Tag Archives: statistics

Student Affairs and Assessment – The Tale Continues

Posted on June 20, 2011 | Leave a comment

Here’s part 3 in my ongoing tale of bringing the kind of student affairs assessment that I want to our student activities office.

If you need to catch up, here’s Part 1 and Part 2.

When we last left the tale, I had been given notice by our IT guy that not only were we capable of storing and saving the data that I wanted, we already had the software that we needed present on our computers and, not only that, we were already using it, just not correctly.  I was more amused than anything, but not overly surprised.  Given an environment of high turnover, a system that is fairly complex, and an overall student affairs fear of data, I found it not altogether shocking that this information would have disappeared somewhere along with the names of the guys who shot Tupac and Biggie and the Iraqi WMD’s.

So, Chapter 3 starts where the IT guy warns me that he was nearing the end of his effectiveness, as, most likely, we didn’t have access to the student database that we needed to cross reference the IDs that we swiped so that we could actually make something reasonable out of the data other than just a collection of scrabble like number combinations.  Quite literally, the data we were collecting would be useless without access to this database.

Let’s pause here for a little personal interlude.  After we’d figured out that we could in fact collect the IDs with our swipes and save the information, I was feeling particularly empowered.  I went across the hall to @curtistmed’s office and immediately told him that, not only were we good to start collecting data, but that we would eventually be able to use it.  Frankly, I had nothing to back this up at the time.  However, we all know that the university is largely about politics.  Going into an assistant vice president’s office and saying “we need to collect some data and use it” is a far different than “we’ve been collecting this data all semester but IT won’t let us use it”.  Huge difference, in fact.  Question 1 is complex and multi layered, Question 2 is not complex.  My political clout, if you will, to get what I need, would ultimately be in the data that we were going to collect and I knew we would be able to collect it.

Personal interlude 2 – I’m relentless.  Keep turning me down and I will keep knocking at your door.  Acting like that is a stupid philosophy when you’re being selfish.  Acting like that when you’re trying to do the best job possible at work, and the thing that you’re trying to get will make you better at your job is smart.  Play your political cards correctly, push when pushing is wise, and step your game up when pushing isn’t wise.  I should explain the step your game up piece – going and whining to your AVC when you haven’t done your research and due diligence is foolish.  If you’re going to appeal to a higher power, then at least do your due diligence.  I’m reminded of the story about the man drowning on the roof of the house and praying for God to save him and he sees a man with a raft, a man with a plane and a man with a hot air balloon (or was it a jet ski or something?  I swear I’ve never seen a hot air balloon just randomly flying over a flood.  Maybe it was a dinghy), but he turns down all three rides .  When God comes back, the man says “you didn’t save me” and God says “who do you think sent the boat, the plane and the balloon?”  Don’t be that dude.  Regardless of your religious affiliation, I hope you understand that the idea is about using all the resources at your disposal before you start wasting your AVC’s time.  The AVC is the nuclear option.  If you play your cards right and utilize all your resources, you shouldn’t need to use them,  unless you get to the point you really can’t do anything else.  Then it’s time to push the red button.

Anyway, back to the story.

So, the IT guy sets up another appointment to come by and check out whether we had access to this student database on Banner.  I’m going to spare the argument that I think could (and maybe should) be made about whether all of us should have access to these files.  He was surprised to find that our office did, in fact, have access to all of the student records through Banner, and within about five minutes of clicking around in Microsoft Access, we had a query set up to pull student data like Year/Classification/Age/Housing Status/Meal Plan/Major from the student files.  The one piece we don’t have access to was, this is slightly hilarious, the file that actually contains the data we’re collecting.  In IT guy’s opinion, this was not especially secure information and he saw no reason that we shouldn’t be able to get access.  I concur.  It would be even more fun to go into our AVC’s office and say “i’ve been collecting data all semester, can i please access it?”  The access has been requested, though, so we’ll see how it goes.

At this point, I felt comfortable to approach our interim director, the Assessment Director for our Student Affairs Department about the process I’d been going through and how far I’d made it, and I think it’s fair to call her reaction complete and total shock.  I won’t go into the details of the conversation because that’s for her to share, but suffice it to say, she was shocked that I’d been able to get this access to data and the ability to swipe cards to tally who was attending events.  My reaction “i really wish I could tell you this was complicated and I’d done something magical, but I genuinely think people had had difficulty getting access to the student data that they need, so they just started telling people they couldn’t event track attendees at all and shouldn’t waste their time”.  Obviously, that statement was complete conjecture on my part, but it’s my best guess to why I got to where I did and others haven’t.  I should add that the overwhelming assistance from the man in IT was a huge help.  IT man, if you read this, I owe you a beer (or six).

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , , , ,

Asking the Right Questions Makes All the Difference with Technology….And an Update on Our Assessment Efforts

Posted on June 7, 2011 | 3 Comments

I posted back in April about what I thought student affairs assessment should look at.  The inspiration for that post was my own work, where our assessment program has been essentially non-existent and as I was trolling through the data we do have, I was realizing that it was woefully inadequate to provide the sort of information that I was looking for.  I’m no fan of surveying, but I think with some data collection, we might be able to better figure out more about what exactly is going on within our department.

So…here’s my update….

I honestly anticipated this process of creating what I want to be like pulling teeth.  The general opinion from everyone I’ve talked to was that, not only was the data unavailable, that IT wouldn’t allow us to get the data and use it, they’d tried and no one would let them at it, and they’d appreciate if I’d quit asking, thank you very much!  Okay, that’s a little dramatic.  But the general idea of all conversations was something like “we’ve tried to get that, it doesn’t work and IT won’t help you”.

So, I set up a meeting with our swipe card office, expecting a war, instead I got no resistance whatsoever and was told that, not only can we help you, but we think what you’re looking for already exists!  WHAT????  Needless to say, I was pleased and began to contact the necessary parties to make this happen.

After a quick call into the department that had the system I needed to copy, I contacted the IT department person by email who was in charge of their project.  After not hearing back for a month, I anticipated I’d hit a snag.  I decided to call and the IT person couldn’t have been more helpful.

And here’s the kicker….we already had what we needed.

Not only that…we also had instructions in a cabinet to do what we needed.

So…what in the hell is going on here?

Obviously, there had been some information lost in the turnover between staff; I think you have to actively catalogue said information in the process (particularly with technology that’s so different from workplace to workplace) or it disappears.  In the transition, the move had been made to use a “good enough” solution for the program in question due to not understanding the full functionality that was at their fingertips.  I think all of that’s going to happen with technology implimentation processes.

But I’m more curious about the no’s.

I go into situations assuming that something can be done when it comes to technology.  I know what I need, I know how I think it can be done, but instead of saying “i need ____ technology to do ________”, I say “I need to get ________, how do I do that?”  I’ve found this to be particularly effective for acquiring any information or service that you need, but particularly positive in this situation or with technology in general.  It’s the difference between saying “i need to be on twitter, how do i do that” and saying “i need to communicate with students and I think I need to be online, what do you recommend?”  The core goal isn’t to be on Twitter, the core goal is community building and communication; in this situation, the core goal isn’t Banner utilization, the core goal is data gathering, I’m agnostic as to the method.

So, I plan on keeping you updated as this process proceeds forward.  It’s crazy to me that we’ve made it this far with essentially no new information.  I, possibly wrongly, attribute it to persistence and asking people who know the technology the right questions and trusting their expertise could help.  I’d like to hear your stories of tech implimentation!

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

Book Review: SuperFreakonomics

Posted on April 11, 2011 | 2 Comments

In the original freakonomics book (and now movie), Levitt and Dubner cook up a book about economics that won’t bore the masses, will make economics palatable to everyone, yet flip what you’ve always thought on it’s head.  It was a sensation.  I wrote on this very blog that I loved it and wanted to marry it, or something gushing along those lines.

Well, they’re back for another go and I wanted a second helping.

