« Tim Harford on the arts | Main | Why I believe David Card's results on immigration and wages »
Measuring sports performance
Yesterday I learned the following:
1. Team payroll and team wins are not strongly correlated in the major U.S. sports.
2. Labor disputes and lock-outs do not have a long-run negative effect on attendance and receipts.
3. Problems of competitive balance come from the distribution of playing talent, and sports leagues do not much remedy the problem by salary caps and the like.
4. In the NBA, team wins attract crowds more than does star power.
5. The great NBA players do less to make their teammates better than is often supposed; in fact many great players make their teammates worse.
6. In statistical terms, the better players do not play much better, if at all, during the NBA playoffs. (TC: But for sure they try harder, especially on defense.)
7. NBA decision-makers do not seem to understand the value of players. In particular they tend to overvalue scoring.
All of that is from the new The Wages of Wins: Taking Measure of the Many Myths in Modern Sport, by David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook. Here is the book's home page. Here is the book's blog. Here are my early season NBA predictions.
Addendum: Here is Malcolm Gladwell's review.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
"In statistical terms, the better players do not play much better, if at all, during the NBA playoffs."
Most players' per game averages are very similar for their regular season careers and for their playoff careers. What probably happens is that the quality of competition goes up enough during the playoffs to cancel out any statistical advantage they would get from playing harder or from being in the game for more minutes.
My impression is that, in contrast, famous baseball players' statistics tend to be worse in the World Series than in the regular seasons when they got to the World Series. This would be due to more competition, which is hard to compensate for by more effort. Since baseball doesn't require as much effort as basketball, players typically give a relatively high degree of effort most of the time.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 21, 2006 4:31:24 PM
"Problems of competitive balance come from the distribution of playing talent, and sports leagues do not much remedy the problem by salary caps and the like."
I agree 100%. The NFL is often depicted as the Holy Grail of competitiveness, thanks in large part to its hard salary cap and extensive revenue sharing. While those measures ensure that the vast majority of teams are financially healthy, it does not correlate to number of championships won. Often, we see the NFL compared to MLB and the supposed lack of competitiveness in that league, since it has not implemented a salary cap and has very limited revenue sharing. One statistic often rolled out in their argument is the New Yankees perpetually highest annual payroll as compared to the leagues lowest (this year the Florida Marlins), a difference of almost $185 million in 2006. Yet, if we can agree that the ultimate measure of a league's competitiveness is the number of championship teams that league produces, then we have a completely different picture.
Over the last 26 years (1979-2005) baseball has produced 20 different winners in 26 World Series Championships (1994 series was canceled), with 2 of those teams having won consecutive titles (Toronto Blue Jays 92/93 & Yankees 98-00).
Over the same period, 27 Super Bowls (1979-2005) have produced only 13 different winners, of which 5 have won 2 or more consecutive titles (Steelers 79/80, 49ers 89/90, Cowboys 93/94, Broncos 98/99, and Patriots 04/05).
Baseball has its perennial front running teams of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, and St. Louis Cardinals. The difference here is that football produces teams that are good or very good for 6-8 seasons, often following something of a bell curve. Yet over the history of the Super Bowl, what we see is the same 4 or 5 teams continually in contention for that period of time. These teams would include the Dallas Cowboys, Pittsburgh Steelers, Denver Broncos, & San Francisco 49ers.
The competitiveness argument of the NFL versus MLB might also derive from the slightly larger percentages of teams that make the playoffs in NFL (10/32) versus MLB (8/30).
Posted by: Shaun M. at May 21, 2006 7:25:14 PM
By the looks of his blog this fellow seems to far more confident than knowledgeable, particularly about the NFL. A look at 2 of his posts:
1. A post on parity in the NFL: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/20/nfl-institutional-policy-and-competitive-balance/
The idea behind this is "look[ing] at competitive balance with the Noll-Scully measure; which is simply the ratio of the actual standard deviation of wins or standing points to the standard deviation that would exist if a league consisted of equally competitive teams." He purports to use this to show that the NFL is no more equally competitive than the European soccer leagues. But the goal of NFL parity has never been to create a league of 8-8 teams - that would be wallowing in dull mediocrity. The idea behind parity is that any given year any team might emerge as an unheralded champion, while a former winner can fall into ignominy. Examples of the former include last season's Bears and the season before's Chargers; the latter is best illustrated by the sad state of the 49ers today. Now, whether or not the NFL league has more of that type of parity than any other sports league I don't know. But these folks completely misunderstand the argument and consequently miss the mark with their "debunking," and look like arrogant fools in the process.
