In the shadows of the current UEFA championship and the aftermath of the Heat's second NBA title, a very significant event took place in the US. Ashton Eaton, 24, from Bend, Oregon, broke the decathlon world record at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials on Saturday. He improved the previous world record, owned by Czech Roman Seberle (2001) from 9,026 to 9,039.
This is an amazing and very impressive performance and Eaton is now the favorite for the Olympics in London. He had amazing performances on the 100 sprint, running it in 10.21 seconds and and amazing long jump at 8.23 meters. Decathlon is often considered to be the supreme discipline in track and field and eclipsing the 9,000 points mark is something very special. Eaton will probably not become as famous as LeBron James or the future winner of the UEFA championships. But his performance is second to none and will certainly go down in history. And if he wins gold in London it will also pay off. I wish him all the best and congratulations!
Montag, 25. Juni 2012
Freitag, 22. Juni 2012
Margin for (human)error?
Now that we are well into the second phase of the European Championship in soccer, it is time to look back at the most notable event: a decision made by a referee-assistant in the game England vs. Ukraine. As the TV images clearly show, England defender John Terry was not able to keep the ball out of the goal on his spectacular attempt to prevent the Ukraine from tying the game at 1:1. The picture (in contrast to the famous Wembley goal) tell a clear story and there is absolutely no doubt that the newly installed goal referee made the wrong decision by not declaring it a goal.
Some people and media analysts continue to argue in favor of preserving the current way of enforcing the rules in a soccer match. They come forward and praise the human decision making as the best way to handle critical situations like the Ukraine non-goal. UEFA officials, spearheaded by president Platini, are still reluctant to accept any technical assistance for referees in order to make their decisions easier. According to them it would destroy the "flow" of the game. Moreover the performance of referees is often praised excessively and "human decisions" are considered part of the game of soccer and the optimal way to achieve a fair competition.
Well, the latest non-goal makes UEFA look old. But it is really just another example of refereeing that might decide important games. Some people, and they are probably right, argue that the vast majority of referee calls in soccer are correct. But even if 1% of all calls are wrong this can influence the result of games. In a still growing business of soccer and sports betting a wrong decision by a referee can have dramatic consequences. Moreover, they can change player careers, end coaches contracts and leave whole nations of soccer fans desperate. By now most of the major sports worldwide have some sort of technical assistance for referees. Even highly traditional sports like tennis and baseball have it by now.
In the end UEFA might turn out to be the biggest loser, as Platini might lose the power struggle with FIFA president platter over the use of goal line technology. And the European Championship lost quite some momentum as Ukraine (probably unjustified) dropped out of the tournament.
Another victim of extraordinary bad refereeing is Greece. One of their key player, Karagounis, will miss today's quarter final against Germany because he received his second yellow card in the game against Russia. This card came after a clear foul against him remained unseen by the ref and interpreted as blatant dive. This is neither bad luck, nor is it just or performance related. And it should definitely not be part of the game. It is just a very bad decision that will influence competition on the field of play.
If the UEFA was interested in fair competition they would lift the card off Karagounis and let him compete today. And they would finally accept that in today's football referee mistakes are avoidable and definitely not just a "part of the game".
Some people and media analysts continue to argue in favor of preserving the current way of enforcing the rules in a soccer match. They come forward and praise the human decision making as the best way to handle critical situations like the Ukraine non-goal. UEFA officials, spearheaded by president Platini, are still reluctant to accept any technical assistance for referees in order to make their decisions easier. According to them it would destroy the "flow" of the game. Moreover the performance of referees is often praised excessively and "human decisions" are considered part of the game of soccer and the optimal way to achieve a fair competition.
Well, the latest non-goal makes UEFA look old. But it is really just another example of refereeing that might decide important games. Some people, and they are probably right, argue that the vast majority of referee calls in soccer are correct. But even if 1% of all calls are wrong this can influence the result of games. In a still growing business of soccer and sports betting a wrong decision by a referee can have dramatic consequences. Moreover, they can change player careers, end coaches contracts and leave whole nations of soccer fans desperate. By now most of the major sports worldwide have some sort of technical assistance for referees. Even highly traditional sports like tennis and baseball have it by now.