Superfreakonomics attacks subjects like how real estate brokers and hookers are alike, (here’s your hint: I don’t know what you heard about me), inequalities and pay grades for men and women (really fascinating…in true freakonomics fashion, it screws with conventional wisdom), Soccer player ages (gladwell discusses this same concept at length in outliers), health issues of children in the womb during ramadan (essentially the same issue as the soccer players) the upbringings of terrorists (none of this I found really shocking…I feel they were reaching for something as earth shaking as their study on the link between abortion and crime), skill of hospital doctors and the creation of a database to make them more efficient (the argument is essentially that streamlining data makes for better usage of said data….preaching to the choir, homes!) and connects that to how terrorists were tracked down by a British bank (this was pretty awesome from a CSI angle).

My favorite chapter was the chapter on altruism.  Not to spoil the ending, but the book basically concludes it’s a bunch of bull based on incentives.  These incentives might range from tax breaks to social norms, but essentially, the research found we’re always looking out for ourselves first and others second.  They brought in the case of Kitty Genovese, a case that my girlfriend acknowledges she was taught about in class, a case that was an example of the moral depravity of our society and prove that most of the story was complete bunk.  They challenge research that places subjects in a room and asks them to perform an action, saying that we cannot divorce the impact of the researcher from the proceedings; to that I say “exactly!” (this seems a clear flaw in the way student affairs does assessment).  Also in this chapter, they explain that there is a direct correlation between children who watch a lot of TV (and it doesn’t matter what TV) with those who commit more crimes….yikes.

They go on to discuss simple fixes (occam’s razor?) and talk about things like safety belts and washing hands.  They connect this with some really fascinating simple fixes to major issues like global warming and hurricane reduction.  Their point is that it often feels better to do something complex, but it’s also insanely expensive and inefficient.

I think it’s important when reading a book like this to not take it as gospel.  Much like Gladwell, the point of these texts is not to provide illustrative academic argument, the point is to sell lots of books to make your brain spin while riding in an airplane, laying on a beach, or sitting on your porch drinking Jameson and listening to music.  Honestly, that’s why I think people should read it.

We have a tendency as people to get caught up in the same circles of thought.  We read things that confirm our worldview, we talk to friends that thing like we do.  We’re subject to confirmation bias, that we do nothing but confirm our own views.  Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics are interesting brain candy that challenges you to flip your world on your head.  The authors challenge you to look at the actual data when you’re making decisions and thinking about your world.  I don’t see how this is a bad thing.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in book review

Tagged ,

Deconstructing the Whuffie and Klout

Posted on April 6, 2011 | 2 Comments

People are rushing to quantify the social media space, from ROI to social media influence with two of the early front runners being the Whuffie and Klout.  Each of these claims to provide something different, and I find them problematic for different reasons.  I want to deconstruct each a bit and then we’ll talk about why each is problematic.  As with all my posts, feel free to disagree and challenge me on my views.

A little bit about the Whuffie from the Wikipedia….

In the novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, usual economic incentives have disappeared: Whuffie has replaced money, providing a motivation for people to do useful and creative things. A person’s Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation and is gained (or lost) according to a person’s favorable (or unfavorable) actions. Public opinion determines which actions are favorable or unfavorable. Rudely pushing past someone on the sidewalk will cause a loss of points from the person pushed (and possibly from bystanders who witness the incident), while composing a much-loved symphony will earn the composer Whuffie from everyone who enjoyed it. Some judgments contributing to an individual’s Whuffie are automatic and require no conscious thought on the part of others, as all possess brain chips. As brain dumps allow machines to carry consciousness, the machines can do the thinking for people and allow them to know the results automatically.[2]

While there are few details in the novel of how this system actually works, it is described in idealistic terms: “Whuffie recaptured the true essence of money: in the old days, if you were broke but respected, you wouldn’t starve; contrariwise, if you were rich and hated, no sum could buy you security and peace. By measuring the thing that money really represented — your personal capital with your friends and neighbors — you more accurately gauged your success”.

A person with a score of 0 is just as capable of giving and revoking Whuffie as someone with a score of 1,000,000. The person with the million-point score would be invited to parties and elite events while his bottomed-out counterpart would probably not even be allowed into reputable clubs or restaurants; but both of their opinions on someone else would count for the same amount of gross Whuffie.

Like all economic systems, Whuffie has effects that seem undesirable to many. It might tend to favour popular speech at the expense of public discourse, and it could frequently be uninformative: if a person has a high Whuffie score, is it for guitar playing or auto repair? However, both of these are already the status quo under the existing capitalist system, and the concept of weighted Whuffie helps make better decisions on a person-by-person basis, and thus is more flexible than rating someone by their bank account. Also, the Whuffie system (in the book) keeps a public history of how each person’s Whuffie was earned, unlike the secret origins of other people’s money in a capitalist system.

Let’s break this thing down.

A company called the Whuffie Bank enjoyed this book so much that they decided to turn it into a faux currency to track social capital within social networks.

Am I the only person that sees this for what it is?

It’s karma.  And karma doesn’t exist.  The idea behind karma is that a moral code exists where your actions bring about results, based on whether your actions are “good” or “bad”.  Aside from being a dichotomous construct, something that is absurd in nature, has anything in our society made this concept seem even remotely true?  Tragedies happen all the time to people that don’t deserve it!  Billy Joel immortalized this idea in “only the good die young”, good action does not result in good things happening.

Sorry, got off on a rant there….back to whuffie.  So, you have a system on social networks of providing “reputation” on what “good” has someone done and essentially the “good” is determined by crowdsourcing.  The wikipedia article hits this absolutely on the head “it might tend to favour popular speech at the expense of public discourse”.  Ever heard of anyone who said unpopular things that were also needed to be said?  How about anyone involved with the civil rights movement?  Martin Luther King Jr? Nelson Mandela?  Harvey Milk?  All said things that were incredibly unpopular in their time but was proven to be just in the long run.  I wonder what their whuffie would have been.

Whuffie encourages people to pander to the populace.  Whuffie encourages the lowest common denominator of intelligent. Whuffie is crap.

Sometimes doing what’s right and saying what needs to be said involves being unpopular.  I don’t know if any of this “echoes in eternity” to quote the 300, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that doing good and right things often involve you getting your ass kicked, sprayed with fire hoses, or just cursed out by people who disagree or benefit financially from you being wrong.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not discounting the value of being an all around positive person and trying to help people when they ask for it.  But I think that doing this because you think it will up your personal whuffie is stupid.  And this alleged bank has absolutely no value, either as some sort of moral compass about right actions or about measuring social capital (which is also pretty stupid, but that’s a story for another time.  But yeah, keep on banking your whuffie points.  I’ll pass.

Moving on…

Klout’s metric measures social influence by…

  • True Reach – Followers, Mutual Follows, Friends, Total Retweets, Unique Commenters, Unique Likers, Follower/Follow Ratio, Followed Back %, @ Mention Count, List Count, List Followers Count
  • Amplification Probability - Unique Retweeters, Unique Messages Retweeted, Likes Per Post, Comments Per Post Follower Retweet %, Unique @ Senders, Follower Mention %, Inbound Messages Per Outbound Message, Update Count
  • Network Influence - List inclusions, Follower/Follow Ratio, Followed Back %, Unique Senders, Unique Retweeters, Unique Commenters, Unique Likers, Influence of Followers, Influence of Retweeters and Mentioners, Influence of Friends, Influence of Likers and Commenters

I’m not going to debate one criticism I’ve read, that they don’t update enough.  I really don’t care and for the purposes of this discussion, I think it’s irrelevant.

II will say this – I think they’ve done about as good of a job as they can do to use the metrics available to measure influence on social network.  I’m not sure of the algorithm (might be worth a discussion, but I couldn’t find it), but after reading over the list, I think they’ve covered nearly every measure of what people is measurable within social networks.

Here’s the problem – this doesn’t measure content.  It assumes that people follow you because of your content, but that’s not necessarily true (it certainly could be).  If you have a tight knit group of people who follow each other, RT everyones messages, share, comment, then it seems this would push your klout score higher, while you really don’t have any influence outside of said group.  Klout seems susceptible to the echo chamber effect.  Just for the record, I think they acknowledge this partially with their ratings (the boxes).

Klout says that their measure of influence is being able to drive people to action.  I would agree.  However, I wonder if influence is more than just someone being willing to click a button.

