot just like the offensive player, but only if he is going after the ball. Lelie was running straight for th! e ball and Samuel wasn't. The reason Lelie had to put his hands on Samuel (this apparently offended ESPN analyst Sean Salisbury) was because Samuel was attempting to shield Lelie from the ball by moving into him. If someone encroached on you, wouldn't you try to get a little space for yourself? I understand that shielding receivers from the ball is a common practice of defensive backs, but that doesn't make it ok. As hard as it is to believe, the refs got these calls right.
Winning ways
This weekend in the NFL playoffs, all four games involve rematches from the regular season. What does that mean? We'll let you know once we figure it out. I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer is "almost nothing". One of the coaches going in with a win to live up to is Joe Gibbs.
Last week, during the Redskins' tenuous victory over Tampa Bay, the television coverage brought to our attention an interesting fact. Prior to last week's game, Joe Gibbs' Redskins teams were 12-0 in playoff games when leading at halftime. Whenever you encounter a lonely statistic like this, you have to ask yourself a series of important questions. "So, what?" for starters. Is this remarkable at all? Even if the statistic was highly unlikely to have accumulated, you still want to know whether it has any bearing on the situation at hand. Now, that's where we come in.
First, let's get a handle on Gibbs' playoff record. Between 1982 and 1993, Gibbs coached in 19 playoff games. He won fourteen, and lost only five. The games break down like so:
When the lead, on either side, was a single touchdown or less, though, we have the following:
For my money, this is the more impressive statistic. What the 12-0 tells us is not so much that Gibbs is strong in the locker room at halftime, but that he dominates the first half, and when he's going to win, the game is often not in doubt. It's this 8-1 in games separated by a touchdown or less at halftime that shows he knows what to do in the second half.
Based on recent regular season and postseason trends, teams leading at halftime win about 80% of the time (these stats might not correlate well to comparisons to Gibbs' Redskins because most of his playoff success is from over a decade ago). Teams leading my more than 7 points win 90% of the time and teams leading by more than 14 points rarely lose (3-4% of the time). Teams leading by 1-7 points win 70% of the time. Based on the statistics, Gibbs' 4-0 record in these games would occur about a quarter of the time. Add in his other wins with larger halftime leads and it is less likely that a random coach would have an undefeated record. Perhaps Joe Gibbs is a genius, but it seems more likely that this sequence of games is just a statistical anomaly, aided by Gibbs' teams usually being strong on defense and in the running game, both of which are important for protecting halftime leads.
Last week, during the Redskins' tenuous victory over Tampa Bay, the television coverage brought to our attention an interesting fact. Prior to last week's game, Joe Gibbs' Redskins teams were 12-0 in playoff games when leading at halftime. Whenever you encounter a lonely statistic like this, you have to ask yourself a series of important questions. "So, what?" for starters. Is this remarkable at all? Even if the statistic was highly unlikely to have accumulated, you still want to know whether it has any bearing on the situation at hand. Now, that's where we come in.
First, let's get a handle on Gibbs' playoff record. Between 1982 and 1993, Gibbs coached in 19 playoff games. He won fourteen, and lost only five. The games break down like so:
| Halftime Status | Wins | Losses |
|---|---|---|
| Ahead | 12 | 0 |
| Tied | 2 | 0 |
| Behind | 2 | 5 |
When the lead, on either side, was a single touchdown or less, though, we have the following:
| Halftime Status | Wins | Losses |
|---|---|---|
| Ahead | 4 | 0 |
| Tied | 2 | 0 |
| Behind | 2 | 1 |
For my money, this is the more impressive statistic. What the 12-0 tells us is not so much that Gibbs is strong in the locker room at halftime, but that he dominates the first half, and when he's going to win, the game is often not in doubt. It's this 8-1 in games separated by a touchdown or less at halftime that shows he knows what to do in the second half.