In the end UEFA might turn out to be the biggest loser, as Platini might lose the power struggle with FIFA president platter over the use of goal line technology. And the European Championship lost quite some momentum as Ukraine (probably unjustified) dropped out of the tournament.
Another victim of extraordinary bad refereeing is Greece. One of their key player, Karagounis, will miss today's quarter final against Germany because he received his second yellow card in the game against Russia. This card came after a clear foul against him remained unseen by the ref and interpreted as blatant dive. This is neither bad luck, nor is it just or performance related. And it should definitely not be part of the game. It is just a very bad decision that will influence competition on the field of play.
If the UEFA was interested in fair competition they would lift the card off Karagounis and let him compete today. And they would finally accept that in today's football referee mistakes are avoidable and definitely not just a "part of the game".
Dienstag, 22. Mai 2012
Concussions
In the upcoming days of the annual NFL spring meetings this week, there was a lot of discussion going on about the NFL and the obvious problems of negative long-term health effects of the game on players. In the wake of Junior Seau's tragic death, the question of the NFL's responsibility for retired players is more prominent than ever.
One phenomenon that was often downplayed or even ignored is the number of concussions professional football players suffer from during their careers. The league is facing an avalanche of lawsuits from former players who argue that they suffer from neglected long-term effects from ignored head injuries and concussions. While the NFL was quick to release a study which should prove that retired NFL players actually live longer than other people. The study, carried out by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is focusing on all retirees who played in the NFL for at least five seasons from 1959 through 1988. It argues that playing in the NFL actually offered health benefits. While I do not know the exact details of the study (some results are presented here), I am sure that most of the problems you will face when evaluating the healt effects of a certain activity, were not dealt with adequately. Of course, the group of NFL player is highly selected and in order to make it to the NFL, you have to be in above-average health conditions already. So there is a lot of potential for sample selection bias and there is definitely not the full information on injuries like concussions. Moreover, the study has no power to prove any form of causality between playing in the NFL and long-term health effects.
What should be evaluated is the effect of playing in the NFL compared to other sports. We, and definitely the NFL, should be interested in the influence of the number of concussions on long-term health and brain conditions in retirement age. The NIOSH study concludes that former NFL players had a much lower rate of death overall compared to men in the general population. This does by no means surprise me. And it has no power as evidence that former NFL players do not suffer from negative effects when they have retired.
It will be interesting to see how Commissioner Goodell will address this issue in the future and at the spring meetings. The current stance of the commissioner on the Saints "bountygate scandal" indicates that the problem of (head) injuries and possible consequences has already been addressed. My intuition is that the danger of losing a huge amount of money in upcoming lawsuits is the main reason for this. The long-term health of players, however, should be the only reason. The NIOSH study does not tell us anything (new). While the neurologists are already working on the issues, a lot of further research in this area is needed.
Montag, 14. Mai 2012
Money can't buy you...or can it?
Last weekend most Europena football leagues found their 2012 champions. The new Champion of the English Premiere League is Manchester City, the Italian Champion is Juventus Turin, in Spain, although already on top, Real Madrid was able to break the 100 points barrier and (because of home bias) the new champion in Austria is Red Bull Salzburg.
So what do Machester City, Juventus Turin and Red Bull Salzburg have in common? Well, ManCity is financed by Sheik Mansour, Juventus by Fiat through Italy's richest sponsoring contract, and, of course, RB Salzburg is one of many "Red Bull operated" clubs. With UEFA's fair play initiative on the way things might (and I am still sceptical) change in favor of open competitions with more equal chances for all clubs who are not supported by a powerful oligarch, a sheik or a local business.