I know he’s a pop psychologist, but I wanted to bring this back to Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, a book about how epidemics are created within society, a book that essentially deconstructs how influence actually works.  Those with influence in creating epidemics are mavens, those who provide us with new information, connectors, those that know lots of people, and salesman, the persuaders.  These are the people with influence and the movers and shakers within society.  The people with influence to spread ideas.  I’m certain that these people exist within twitter but I’m not sure that this metric measures it.  I’ve live to see klout figure out how to connect these pieces and actually track how ideas move through twitter instead of this faux idea they’ve created.

So, that’s my two cents…I think that Whuffie is nonsense, and Klout doesn’t measure the flow of ideas so it doesn’t measure actual influence.  What do you think?

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged

What I Think #studentaffairs Assessment Should Look Like

Posted on April 3, 2011 | 32 Comments
  1. We need to track individual student’s attendance at events over the course of their time at the school.  I’m not particularly interested in doing this for any purpose other than to see that student affairs programming is actually reaching all of the students.  I suspect we’ll find that we’re hitting a small portion of the population.  To my knowledge, the infrastructure does not exist to do this, but what I’m seeing in my head is an enormous spreadsheet with individual student ID #s and tracking of what events they attended.  Frankly, this could be an entire student affairs (as well as athletics) effort to figure out what experiences our students are actually attending.
  2. Learning outcomes listed and justified for EVERY event.  I posted about the CAS standards here previously, and i’m thinking that you could list out individual learning outcomes for each event and then track these over the course of the year.  In theory, each office (even better if this was a collaborative SA effort) should be hitting all of the learning outcomes repeatedly.  Being able to cross reference these to determine what portion of our students are getting hit (not just shots in the dark, but actual individual students) by each learning outcome will give you some idea of what’s actually happening.
  3. Cost per student for each event.  If you’re tracking who attends, you should be able to get actual attendance numbers instead of estimates as well.  Calculating cost per student will help to determine whether students are actually getting the value that they should be getting out of their student fees.  A healthy look is to determine how much a similar experience might cost elsewhere; if cost per student is lower, you’ve done your job.

A few thoughts:

  • This plan places the responsibility on staff for accountability instead of surveying students to determine whether they’re engaged.  We’re responsible for creating an environment for student learning and this plan tracks whether we’re actually creating that environment.
  • For the most part, student affairs learning/community building is tracked over a longer time frame than classroom learning.  You can definitely learn chemical structures (okay…maybe you can’t…but i did) over the course of a day of studying.  You can’t learn how to have meaningful relationships over the course of a day.  Short time frame assessment, in light of this thought, is rather pointless and this system would provide the infrastructure to do a more meaningful long term study.
  • Self reported assessments of students are of marginal value anyway.  Incentive exists for students to either not take these seriously, say what they think the surveyor wants them to say, or outright lie.  In light of the incentives, the data received from these assessments (unless you’ve managed to limit these incentives somehow) is questionable.
  • Tracking financial expenditures with more accountability for said expenditures is imperative.  I’ve heard SA folks refer to activities fees as “play money”.  Please.
  • Tremendous research opportunities would be made available by tracking all of this data.  I think we all know that’s needed.

I’m genuinely looking forward to reading the comments.

→ 32 Comments

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , , ,

News: How Athletes Spend Their Time – Inside Higher Ed

Posted on February 14, 2011 | Leave a comment

News: How Athletes Spend Their Time – Inside Higher Ed

You can read the article to dig in to IHE’s take, but I found these graphs pretty fascinating.  This data is from the “Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations and Learning of Students in College (or GOALS)…The study, produced by NCAA faculty athletic representatives, is based on a spring 2010 survey of nearly 20,000 current athletes from 611 institutions in all three of the association’s divisions. This is the second administration of the study; the first was in 2006.”

Two trends to notice:

  1. Students at lower division athletic program missed less days and also had less frequent instances of missing over 3 classes.
  2. Baseball and Men’s Basketball missed more classes than football (not a shocker…football games are usually on saturday).

These next two graphs are more compelling.  This first one is hours spent on athletics versus school.

Students who play Division I football and baseball spend 5-10 hours per week more on their sport than on their studies.  They don’t really show you the actual number of hours being spent on each, but I’d say the baseball number in particular is significant.  It’s also worth nothing that basketball results in more missed classes but a better balance between athletic time and academic time.

This is the percentage of students who would like to spend less time on sports.  Notice the numbers approaching 25% on FBS football and women’s basketball.  I wouldn’t say these numbers are really astounding and I also wonder who these athletes are.  Stars?  Walk-ons?  Just curious.

Interesting study, but not really enough for me to draw huge conclusions.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in LINK

Tagged , ,

Passing Super Bowl Thoughts

Posted on February 7, 2011 | 2 Comments

First off, the quick thoughts

  • Christina Aguilera forgot the words to the national anthem, a song she’s sang before AND she wasn’t that good.  Sucks for those folks that may have lost money on that prop bet due to the disputed time.  If she knew the words, she would have easily been over.
  • The Black Eyed Peas, Usher, Slash and the Light Brite dancers should all be ashamed of themselves, as should the people who booked this gaudy monstrosity.  Their performance basically said “forget music and musical talent, we want lights!”  Just a terrible show by every sense of the word.

Alright, I’m glad to get that out of the way.  Moving on…

I had a passing thought during the game last night about Michael Meyers Roethlisberger – were we watching one of the worst QB performances of all time in a Super Bowl?  Thanks to BleacherReport.com for setting me straight.

10. Super Bowl XXXI, Drew Bledsoe, New England Patriots: 25-48, 253 yards, 2 TD, 4 INT

9. Super Bowl XVII, David Woodley, Miami Dolphins: 4-14, 97 yards, TD, INT

8. Super Bowl XXIV, John Elway, Denver Broncos: 10-26, 108 yards, 2 INT

7. Super Bowl XXXVII, Rich Gannon, Oakland Raiders: 24-44, 272 yards, 2 TD, 5 INT

6. Super Bowl VII, Billy Kilmer, Washington Redskins: 14-28, 104 yards, 3 INT

5. Super Bowl IX, Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings: 11-26, 102 yards, 3 INT

4. Super Bowl XX, Tony Eason, New England Patriots: 0-6, 0 yards

3. Super Bowl XXXV, Kerry Collins, New York Giants: 15-39, 112 yards, 4 INT

2. Super Bowl III, Earl Morrall, Baltimore Colts: 6-17, 71 yards, 3 INT

1. Super Bowl XII, Craig Morton, Denver Broncos: 4-15, 39 yards, 4 INT

My personal favorite was the Tony Eason 0 yard performance in Super Bowl 20.  Hate I missed that one (technically, i was 4).

So, that’s what we’re up against.  Michael Myers Roethlisberger was actually not so bad if you look at the #s.  25 of 40 (62%), 263 yards, 2 TD, 2 INT, 77.5 QB rating, but it just doesn’t tell the whole story.  One of the interceptions was at midfield, one of them was returned for a touchdown; in super bowl history, a team had never returned a interception for a touchdown and lost.  Mystifyingly, the fact that a touchdown is returned for an interception is not included in the QB rating calculation.  If you’re interested, you can see the full calculation, but basically, it’s a numerical formula that uses touchdowns, interceptions, passing yards and completions per attempt.

Actually, Roethlisberger was much worse in his first Super Bowl, Super Bowl 40.  His line: 9-21, 123 yards, 2 INT. That gagging sound you’re hearing is his Hall of Fame candidacy.  For those too lazy to do the calculation, that’s a 22.6 QB rating, the worst ever to win a game.

So what does all this mean?  It means the Steelers are really good.  They survived a terrible Roethlisberger game in Super Bowl 40 and nearly survived another in Super Bowl 45 last night.  In 2010-2011, they had the best scoring defense in the NFL and in 2005 they had the 3rd best.  The best defense in 2005 was also the team with the 4th worst scoring offense or 2005 may have looked a little different.

