Sports

Last night, the Indianapolis Colts stormed back from 17 points down against the New England Patriots to win a gripping game by the score of 35-34.  After the game, the most talked-about play was the Patriots' decision to go for it on a fourth down play with two yards to go at their own 28 yard line with a little more than two minutes remaining and the Colts down by 6 points. 

Rather than punt the ball, Patriots coach Bill Belichick defied coventional wisdom and decided to go for it.  Had they converted the down, the game would have effectively been over.  Instead, they fell a yard short.  The Colts therefore gained possession about 35-40 yards closer to the Patriots' end zone than if the Pats had punted. 

The Boston press and national press have raked Belichick over the coals for this play call.  You know, stuff like, "Everyone knows by now he should have played the percentages and punted the ball from his own 28-yard line with just two minutes left in regulation against the Colts." Are they right to do so?  Over at his Freakonomics blog, Steve Levitt defends Belichick:

Here is why I respect Belichick so much. The data suggest that he actually probably did the right thing if his objective was to win the game. Economist David Romer studied years worth of data and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, teams seem to punt way too much. Going for a first down on fourth and short yardage in your end zone is likely to increase the chance your team wins (albeit slightly). But Belichick had to know that if it failed, he would be subjected to endless criticism.

If his team had gotten the first down and the Patriots won, he would have gotten far less credit than he got blame for failing.... What Belichick proved by going for it last night is that 1) he understands the data, and 2) he cares more about winning than anything else.

Is Leavitt correct?  Thanks to Football Outsiders, you can fill out your own percentages and see which decision maximizes your expected utility.  Or you can read the Boston Globe's Adam Kilgore and appreciate the historical percentages:

According to [AdvancedNFLStats.com Brian] Burke’s tabulation, going for the first down gave the Patriots a 79 percent chance of winning. Punting gave them a 70-percent chance to win. Even after Burke made tweaks, the win probability never dipped in favor of the punt. If anything, factoring in how explosive the Colts’ offense is, the team-specific adjustments only made going for it more favorable.

“A lot of criticism is probably way over the top,’’ Burke said. “At the very least, it’s defensible. It’s not crazy. It’s not reckless.’’

Of course, the problem with football -- and politics -- is that decision-makers are usually judged by the quality of the outcomes rather than the quality of the processes.  So, the result in both worlds is often excessive risk-aversion. 

And so this blog post might end with absolution for Bill Belichick and a plea for a stronger appreciation for expected-utility analysis.  Except life is not that simple.

On that play, it appears that Belichick made the right call.  Except that Belichick also did the following things before making that call:

• Called his last two time-outs during the series, thereby removing his ability to challenge a ruling on the field during the crucial play;
• Decided, on third down and two, to call a pass play rather than a running play, which would have run more time off the clock and made the fourth down percentages a little easier.
• Traded Richard Seymour to the Raiders in the pre-season, stripping his defensive line of any depth.  Not surprisingly, his starters were pretty gassed by the end of the Colts game. 

Sooooo... it's possible to defend Belichick's call on fourth down as the rational, utility-maximizing decision, but conclude that he committed a series of small blunders that got the Patriots to the point where they had to convert a high-risk, high-reward play.  In other words, sometimes the criticized decision might be the right one to make, but the decisions that structured the controversial choice might not have been. 

Question to readers:  Looking at the Obama administration's foreign policy, which move echoes Belichick's play-calling? 

[I]s the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans worth a bad Yankee team?

The answer is obviously yes.

This is a question that could tear apart the nation... Red Sox Nation, that is. 

More here.  I really don't think this is anything more than a coincidence, and I certainly don't agree with the blogger's estimation of Lyndon Johnson. 

Still, if one wanted to develop a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis, however, one could posit that the explanation for this correlation is that under a GOP president, the mercurial owner of the Yankees faced fewer contraints to royally f**k up interfere in the management of the team, resulting in some spectacular flame-outs on the diamond. 

It's not true, of course, but it's a more entertaining urban myth than Obama's citizenship status or Bush's role in the 9/11 attacks. 

 

 

As a resident of the Boston area for the past few years, I'm been very grateful for the Golden Age of Sport that has descended upon Beantown for the past decade.  The three Super Bowls, two World Series, an NBA World Championship, and countless other exciting playoff runs (next year, Bruins!) have been nothing short of exhilirating. 

They do not, however, make Boston the greatest sports city in North America -- according to one metric, we're only #2.  Lee Sigelman alerts me to this Toronto Star effort to determine the best sports city in North America north of the Rio Grande.  Their answer might surprise you:   

For its relatively diminutive size and low Midwestern profile, Indianapolis is a sporting powerhouse. The city's National Football League Colts and National Basketball Association Pacers have logged wins 66 per cent of the time since 2000.