While Real Madrid is not really known for financial responsibility, one example for a national champion who has not won due to financial power is Borussia Dortmund. Dortmund has just defeated FC Bayern for the fifth time this season (5:2 in Berlin) to capture the DFB cup on Saturday, despite featuring a budged significantly lower than Bayern's. In fact Borussia Dortmund was in financial ruins following a period of heavy spending and transformation into a share issuing business in the mid/late 1990s. From this financial turmoil the club made a complete restart and focused on developing young talents while operating strictly within their financial limits. In contrast to their local rival, Schalke 04, who are heavily sponsored by Gazprom, Dortmund was highly successful during the last two seasons and is said to have surpassed FC Bayern as the dominating force in German football.
Time will tell if Dortmund and their almost unique approach towards the "business" of professional football will carry over into longterm success and a permanent ability to challenge the heavy-spending FC Bayern. However, in times where titles are usually going to towns where big money is, it is refreshing to see that it is not always money that brings success. Maybe it is not UEFA Fair Play that will change Europena football. Maybe all it needs are some clubs that change their attitude and have success on and off the field of play.
Congratulations Dortmund!
So what do Machester City, Juventus Turin and Red Bull Salzburg have in common? Well, ManCity is financed by Sheik Mansour, Juventus by Fiat through Italy's richest sponsoring contract, and, of course, RB Salzburg is one of many "Red Bull operated" clubs. With UEFA's fair play initiative on the way things might (and I am still sceptical) change in favor of open competitions with more equal chances for all clubs who are not supported by a powerful oligarch, a sheik or a local business.
While Real Madrid is not really known for financial responsibility, one example for a national champion who has not won due to financial power is Borussia Dortmund. Dortmund has just defeated FC Bayern for the fifth time this season (5:2 in Berlin) to capture the DFB cup on Saturday, despite featuring a budged significantly lower than Bayern's. In fact Borussia Dortmund was in financial ruins following a period of heavy spending and transformation into a share issuing business in the mid/late 1990s. From this financial turmoil the club made a complete restart and focused on developing young talents while operating strictly within their financial limits. In contrast to their local rival, Schalke 04, who are heavily sponsored by Gazprom, Dortmund was highly successful during the last two seasons and is said to have surpassed FC Bayern as the dominating force in German football.
Time will tell if Dortmund and their almost unique approach towards the "business" of professional football will carry over into longterm success and a permanent ability to challenge the heavy-spending FC Bayern. However, in times where titles are usually going to towns where big money is, it is refreshing to see that it is not always money that brings success. Maybe it is not UEFA Fair Play that will change Europena football. Maybe all it needs are some clubs that change their attitude and have success on and off the field of play.
Congratulations Dortmund!
Dienstag, 24. April 2012
The perfect game?
First: let me apologize for the long time I have not posted anything here on my blog, but I've been busy with a recent research project you will hopefully read a lot about here in a few month...
A lot has happened since, mostly related to the activities before the upcoming NFL draft and the New Orleans Saints "bounty scandal". I am already on records on this topic and it is amazing how the NFL (in person of the Commissioner) is destroying the NFL feelgood story of the last 5 years. More on this soon. As it looks now we might even have a second spygate.
But something else happened this weekend. We saw the 21st perfect game in the history of Major League Baseball. It belongs to Philip Humber of the Chicago White Sox. First let me say this: I am not taking away anything Humber has achieved on this day. I saw the game and he had a magnificent pitching performance, completely dominating the Seattle Mariners. But was his game really perfect? His last pitch, to me, was a clear ball and I have not seen a swing by his last batter. This final out came on a check-swing strikeout of Brendan Ryan, where be barely swung and obviously thought he earned himself a walk.