Last night, aside from a Ben Roethlisberger TAINT (touchdown after INT), the Steelers defense held the Packers offense under it’s scoring average for the season (24.2) and made a critical stop in the last 2 minutes, holding the Packers to a field goal, and gave the Steelers a chance to win the game with their franchise QB at the helm.

Here was my summary on Twitter last night.  Think it sums things up nicely

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , , ,

Half Assed Sports Show – Feb 3, 2011

Posted on February 7, 2011 | Leave a comment

Super Bowl preview with Tyler and Billy “The Beard” Steele. I brought the best of the Super Bowl prop bets and picks against the spread. Billy gave us his updated Beard of Steele Power Rankings. And Tyler wondered why nobody is picking the Steelers

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tylerashworth/2011/02/04/half-assed-sports-show–super-bowl-xlv

→ Leave a comment

Posted in podcast

Tagged , , ,

Is Jose Bautista a Cheater?

Posted on February 2, 2011 | 5 Comments

The radio station I usually listen to on Sirius keeps talking about Jose Bautista.  I can’t take it anymore, so I’m posting this blog I wrote months ago.  Jimmy Numbers strikes again.

———

Jose Bautista hit his 50th home run today, becoming the 26th person ever to do it.  Here’s the list:

Barry Bonds 73 2001 San Francisco Giants NL 1
Mark McGwire 70 1998 St. Louis Cardinals NL 2
Sammy Sosa 66 1998 Chicago Cubs NL 3
Mark McGwire 65 1999 St. Louis Cardinals NL 4
Sammy Sosa 64 2001 Chicago Cubs NL 5
Sammy Sosa 63 1999 Chicago Cubs NL 6
Roger Maris 61 1961 New York Yankees AL 7
Babe Ruth 60 1927 New York Yankees AL 8
Babe Ruth 59 1921 New York Yankees AL 9
Jimmie Foxx 58 1932 Philadelphia Athletics AL 10
Hank Greenberg 58 1938 Detroit Tigers AL
Ryan Howard 58 2006 Philadelphia Phillies NL
Mark McGwire 58 1997 Oakland Athletics AL
St. Louis Cardinals NL
Luis Gonzalez 57 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks NL 14
Alex Rodriguez 57 2002 Texas Rangers AL
Ken Griffey, Jr. 56 1998 Seattle Mariners AL 16
Ken Griffey, Jr. 56 1997 Seattle Mariners AL
Hack Wilson 56 1930 Chicago Cubs NL
Ralph Kiner 54 1949 Pittsburgh Pirates NL 19
Mickey Mantle 54 1961 New York Yankees AL
David Ortiz 54 2006 Boston Red Sox AL
Alex Rodriguez 54 2007 New York Yankees AL
Babe Ruth 54 1928 New York Yankees AL
Babe Ruth 54 1920 New York Yankees AL
George Foster 52 1977 Cincinnati Reds NL 25
Mickey Mantle 52 1956 New York Yankees AL
Willie Mays 52 1965 San Francisco Giants NL
Mark McGwire 52 1996 Oakland Athletics AL
Alex Rodriguez 52 2001 Texas Rangers AL
Jim Thome 52 2002 Cleveland Indians AL
Cecil Fielder 51 1990 Detroit Tigers AL 31
Andruw Jones 51 2005 Atlanta Braves NL
Ralph Kiner 51 1947 Pittsburgh Pirates NL
Willie Mays 51 1955 New York Giants NL
Johnny Mize 51 1947 New York Giants NL
Brady Anderson 50 1996 Baltimore Orioles AL 36
Albert Belle 50 1995 Cleveland Indians AL
Prince Fielder 50 2007 Milwaukee Brewers NL
Jimmie Foxx 50 1938 Boston Red Sox AL

Let’s break this down:

Babe Ruth – Legend

Hack Wilson – Legend

Jimmie Foxx – Legend

Hank Greenberg – Legend (had seasons of 36 and 40 before hitting 58)

Johnny Mize – had seasons of 43 and multiple in the high 20s before 51

Ralph Kiner – legend

Willie Mays – legend

Mickey Mantle – legend

Roger Maris – one of the bigger aberrations ever, but still had 39 the season before and multiple seasons in mid 20s

George Foster – 23 and 29 the seasons before

Cecil Fielder – he hit home runs – this was his game

Albert Belle – uh oh – Steroids

Brady Anderson – steroids (the shoes fits..but it is a rumor)

Mark McGwire – Steroids

Ken Griffey Jr – Legend

Greg Vaughn – uh who?

A-rod – Steroids

Luis Gonzalez – Steroids

Jim Thome – see Fielder, Cecil.

Andruw Jones – steroids accused (major dropoff in power and overall skill after steroid ban)

Ryan Howard – one of the most consistent power guys of all time

David Ortiz – steroids (sigh)

Prince Fielder – see Dad

Jose Bautista – never hit more than 16 HR in a season.  Every other player on this list that isn’t a steroid guy had shown more power.  An article I read today said “Bautista has 37 more home runs than he did last season, the second-largest year-over-year increase in baseball history, according to Stats Inc.”  Even Greg Vaughn had hit 30 in a previous season.  Also, Bautista is experiencing this career renaissance at 30, an age that is definitely in the center of your prime, but shouldn’t we have seen a HINT of this before now?    I’m not saying he’s cheating, but it certainly seems that way.

Just for the record, check out Bautista’s stats and Brady Anderson’s Stats

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/anderbr01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bautijo02.shtml

Those are REMARKABLY similar.  Brady has never been implicated but it certainly seems like all the shoes fit.  He had enormous growth in physique, had one season of absolutely tearing the cover off the ball and never really had that kind of HR production ever again.

Numbers don’t lie.  But does Jose?  You decide.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

NFL Conference Championship Picks

Posted on January 18, 2011 | Leave a comment

Bears (-3.5) over Packers

So much for that “Seattle will be able to run the ball on the Bears” comment I made last week.  I let my vision get in the way of the stats.  Seattle had 12 carries for 34 yards.

Let’s break down this Green Bay matchup.  Chicago has the 28th ranked passing offense and 22nd ranked running offense and they’re facing the Packers 5th ranked pass defense and 18th ranked rush defense.  Green Bay’s 5th ranked pass offense and 24th ranked rush offense will face the Bears 20th ranked pass defense and 2nd ranked rush defense.  Seems the pass offense of the Packers and pass defense of the Bears is the matchup to watch.  The Bears are good at stopping the run, but the Packers don’t really run the ball, and Chicago doesn’t really do anything well on offense.

These teams met twice this season – the Bears winning in Chicago by 3 in week 3 and the Packers winning in Week 17 in Green Bay by 7 in possibly the worst game of all time (since the Panthers ran the wildcat for an entire game).  These games essentially fell into the home differential (3 points in Vegas) and thus don’t provide a lot of data.  It’s worth mentioning that the Game 1 loss by the Packers also featured 18 penalties totaling 152 yards by the Packers, obviously enough to swing a tight game.  I’d say it’s unlikely we’ll see a similar performance from the Packers this week.

This Vegas line has the Packers as favorites in Chicago, which is a little scary.  I feel confident in a Packers win, but these games have been tight and ugly and the Bears, while not an elite pass defense are an excellent scoring defense.  The Packers are also an excellent scoring defense.    I think this will be an ugly slug fest.  The Bears will probably cover on their home field, but I think the Packers win the game.

Steelers (-3.5) over Jets

These teams already met in Week 15 in Pittsburgh and the Jets won 22-17.  It was a pretty clean game by both teams and featured a kickoff return by Brad Smith.  Pittsburgh has the 14th ranked pass offense and 11th ranked rush offense and they’ll be facing the Jets 6th ranked pass defense and 3rd ranked rush defense.  Advantage Jets.  The Jets are the 22nd ranked pass offense (yikes) and the 4th ranked rush offense and they’ll be facing the Steelers’ 12th ranked pass defense and 1st ranked rush defense.

The Jets were able to run the ball in the last game but didn’t exactly blow it out.  They had 27 carries for 106 yards and the Sanchize was ineffective but efficient with the pass.  The Steelers actually dominated this vaunted Jets defense offensively but couldn’t translate that into scores.