Perhaps best known for the Indianapolis 500, the city is home to the NCAA and many of its major tournaments, has hosted more than 400 national and international championships since 1980 and will welcome the Super Bowl in 2012.

They built this city on sports, says Bill Benner, a former sports columnist at The Indianapolis Star. "Indianapolis, beginning about 30 years ago, used sports ... as an economic development strategy. Using sports as the cornerstone played out beyond anyone's imagination."

With sporting success has come civic pride, says Stephanie Parks, one-quarter of a diehard Indianapolis family of sports fanatics.

"Being a sports capital is closely tied with the city's sense of self," says the mother of two athletic children seeking to follow in the footsteps of their pro heroes. "We own two businesses and during football season we have `blue Friday,' wherein everyone is to dress up in blue or wear their Colts shirts."

The Star calculated this by calculating, "percentages among professional sports teams in 37 North American cities since 2000" plus "bonus points for making the playoffs or winning a championship."  I'll let my readers quibble about the validity of this measure. 

No, what piques my interest is whether there's a way to go global with this kind of question.  If one factored in other team sports -- soccer non-American football, rugby, cricket -- which metropolis could claim the crown of the Greatest Sporting City in the World?

Major League Baseball starts in earnest today.  As longtime readers of this blog are aware, I am a diehard Red Sox fan.  They are playing in what everyone acknowledges to be the toughest division in baseball, with three teams -- the Sox, Rays and Yankees -- fully capable of winning a World Series this year. 

What will be odd, this time around, is that during this offseason the Red Sox did something really, really astonishing -- they followed a lot of the unsolicited recommendations I made 3 1/2 months ago (just to be clear, I'm arguing coincidence and not causation here). 

Still, this raises an existential question as a fan -- what happens if your team does almost exactly what you recommend they do, but they don't win?  Who can you blame then? 

[Um, what if they do win?--ed.  I'm a Red Sox fan.  Times have changed, but I can still go to the dark place.] 

Both the Hardball Times and Baseball Prospectus like these movies, so I'm hardly alone here.  When comparing the Red Sox to the Yankees and Rays, what strikes me about the Sox is the (on paper) relative strength of their bullpen, bench, and farm system.  Over a 162 game season, that has to count for something. 

Of course, no matter what Moneyball says, you don't play games on paper.  Play ball!!

The World Baseball Classic has been under way since Saturday, and this year's version of the event has been even more exciting than the 2006 inaugural tournament.  Already, the U.S. barely edged Canada, 6-5 in a game that came down to the last pitch.  As I'm typing this, Australia, having upset Mexico earlier in the week, is giving Cuba a run for its money (the Aussies are winning 4-2 in the 6th.  UPDATE:  the Cubans come back to eke out a 5-4 victory).  If Cuba loses, I would hate to see Fidel Castro's blog post about it (hat tip:  SI's Tom Verducci)

This is all prelude, however, to the biggest shocker of all -- in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Netherlands eliminated the Dominican Republic, beating them 2-1 in 11 innings.  This was the second victory by the Dutch over the D.R. in a week. 

For those traditional Foreign Policy reading, World Cup-loving kind of readers, let me try to explain the magnitude of this upset in terms that you would understand.  Imagine that the South Korean soccer team just beat Brazil in a match played in Uruguay.  No, check that -- imagine that the Koreans beat the Brazilians twice in two matches.  That's what we're talking about here. 

The implications for the globalization of baseball are pretty good, as Verducci points out: 

Major League Baseball can work all of its machinations to pump up interest in the tournament, such as marketing and broadcasting. But there is nothing more powerful to sell the tournament than the unscripted magnificence of the game itself, never more so than when what we regard as the meek overtake the mighty.

 

This is an age when it's fashionable to complain about everything in America going downhill. So it's worth pointing out that, compared to my youth, the Super Bowl is an event that has improved with age. This past decade the games have been far more competitive than the first 25 Super Bowls. The NFL has been smart enough to dispense with the military metaphors. Even the halftime shows have gotten better -- props to Bruce Springsteen.

Yesterday's game was thrilling, if a bit sloppy and very chippy. There was some excellent scrambling from Ben Roethlisberger and some outstanding wide receiver play (also a more recent and pleasant change: wide receivers with exceptional talent who don't shoot off their mouths, or their hips).

While the game was good, I'm not so sure about the ads. I liked the one with Jason Statham, and I loved the one with Conan O'Brien. Otherwise, it seemed like a down year. Enough with the f$%^ing Clydesdales, Budweiser. And that Alec Baldwin Hulu ad was funny peculiar more than funny ha-ha.

