NBA Shortened Schedule

Recently on ESPN.com, Michael Wilbon wrote an article about Derrick Rose's recent ACL tear. He argued that because of the shortened schedule due to the lockout, more players have been getting injured than ever before. In one day of the playoffs, Rose, the reigning MVP, and Iman Shumpert of the Knicks both tore their ACL. BEcause of the lockout, NBA teams have been forced to play on short rest all year, leading many to speculate that the new schedule has been damaging to the players. Of course, David Stern recently came out disputing this, but there is reasonable speculation.

As an athlete, I'm aware that playing a competitive game takes a toll on your body, and your body needs adequate time to recover. By going out and pushing an injured body everyday, you are more likely to further injure it. I do believe that these injuries are because of the shortened schedule. Hopefully no more players will be hurt before the seasons over, and the players can go back to getting on a regular schedule next year. Although, you can't feel too bad for the players, they are partly to blame for the lockout as well.

Redskins New Quarterback

The NFL uses a trade value chart, which attempts to assign value to every pick in the draft. Before the draft, the Washington Redskins traded 3 1st round picks, and a 2nd for the overall #2 pick, where they selected Robert Griffin III from Baylor University. By receiving the #2 pick, the Redskins got 2,600 points on the trade value chart. In this years draft, they traded 2,110 points. But considering they also traded their first the next two years, they gave up an addition 2,200, if they finish in the middle of the league.

Based on this math, it seems like the Redskins gave up way too much for Griffin. It's hard to say that for sure though, because franchise quarterbacks are so much more valuable than any other position. The Indianapolis Colts were perennial Super Bowl contenders with Peyton Manning, but were the worst team in the league without him. If Griffin is as good as expected, it makes sense for the Redskins to give up this much. If Griffin doesn't work out however, the Redskins could have set themselves back for many years to come. A very risky trade considering no one can ever completely predict how good a player will be.

heisman trophy winners

The Heisman trophy is the most prestigious award in college football. It goes to the best player in the nation. Because of this, many would think that the Heisman trophy winner is bound for NFL stardom. Looking at recent winners though, that's not the case at all.

Cam Newton looks to be the real deal, but it's too early on him. It's also too early to call Mark Ingram and Sam Bradford busts, but they've been disappointing so far. However, the last very successful NFL player that won the Heisman trophy was cornerback Charles Woodson in 1997. And before that, the most recent successful quarterback is Vinny Testaverde in 1985. I think this is because the Heisman is now so frequently won by quarterbacks. From 2000-2008, ever Heisman winner was a quarterback. Quarterback is the toughest position to transition to, because there are so many different variables that lead to success as a quarterback in the NFL. First, many quarterbacks in college use the spread formation to spread the receivers over the field, which allows for quarterbacks to put up big passing numbers. This formation isn't utilized as much in the NFL. Quarterbacks also must be able to make much harder throws into tighter windows with athletes being much bigger and faster. They also need to be able to create chemistry with new receivers and a new offensive line.

I was surprised at first to see how separate success in college and success at the professional level are, but looking at it further, it isn't that surprising. Positions such as O and D line are much easier to predict, as the position doesn't change much from level to level, however those guys will never win a Heisman trophy.

college lacrosse

Lacrosse has been known as the "fastest sport on two feet," but recently, this term seems to be losing it's relevance. There are a few reasons for this. The first is the newly placed importance on specialists. This includes offensive middies, defensive middies, and fogos (face off, and get off). Because it's rare for a midfielder to play two ways, transition isn't as emphasized anymore. Many teams would rather settle the ball down, and get the right personnel on the field instead of pushing the ball from defense to offense with their defensive midfielders. Another reason is the new technology in lacrosse sticks that make it very difficult for defenders to take the ball away. Because of this, defenders are less aggressive, and instead stay in more and play position defense instead of trying to take the ball away. Last year, the University of Virginia won a national championship in part by implementing a zone for the first time under coach Dom Starsia. The zone defense was packed in, making the offense be deliberate on when and where to attack.

