Category: Sports

Here are the data.  The conclusions?

…college education does not appear to diminish the probability of a player getting in trouble with the law. In fact, some of the most notorious NBA players are those with college degrees, while many others have three years of a college education…actually, the data suggests that premiere high school seniors might be better off skipping college altogether, perhaps in order to avoid the disturbing external influences that afflict many college basketball programs…

No matter the interpretation, it doesn’t appear that the recent decision by the NBA and NBPA to raise the age of NBA draft eligibility from 18 to 19 (or one year out of high school) will improve the overall law-abidingness of NBA players. If anything, actually, this data suggests that it might have the opposite effect.

Second, players appear more likely to get in trouble with the law towards the middle and end of their careers than at the start. This could be interpreted in a number of ways. For instance, it might suggest that the “pressures of being an NBA player” are more manageable at the start of one’s career, perhaps because the player is less autonomous and more reliant on the team. This interpretation is bolstered by the financial stake of NBA teams in facilitating the transition of their players from life as an amateur to life as a pro. Second, and related to the preceding interpretation, new NBA players are often surrounded by veterans in their late 20s and 30s who can monitor them and serve as de facto “big brothers.” The presence of these veteran players is obviously something distinct from the college experience, where the “veterans” are often just 20 or 21-years old, and are thus not likely to be as well-equipped in steering their 18 and 19-year teammates away from nefarious influences. Alternatively, the data may suggest that as the player accumulates wealth and notoriety, he is more likely to succumb to these “pressures.”

Thanks to Todd Zywicki for the pointer.  Here is my earlier post on age limits in sports.

Many ownership worries are circulating, and not just about Maytag in the hands of the Chinese:

Major League Baseball hasn’t narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league’s antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros, an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.

"It’s not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it’s one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don’t think they want to get involved in a political fight."

Here is the full story.  I am also appalled that this kind of political threat is not viewed as a) a major scandal, and b) headline news.  It is time to seize back the Republic, no?

Uh-oh.

These Spurs are so quiet, but it should be asked whether they are the best NBA team to have walked on the planet Earth.  A few points:

1. Since 1997 they have a winning percentage of over .700, the best in any sport.  This includes two previous championship rings, but the current incarnation of the Spurs is believed to be the best.

2. They have absolutely crushed a variety of strong teams from the West, even when Tim Duncan had sore ankles.

3. Their best player, Tim Duncan, should at this point be MVP every year.

4. They are one of the best defensive teams, ever.  Bruce Bowen is a first-rate stopper.

5. They are one of the best-coached teams, ever.  They have an amazing variety of offensive plays and defensive set-ups.  They can play in many different styles, including run and gun fast break, when needed.  They are far more than the sum of their parts.

6. They do not appear to have problems with personalities or dissension.

7. They have a very strong bench.

8. You would rather have Manu Ginobili than Kobe Bryant.

9. In any sport where performance is measurable, quality rises over time.  Yes there is dilution but overall the best basketball teams are getting better.  And the use of foreign players — prominent on the Spurs — is overcoming the dilution problem rapidly.

Can you imagine Bruce Bowen holding MJ to thirty points and Duncan going around Bill Cartwright at will?  Could they keep the fast break of the Showtime Lakers in check, while exploiting the relatively weak defense of that team?  How would they match up against the 1989-1990 "Bad Boy" Pistons, or the Celtics with Bill Walton?

We should put the low TV ratings aside and start asking these questions.

–Baseball has a tremendous emphasis on individual performance. When you strike out, everyone can see, and some kids come out of the batter’s box crying. Hitting is *extremely* hard, as is pitching to a four-footer. Really lousy baseball players are more marginalized and embarrassed than really lousy soccer players. Soccer is more "everybody run around," although of course individuals matter.

–Contemporary parents are obsessed with safety. Soccer is perceived as safer, and may well be, at least until the kids get a little older and start banging into one another harder.

–Girls seem to like soccer better, and co-ed soccer seems to go on longer than co-ed baseball, perhaps because girls can compete more effectively at this sport. My son’s little league is already probably 97% male, and he’s only 8.

Cade Massey and Richard Thaler say yes:

…we analyze the decision making of National Football League teams during their annual player draft. This is a domain in which incentives are exceedingly high and the opportunities for learning rich. It is also a domain in which multiple psychological factors suggest teams may overvalue the "right to choose" in the draft — non-regressive predictions, overconfidence, the winner’s curse and false consensus all suggest a bias in this direction. Using archival data on draft-day trades, player performance and compensation, we compare the market value of draft picks with the historical value of drafted players. We find that top draft picks are overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets and consistent with psychological research.

Here is the NBER link; here is a free version of the paper.  Here is an article on the biggest NFL draft busts.

A few points:

1. Bill Russell would not make first or second team All-NBA today.

2. MJ took over five years to become a truly great player.  For a long time he didn’t have much of a jumper.  The Shaq was NBA Player of the Week his first week in the league.

3. This last year an old, beat-up Shaq left the Lakers for Miami.  The Lakers are now pathetic but the betting market favors Miami to win an NBA title.

4. The first time MJ left Chicago, the remaining Bulls still made the Eastern Finals and were one referee call away from winning them.

5. Phil Jackson should get the credit for much of MJ’s supposed locker room presence in motivating players.  It didn’t do the Washington Wizards any good.

6. We underrate big players simply because they appear (and often are) less skilled or less graceful.  It is an open question in my mind whether MJ or Kareem (also six rings) is #2 on the list.

7. The wise Matthew Ginivan notes: "You put Shaq on any team, in any game, in any era, against any defender and he DOMINATES."