Statistics in sports are important and I have use them regularly to study human behavior and economics. But baseball really takes statistics to the limit. I really love the sport and it is an amazing setting to study decision making under pressure conditions. On Saturday I had the feeling that on his last at bat Philip Humber, who by the way has never even pitched a complete game before Saturday, was awarded the perfect game rather then really earning it. And here decision making comes into play: What did Humber do on this all important pitch with a 3-2 count, facing a probably once-in-a-lifetime chance? He throws a ball down and away. Does this make any sense? Why would somebody who wants to get the batter out at any price throw an obvious ball when it counted most? I think it is obvious: He wanted to save his no-hitter. If he throws a ball over the strike zone and he gives up a hit, his complete game, as well as his no-hit bid are gone. So instead of rolling the dice, he threw an awful (and it was clearly visible that the ball did not get away from him) ball and was lucky (or just had the right umpire) to get the strikeout. Arguably a perfectly rational decision.
In the 9th inning, when Humber was about to make history, the game was all about one thing: "will he do it, or not?" So a personal achievement becomes more important then the actual win of the White Sox. And I think that Humber decided to protect the second-best outcome with his final pitch rather than going for the perfect game. The officials still handed him his part in history.
I argue that Philip Humber had an amazing performance, even if he had walked this batter. Even if he had given up a hit on that pitch. Putting away all that perfect-game no-hitter craze he still had a historic performance. Congratulations!
A lot has happened since, mostly related to the activities before the upcoming NFL draft and the New Orleans Saints "bounty scandal". I am already on records on this topic and it is amazing how the NFL (in person of the Commissioner) is destroying the NFL feelgood story of the last 5 years. More on this soon. As it looks now we might even have a second spygate.
But something else happened this weekend. We saw the 21st perfect game in the history of Major League Baseball. It belongs to Philip Humber of the Chicago White Sox. First let me say this: I am not taking away anything Humber has achieved on this day. I saw the game and he had a magnificent pitching performance, completely dominating the Seattle Mariners. But was his game really perfect? His last pitch, to me, was a clear ball and I have not seen a swing by his last batter. This final out came on a check-swing strikeout of Brendan Ryan, where be barely swung and obviously thought he earned himself a walk.
Statistics in sports are important and I have use them regularly to study human behavior and economics. But baseball really takes statistics to the limit. I really love the sport and it is an amazing setting to study decision making under pressure conditions. On Saturday I had the feeling that on his last at bat Philip Humber, who by the way has never even pitched a complete game before Saturday, was awarded the perfect game rather then really earning it. And here decision making comes into play: What did Humber do on this all important pitch with a 3-2 count, facing a probably once-in-a-lifetime chance? He throws a ball down and away. Does this make any sense? Why would somebody who wants to get the batter out at any price throw an obvious ball when it counted most? I think it is obvious: He wanted to save his no-hitter. If he throws a ball over the strike zone and he gives up a hit, his complete game, as well as his no-hit bid are gone. So instead of rolling the dice, he threw an awful (and it was clearly visible that the ball did not get away from him) ball and was lucky (or just had the right umpire) to get the strikeout. Arguably a perfectly rational decision.
In the 9th inning, when Humber was about to make history, the game was all about one thing: "will he do it, or not?" So a personal achievement becomes more important then the actual win of the White Sox. And I think that Humber decided to protect the second-best outcome with his final pitch rather than going for the perfect game. The officials still handed him his part in history.
I argue that Philip Humber had an amazing performance, even if he had walked this batter. Even if he had given up a hit on that pitch. Putting away all that perfect-game no-hitter craze he still had a historic performance. Congratulations!
Dienstag, 13. März 2012
Single Entity?
The NFL, as well as other professional sports leagues in the US, have repeatedly been suspected of violating antitrust regulations. NFL v. American Needle case was only the most recent in a row of cases dating back to the Oakland Raiders case (consult Lehn and Sykuta, 1997) in the 1980s. The NFL has often come forward using the "single entity" defense, arguing that the league is basically one big enterprise not a trust formed by a number of teams as individual business entities.
In the wake of last year's lockout and the result that last year's NFL season is an uncapped (i.e. meaning that no salary cap would limit player salaries) two teams reportedly have tried to benefit from the situation. The Washington Redskins as well as the Dallas Cowboys have structured some contracts of their players to make the front-loaded in a way to shift substantial parts of the salaries into the 2010/2011 season. This would certainly create a competitive advantage in coming years as they will have an advantage in terms of salary cap space.