These teams are virtually equal in scoring offense, but the scoring defense of the Steelers is the best in the league (14.5 ppg) to the Jets 6th ranked scoring defense (19 ppg).

I think that’s your difference in the game here.  The Steelers are the better defensive team, both scoring and yards per game and they have Big Ben.  I love the Sanchize but he ain’t Big Ben.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

NFL Collective Bargaining 101 By The Numbers

Posted on January 14, 2011 | 1 Comment

Greg Aiello, Senior VP of PR for the NFL, had an op ed for ESPN.com this week where he responded to the players union positions on the NFL negotiations for their next collective bargaining agreement.  One standout quote:  ”The status quo means players continue to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, in a good economy or one with 10 percent unemployment, and no matter how much costs have risen for the teams. Player compensation has doubled in the past decade, and the union says NFL team payrolls rose 6 percent this year. Meanwhile, other costs for teams have risen dramatically.”  Unfortunately, Mr. Aiello chooses to hide behind the dubious “costs” and does not choose to disclose actual numbers on these “costs” and thus attempt to win the public opinion battle.  His argument to the public seems to be “look at these greedy players, what jerks!”  Interesting stance given that the NFL is approximately 65% black and the owners are nearly all white.  The NBA has chosen this tactic as well in the past, the basic “we don’t need to explain ourselves, look who we’re up against”  (shaking my head) Anyway, we’re not here to talk about race or Greg Aiello wants you to think, we’re here to talk about what actually is.

For the unitiated, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a negotiated document between the players union and the owners (ie the league).  Players union membership is conferred upon any player that joins a team in the NFL.  The last CBA has been in place since 1993 with the last amendment in 2006.  The contract was supposed to expire in 2012, but the league chose to opt out 2 years early (they had the option) and thus, the agreement ends in March of this year.

The current CBA, as Aiello states, the CBA says that the players gets 59.5% of the projected league revenue for the year.  In 2008, it was $116 million per team and 2009, it was $127 million per team.  That’s a 9 percent increase over those two years – the NFL is making money hand over fist.  The overall league revenue projected for 2009 was a hardy $6.83 billion.   Forbes quoted the operating profit for the league at 1.03 billion for the 2008-2009 season.  Revenue was projected at 6.23 billion, so these “expenses” added up to about $5.2 billion.  Of that $5.2 billion, the salary cap counted for $3.7 billion.  So, essentially, Aiello’s argument is that $1.03 billion ($32 million per team) in profit is not enough.

Let’s compare this to other leagues.  NBA commissioner David Stern claims that the NBA lost $400 million in the 2009-2010 season.  The best figures I could find listed the operating income at $233 million (revenue at $4 billion), a figure of about $7.8 million per team (where is this loss Stern is talking about?  Taxes?).  MLB listed revenue at $6.8 billion for 2010.  Their operating income (2009) was $522 million ($17.4 million per team) and their revenue at $6.8 billion.    If these figures are accurate, the NFL is doubling up MLB profits and quadrupling NBA profits.  They’re the king of money making in professional sports in the US.  Just for the record, the average valuation of an NFL team is $1 billion, more than twice the value of any other pro league in the US.

One huge source of NFL income is television contracts where they hold far more sway and generate far more money than the other sports.  They currently have independent deals with CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN and DirectTV with these contracts generating about $3.8 billion dollars a year, over half of the NFL’s revenue.  Part of the reason for wanting to renegotiate the CBA is that the NFL hopes to renegotiate these contracts before their 2013 expiration and thus wants to change how the league operates.  A work stoppage in 2012, shortly before the television negotiations, might give the networks a strong negotiating position whereas a work stoppage now will give the NFL two strong years to stabilize their position.

By the way, the TV deals don’t even include the recent $720 million contract ($180 million/year) with Verizon, their deals with radio companies including Sirius ($31 million a year), as well as the additional deal with CBS for sportsline coverage ($24 million a year).

One of the main ways that the NFL proposes to boost the income of the TV negotiations is adding 2 games to the regular season and shortening the preseason by 2 games.   No big deal, right?  Not so fast.  Fewer preseason games equals fewer opportunities to physically prepare for the season, higher incidents of concussion, and shorter careers.  The current average career in the NFL is 3 and a half years and the average NFL salary is $770,000, and if you multiply those numbers together you’ll have the average NFL player income for a career at $2.7 million.  Sounds great, but let’s break it down a little further.

Let’s assume that the average NFL career is actually 56 games.  If you include 2 more full speed games every season, the average NFL career is slightly over 3 seasons.  This matters because in order to qualify for the NFL pension (currently about $77,000), you must play a minimum of 4 seasons.  A change in the number of games in a season would decrease the number of players getting pension (and decrease the owners cost to pay said players).  With 50 years of retirement from their chosen profession and the NFL being much more debilitating than working in an office, this money could end up being much more consequential than you might think.  Throw in the fact that many of these people receive this money in their early 20s, a time when research has shown that young people have not developed the ability to understand the full consequences of their actions, many of them have misspent their money.  Think back to your own early 20s, were you fiscally responsible?  The difference between them and you is that their major earning power is going to QUICKLY disappear, yours likely will not.  Also at issue is the retirement insurance, which would fall into the same issue as the retirement plan itself.  In some ways, the insurance plan is more critical, especially as concerns over concussions and dementia have taken center stage in recent months.

It’s interesting to hear Roger Goodell talk about his goal of multiplying league revenue by 3 to $25 billion by 2027 (requiring adding $1 billion per year to revenue).  I have to wonder at what cost this will come to in player safety and long term player salaries.

From looking at the numbers, it seems like the people with the most to lose here are the players, both in terms of injury, incapacitation, and losing a very strong revenue stance as the NFL tries to multiply it’s revenue.  Many of the changes seem to be looking at multiplying the value on that TV and media deal, already the central money making force in the NFL machine and yet, the owners don’t seem to want the players to make that kind of money and for everyone to benefit mutually.

I encourage you to see this looming NFL lockout for what it is.  Rich owners of billion dollar NFL teams, making more money by far than any other professional league in the US, making a greedy move while sacrificing player safety and long-term player viability.  (oddly enough, this sounds a little like the Terrelle Pryor situation doesn’t it?  Things that make you go hmmm).

I can’t help but wonder if the extreme hubris that ownership is showing won’t be their undoing.  There is already a movement against football with parents not allowing their children to play for fear of injury and concussion and a backlash against the violence and concussions that are a part of the game.  If these things become more prevalent as ownership tries to squeeze more dollars out of a very profitable product, could the NFL’s undoing ultimately be of it’s own hand?  Time will tell.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

NFL Divisional Round Picks

Posted on January 14, 2011 | 1 Comment

All lines are latest lines courtesy of bodog.com

Pittsburgh (-3) over Baltimore

Pittsburgh lost at home to the Ravens in Week 4 but won in Baltimore in Week 13; both games had a margin of 3.  Tough call.  The Ravens are pretty anemic on offense (20th in passing, 14th in rushing) but the Steelers are not much better (14th in passing, 11th in rushing).  The Steeler defense is clearly superior (12th against the pass, 1st against the rush) to Baltimore’s (21st against the pass, 5th against the rush).  Pittsburgh has the second best turnover differential in the league and doesn’t kill themselves with penalties.  But the most important piece of information is that that week 4 baltimore win in pittsburgh was Charlie Batch at QB and not Ben Roethlisberger.

Green Bay (+3) over Atlanta

I have struggled all week with this game.  Atlanta beat Green Bay 20-17 at home in Week 10.  Both QBs were stellar, but Green Bay had no running game and Aaron Rodgers led the team in rushing.  Green Bay appears to have fixed this problem with the emergence of James Starks (23 carries, 123 yards last week).  If you break down the offensive stats, Green Bay is 5th ranked in passing and 24th in rushing while Atlanta is more balanced being 15th in passing and 12th with the rush.  Green Bay’s defense is 5th against the pass and 18th against the rush, while Atlanta’s D is 22nd against the pass and 10th against the rush.  I think Green Bay has finally gotten healthy and found a runner to replace Ryan Grant (at least temporarily), and I think they should be ready for the Georgia Dome atmosphere.