Based on recent regular season and postseason trends, teams leading at halftime win about 80% of the time (these stats might not correlate well to comparisons to Gibbs' Redskins because most of his playoff success is from over a decade ago). Teams leading my more than 7 points win 90% of the time and teams leading by more than 14 points rarely lose (3-4% of the time). Teams leading by 1-7 points win 70% of the time. Based on the statistics, Gibbs' 4-0 record in these games would occur about a quarter of the time. Add in his other wins with larger halftime leads and it is less likely that a random coach would have an undefeated record. Perhaps Joe Gibbs is a genius, but it seems more likely that this sequence of games is just a statistical anomaly, aided by Gibbs' teams usually being strong on defense and in the running game, both of which are important for protecting halftime leads.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Just Let It Go
Almost as atrocious as Official Mike Carey dropping the ball in the Washington v. Tampa Bay NFL playoff game was the way the Indiana v. Ohio State basketball game ended. As ESPN.com puts it in their recap,
I think Strickland falling down is a dirty play. Players flopping and essentially trying to trick the referees has no place in sports. Just compete. That said, the referees need to do a better job of officiating at crunch time. Sure, officials should do their best at all times, but the ends of games are especially important because teams do not have many possessions to recover. This should have been a no call, and it may have cost Ohio State a win in the very competitive Big 10 (or Big 11). If a foul occurs, call a foul, but if you are not sure, how can you make a call and essentially decide the game for the players?
With 9.8 seconds left and the score tied, Indiana's 195-pound guard let 260-pound Terence Dials run over him as he tried to set a pick. Strickland crumbled to the court, then bounced up, made two free throws with 5.7 seconds left ....As a former All-State HS basketball player on a team that ran motion offense, I think I know what the purpose of a screen is. Getting run over? That's not it. Usually, the screen should either get the person you are screening for open, or get you open as a result of help by the man covering you. Obviously, this is an overly simplistic account of the purpose of a screen. However, at no point should the point of a screen be to get fouled. If Dials! had just plowed through Strickland, that's one thing. As hard as Danny Fortson tries to bring the NFL into the NBA, basketball is not the same as football. But, on back screens, the screen is supposed to be set with enough room for the defensive player to turn around, and as a screener, you need to be ready to be hit ... getting hit by the defender means you did a good job as a screener.
I think Strickland falling down is a dirty play. Players flopping and essentially trying to trick the referees has no place in sports. Just compete. That said, the referees need to do a better job of officiating at crunch time. Sure, officials should do their best at all times, but the ends of games are especially important because teams do not have many possessions to recover. This should have been a no call, and it may have cost Ohio State a win in the very competitive Big 10 (or Big 11). If a foul occurs, call a foul, but if you are not sure, how can you make a call and essentially decide the game for the players?
Fear the Turtle? Nah, but what were the officials thinking?
During the process of Duke destroying Maryland, a very interesting call was made. On a drive by Duke forward Lee Melchionni, there was contact between Melchionni and Terrapin James Gist and a whistle. Apparently, two officials had a block and one official had a charge (how that one official had a charge I have no idea). The result, a double foul and subsequent jump ball. Coach K just laughed it off, but can you imagine how quickly he would have blown a gasket if the call had actually been important to the outcome? Either it is a block, a charge, or a no call. Do not decide after the fact that it should have been a no call and call a double foul and go to the alternating possession. If you are not going to let it go, at least have some guts and make the best call you can.Wednesday, January 11, 2006
On NFL Karma, Ballroom Dance, and Long Grass
These are a few of the issues that brought this blog to life, though it was a long time coming.
NFL Karma:
Early in the NFL season, I was corresponding via e-mail with my friend Jake (who happens to be an Oakland Raiders fan) and the subject of the New England Patriots came up, I think because they had beaten the Raiders the previous Sunday. I stated that one reason I dislike the Patriots is because Rodney Harrison often comes in late with cheap shots and rarely gets penalized. Even worse, he is praised by analysts left and right for being in on every play and being an enforcer. On Monday, September 19th (one day after the Patriots lost to the Carolina Panthers, 27-17), an e-mail from Jake contained the following passage:And I saw something this weekend that TOTALLY reminded me of you. (No, not a skinny little flagpole!) Rodney Harrison got a personal foul for ripping a guy's helmet off, pretty much after the play had been determined. You're right.! ...he is such a little bitch. He can't get to the play in time, so how about just getting a little cheap shot in.....While I cringe at almost every major leg injury I see in NFL games, I could not help having mixed emotions concerning Harrison's season-ending knee injury. Perhaps it saved a number of other players from being injured later in the season. It would be interesting to compare Harrison's percentage of inconsequential late hits (not necessarily late enough to draw a penalty, but late enough that they do not affect the play) to other safeties in the league, although I do not have the access to game film to do so.