Many in lacrosse have asked for a shot clock, similar to the professional league, major league lacrosse. The MLL uses a 60 second shot clock, from the start of a possession. I don't think this is the best option for college, however. For one, the professional game is different. There are 2 point shots, and no "box" in which the offensive players have to keep it in in case of a stall. The professional players are also the best players in the world, and can handle the game moving at such a fast pace. The urging for a shot clock in college lacrosse started picking up steam last year when the University of Maryland shockingly upset Syracuse University by sitting on the ball for most of the game, so Syracuse couldn't get up and down the field like they wanted to. Again in the championship game, Uva sat on the ball, killing the clock at the end against Maryland. I don't think a straight 60 second shot clock is the best option, but instead a shorter shot clock, maybe around 45 seconds, that will be called after the refs call a "stall" warning. In lacrosse right now, thee ref calls a stall warning when the offensive team isn't making an attempt to go to the goal, for an arbitrary amount of time. It is up to the refs when to call a stall. When this happens, the offensive team has to keep the ball within the "box," theoretically making it easier for the defense to extend, and pressure the ball to get it back. The box is still big enough for players to maneuver without the defense taking the ball though, as those two games show. So instead, I propose when the ref calls a stall, the team has another 45 seconds to get a shot on goal. After that is a turnover. This will keep the game moving very fast, because teams will be forced to go to the goal, and if they commit a shot clock violation, the other team immediately picks up the ball and runs down the field for a transition situation. This rule will get lacrosse back to the way it was prior, high scoring and fast.

competitive balance in baseball

Moneyball, the book that was recently turned into a movie discussed competitive balance in baseball, a sport without a salary cap. Because there is no salary cap, there's nothing from stopping the rich teams from spending as much as they want, while the poor teams are left scrambling to find players others might not have wanted. In fact, this is exactly what happens with teams like the Yankees spending much more than poor teams like the Oakland Athletics. To start the 2012 season, the Yankees have the highest payroll at $197,962,289, while the Athletics are 2nd to last at $55,372,500.

With other sports like basketball, football, and hockey all using the salary cap to try and maintain competitive balance, many wonder why baseball doesn't implement a similar system. However, I don't think that the lack of a salary cap affects competitive balance much in baseball. This is mainly because predicting future success is so hard. Baseball used to only have one year contracts when the reserve clause  prevented players from entering free agency. This was because teams thought it was physically impossible to guarantee health and performance in the future. Why would I give you a contract for next year if you might have major arm surgery this year? This has clearly gone long, long away, but the concept is what keeps a balance in baseball. There are countless contracts that teams pay huge sums of money, and the players don't perform up to expectations. Poorer teams don't find themselves giving huge contracts that could cripple their franchise. So even though the Yankees might be paying A-Rod $30 million this year, that doesn't mean he's going to earn it. It just means the Yankees signed a contract that was way too big, predicting A-Rod to continue his incredible career, and that hasn't worked out for them.

Failure to predict the future is what is keeping baseball competitive. Poorer clubs are forced to give out smart contracts that won't cripple them. A-rod, Jeter, and Hiroki Kuroda, are making as much as every player on the Athletics, but these players won't perform at a much higher level. This is why baseball isn't in dire need of a salary cap.

The state of college athletics

Recently, Dave Berri, the author of Wages of Wins wrote a piece on freakonomics.com about salaries in college sports. As the article states, in 2008, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) collected an astonishing $4.4 billion of revenue. In the state of New Hampshire, the University of New Hampshire hockey coach Dick Umile is the highest paid state employee. Even considering all of this, college players aren't paid to play, which has become a widely debated topic in recent years.

People against paying athletes often site two main arguments: some college's can't afford paying athletes, only further distorting competitive balance, and athlete's are already payed through scholarships. I don't think the first point is valid. As Berri states, college coaching salaries are ridiculously high. Nick Saban, the football coach at the University of Alabama makes $5.62 million per season, while two time super bowl champion Tom Coughlin of the Giants makes $5.25. The reason that colleges pay their coaches so much is because they don't have to pay the students, and the front office. If college players started being paid, the coaches salaries would simply go down. Also, the current college system doesn't foster competitive balance anyway. All the top players commit to the top schools that are already financially capable of giving them a scholarship.

The people in favor of paying players point to how much revenue these players are generating for the university. These people argue that the university shouldn't be able to profit so much off of these students while they don't see any of it. Another possible positive of paying players, is it would provide an incentive for staying in school longer before going pro.

