Walk away Bud

I'd love to be able to sit here and straighten out what happened with
steroids: who took what, when they took it, how it affected their
performance, and who knew about it. Unfortunately, I don't have the
answers and I doubt we'll ever know even half of it. Many of the
players from the early part of the "steroids era" are retired. Why not
leave the past in the past and move on. The answer: Bud Selig.

Selig's reign as commissioner has been riddled with questionable
decisions. Realignment, interleague play and unbalanced schedules are
fine if you want to create geographical rivalries. Unfortunately,
little care was taken to maintain an equitable system. If teams play a
disproportionately large number of games in a strong division, they
are less likely to claim the wild card than a 2nd place team in a
division with 3 weak sisters. Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to point out that it isn't the best system to have 4 divisions of 5
teams, one with 6 teams and one with 4 teams. In the AL West, teams
have a 1/4 chance of winning the division, on average. However, in the
NL Central, teams have just a 1/6 chance. It's not fair. That's 25%
vs. 16.67%. A little ingenuity with the scheduling (rather than
selected periods of interleague play) would allow 15 teams in each
league and 6 divisions with 5 teams each. What a novel concept.

Moving past the subtle challenges (trying to be nice) Selig has
encountered, we arrive at the All-Star game tie fiasco and the absurd
"this time it matters" remedy. I can't help but feel that with Barry
Bonds approaching Babe Ruth and Henry Aaron on the HR list, Selig
views steroids as his chance to make his mark as commissioner. He
should have learned from President Bush's War on Iraq. Sometimes, it's
better to do nothing.

McGwire is long gone. Sosa and Palmeiro seem done. Canseco has no
credibility. Caminiti has passed. Barry Bonds ... he's a convenient
scapegoat. Bonds has the misfortune of being disliked by the majority
of media members and fans and of being in the spotlight because he's
the best hitter in baseball and is nearing 2nd place on the HR list.
Why isn't there any talk focused on Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi.
Are they in danger of being suspended?

MLB should focus on cleaning up the game now. If Bonds tests positive,
suspend him like anyone else. Invest resources into staying ahead of
the cheaters with the testing. If Bonds is using human growth hormone
then MLB probably should attempt to figure out how to prove it. The
easiest solution to Bonds not having the all-time HR record ... wait
10 years and make sure A-Rod stays healthy in the mean time. In the
last 10 seasons, Rodriguez has 424 HRs. Records are made to be broken.
With the tightly wound balls, small ballparks, and increased focus on
physical fitness, players will remain near their peak productivity
even without illegal performance enhancers (see Clemens, Roger and
Franco, Julio). I'm not saying A-Rod is a lock to hit 800. One look at
Ken Griffey Jr.'s stats will reveal that sometimes trends just don't
hold. However, A-Rod isn't Griffey and if A-Rod doesn't break the
record, someone else will. Selig should resign and wait for Bonds to
be passed by.

The sooner the better

It's about time former University of Oklahoma head coach Kelvin Sampson is leaving Norman. Unfortunately, he's leaving after being caught for numerous recruiting violations, which will cost OU scholarships, and other recruiting perks, and hamper the next coach. OU has made the NCAA tournament 11 of Sampson's 12 years at OU. Unfortunately, they've lost in the first round more than any other major conference team. This year, OU had top 10 talent and washed up in the opening round against UW-Milwaukee.

Sampson has been heralded, at least of late, as a great recruiter. Interesting, but last time I checked OKC products J.R. Giddens and Darnell Jackson travelled north to KU and AP All-American Sheldon Williams of Duke left central Oklahoma (Midwest City, I believe) to study and play in Durham, North Carolina. This year, Sampson's star recruit was a 6'7" post player from OKC, Taylor Griffin, who lacked the size to contribute immediately, given his limited skill set! . He's a good athlete, but he's not Tyrus Thomas.

Apparently, OU was set to get a top 5 recruiting class for '06-'07. Hopefully, everyone will still come to Norman, because Sampson's leaving the cupboard pretty bare, with Taj Gray, Kevin Bookout, and Terrell Everett all moving on. Maybe the next coach will be able to avoid serious recruiting violations, graduate players and win in the postseason. Or, maybe he'll just accomplish one of the three. Either way, he'll be doing better than Sampson.

Pulling for UConn?

I wasn't.

However, after a Husky 3-pointer tonight, one of the announcers shouted "YES!!!!" My wife, remarked that it seemed like the announcers wanted Connecticut to win. I, half-heartedly, defended the commentator by stating that it adds excitement when the trailing team scores. But, it's also exciting when the underdog pulls an upset. I also thought the announcers were looking, and hoping, UConn pulled it out, although I'll admit that I missed a lot of the game.