Ballroom Dance:
Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart was a very good college QB in his time at USC. Unfortunately, I find it hard to classify him as a scholar-athlete considering his load for his final semester at USC consisted of one course, especially since that course was ballroom dancing! During my time as a college athlete and engineering student, I averaged about 20 credits per semester, with a high of 23.5. I would have had a lot more time to practice, train, and study film if I only had to contend with one class per semester, instead of 5-7! Would Matt Leinart have been as good as he was if he'd been tackling papers and exams all semester while he was preparing for the likes of Oregon and Notre Dame? The NCAA comes down on everything else, including not letting Jeremy Bloom play football at the University of Colorado while he gets endorsements to fund his skiing endeavors, why not this? Bloom skiing seems like it would take away from his effectiveness on the football field, so let him be at a disadvantage (but make sure all the money he gets goes to skiing). Leinart is effectively no longer a college student, he's just playing college football and taking a dance class (I wonder why he did not just take it at the local Y ... oh yeah, then he would not have received credit for his ballroom dancing). I did not attend USC, but I am fairly certain that there are enough course offerings that Leinart could have found a full load worth of interesting classes. He could have worked towards a minor or started on a graduate degree, or just taken a medley of classes for fun, but he should have been in class like almost every college athlete is supposed to be!Long Grass:
Perhaps sports journalists have selective amnesia. How else can you explain the uproar over the long grass for the USC v. ND game? When the NE Patriots left the field uncovered during inclement weather in preparation for playing the Indianapolis Colts, analysts praised them for optimizing their home field advantage. Even more egregious was the plowing of snow to create a clean surface for an Adam Vinatieri FG a few years ago. Even if the long grass slowed down the speedy USC skill players, did it not have a similar effect on the ND players they were matched up against? Either there should be rules about the condition of playing surfaces or it should be up to the home team. However, the Patriots should not be given a pass while journalists rail against every other team who uses similar antics.The Playoffs are Broken
At first glance, this may look like a post about the unfortunate Cincinnati Bengals, who, after having a breakthrough season and returning to the playoffs for the first time since the glory days of Boomer Esiason, lost QB Carson Palmer on their second offensive play, which happened to be a 66-yard completion. However, Kimo von Oelhoffen diving into the Cincy QB low and late happened in the flow of the game and the injury was just bad luck for the Bengals. More regrettable actions occurred the previous day, which may have irreparably scarred the NFL playoffs before the first game ended.
I was so excited about the NFL playoffs that I was undeterred by the 17-3 score when I tuned into the Washington v. Tampa Bay game, just before halftime, following a day of snowboarding in Steamboat Springs. I figured with the anemic offense of the Washington Redskins, one touchdown by the Bucs would make a game of it, which is what I was looking for, being essentially indifferen! t with regard to which team prevailed. Eventually, the Bucs did score a touchdown and seemed to score a second on a 35-yard pass from Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd late in the fourth quarter. With the potential extra point, the game would have been tied … perfect! Unfortunately, the ball appeared to come loose when Shepherd hit the ground in the end zone, so the nearby official enthusiastically ruled the pass incomplete.
Tampa Bay Coach Jon Gruden challenged the play and I was fairly confident that the call would be reversed. I was thinking overtime, or at least additional excitement. However, when the verdict was in, I was amazed and dismayed. Referee Mike Carey ruled that it was not a catch because, regardless of his knee coming down, the receiver lost control of the ball upon making contact with the ground, or something like that. ESPN analyst Paul Maguire seemed to think the explanation was very clear; I disagree. Additionally, the recap of the game! on ESPN.com states “the call was correctly upheld by instant replay .â€
What replay were they looking at? I do not think it is any of the ones they showed on television. I saw Shepherd catch (and possess) the ball cleanly and get two feet down in the end zone before being tackled. While being tackled, one of his knees hit the ground. Finally, when his arms hit, the ground caused the ball to sneak out, apparently giving the referees cause to rule the play incomplete. An NFL rule digest states “A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.†Shepherd clearly possessed the pass and touched the ground with both feet in the end zone. Thus, even before he was taken to the ground, the play should have been ruled a touchdown, irrespective of whether the ball came out when he hit the ground after being tackled, just like it does not matter if a ball is knocked out of a ! receiver’s hands immediately following a catch in the end zone. Perhaps, there is some obscure clause in the NFL rule book that would validate the ruling. However, any rule that makes that play an incompletion is ridiculous. It seems more likely that Mike Carey dropped the ball on this one.