Seattle (+10) over Chicago

Seattle actually beat Chicago in Week 6 in Chicago by 3, so I’m a little confused by this line.  I do believe Seattle can win outright, as they already have this season, but I think it’s highly likely they will cover.  Seattle is anemic in every category, but last week saw at work the highly important “nobody believed in us” mentality with Matt Hasselbeck’s “we saw something special on the way” discussion in his postgame interview.  I think Pete Carroll’s rah-rah mentality will ride the Seahawks one more week.  The stats are actually more neutral than people might think.  Seahawks are 19th in passing and 31st in rushing, the Bears are 28th in passing (the cutler effect) and 22nd in rushing.  On defense, the Seahawks are 27th against the pass and 21st against the rush, and the Bears are 20th against the pass and 2nd against the rush.  So, the question is, can Marshawn Lynch get off against the Bears like he did against the Saints?  The Seahawks had 111 yards in the 1st game against the Bears in Week 6, so I believe they can do it again.

New England (-9) over New York Jets

The Jets beat New England  in Week 2, when the Pats featured the disgruntled Randy Moss.  When they met again in Week 13, the Patriots decimated the Jets by 42.  Frankly, I think Brady wants to decimate this Jets team.  The weak point for the Jets is their passing offense (22nd in passing), and the Patriots are 30th in the league in defense against the pass.  In every other statistical category, these teams are the top 11 in the league.  The Patriots lead the league in turnover differential by a lot and are among the least penalized in the league.  They’re efficient.  And I think they’ll run up the score here.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , , ,

Better Job Interviews

Posted on January 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

Tonight in the #sachat, we were discussing jobs, interviews and how to find qualified candidates as well as get the job that you ultimately want.  @kellyjbailey asked me how I would run searches.  Being someone who likes to ruminate in 1500 words or less, I will happily oblige her question in long form.

One of the articles that I’ve thought a lot about is the Malcolm Gladwell article about bias in interviewing.  I certainly don’t want to chop his article down to small pieces, but the part that was most troubling to me was that the research he cites found that job interviewers opinions of a candidate within 5 seconds of meeting the candidate and after an hour of interviewing were essentially the same.  That is, the actual interview had nothing to do with the opinion of the candidate but instead the thin slice of your perception within 5 seconds.  This would be fine if we were experts at people, but while many of us would like to believe that we are, we are not.  We’re not highly trained psychologists or therapists, we’re average joes with poor thin slicing skills.

At work here is the confirmation bias, the idea that people tend to accept information that confirms that which we already believe and to refuse all other information.  It’s our brain at work and, while you can fight it, you cannot defeat it.  It’s our brain’s way of filtering information.  You immediately want to like or dislike the candidate, and you may not even know why.  They may even just look like someone you’d met before and didn’t like for one reason or another (maybe an ex partner), but it doesn’t register.   You just know immediately your feelings about this person.  While the skill of being able to quickly decipher someone may be a positive in life or death situations (i’m vaguely paraphrasing “blink“), in an interview situation, it’s not positive at all.  You’re trying to grasp a holistic view of the candidate and all you’re getting is a quick reaction to your initial meeting and that’s hardly a holistic view.

Some solutions were proposed by Twitter folks and while well meaning, they don’t necessarily remove the bias:

  1. competency based interviewing – asking the right questions does not preclude confirmation bias.  while it may help to glean better information as a whole, it does not necessarily remove the “i like them” or “i don’t” bias.  Also, how does an interview situation help you to learn anything about how good this candidate is at their job and how they “fit”?  Have any of you been forced to sit around a table and be quizzed by 6 people other than your interview day?  Yeah, thought not.
  2. references – this is on the right track, but there is a significant incentive to the referencer to not be completely honest about the candidate.  It weeds out the truly bad apples, but doesn’t necessarily give you all the information you need.  What if the situation they were in was a toxic one?  Is the referencee a quality referencer (to put it bluntly, are they an incompetent and you just don’t realize it)?  I think there’s an assumption that we “know” people when we’re in a professional association with them and I think that’s faulty.

I propose that the interview process should be flipped on it’s head.

I’m hoping to hire a candidate to do Job X.  Why not bring them in to do Job X?  For instance, you’re hiring a candidate to run a weekend program – bring them in for 3 days and tell them that their assignment is to create a weekend programming calendar for the next 2 months.  Let students that they’ll be working with actually be advised by them on their programs (schedule their advising meetings for these 3 days).  Run them through the ringer and forget this staged interview crap.  These interviews don’t actually measure what you want to know!

Step 2.  Instead of asking for a resume with a list of job responsibilities, give me some real actual metrics.  I want references from students on what you’re about.  I want event attendance numbers.  I want demographic information.  I want to see what you’ve done to materially improve the department and program you’ve worked with.  I want to see where your impact was.  Don’t give me a list of job responsibilities, I want to know what you did, how well you did and where your impact was.  Don’t have it?  Guess you didn’t want this job.  Our job is not about dollars and cents (well, not all the time), but there are ways that you can materially show your impact.

So, that’s my two cents.  I want to see a candidate materially show me that they kick ass at their job (not just write me a story about what their job was supposed to be) and then I want to see them kick ass at it in a trial run.  While it won’t completely eliminate bias, I think we’ll be measuring the right things in our interview process and should get better candidates.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged ,

So, does Liverpool really stink?

Posted on January 13, 2011 | Leave a comment

I’m co-posting this over at http://setpieces.tumblr.com/.  Go check out some of the other fantastic writers sharing their thoughts over there.

————————————–

And I’m not talking day-to-day ups and downs of a season here, but more the big scope of wins and losses.

I think any discussion has to begin with the ownership situation.  Have you ever been in a place that was having ownership disruptions?  It throws everybody for a loop.  We all know (or should) that environment greatly influences the actions of individuals.  It stands to reason that a team would struggle when their ownership situation is a mess.  You don’t need to look further than the New Orleans Hornets (13-6 before major ownership issues, 10-10 since then including blowout losses to several bad teams) to see evidence of this on our soil.

Let’s look at Liverpool before and after the ownership resolution.  The ownership situation was finalized October 15th, 1 win against a bottom feeder (West Brom Albion), draw at home with arsenal, draw at home with a good Sunderland team, a draw on the road against bottom feeder Birmingham and losses to some of the other big boys.  Aside from the home draws with Arsenal and Sunderland, there’s not a lot to feel good about there (1-3-3 start against a fairly reasonable schedule).  Since the ownership situation was resolved? 6 more wins, 1 more draw and 7 more losses.  Tough stuff, but there’s definitely something to the ownership situation being part of the problem.

The statistics seem to show that this stretch has been an improvement.  Their goal differential in the last 14 is at a zero.  They’ve sustained a win over Chelsea and a tight match with Man Utd.  Their home record is 6th best in the league at 6-2-2 with a GD of 9.  On the road, though their GD dips to an atrocious -13 (8 for and 21 against) and they hold the 18th best record in the league.  Being blanked at Man City, Stoke City and Everton (2 of 3 are not exactly the cream of the crop) surely has affect.

With 17 fixtures left and trailing Tottenham Hotspur by 11 points, the season is starting to look lost.  10 of the remaining games are against bottom 10 clubs, so maybe there is some hope to salvage some good results.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged ,

Set Pieces Soccer Blog Post – Liverpool Loses and I Was Working

Posted on January 12, 2011 | 1 Comment

I’ve started blogging with a couple of the Twitter fellas over at the Set Pieces Blog on Tumblr.  Thanks to Pete Pereira for getting that one started.  Follow us with your blog reader or if you’re on tumblr, breeze on over and click that little follow button.  Real talk, I love tumblr and considered migrating my blog over there.  If you’re new to blogging, jump on tumblr.

Here’s the content from my post, which can be seen here.

——————–

I was cruising the web trying to find out what kind of games were on tonight and I misread the Fox Soccer page to say that Liverpool was on at 5pm.  Excited, I started to blog about it, but then I realized it actually said it was at 3pm.  As in it was over. Wonderful.

Bounced over to ESPN.com and realized that my boys sustained a loss to Blackpool (currently 9th in the table) and helped Liverpool to retain their spot in 13th in the table.