Any comments?

Affirmative Action on the Hardwood

Personal and technical fouls, jump balls and out-of-bounds were getting way too much attention from the referees. The solution, quotas for other calls to make sure players, coaches and fans did not forget about three seconds in the lane, travelling, and carrying (palming the basketball).

Everyone seems to really enjoy the carrying call. Announcers praise the officials for maintaining the sanctity of the game, then look the other way on the next position when someone (inevitably) palms the ball and gets away with it. Like holding (on every play) in football, carrying can be called on just about every possession in basketball. How often is it called? Once or twice a game, often at inopportune times. Three in the key occurs orders of magnitude more times than it is called. Travelling, too, could be called often. It isn't. Another beneficiary of the quota system is the moving (illegal) screen. It's rare that players do not move on screens. Even more rare ! is a player being called for his infraction.

Essentially, what this amounts to is a lack of consistency by officials. Officials not only are inconsistent from game to game, they're inconsistent within a single game, especially with the calls they make once or twice a game. Theoretically, calling carrying when a player palms the ball is a good call. Unfortunately, if someone on the other team did the same thing two minutes before and got away with it, there's a problem. Right? Either call it right or do away with the token calls, they're just helping screw up games.

Versatility

Rudy Gay may be the only player in D-1 men's college basketball to average 15+ ppg, 6+ rpg, 2+ apg, 1.5+ spg, and 1.5+bpg (point, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks). I've heard this from multiple commentators, so I'll take it as truth. Gay qualifies, according to his numbers on espn.com (15.1, 6.4, 2.1, 1.8, 1.6, respectively).

How many players average 10 ppg, 5 rpg, and 5 apg? Might that not be more well-rounded than 15, 6, and 2? Ronnie Brewer (G, Arkansas) averaged 18.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.6 spg, and 0.5 bpg. Joakim Noah averaged 14.0, 6.8, 2.1, 1.1 and 2.2. If we change the qualifications to 14, 6, 2, 1, and 2, Noah qualifies and Gay doesn't. If we make it 18, 4, 3, 2, and 0.5, Brewer qualifies and the other two don't.

Where am I going with this? I didn't do much research, I just tried to think of some "versatile" players who may have stats that are comparable to Gay. Two of the three players whose numbers I looked at were Brewer! and Noah. They compare well to Gay. I'm sure there are a fair number of other players who have similar numbers. Rudy Gay helps UConn in a lot of ways, similar to what AK47 brings to the Utah Jazz in the NBA. He also has holes in his game (31% from 3-pt. range). He's an outstanding talent, but he isn't one-of-a-kind in college basketball like announcers try to make us believe. Perhaps, if UConn wasn't so talented he wouldn't be as "versatile" because he'd have to play a different role. This is just another example of a concocted set of stats that doesn't really mean anything because the individual numbers are aggregated with the intent of creating a certain result. Triple doubles are one thing ... 15, 6 and 2? Come on. Gay fits in a select group of players who do a lot for his team, but he is not the sole member of the group.

Squawking in the NCAA

It hasn't been a good year for Seattle. First the Super Bowl. Tonight, the University of Washington fell to those other Huskies from UConn in overtime. There was a lot of officiating in this game. I can't say whether the forty-seven UConn free throws were justified, because CBS insisted on showing me Georgetown versus Florida. But where were these whistle-happy officials when Brandon Roy's go-ahead floater was knocked from the sky on its way down? The CBS announcer detected it in real time (and the replay obviously confirmed it), but the guys in stripes were silent. That's a game changer, if you ask me.

I also thought that the foul called against Justin Dentmon for having a left foot, which sent him from the game and Denham Brown to the free throw line in place of Marcus Williams, who had hurt himself running into Dentmon's appendage, was pretty silly. But hey, what do I know?

DQ

Does anyone remember the Detroit Pistons v. New Jersey Nets playoff game a few years back that went to multiple overtimes and featured a battle of role player at the end after all the key guys fouled out? Well ... flash forward to tonight and the Huskies v. Huskies NCAA tournament game. The University of Washington - ripped off on a number of key calls, including the block (actually a goaltend by Hilton Armstrong) of Brandon Roy's shot in OT - had multiple disqualifications. [That foul call on Williams with 24.4 left was bad.] UW's PG fouled out on a horrible call in OT.