Readers, what did you think?

It kills me to write this post, but I'm about to defend the New York Yankees.  I do it only to make a point about the American economy and free competition, so bear with me.  In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Phil Sheridan writes the following about the Yankee signing of Mark Teixeira: 

The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America. Overstatement? Consider the times. Cornerstone industries are faltering, taxpayers are being asked to bail out mismanaged financial institutions and their overpaid CEOs, and decent, hard-working men and women are being laid off or worrying that they could be next. Now consider the eight-year, $180 million contract the Yankees reportedly handed first baseman Mark Teixeira Tuesday. Stack it on top of the $161 million deal signed by pitcher CC Sabathia and the (relatively) modest $82.5 million promised to A.J. Burnett and you have the most egregious display of financial irresponsibility in the history of sports. The Yanks' insane overspending would be bad for baseball in the best of times. These are not the best of times.... What's wrong here is obvious. It's also not really new. Unlike the NFL, NBA and NHL, baseball has no salary cap. Those leagues do not have caps for the sheer, unbridled joy of finding loopholes and exceptions. They have them as part of an effort to maintain some kind of competitive balance among teams from different-size markets in disparate parts of the country.

Sheridan's response is pretty typical of non-Yankee fans -- which is disturbing, because it's so wrong on so many levels.  First, it would be awesome if American corporations acted more like the Yankees.  One cause of the deepening recession is that firms are afraid to do anything other than hold cash in hand at the moment.  The smart ones should invest in expansion -- capital is ridiculously cheap right now and they'll be well-poised once the economy takes off again.  If enough firms acted that way, the economy actually would take off again.  In signing these players, the Yankees have made long-term investments while keeping their expenditures constant relative to last year's payroll.  Given their move to a new stadium, their revenues should increase.  They have made these moves in order to improve their chances of competing.  That's how corporations should behave.   As for Sheridan's point about competitive balance -- well, let's go to Joe Posnanski, who has some useful data on this point:

it always gives me great comfort to see the following facts: -- Over the past 10 years, eight different teams have won the World Series. In all, 15 teams made the World Series -- half of the teams in baseball. -- Over the past 20 years, 14 different teams have won the World Series. In all 22 teams made the World Series. Now, we're at more than two-thirds who have reached the Series. -- Over the last 30 years, 20 different teams have won the World Series, and only four -- Cubs, Mariners, Rangers and the Expos/Nationals -- have failed to get there... I'm not saying that the Yankees will not win in 2009 -- that's an awfully good team now, absolutely the best that money can buy. But just remember that key fact: 20 teams have won a World Series in the last 30 years. And by comparison: -- Only 14 teams have won the Super Bowl over the last 30 years. -- Only 14 different men have won Wimbledon over the last 30 years. -- Only 13 teams have won the Stanley Cup over the last 30 years. -- Only nine teams have won an NBA title over the last 30 years.

It is telling that the team sports with salary caps actually have more dynasties than baseball.  In baseball, more money can make the Yankees better, but it can't guarantee them anything.  As a Red Sox fan, I'm perfectly happy to have the rest of America hate the Yankees along with me.  Holding them up as the symbol of what's wrong with the country, however,  is pretty ludicrous.  UPDATE:  Thanks to YFSF, I see that Dan Szymborski has made a similar argument over at Baseball Think Factory: 

The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do. Now, what about the Yankee mindset? The Steinbrenners aren't anywhere near as rich or as liquid as some other owners in baseball such as Carl Pohlad of the Twins. The difference is that the Steinbrenners have always invested in their team, always striven to put the best product possible out on the field. The Yankees have certainly made some terrible trades, especially when King George was hands-on the most, but they were done with the motive of making the team better. Yes, the Yankees got a huge, undeserved payday from the locals for their stadium, like most teams in baseball did, but it's a mitigating factor that they're actually plowing those funds back into the on-field product. And the team never threatened to not compete until they got their sweet check. Perhaps a small difference, but I see it as a good bit more ethical than Kevin McClatchy demanding taxpayer moneys to help the Pirates compete and then turn around and use all the money to fund his failing media empire. 