It has now surfaced that the NFL has taken away salary cap space from these two teams: $36 million in cap space from the Redskins and $10 million from the Cowboys. The league split this sum and handed it to 28 remaining teams, who receive an additional $1.6 million in cap space. Both teams argue that the NFL has no point in doing so, especially as 2010/2011 was an un-capped season. Some other teams who were obviously affected by what the Redskins and Cowboys did complained and the Washington Post cites the saying:
So what do we have here: We have an organization, which is per constitution of the league the group of all team owners, telling teams not to take advantage of the lack of regulations. We have two individual organizations operating within this league who sought (which is only rational) an advantage and did nothing wrong because the regulations were missing. The Redskins and Cowboys acted like individual entities and are defending themselves as single entities now. The Cowboys issued the following statement:
In the wake of last year's lockout and the result that last year's NFL season is an uncapped (i.e. meaning that no salary cap would limit player salaries) two teams reportedly have tried to benefit from the situation. The Washington Redskins as well as the Dallas Cowboys have structured some contracts of their players to make the front-loaded in a way to shift substantial parts of the salaries into the 2010/2011 season. This would certainly create a competitive advantage in coming years as they will have an advantage in terms of salary cap space.
It has now surfaced that the NFL has taken away salary cap space from these two teams: $36 million in cap space from the Redskins and $10 million from the Cowboys. The league split this sum and handed it to 28 remaining teams, who receive an additional $1.6 million in cap space. Both teams argue that the NFL has no point in doing so, especially as 2010/2011 was an un-capped season. Some other teams who were obviously affected by what the Redskins and Cowboys did complained and the Washington Post cites the saying:
All the clubs were warned not to do anything to create a competitive advantage when the salary cap came back, and that's what [the Redskins] did [...].
So what do we have here: We have an organization, which is per constitution of the league the group of all team owners, telling teams not to take advantage of the lack of regulations. We have two individual organizations operating within this league who sought (which is only rational) an advantage and did nothing wrong because the regulations were missing. The Redskins and Cowboys acted like individual entities and are defending themselves as single entities now. The Cowboys issued the following statement:
The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period, where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged.As far as I am concerned they are perfectly right. And this recent events should really make antitrust officials even more suspicious. In the American Needle case (consult Brad Humphreys' excellent resource page for details) the NFL actively sought antitrust immunity. The final ruling denied this. The way the NFL handled this recent salary cap issues is another strong argument against the single entity defense. Should the Cowboys and Redskins be willing to go to court I think they might have a good chance to win this case. Does not sound like a single entity to me...
Montag, 5. März 2012
Bounty hunters?
Quite recently a potentially big scandal shook up the "pre-Draft" NFL. Accusations surfaced that now Ex-New Orleans Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams used to run illegal (under NFL rules) pay for performance schemes when he was with the Saints (2009-11), the Redskins and probably the Tennessee Titans and Buffalo Bills earlier in his career. Some former players came forward and described Williams' system as some sort of "bounty program" where hard hits and injuries of opponents where awarded extra money.
Former Titans and 49ers Safety Lance Schulters is cited by the Tennesseasn newspaper as follows:
So let us turn our intention to the incentives to get opponents injured. Is this really something new or illegal? Every defender in the NFL or in other levels of football knows that knocking out any starter on the offense of the opponent will substantially increase the probability to win the game. Of course defenders will try to hit the opposing Quarterback as hard as possible and if he is on the sideline nobody will feel bad about it. And as long as the hits were legal it will (and should not) have any negative consequences. When Jay Cuttler (Chicago Bears) went down in the NFC Championship game last year against Green Bay, the chances of the Packers to win the game increase dramatically. I doubt that it needed any extra incentives for Green Bay defenders to go after Cuttler as hard as possible. So why make too much out of this new story?