A Shepherd touchdown and subsequent PAT would have knotted the game at 17 late in the fourth quarter. Considering the lack of offense by the Redskins (120 total yards in the contest), the game likely would have ended up in overtime, with the all-important momentum residing on the Tampa Bay sideline. While it is possible that Washington would have recovered and pulled out the victory, it is at least as probable that the Buccaneers would have prevailed. Thus, in the first game, the playoffs were broken. There is no way to know who would have won this game. The Bucs may have been destined to ride their defense to another NFL championship. Or, maybe the Redskins will wi! n a game the Bucs would not have, thus eliminating a team that otherwi se would have advanced. But Washington faces Seattle in the second round, whereas Tampa Bay would have played Chicago had they proven victorious, adding further chaos to the split.
Every time ther e is a major call that is debatable, such as the Shepherd catch (or drop), two versions of the game will be played from that point on. So, for our example, on one branch, the game would have continued as it did, most likely with the Redskins winning 17-10. The second branch would proceed with the PAT attempt. Each time such a play comes up the game will branch to cover all the bases.
After the game, these branch causing plays will be reviewed in depth, and a ruling will be made on the correct call that will determine which path the game actually takes from start to finish. By having all the scenarios already played out, it allows for a more thorough review process by a panel of experts who will have all the information necessary to make the best decision.
I was so excited about the NFL playoffs that I was undeterred by the 17-3 score when I tuned into the Washington v. Tampa Bay game, just before halftime, following a day of snowboarding in Steamboat Springs. I figured with the anemic offense of the Washington Redskins, one touchdown by the Bucs would make a game of it, which is what I was looking for, being essentially indifferen! t with regard to which team prevailed. Eventually, the Bucs did score a touchdown and seemed to score a second on a 35-yard pass from Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd late in the fourth quarter. With the potential extra point, the game would have been tied … perfect! Unfortunately, the ball appeared to come loose when Shepherd hit the ground in the end zone, so the nearby official enthusiastically ruled the pass incomplete.
Tampa Bay Coach Jon Gruden challenged the play and I was fairly confident that the call would be reversed. I was thinking overtime, or at least additional excitement. However, when the verdict was in, I was amazed and dismayed. Referee Mike Carey ruled that it was not a catch because, regardless of his knee coming down, the receiver lost control of the ball upon making contact with the ground, or something like that. ESPN analyst Paul Maguire seemed to think the explanation was very clear; I disagree. Additionally, the recap of the game! on ESPN.com states “the call was correctly upheld by instant replay .â€
What replay were they looking at? I do not think it is any of the ones they showed on television. I saw Shepherd catch (and possess) the ball cleanly and get two feet down in the end zone before being tackled. While being tackled, one of his knees hit the ground. Finally, when his arms hit, the ground caused the ball to sneak out, apparently giving the referees cause to rule the play incomplete. An NFL rule digest states “A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.†Shepherd clearly possessed the pass and touched the ground with both feet in the end zone. Thus, even before he was taken to the ground, the play should have been ruled a touchdown, irrespective of whether the ball came out when he hit the ground after being tackled, just like it does not matter if a ball is knocked out of a ! receiver’s hands immediately following a catch in the end zone. Perhaps, there is some obscure clause in the NFL rule book that would validate the ruling. However, any rule that makes that play an incompletion is ridiculous. It seems more likely that Mike Carey dropped the ball on this one.