2. His post detailing some of his new stats: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/21/simple-models-of-player-performance/
I can't comment on his NBA metrics, since I don't follow basketball. But his QB Score metric (Yards - 3 X Plays – 50 X Turnovers) is honestly worthless. A player-rating is meant to measure the value of a player in a way that is at least nominally independent from the performance of the team as a whole. Your measure doesn't even attempt to seperate the QB from the rest of the team - you don't even seperate passing yards (which the QB has SOME responsibility for, though much still depends on his recievers, his O-line, and the defense) from rushing yards, which have almost nothing to do with the QB. And it isn't exactly the QB's fault when his running back fumbles.
For real football metrics, go to footballoutsiders.com. Their stats are great at seperating out the value an individual (skill-position) player creates, and at creating team ratings that accurately _predict_ performance, instead of just reflecting stats back. Their off-season prediction models predicted the resurgence of Tampa Bay last season and the emergence of San Diego the season before. In other words, their site is more than just a gimmick by an economist who hasn't bothered to do any background research on NFL football.
Posted by: Pio at May 21, 2006 7:43:57 PM
In the NBA playoffs, almost all players have worse numbers than during the regular season (and that has been known for quite a long time), but the better players's numbers diminish less than the rest. So, a guy who produces almost as much during the playoffs than during the regular season is in fact having an excellent playoff.
Posted by: Carlos at May 22, 2006 12:10:11 PM
Frankly, I'm not impressed by the book, judging by the review. Iverson, the two-hundred-and-twenty-seventh-best player in the league in 03-04? Sorry, it doesn't pass the laugh test. Basketball statsheads have thought of Iverson as overrated for a long time, but that Win Score number is simply absurd. It's not very surprising since one of the authors once claimed that Rodman was the 97-98 MVP, but please!!. For a good book on how many wins does an NBA player generates, check "Basketball on Paper" by Dean Oliver.
Posted by: Carlos at May 22, 2006 12:25:48 PM
To Shaun: Your baseball v. football comparison is flawed in a couple
of significant respects. Foremost, the football dataset is heterogeneous:
it includes both years without free agency or a salary cap and years with
one or both of those mechanisms. If you are going to test the effects of a
salary cap, you would have to limit the NFL data to years after 1994 (or better)
several years after so that the effects of the salary cap have time to run
out). Second, you use winners as the measure, when a better measure would
be win-loss mobility across all teams, since, like measures of income mobililty
mobility, representing the chance to succeed, is what we care about.
Posted by: Norman Pfyster at May 22, 2006 1:25:30 PM
there's likely something wrong with this analysis, but i have trouble imagining iverson isn't great (far better than 33rd in the league at best) because: iverson took his team to the finals (and a game off the mighty lakers). the NBA playoffs let everyone in, and then force you to win a seven game series to move on (first round likely 5 games when sixers went to finals). so going far in the playoffs in the NBA means that your team really is better than the other teams. even assuming the east was really weak, who else on that philly team was responsible for philly getting to the finals? was the D really that good? it seems almost certain that you take iverson off that team and they go nowhere. if being almost singlehandedly responsible for taking your team to the finals don't correlate with being a great NBA player, what could? put another way, i think there's likely some real problems with their model.
Posted by: dj superflat at May 22, 2006 5:01:25 PM
Norman,
I considered mentioning the heterogeneous nature of the NFL results, but concluded it wasn't really necessary because limiting the dataset to the NFL cap years only further strengthens my argument. However, if we were to look at only those years we might then conclude that the salary cap has decreased competitive chances within the NFL, though like you I think it’s a bit premature to make that assessment. I was simply trying to compare baseball, which is forever being lambasted by the media as being overly reliant on money to win championships, and football, which is equally lauded by the media for its supposed equity.