I believe I may speak for all my stateside colleagues by saying that while I love the game, I feel like I’m constantly losing track of games like this simply because of the time change.  That being said, thanks to ESPN3.com for keeping games on replay for those who have actual jobs and are interested in still watching matches.

There are a lot of good matches available on replay and on upcoming on ESPN3.  Happy hunting.

——————

I’ll admit, not my best analytical work.  However, I hope to bring a unique take to the blog, as described in my bio on the site.  I’ll be writing from the perspective of an American trying to follow Euro league soccer, especially the English Premiere League and my adopted team Liverpool.   I’ll be getting into the numbers and stats of the game, as well as the challenges of following soccer abroad.  Follow us.  Like now.

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

NFL Playoffs Breakdown: How Does the Unusual Seeding System Affect the Results?

Posted on January 9, 2011 | Leave a comment

The NFL Playoffs were changed in 1990 to the current 12 team system, so my analysis is only going to go back that far.   My question is related to the strange seeding system of the NFL Playoffs.  The current alignment has 4 divisions per conference.  Currently, 6 teams make the playoffs, with the 4 division winners being seeded 1-4 in order of record and the 2 wild cards being the teams with the best record in football that didn’t make the playoffs.  Most years, this year included, you will get a 4th seeded team with the same or a worse record than the 5th seeded team, and thus a team that is theoretically “worse” hosting a playoff game (the 4th seed team gets to host a playoff game).  Theoretically, the 3rd and the 4th seeded team could have worse records than the 5th and 6th seeded team given the fact that the two wild card teams are most likely to come from the divisions that were won by the top 2 seeds.

Since 1990, there have been 40 wild card round playoff games.  Here’s the breakdown of which seeds won which games (bear in mind that the 3rd seed hosts a home game against the sixth seed and the 4th seed hosts a game against the 5th seed)…

  • 3rd seed has won 26 times
  • 4th seed has won 27 times
  • 5th seed has won 13 times
  • 6th seed has won 14 times

So, of 40 games between the 4th and the 5th seed, the most likely to have a team with a better record playing on the road as the lower seed, the 4th seed has won 27 of 40 times (67.5%).  And with 40 games between the 3rd seed and the 6th seed, the 3rd seed has won 26 of 40 games (65%).

Just for the record, the lower seed is slightly more likely to win in the NFC, historically, even though I don’t think it’s a highly relevant stat.  The average seed of the winning team in the wild card round is 3.98 in the AFC and 4.4 in the NFC.

There are two conclusions that could be drawn of the fact that the top seeds have won predominately.  You could conclude that the 4th seed team is actually good, but played in a division with tremendous parity, thus pulling all their records down.  Or you could conclude that the home field advantage is tipping the odds in favor of the 3rd and 4th seeds.

Vegas typically advantages the home team by 3 points on betting lines.  Average margin of victory in these games since 1990  is 12.44 (13.25 in the AFC and 11.63 in the NFC).  This is all well and good, but there have been a fair number of blowouts as well as 7 overtime games (essentially margin of victory zero).

The game that seems to be at the center of my question is the 4 seed versus 5 seed matchup.  The average margin of victory in these games is 11.48 points.  But in games where the 4 seeded home team won the average margin of victory is 12.3 points (st dev 9.8) and in games that were won by the 5th seeded team the average margin of victory is 9.77 (st dev 6.77).  Maybe Vegas is on to something with that 3 point home advantage.   14 of the 27 (51.8%) games won by the 4th seeded home team were decided by 7 points or less and 6 of the 13 (46.2%) won by the 5th seeded team were by 7 points or less.  Regardless, 20 of 40 games were decided by 7 points or less.  These games tend to be tight.  However, when it is a blowout, it tends to favor the 4th seed, surprisingly.  The 4th seed has won 6 of 7 games that were decided by 20 or more.

These wildcard games are clearly won more often by the upper seeded team.  They’re more likely to beat down the lower seeded team and more likely to win close games, even though the close games are probably more related to the fact that they’re the home team against a team with fairly equal talent.

One factor that we always have to think about in sports isn’t represented by the data though.  With many of these 4th seeded teams (as with the Seahawks this year), they’ve likely faced a fight in the last week of the season to get into the playoffs, they see themselves as a champion since they did win their division, and are very capable of getting into the “nobody believes in us” frame of mind.  For those of us who watched the games this weekend, you heard it in Matt Hasselbeck’s comment about “something special” was there for them this weekend.

So, if you’re a 5th seed, with possibly a better record than the 4th seed, and you’re going into their home field to play a playoff game, be on the lookout.  You’re likely facing a team with a chip on it’s shoulder, a crowd at it’s back and a team that’s historically likely to beat you.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , , ,

Is the #1 Pick A Good Value?

Posted on January 7, 2011 | Leave a comment

While I was drowning my sorrows about my Carolina Panthers not being able to draft Andrew Luck (idiot), I started discussing other options for the pick.  They could definitely go with Wide Receiver AJ Green, then him and Steve Smith could team up to kill Jimmy Clausen.  But I wasn’t sure a wide receiver had ever been taken #1.  NFL.com has the answers!

Since 1936, four WR’s were taken #1 in the NFL draft, making them the 5th most popular position to select.  Of course, in 1st were 28 QB’s, not shocking given it’s the most important position.  Second was running back, with 21 selected.  Third was defensive end with 7 selected and fourth was defensive tackle with 6 selected.

So, I became curious about the actual value of these picks, since I became convinced the Panthers would screw this up and take a defensive tackle or defensive end since there are a few in this draft and this seems to be a common move.

Since 1936, the #1 pick has an NFL career that averages about 8 seasons (with a huge sample size, i’d say this is pretty accurate), and they make an average of 2 Pro Bowls.  TWO PRO BOWLS.  YIKES.

The monetary investment in these picks is insane.  Sam Bradford, last year’s first overall, will serve as the guide for how much this year’s #1 pick will make.  Twice shoulder-injured Sam Bradford, who incidentally played very well this year for a much improved Rams team, pulled down a $50 million contract before he ever took an NFL snap with $24 million coming as soon as he signed the contract.  And folks, that money is guaranteed.  That’s a lot of money for someone who, on average, will only make two pro bowls in his career.

The real values in the NFL are not at the #1 where the stakes are multiplied, but in the middle of the first round and the 2nd/3rd round where the money is considerably less, but the talent, while not game-changing, is still very good.

For those who are curious, the teams that have had this pick the most (#1 overall) and thus have had the opportunity of minimizing their own value are in order: Buffalo Bills, Atlanta Falcons, New England Patriots, Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  But if you go all the way back to 1936 and include all the previous team names, the Patriots have had the #1 pick a whopping seven times out of 80 or a whopping 9%.  That’s a legacy of perpetual putridity.  Maybe this run with Tom Brady has been the karma from a legacy of stink.

Let’s dig into the numbers by position now.  28 Qb’s were taken and their average career is 8.78 years (st dev 5.5) and average pro bowls is 1.75 (st dev 2.83).  21 Rb’s were taken and their average career was 6.28 years (st dev 3.099) and 1.62 pro bowls (st dev 1.84).   7 defensive ends were taken and their career averaged 10.1 years (st dev 4.75) and 3.42 pro bowls (st dev 3.91).  And finally, 6 defensive tackles were taken with their careers averaging 9.5 years (st dev 3.14) and 1.5 pro bowls (st dev 3.21).   All other positions were left out due to small sample size.

Rb’s are, not surprisingly, the least likely to have a long career.  One standard deviation out from the average is a RB career of 3.19 years (essentially the same as the QB), but the high end of the QB spectrum makes them more likely to have a long career than RB’s.  Defensive tackles are the most likely to have a longer career.

Defensive tackle is hardly a shoo-in for the pro bowl, boasting the lowest low end on the first standard deviation – the numbers were essentially skewed by Buck Buchanan, who went to 8 Pro Bowls.  QB’s are a major gamble on the pro bowl end of things, of the 28 selected, 16 never went to a pro bowl; if not for Peyton Manning and John Elway, this might be our least likely position to land in the pro bowl.  Defensive End is the best bet (even though these numbers are skewed by the great Bruce Smith and his 11 pro bowls).