In college, five fouls disqualifies you (in the NBA, players foul out at 6). That's fine. If you go to extra time, you should get more fouls. [Brandon Roy just fouled out with his 5th.] Coaches and players do not, and should not, have to worry about rationing fouls just in case the game goes to overtime. I'm not saying DQ'ed players should be able to re-enter in OT. That's just stupid. ! However, the eligible players should get an extra foul to play with in every odd numbered OT.

Taking the UW v. UConn game for example, Brandon Roy had 4 fouls at the end of regulation. Therefore, he is eligible to play in OT (unlike players who accumulate 5 fouls in the first 40 minutes). To foul out in the 1st (or 2nd) OT period, he will have to pick up two more fouls, giving him six total. The alternative, the current system, is poorly thought out, unless you like battles between Brian Scalabrine and Darvin Ham.

Change is Good

Does anyone else find it odd that Korea went 6-1 in the World Baseball Classic, including a 2-1 record against Japan, but their one loss did them in, allowing a 3-loss Japan team to beat Cuba for the WBC crown? The system is awful. One loss shouldn't overshadow all your wins. Some may see an argument for a playoff in D-1 college football coming. Well, perhaps at some point the subject will grab the top spot on the blog (perhaps titled "Change is Good: Part 2"). However, I'm taking on a different beast tonight, namely the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.

The 65 team field is too small. Do not even attempt bringing up the lame argument that "conference tournaments are an extension of the tournament." Anyone who does is a fool. The only way conference tournaments would be an extension is if the tournament did away with at-large berths. Anyone think that will happen? Remember, the power conferences essentially forced the field to move from 64 to 65 because ! they did not want to lose an at-large berth when another automatic spot was granted. So, trying to imagine for a second that it is an extension, you would quickly realize that it was double elimination for good teams who lose in their conference tournaments and receive at-large berths, and single elimination for everyone else, including major powers (like Duke, Gonzaga and Kansas) who win their conference tournaments, the rest of the conference champs, and everyone who did not win their conference tournament and did not get an at-large berth either. Double elimination for UConn, Villanova, Texas and LSU, but single elimination for Cincinnati, Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Gonzaga. It seems to make sense to talking heads on television, but I doubt they've examined it in much, or any, depth. They just try to add drama and romance to March Madness. Also odd is the fact that two teams have to play for the right to get sent home by a #1 seed. Why do conference winners have to pl! ay to get the last #16 seed? Why not have the last two at-large teams in play for the #13 seed? Or, why not revamp the entire system?

Wholesale change is the way to go. Do away with the conference tournaments (it will make the regular season more meaningful) and invite everyone to the really big dance. Invite all 334 teams (from all 31 conferences). Here's how it will work.
- Use the RPI to rank all 334 teams.
- You need to reduce the field to 256 initially, which requires 78 teams to lose. Thus, 78 games are needed. A semi-random weighted system will be used to create pairings of the bottom 156 in the RPI (no games will feature teams from the same conference facing off).
- With the final 256 teams, the same type of process (perhaps similar to the draft lottery in the NBA ... ping pong balls, the team with the best RPI has the most and is most likely to get the most desireable spot, but nothing is guaranteed) is used to seat the teams in sixteen 16-team regions.
- The 16 teams that advance from these reg! ions will play in the Sweet 16 (the new version of the Final 4).

Hypothetically, the first 78 games could occur on a Tuesday, then the 256 could be reduced to 16 in four rounds on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday games (4 days, back-to-back-to-back-to-back ... my team used to play four nights in a row in high school and they do it in conference tournaments - Syracuse this year). The champion could emerge from four days of play the next Th-Sun. More realistically, the field would be reduced to 64 the first week (which would otherwise be used for conference tournaments) and then continue as it does currently, with teams playing either Th. and Sat. or Fri. and Sun. until the Final Four.

If these changes are going to be implemented, let's go all out. Double elimination once the field gets to 16. The more games, the better the chance that the best team will prevail. Sometimes, very good teams run into very bad match-ups. Should this put an end to ! their season? Let teams fight back through the losers bracket (see NC AA baseball) if they are worthy. Even more games to generate revenue and piss off wives across the United States of America, what could be better? Oh yeah, we're eliminating the idiocy of the selection committee as well.

Upset dreams

What's the probability that a sixteen will upset a one seed in the first round of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. I've finally got my hands on the data so I can take a look. Thank you HoopsTournament.net.

It's hard to know how often something will happen if you've never seen it before. Such is our plight. But take a look at this:


The histogram shows wins, counted by seed, for all first round games between 1985 (when the field was expanded to sixty-four) and 2005. When I saw this graph, I was astonished at how nearly linear it is. The only strangeness is that twelves do better than elevens (27 wins vs. 25), and nines have beaten up on eights (46 to 38 head-to-head).