By any measure the teams that are given a chance to win the World Series in any given year in baseball are probably somewhat less than in the NFL. Some of this might be rooted in the financial structure of MLB (especially in the American League), but it might equally be because of the structure baseball uses to determine its champion with the use of a best of 5 or 7 series format. Football, by comparison, uses a single eliminate match to determine its winner, thereby increasing the chances that the lesser team might end up with a “fluke” win. In that case, we are no longer talking about the financials of the sport, but the playoff structure. Again, we should also note that despite having 30 teams, baseball continued to use a system until 1994 where only 4 teams advanced to the “playoff”* rounds.
Football franchises may seem to offer a quicker ability to turnaround a bottom of the barrel team to a Super Bowl contender as you argue, but I have yet to see a compelling empirical case to demonstrate it. Recent history shows us the Baltimore Ravens, St. Louis Rams, etc. as teams that might fit the rags-riches-rags story, but baseball equally offers us the Florida Marlins (on two different occasions no less) and Arizona Diamondbacks.
*Baseball does not use the term playoff when referring to the series of tournaments following the regular season to determine the league champion.
Posted by: Shaun M. at May 23, 2006 2:51:02 PM
Pio,
I think for the quarterback score, they include only passing plays and QB rushes. Running plays aren't included unless the QB is the runner.
Posted by: Phil at May 28, 2006 4:16:12 PM
Find the best online casino reviews. All this and more at http://www.online-casino-wizard.com
Posted by: www.online-casino-wizard.com at May 29, 2006 10:16:01 PM
grappig grietje ^^^ babes kont thuis ^^^ amiable giovane ^^^ infermiere www ^^^ plus frais celebre vingt ^^^ aimable mama ^^^ chaude papa film ^^^ frais filles quinze ^^^ studentessa allievo masturbate ^^^ sympathetic asiatiche pompino ^^^ radd av sig brudar karlek ^^^ radd cowboyflicka alska ^^^ ridicolo fighetta prostituta ^^^ asiatiche dildo nell appartamento ^^^ erotisme sexy chaud ^^^ sexy celebrite chaude ^^^ kylpylat imea naken ^^^ naida kaasuvoima imaisu ^^^ utmerket portrett ^^^ vennlig videoer ^^^ oritentalsk gallerier ^^^ kjolig mannlig berter ^^^ kalos lesvia ^^^ synesthima moro avnanismos ^^^ papa pute ^^^ urine trente ^^^ tolmiros kori ^^^ kafto tolmiros kori ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 8, 2006 4:45:25 AM
fantastico tondeggiante # sentimento fighetta ubriache # volo lowcost varsavia # ragazze anoressiche nusex immagini foto gratis # casa dedicato # segretarie e sesso # nella stanza tettine # agente di polizia urinate nella stanza # traghetto tirrenia # bello orientale # piu freddo riservato baciare # piu fresco osare madre # piacente cowgirl prostituta # sito web dinamico # room poker # accademia firenze # amore amore cortese # vincita soldo # passeggini bimbo # accompagnatore bologna # fine segretaria merda # fun infermiera merda # sex i soldi qualsiasi cosa # che tecnologia vero # spavaldo infermiera prostituta # milano soprano # ritirarsi lesbiche figa fotti # foto del culo # prestito di soldo # incontri gay campania # pompini fotomontaggio vip # immagini minorenni che scopano # carino segretaria urinate # rabbity amatoriali sex # gradito indecente # avventuroso giovane strip # insexpido amatoriali inculate # comfortable agente di polizia azione # seno grosso # taglio amatoriali sex # goodly fighette sex # fresco eccellere nubile # la festa di marijose # fun ragazze orale fotti # tipografia foto # offerta albergo irlanda # riservato madre # negre puttane # window media center # gaysmitalia netgaysmitalia club htm # cupola s gaudenzio # brutal # polo riga # infermiera schizzate di figa nella stanza # x country adidas # structural pallet rack # sexcepire cameriera doppio penetrazione
Posted by: tommy at Nov 8, 2006 11:53:56 AM