8. Who was it that said: "I am of the opinion that Shaquille should be the MVP every year."

Here is an excellent book with statistical arguments that Shaq is the greatest NBA player of all time.  Here is an analysis of Shaq vs. MJ.  And if you want an exercise for your students, ask them why the designation "Greatest Player of All Time" — a multi-dimensional concept — avoids the Arrow Impossibility Theorem.

The [research] team focused on the 106 international rugby or soccer matches between 1995 and 2002. On non-match days, the number of assault victims averaged 21 per day, and on match days when Wales lost this rose to 25. But the situation was worse after a win, with 33 admissions per day on average…

Match days would seem to organize groups of rowdies, if nothing else; winning might embolden their violence.  And don’t forget about alcohol.  Read more here.  Here is a related account.

Addendum: Thomas Edwards points to this explanation.

The Washington Wizards are 40-30. 

But no, seriously, this time it is true.  Really…

And by the way, water would not splash on the moon…

It appears that Commissioner David Stern is pushing to ban under-20s from NBA play.  And surprise, the player’s union — whose median member is older than 20 — is not screaming about this proposal.  But what are the economics?  If a team drafts an under-20 player, are there negative external costs placed on the rest of the league?  I can see a few scenarios:

1. Drafting younger players makes it harder for bad teams to improve.  The lower-ranked teams pick first, but now they are no longer assured of getting real value.  The draft becomes more like a true lottery, which hurts the long-run competitive balance of the league.  And if teen players do pan out in a few years time, they can become free agents and move to winning teams.

2. Drafting younger players forces teams to spend more on scouting to predict player quality.  College ball in essence provides free training and free information.

3. Drafting younger players gives the league as a whole a bad reputation.  Furthermore the overall quality of play is lower.  Teams invest in future stars and future wins, not caring enough about the bricks they shoot up in the meantime.  But hey, other people are watching, or at least we hope so.

4. Forcing young athletes to play in college induces college ball fans (blecch, I hate college basketball) to take greater interest in the NBA.

5. Young phenoms, such as LeBron James, now have more years in the league since they are drafted earlier.  This boosts interest and attendance for everybody.  If you think that the NBA is superstar-driven, arguably teams do not draft young enough.

6. Perhaps later drafting would produce more stars.  Many players rush to the NBA and lose the chance to learn the game.  They are overconfident, while a commons problem plagues the drafting teams.  Waiting would make almost everyone better off, yet no single party can be induced to wait.

I’ll side with #5.  I suspect that Stern and the player’s union are either a) making a simple mistake in the name of misguided moralism, or b) crafting some broader Faustian and Coasian bargain where Stern offers this as one chip.

A new study by The Associated Press reveals that nearly half of NBA players qualify as overweight using the body-mass index (BMI). According to the BMI, the only NBA player at a healthy weight is Mavericks center Shawn Bradley.

Here is the link.  Here is a photo of 7’6" Shawn Bradley, occasionally known as "The Stormin’ Mormon" and "The Human Stick."  Here is more information.

Addendum: The Bradley line is a joke…(:

Bertil Ollmann writes:

The rules of basketball have changed often over the years, so I hope no one will object if I offer a few modest revisions to make this truly wonderful game even better:

First, I would charge an admission fee not only to watch the game but to play in it. And the more one pays, the longer one gets to stay in the game.

Second, there should be a price paid for each shot taken, and the easier the shot, the more it should cost.

Third, as for fouls, one should be able to pay the referees, so that they never call any fouls on you (or walking or double dribble violations for that matter).

Fourth – and maybe most important – there is no good reason that the baskets should be the same height for both teams. It should be possible for the team that pays more to have its basket lowered, and for double that amount to have the basket  the other team is going for raised.

Under present rules, those players who are taller and better coordinated and can run faster and jump higher have all the advantages. My rules would exchange the advantages enjoyed by these people for other advantages that would benefit  a different  group, one that  has been poorly served by basketball as now played. That group is the rich.  With my rules, the rich would possess all the "talent" (what it takes to win) and – more in keeping with what occurs in the rest of society –  never lose a game.

The (ostensible) goal is to educate people about how capitalism really works. But if we are going to play the game of caricatures, I’d like to see a "democratic NBA."  The vote of the crowd determines who wins the game.  Your points can be taken away from you at any time and given to the other team.  And note that foreign policy — arguably the most important thing our government does — is determined solely by the vote of the crowd of the home team.

For those of you who care about real "regulated by a third party private intermediary" NBA basketball, here is an analysis of the top five contenders.  The betting markets tell a different story.

A Portland, Ore., man who put an Egyptian-themed tattoo on the right arm of Pistons forward Rasheed Wallace is suing to stop Wallace from displaying the art in ads for Nike basketball shoes. The man wants the ad taken off the air and seeks undisclosed damages, though he would settle for reclaiming the offensive pound of flesh.

Here is the link.  Here are the tattoos.  Here is a lengthier account of the story.

…[in] the "Field Position Auction" proposal we submitted to the N.F.L. at the end of the 2002-3 season. In it, the loser of the overtime coin flip decides the yard line where the offense starts, and the winner chooses between taking the ball or starting on defense. We would also like to present an alternative method that achieves the same result, but eliminates the coin flip.

At the start of sudden-death overtime, the teams engage in a silent auction to decide possession. Each team writes down the yard line at which it would be willing to start its offense. The numbers are given to the referee in sealed envelopes; the team that picks the lower yard line gets the ball first. The first team to score wins. There is no coin flip. Each team has an equal chance to take possession, and the team willing to give up more field position gets the ball.

Otherwise the coin flip winner ends up triumphant sixty percent of the time.  Here is The New York Times link, and thanks to Robert Schwartz for the pointer.