The best fit line suggests that the ones will win in the first round 99.1% of the time. If that's so, then we may not have to wait too much longer. But it also isn't at all clear that we should expect a line to fit this data. Still, none of the observations are significantly (in the statistical sense) different from their projected probabilities. The eight-nine anomaly has a p-value of just over 0.15.

Stay tuned for further analysis, looking past the first round.

What does it all mean?

If you watch basketball, you've undoubtedly heard the terms "bench points", "points in the paint" and "points off turnovers" thrown around. Perhaps, you have allowed the commentators (who are supposed to be "basketball experts" of some sort) to convince you that these stats are meaningful. Maybe you're skeptical, like we are, that these stats are used as evidence to show why one team is beating the other, when they are really just artifacts of how the game is going.

Earlier, we looked at turnovers and how much they are actually worth (dispelling the idea of a 4 point swing - I hope). Points off turnovers are often strongly correlated with the number of turnovers by the opposition. Go figure, the team that turns the ball over more will often lose. Is it really the points off the turnovers, or is it the forfeited opportunities to score by the team that is making more mistakes?

During the NCAA Tournament, I'll keep you posted on "bench points". I hav! e a strong suspicion that they don't really matter that much ... meaning that I do not believe they are a strong predictor of game outcome. For instance, Duke's bench was outscored by BC's 13-5 on Sunday in the ACC Championship game. Duke won. Florida beat South Carolina in the SEC Championship game ... the Gators off the bench beat the Gamecocks off the bench 6-5. Kansas got more bench production than Texas (18-8) in the Jayhawks win in the Big 12 Championship. We'll see how the tourney goes.

NO-OK

Was it nice for the Hornets to play a game in New Orleans? Perhaps. However, it doesn't solve any of the problems related to hurricane damage or basketball. The Hornets shouldn't be in New Orleans. Economically, it isn't sensible. Aside from the fact that New Orleans shouldn't be a major city (the possibility of another hurricane related disaster is high, to say the least), even when New Orleans was a bustling city with a new basketball team, the Hornets didn't draw well. It should take a little longer than it did for the luster to fade.
The Hornets draw very well in Oklahoma City, which is an area that really likes basketball. Perhaps, the enthusiasm of sell-out crowds is contributing a little bit to the Hornets success. Or, maybe it's all Chris Paul and not having malcontents like Baron Davis around. Will the craze die down in OKC? Maybe, but Oklahoma should be given the chance New Orleans didn't take advantage of. The Hornets would be the only major sports! team in the state ... well, aside from the OU Sooners football team.
Basketball, baseball, and hockey are not like football. Professional football teams can usually draw well, even if they aren't very good. It's easier to get people to come out once a week, on Sunday, than multiple times during the week. I can attest, I missed a game recently that I wanted to attend (a high school teammate of mine was playing) because I didn't realize they were coming to town that day. So, even if the Saints stay, the Hornets shouldn't abandon the city ... they don't have to ... the city abandoned the Hornets long before Katrina. The Hornets should merely move to someplace they are appreciated all year long, not just 3 times a year.

Dubious Bonds statistics

I found this in an article about Barry Bonds in the Baltimore Sun this morning:

Bonds averaged one home run every 16.1 at-bats before the start of the alleged drug use, but since then has averaged one homer every 8.5 at-bats, the book points out.

The book in question is, of course Game of Shadows, by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, reporters with the San Francisco Chronicle.

I sincerely hope that it is unnecessary for me to point out the idiocy of this "statistic", but I'll do it anyway. The accompanying graph tells a much clearer story. The reason is that Bonds started hitting for power long before 1999 rolled around. Because his power numbers were very different in his early years with the Pirates, let's just consider his time with the Giants.

From 1993 to 1998, Bonds had 3037 at bats, 933 hits, and 235 home runs. From 1999 to 2005, he had 2519, 825, and 297.

Years	AB/HR	AVG
1993-1998	12.92	.307
1999-2005	8.48	.328

There has definitely been an improvement in both home run frequency and batting average, but it is nothing like the doubling of output that the book is claiming.

WBC

Pedro Martinez ... hurt toe. Billy Wagner ... not in shape. Barry Bonds ... needs to nurse his knee. Vlad Guerrero ... well, he has a valid reason. If you are going to play in the WBC during March, maybe you should start getting ready for it before spring training. If the season starts around April 1st, but the WBC starts March 2nd, maybe, if I'm planning to play, I should get my butt in gear a month earlier than normal. Playing baseball is their job and they are compensated quite well. Is it too much to ask for them to stay in decent shape and be able to fulfill commitments if they make them?