Personally, I don't think athletes should be paid. Clearly, different athletes generate different amounts of revenue for the school. The star quarterback is going to bring in more than someone on the bench. Getting colleges into bidding wars for teenagers could be a slippery slope. Getting a free education in itself is a lot of money. Also, two sports (football, and basketball) are generating most of the revenue for the NCAA. Only compensating athletes in these two sports would be unfair, but at the same time, many sports are already losing money. Paying these athletes would only exacerbate this problem.

How the blog relates to the class

In class, we have discussed how blogging has shifted some of the reliability for news away from the national media, and more towards blogs. Blogs give everyone an opinion, and this ensures that one news source's bias won't be the only piece you read on a topic. As Barlow pointed out, the central media isn't the only voice heard now. The average person is able to be heard. The internet has made it so that everyone, not just a select few can have their voices heard.

As shown in my last blog post, this is an important concept. Scouts have always played the crucial part in evaluating players. They go to watch the players play, and based off of their report, teams will decide whether they want to draft them or not. Blogging has taken some of that power away from scouts though. As shown in my last post, using numbers, one blog was able to predict Jeremy Lin before anyone else was. Blogging has changed the way sports are evaluated. Not only are there many more opinions out there, technology has allowed for these opinions to be knowledgeable. The internet has allowed any person to view any players statistics, and come up with their own way of predicting success. 

Jeremy Lin and evaluating players

In the past few weeks, Jeremy Lin has shockingly joined the New York Knicks' starting line-up and has turned the team around. This was shocking because back in 2010, after he graduated from Harvard, no scout was interested in him. He went undrafted in the 2010 NBA draft. The Golden State Warriors signed him, sent him to the Development League three times, and eventually cut him. He was then signed by the Houston Rockets, before he joined the New York Knicks, who also sent him down to the D-League at the start of the year before rejoining the team for good. Considering all of this, it was shocking to see Lin take over the NBA. No one had ever heard of Jeremy Lin. Lin's rise has led to questions about the evaluation of college talent in all leagues, not just basketball. Lin's rise to being the starting point guard for the Knicks has showed that draft evaluators are often wrong, and more importantly, are often looking for the wrong things.

Recently, the book Moneyball, which was written by Michael Lewis, was turned into a major motion picture. Moneyball told the story of the Oakland Athletics and Billy Beane, the General Manager of the team. Beane was given one of the smallest budgets in baseball, and had to compete with spending giants like the New York Yankees and Boston Redsox. Because Beane didn't have the funds to outbid for players that other teams wanted, Beane had to find new ways of evaluating players. He decided to not try and buy players, but runs. He focused in on on-base percentage, as his most valued statistic, and was able to assemble a team, that was statistically proven to win, even though every scout who judged players though the team was destined to fail. After his team won an American League record 20 straight games and made the playoffs, Billy Beane fundamentally changed the way baseball players are evaluated. Baseball is alone in this change though, and the rise of Jeremy Lin shows this.

Back in 2010, Ed Weiland, who runs www.hoopsanalyst.com/blog, was previewing the NBA draft prospects. Based on only two stats, Weiland predicted that Lin might be “the best candidate to pull off such a surprise.” Weiland only used 2-point FG pct and RSB40, which means rebounds, steals, and blocks, per 40 minutes. Because basketball is a game predicated on having possession of the ball, and converting on your possessions, these stats prove much more meaningful than experts have considered them to be. 2-point FG pct shows how efficient the player is at scoring. As discussed, in my last post, scoring efficiently is very important. Rebounds, steals, and blocks, are other statistics that show how good someone is at obtaining possession for your team. Based on these two numbers, Weiland successfully predicted that Lin would be very successful. As he said: “Jeremy Lin might be the #2 PG available in this draft. He looks to me like a sleeper in the mold of George Hill. He appears to have the skills to become at least a usable combo guard. If he can get the passing thing down and handle the point, Jeremy Lin is a good enough player to start in the NBA and possibly star.” The scouts missed this though, because they were looking for the wrong things. They were looking for points scored, assists, and rebounds. They also didn't like the fact that Lin played in the Ivy league, which is a weak basketball conference. Because of this though, many first-round picks in the NBA bust, and players like Lin may have never been given a chance. 