So, what’s the moral of the story?  Even with the first pick, it’s incredibly difficult in 2010 to predict superstar NFL success and career longevity.  The #1 overall pick tends to skew towards Qb, even though based on previous picks, 57% of them will never play in a Pro Bowl.  With the #1 pick, talent should be more important than career longevity.  Given the choice, I would definitely stay away from a QB and maybe look at a defensive tackle.

However, I personally subscribe to the view that the best pick may be an offensive lineman.  Unfortunately, NFL teams have only chosen to select an offensive lineman 4 times in the history of the draft.  With the offensive line, there are 4 positions that the young man could play, so even if he is not good enough to be a blind side tackle (generally considered the hardest position on the line), he can still be a good tackle on the other side or one of the two guard positions.  And that’s really what it seems folks are not taking into account here, to quote Nassim Nicholas Taleb, we are incredibly terrible at predicting the future and often refuse to acknowledge the randomness and chaos inherent in our decisions.  I think the reason people don’t draft lineman (or trade down to maximize dollar for value spending), the clearly smart decision, is that it’s a lot more fun and exciting  to try and land the big fish, the superstar quarterback or running back.  But in all likelihood, it’s not going to pan out.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged , ,

Bert Blyleven, Or Why the Baseball Hall of Fame is So Silly

Posted on January 5, 2011 | Leave a comment

First off, congrats to the newest members of the baseball hall of fame, Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar.  They were voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers Association of America, Blyleven on his 14th year on the ballot and Alomar on his 2nd.  To the unaccustomed, this is going to sound a little weird, and even to the accustomed, so let’s break down how all of this business works…

Players eligible for Hall of Fame election must have at least 10 years of experience in the league and be passed by a screening committee.  At which point, they are on the ballot for the BBWAA.  The final ballot typically includes 25-40 candidates and a player must obtain votes from 75% of the electorate to get inducted.  If they receive less than 5%, they are dropped from future balloting.  If somehow, you manage to get between 5 and 75 percent of the vote for 15 years (20 years have passed since you played) then you are eligible for election by the Veterans Committee.

My problem is that this doesn’t really explain Bert Blyleven not making it for 14 years and suddenly making it.  Or as Bill Simmons tweeted “Congrats to Bert Blyleven for having a great 2010 season and finally doing enough to make the Baseball Hall of Fame.”  It’s bizarre.

Let’s dig into this a little further…

The last change in the hall of fame election rules was in 1954, so for the sake of this analysis, let’s just consider those years…

From 1954 to 2009 (57 years), 81 players were elected by the BBWAA, a blazing pace of about 3 every 2 years, 27 were elected by a separate Negro Leagues committee, and an astounding 93 players were elected by the Veterans Committee.  So, it looks like 2010 was actually a big year for elections for the BBWAA!

The Veterans Committee, the last defense if you will, is bringing in players at a higher rate than the BBWAA, even though the BBWAA has 15 years to decide whether a players career merits consideration for the Hall.

I have a couple theories:

1) the system creates a value on getting elected sooner.  Since the hall does not currently rate players based on value, but instead considers everyone equal after election, the BBWAA have created an artificial system for player valuation based on how early they were elected in their hall of fame eligibility.  A “first ballot” guy is a stud, whereas Bert Blyleven is a “well, you should be happy to be here, dude”.

2) the system also creates a way to punish players for bad behavior.  Many players from the “steroid era” will be elected on some of their last ballots, as a way to shame them for not acting right during their careers.  Yeah, like everyone else did.

3) The BBWAA voting system creates incentives towards exclusivity, which is not altogether a bad thing.  Not letting people in who shouldn’t be in is what the hall of fame is all about.

4) The Veterans Committee invites so many because their system leans toward compassion.  Staying the execution rather than allowing them to die is always going to be more attractive.

With # 3 and #4, I definitely believe that everyone is getting in that should get in.  They’re a check and a balance for each other.  Even though the Veterans Committee has the option to pick up guys that were bounced from the voting process, the system highly encourages against it.

So, I think the system is actually just and well put together, except for the Bert Blyleven situation.  Personally, I don’t see any reason for 15 years to be the wait period for someone to get in.  Frankly, I think the longer you wait to decide if someone should get into the Hall, the more likely you will start to take compassion on someone who maybe shouldn’t be in.  You’ve seen the guy interviewed on ESPN, you know he’s likable, you remember he was pretty good but not great and it’s starting to get a little fuzzy what actually happened during his career.  You start placing too much emphasis on numbers and not how good he actually was…and bam, you’ve elected someone that shouldn’t be.

My solution: cut the election period down to 5-7 years.  5-7 years is not interminable and so they are still pretty fresh in people’s minds (even young viewers…I don’t know anything about BB).  They’re 10-12 years out of the league, so probably in their mid 50s, instead of their mid 60s, and thus have a lot more time to be ambassadors for the game.  And most importantly, they don’t spend 15 years agonizing over their induction and becoming bitter towards a game they clearly love.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged ,

Half Assed Sports Show Podcast 1/4/11

Posted on January 5, 2011 | Leave a comment

We brought the heat tonight on the Half Assed Sports Show. You should listen. My rant on Ohio STate was hotness.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tylerashworth/2011/01/05/half-assed-sports-show–nfl-playoff-round-1

→ Leave a comment

Posted in podcast

Tagged , ,

The Argument Against Instant Replay (or how to know you’re talking to someone with no common sense)

Posted on June 3, 2010 | 1 Comment

A great article was written by @jonahkeri on whether baseball actually needs umpires for the Wall Street Journal. After the debacle in Detroit last night, he shared the piece again on Twitter. Here’s the link.

I’m not going to debate the usefulness or import of instant replay in baseball, even though I do like the idea even for balls/strikes. What I would like to discuss was a throwaway comment in the article.

“Mike Port, vice president of umpiring for MLB, says that when it comes to calling balls and strikes, the umpires are about 95% accurate. But here’s the interesting part: The Pitch-f/x system’s ball and strike calls are very near 100% accurate.”

A statement like “the umpires are 95% accurate” to a person with no common sense sounds brilliant. “95%! wow that’s really good!”. But let’s break that down a little bit…

95% accurate means that the umpire misses 1 out of every 20 calls. In a major league game with around 300 pitches, that amounts to about 15 calls a game that an umpire misses on balls and strikes. That means, on average, one call is missed in every other at-bat. Not bad, right?

But again, this is where common sense comes in. I don’t think it’s out of the question to say that 80% of those calls are easy. A pitcher throws a fastball straight down the middle, off the ground, or nose high and even the person watching at home on their couch can easily make these calls. So if 80% of those calls are easy, you’re only worrying about the 20% that aren’t easy (again, the 80% is a guess but just follow me).

That means on those questionable 20% the umpires get about 75% right. That’s definitely better than guessing, but shouldn’t someone who does this for a living be able to get better than 3 of 4 right? What if my #s are off and 90% of the calls are relatively easy? That would mean the umpires are only going 50/50 on the questionable calls (essentially a guess).

My point is not that umpires suck and should be crucified. My point is not that I think we need instant replay in baseball (even though I do think that). My point is that it’s asinine to argue that umpires get 95% of the calls right because it doesn’t show the true statistical picture. Umpires are on the field to get the close calls. If a pitch is clearly a strike or clearly out of the zone, players could police themselves. It’s the close calls that need the umpire and to fairly judge the accuracy of an umpire we need to know how they did on these close calls. Only then can you make an intelligent, reasonable, and thoughtful argument for/against instant replay in baseball.

To fairly make judgment calls based on any statistics (or assessment data, higher ed folks), we need to use the information and our common sense to determine if those stats truly reflect the answer to the question we’re asking. We can’t just pull random statistics and expect it to be useful for anything. As the phrase popularized by Mark Twain said “there are lies, damned lies and statistics;” the mediating factor between foolish decision making and statistics is using our common sense, expertise and knowledge to analyze and break down what we see in the numbers.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Blog Post

Tagged