Baseball Prospectus has been running an off-season series entitled "GM for a Day" in which their staff suggests offseason plans for myriad teams (here's what they did with the Yankees).  In the wake of the Yankees acquisition of C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and M.C. Teixeira, much of Red Sox Nation is panicking, while others are contemplating Plan B's.  So, I'm gonna take a stab at what the Red Sox can do in the remaining bits of the offseason in order to best compete for the World Series.  Here are my proposed moves:

1. Don't panic.  The Yankees have made some great signings, no doubt.  As I pointed out here, however, their track record on this front has not been all that promising over the past decade.  Meanwhile, both Toronto and Tampa Bay should regress from the previous season.  Things are still pretty promising for the Red Sox.  The last time the Red Sox toyed with but rejected a swap of Mike Lowell for a high-profile first baseman, they won a World Series the next year.  In 2009, the parent club should expect useful contributions from prospects like Daniel Bard, Michael Bowden, and Lars Anderson.  BP's Joe Sheehan is correct when he points out, "The Yankees have been active by necessity; the Red Sox have been quiet by choice."  As Bill Burt concurs in the Berkshire Eagle-Tribune, "That's the beauty of the position the Red Sox are in. They did not need Mark Teixeira. He was a luxury, an expensive one."
2. Sign Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester to long-term contracts.  Two-time World Series winners tend not to get much sympathy from the rest of the world, but signing Youkilis and Lester (along with Dustin Pedroia's recent contract) serves several baseball and PR purposes.  It locks up Boston's best three players from last year ; it highlights the fact that Boston's strength is its home-grown talent (in contrast to the Yankees); and it keeps together a core that has clearly thrived in the hothouse that is Boston sports. 
3. Sign Rocco Baldelli to a three year, $18 million contract; sign David Eckstein to a two-year, $8 million contract.  The Red Sox' biggest flaw last year was a weak bench.  There was no decent pinch-hitter in the group, in particular on the right-hand side.  Sean Casey was a great guy, but he couldn't field and I'm pretty sure that a 59-year old Bill Buckner could have beaten him in a foot race.  So if the Sox are going to overpay, overpay for bench strength.  Baldelli is a local New Englander, he can play all three outfield positions, and he is apparently less sick that previously thought.  Give him what he likely craves, which is a long-term deal.  He's great insurance for the inevitable J.D. Drew injury or Jacoby Ellsbury slump.  Eckstein is past his prime, but he can play both second base and shortstop, and is a pretty decent situational hitter when the need arises.  No one will offer him a two-year deal, so this guarantees we get him. 
4. Trade Clay Buchholz and Manny Delcarmen to the Texas Rangers for Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Hank Blalock; resign Jason Varitek once he realizes the non-existent market for his services.  The biggest weakness in the Red Sox lineup last year was at catcher, so deal with that.  There are debates about whether Saltalamacchia will be able to stay at catcher, but the great thing about getting him is that it doesn't matter.  He can catch for the next few years, by which point one could sign Joe Mauer (or promote Dusty Brown) and move him to DH or first base.  Varitek can be Saltalamacchia's caddy/advisor.  Blalock provides a corner bench player with some pop.  Trades and player development have made both Buchholz and Delcarmen expendable while still valuable, and Lord knows the Rangers need pitching. 
5. Convert Justin Masterson into a three-inning closer.  Here's an area where the Red Sox can make in innovation, or retrovation; bring back the three-inning closer.  Masterson would be perfect in this role, and helps to give the bullpen a guaranteed rest day.  Let him pitch once every three or games, and you get 120+ innings out of him, while easing the pressure of the rest of the 'pen.
6. Trade Julio Lugo and David Pauley to the Oakland Athletics for a bag of balls Jerry Blevins.  Lugo will be a distraction if he's around Boston, and if anyone recognizes Lugo's positive qualities, it's Billy Beane.  If the Sox offer to eat half his contract, then Beane will give up a decent lefty reliever in exchange for an inexpensive two years of a shortstop with an above-average OPS at his position.  The Red Sox would get a backstop to Hideki Okajima and end the Javier Lopez experiment.     
7. Sign John Smoltz to a one-year contract.  My wheeling/dealing leaves the Red Sox a little thin in the fifth starter/swingman/11th reliever category.  Smoltz has started and closed in their career, so he can fit the bill if Bowden or Masterson or Ramon Ramirez falls short somehow. 

So, the 2009 Red Sox would look like this: Lineup: 

• CF  Jacoby Ellsbury
• 2B  Dustin Pedroia
• DH  David Ortiz
• 1B  Kevin Youkilis
• 3B  Mike Lowell
• RF  J.D. Drew
• LF  Jason Bay
• C  Jarrod Saltalamacchia
• SS  Jed Lowrie

Bench: 

• OF Baldelli
• OF/INF Bailey
• INF Blalock
• INF Eckstein
• C  Varitek

Rotation: 

• Beckett
• Lester
• Matsuzaka
• Wakefield
• Bowden/Smoltz

Bullpen:

• Papelbon
• Okajima
• Ramirez
• Masterson
• Blevins
• Smoltz/Bard

 I'm pretty comfortable with that.