Basketball is among a few sports that need an evaluation overhaul, and hopefully Weiland’s new way of evaluating players will start it. Scoring isn’t the only statistic that matters anymore. Scouts looked at Lin and saw a relatively small player, from a non-traditional basketball school, and completely overlooked him, when the numbers showed Lin should have been drafted high. Recently, the NFL hosted their drafting combine where players go and workout in front of every team. Their workout has huge ramifications on their draft position. An especially critical stat is the 40-yard dash. Scouts find this state especially important for wide receivers and running backs. A tenth of a second makes all the difference in this drill, when in the NFL, running backs are never going to run in a straight line without pads as fast they can for 40 yards. Game tape showing vision, strength, elusiveness, and acceleration should be more important. I know scouts do look at this, but if the tape confirms they have these skills, their workout shouldn’t matter, and vice versa. If they have a great workout, but have never proven it on the field that should be a much better indicator. Scouting in every sport is flawed, and hopefully the rise of Jeremy Lin will lead scouts to reevaluate how they do their jobs.

The link to Weiland's blog talking about Lin before the draft: http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=487

Carmelo Anthony: Overrated

This season, Carmelo Anthony, Small Forward for the New York Knicks, is making over 4 times the league average. Last year, when he was traded from the Denver Nuggets to the Knicks, he signed a 3 year contract, worth $65 million. Although this placed Carmelo in the top 5 NBA players in terms of salary, many thought he was worth this money. Last year, he ranked third in the league in scoring, at 25.6 points a game. Considering how prolific of a scorer he is, and how much money every team was willing to pay him, many believe he is one the best players in the NBA.

Carmelo isn't a top player in the NBA though, and doesn't deserve to be treated as such. This year, the Knicks are 9-12 with Carmelo playing. In the last 8 games, since Carmelo has been injured, the Knicks are 7-1. This is because scoring, as a measure of evaluation, is tremendously overvalued in the NBA. The ability to score points, no matter how it is done, is the central figure when evaluating a player. This doesn't correlate to team success, however. The biggest mistake in overstating scoring, is that most people accept points-per-game at face value. That is, they don't look at how efficiently those points were scored. David Berri, points out that Anthony's shooting percentage is below the average small forward for 2 and 3 point shots. He also attempted an extra 11 shots over 48 minutes compared to the average small forward.

These stats are important, because scoring is only important if done efficiently. Carmelo scores a lot of points, because he shoots a lot. He also misses a lot though. In fact, he misses more than he makes a shot. This shows the team is worse off when Carmelo goes off for a high point total, but misses a ton of shots. If Carmelo didn't take a shot, it would leave a chance for someone else on the team to take that shot, someone who might take a higher percentage shot, leaving the team better off. On top of that, Carmelo doesn't contribute in many other ways. He rebounds less than the average small forward, and turns it over more. There's a reason the Knicks have been doing better since Carmelo left. That reason is that he doesn't help very much. He's been replaced in town by newcomer Jeremy Lin, who is scoring at a much more efficient rate, while also recording high assist totals. Hopefully the league learns from Carmelo and moves away from only evaluating scoring in the future.

Super Bowl Dilemma

With around a minute left in the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots were leading the New York Giants by two points. The Giants, however had the ball on the Patriots' 6 yard line. The Giants were well within field goal range, which, if successful, would have put the Giants up by one point. Understanding this, Bill Belichick, the head coach of the Patriots, instructed his team to allow the Giants' running back, Ahmad Bradshaw, to score a touchdown and allow his team one final chance of scoring with one minute left.

This put the game in an unusual situation, as it seemed the Patriots were trying to let the Giants score, however, the Giants weren't so willing to accept the touchdown. On the next play, Ahmad Bradshaw took the ball, and although it looked like he tried to fall down before the end zone, he ended up scoring the touchdown. This gave the ball back to the Patriots with 57 seconds, and a chance to win the game.

This outcome, although maybe not instructed by the Giants' coach, was desirable for both teams. The Patriots figured that because the ball was inside the 10 yard line, which as Belichick says makes the chance of conversion 90%, they'd rather a chance to win the game than watch the ball go through the uprights with no time left to respond. That 90% seems very likely from the Patriots' perspective. However, from the Giants perspective, this play also makes sense. Taking the 6 points in that situation is much safer than risking a 10% chance of losing the Super Bowl. They especially didn't want to risk it after the Patriots advanced to the Super Bowl after a missed field goal by the Ravens' kicker two weeks earlier. Ahmad Bradshaw ended up making the smart play in that situation, and his team ended up winning the Super Bowl.