A Shepherd touchdown and subsequent PAT would have knotted the game at 17 late in the fourth quarter. Considering the lack of offense by the Redskins (120 total yards in the contest), the game likely would have ended up in overtime, with the all-important momentum residing on the Tampa Bay sideline. While it is possible that Washington would have recovered and pulled out the victory, it is at least as probable that the Buccaneers would have prevailed. Thus, in the first game, the playoffs were broken. There is no way to know who would have won this game. The Bucs may have been destined to ride their defense to another NFL championship. Or, maybe the Redskins will wi! n a game the Bucs would not have, thus eliminating a team that otherwi se would have advanced. But Washington faces Seattle in the second round, whereas Tampa Bay would have played Chicago had they proven victorious, adding further chaos to the split.
Proposed remedy:
Make replay decisions independent of rulings on the field. It often seems that officials are reluctant to change the ruling on the field, either because they do not want to admit wrong-doing in the first place or because there is not "indisputable video evidence." However, the idea of "indisputable video evidence" removes some of the capabilities of the system. By making the replay decisions independent of the original calls, you allow the replay official to make the judgment he thinks is best, regardless of whether or not it is indisputable. Replay allows the game to be seen at a much slower speed, from more angles. Thus, the decision made by someone looking at a replay should be as good or better than the ruling on the field. Just let the official make! a determination. If the lateral on the "Music City Miracle" play looks like a forward pass, rule it a forward pass. Determining forward progress is rarely "indisputable," does that mean the officials should not try to determine the most appropriate placement of the ball? There is some subjectivity in calls, regardless of where they are made, but you have a better chance of getting the call right if you do not lean on the "indisputable" crutch.Unlikely, but interesting solution:
In order to make sure that the playoffs (and regular season, for that matter) are not ruined in the future, branching must be incorporated into games. Fans should like this because it will mean more entertainment for their dollars. Players and coaches should get behind this idea because it will increase fairness of the system. Referees should be in favor of branching because it will reduce the number of major, game-changing bad calls that they make. So, now that everyon! e is on board, what exactly is branching?Every time ther e is a major call that is debatable, such as the Shepherd catch (or drop), two versions of the game will be played from that point on. So, for our example, on one branch, the game would have continued as it did, most likely with the Redskins winning 17-10. The second branch would proceed with the PAT attempt. Each time such a play comes up the game will branch to cover all the bases.
After the game, these branch causing plays will be reviewed in depth, and a ruling will be made on the correct call that will determine which path the game actually takes from start to finish. By having all the scenarios already played out, it allows for a more thorough review process by a panel of experts who will have all the information necessary to make the best decision.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Definitions
A glossary of expressions coined or in common use at There's a Catch.
Squawk — to deprive of victory or of a chance at victory through one-sided poor officiating. Usually used in the passive, as in "We were squawked!" From a pejorative nickname for the Seattle Seahawks, due to their treatment in Super Bowl XL. See Asinine intervention, etc.
Squawk — to deprive of victory or of a chance at victory through one-sided poor officiating. Usually used in the passive, as in "We were squawked!" From a pejorative nickname for the Seattle Seahawks, due to their treatment in Super Bowl XL. See Asinine intervention, etc.
Misconceptions
Some of the folk wisdom spread throughout sports is just plain wrong. We're here to set the record, and public thinking, straight.
That's a 4 point swing! debunks a widespread notion about turnovers in basketball—and beyond. Just like in baseball "you can't assume the double play", you can't assume the points you might have scored. And it's not like a safety or an intentional foul—after they make a lay-up, they don't also take it out on the side.
That's a 4 point swing! debunks a widespread notion about turnovers in basketball—and beyond. Just like in baseball "you can't assume the double play", you can't assume the points you might have scored. And it's not like a safety or an intentional foul—after they make a lay-up, they don't also take it out on the side.
About the authors
Roy Tromble is a Ph.D. student in Computer Science at the Johns Hopkins University. He studies natural language processing and machine learning. He holds an undergraduate Math degree from the University of Idaho and is especially interested in the statistical side of sports.
Evan Tromble is a Ph.D. student in Civil Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. He studies fluid dynamics, specifically shallow water modeling. He played NCAA Division II college basketball at the Colorado School of Mines, and high school basketball for Juneau-Douglas High School alongside Carlos Boozer.
Evan Tromble is a Ph.D. student in Civil Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. He studies fluid dynamics, specifically shallow water modeling. He played NCAA Division II college basketball at the Colorado School of Mines, and high school basketball for Juneau-Douglas High School alongside Carlos Boozer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