But let us turn to the second Schulters quote. What he is saying is that there was systematic extra compensation for making plays on defense and offense. $1.000 for a 100-yards rusher, $500 for a TD catch and a mere $200 for a sack. Should we really care for this at all? When we talk about $1.000 for a 100 yards rusher we usually talk about an athlete earning a million dollars base salary, having a contract usually involving performances bonuses anyway and (more often than not) being a multi millionaire. The same is true for Wide Receivers who catch TDs and defenders who get to the QB. Performance will always be rewarded in professional sports. So what is an extra $200 for a linemen who earns thousands of dollars for each game anyway? What kind of an extra incentive is that? I say it is pretty much irrelevant. And as long as performance incentives are part of regular NFL contracts it just another way of rewarding (perfectly legal) performances.
We are either seeing just the tip of an iceberg right now, or this story is blown out of proportion already. Even if we condemn Gregg Williams' ways of coaching we could still say that it probably has not worked out anyway. The New Orleans Saints' defense has not really done well in recent years, culminating in a rather bad 2011 season. This ultimately got Williams fired. His approach failed, but was it really that "bad" after all? We will probably have to think about this as soon as the NFL has issued the penalty...
Former Titans and 49ers Safety Lance Schulters is cited by the Tennesseasn newspaper as follows:
“Guys would throw out there, ‘Hey, knock this guy out and it’s worth $1,000,’ ” Schulters said. “Let’s say when we played the Steelers, and Hines Ward was always trying to knock guys out. So if you knocked (him) out, there might be something in the pot, $100 or whatever, for a big hit on Hines — a legal, big hit."He went on saying:
"A player scoring a touchdown might receive $500 from a pool, a defensive lineman with a sack might get $200 and a 100-yard rusher might be handed $1,000. Special teams players would get a bonus for a downing a punt inside the 10, and offensive linemen could expect to be handed extra cash for not giving up a sack. Sometimes the bonuses could be as much as $5,000."So we have two essentially different things: One is a clear incentive to injure and harm opponents and the other is basically extra financial compensation for making perfectly legal plays and performing well.
So let us turn our intention to the incentives to get opponents injured. Is this really something new or illegal? Every defender in the NFL or in other levels of football knows that knocking out any starter on the offense of the opponent will substantially increase the probability to win the game. Of course defenders will try to hit the opposing Quarterback as hard as possible and if he is on the sideline nobody will feel bad about it. And as long as the hits were legal it will (and should not) have any negative consequences. When Jay Cuttler (Chicago Bears) went down in the NFC Championship game last year against Green Bay, the chances of the Packers to win the game increase dramatically. I doubt that it needed any extra incentives for Green Bay defenders to go after Cuttler as hard as possible. So why make too much out of this new story?
But let us turn to the second Schulters quote. What he is saying is that there was systematic extra compensation for making plays on defense and offense. $1.000 for a 100-yards rusher, $500 for a TD catch and a mere $200 for a sack. Should we really care for this at all? When we talk about $1.000 for a 100 yards rusher we usually talk about an athlete earning a million dollars base salary, having a contract usually involving performances bonuses anyway and (more often than not) being a multi millionaire. The same is true for Wide Receivers who catch TDs and defenders who get to the QB. Performance will always be rewarded in professional sports. So what is an extra $200 for a linemen who earns thousands of dollars for each game anyway? What kind of an extra incentive is that? I say it is pretty much irrelevant. And as long as performance incentives are part of regular NFL contracts it just another way of rewarding (perfectly legal) performances.
We are either seeing just the tip of an iceberg right now, or this story is blown out of proportion already. Even if we condemn Gregg Williams' ways of coaching we could still say that it probably has not worked out anyway. The New Orleans Saints' defense has not really done well in recent years, culminating in a rather bad 2011 season. This ultimately got Williams fired. His approach failed, but was it really that "bad" after all? We will probably have to think about this as soon as the NFL has issued the penalty...
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)