Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... apparent ... Just wait until someone writes the book about Google. Same story. The ideas had been public for many years. They actually read the
    Message 1 of 52 , Aug 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
      wrote:
      > .
      > Sure enough, but baseball is patently transparent in
      > comparison, and for me the shock is that Moneyball is
      > apparently revelatory to the industry itself. Can you think of any
      > other example where a journalist writes a book about a known
      > figure in a supposedly competitive industry, whose obvious
      > success is based on non-proprietary, indeed public, information,
      > and this telling of the story - not the success itself - has
      apparent
      > transformative influence on the industry itself?

      Just wait until someone writes the book about Google. Same story.
      The ideas had been public for many years. They actually read the
      literature and did it. You could have done it. I could have done it
      (but I was toiling away on basketball). But no one listened to the
      guys writing the papers. The guys writing the papers didn't know how
      to implement it or didn't have the money or were just theory guys.
      Well, hey, theory works sometimes. Google is a gaggle of guys who
      got it. But it wasn't instantaneous adoption either.


      > .
      > .
      > I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
      > and not an effect.

      Cause and effect aren't clearly different, I guess. Coaches tell
      their guys to either be careful with the ball or slow down.

      >
      > And also, I don't mean to be argumentative, but it is definitely
      not
      > my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in a
      > meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
      > error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not
      contribute
      > substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that I
      > won't elaborate on here.)

      Yes, teams probably mimicked their style rather than being dictated
      by it, if I said "dictated". I do wonder whether teams tried to beat
      the Celtic D by racing it up the court.

      I have also been meaning to do my authoritative study on whether
      teams can slow down or speed up the pace to actually affect their win-
      loss percentage. Not an easy study to do because there are a lot of
      convoluting factors.

      >
      > Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
      > evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced. It
      is
      > certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure how
      > prescriptive this is. Might you preview the explanations and
      > evidence?

      Chapter 3. It's actually a small small part of the book because I
      think it's an effect more than a cause. Good offenses can get shots
      off quicker. Poor offenses tend to need more time. You have to
      adjust for the overall change in pace from year to year to see it.

      DeanO
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: Gary Collard To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update ... That
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM
        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update

        Jim Armstrong wrote:
        >
        > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:38PM -0500, Gary Collard wrote:
        > > I'm not sure why that was so controversial.  The concept of market size in
        > > the NFL is pretty much meaningless, since most league revenue is shared
        > > equally.  The reason that a Yankees in baseball have such an advantage is
        > > that they have local TV revenues that are an order of magnitude or more
        > > greater than most (all?) of the other teams and is significant compared to
        > > national revenue, thus they can afford to have a payroll that is 60%
        > > greater than any other team even before they pay the luxury tax as they do
        > > in 2003.  In the NFL, there is no local TV at all, and (over a period of
        > > years, letting spikes in bonus payments wash out) little payroll deviation,
        >
        > Actually, if you look at the distribution of team player payrolls, the NFL
        > and the NBA are quite comparable (see standard deviation in data below).

        That is why I specifically said "over a period of years, letting spikes in
        bonus payments wash out" in the case of the NFL.  The one year payroll
        numbers you listed are meaningless to my point, do you have the data to run
        them for the last 5 years or more?  That will tell you who has the "harder"
        cap.

        --
        Gary Collard
        Maybe the coefficient of variation (SD / Mean * 100) is a more apt measure for comparing the variation of payrolls for different sports across seasons.
         
        Year     NHL     NFL     NBA     MLB
        1994    28.3     8.7    15.2    26.6
        1995    26.6    12.7    24.1    27.7
        1996    43.3    11.9    21.9    31.4
        1997    #N/A    15.3    28.9    33.0
        1998    #N/A    12.1    27.0    37.4
        1999    33.4    12.0    23.0    43.1
        2000    37.4    13.8    23.6    38.3
        2001    31.1    13.5    24.6    38.3
        2002    33.0    18.1    20.6    36.6
        2003    35.9    #N/A    24.0    38.9
         
        On this measure, NBA teams show less variation in payroll than baseball and hockey teams, but the NFL teams are more level than any of them.

        Data from Rodney Fort's excellent resource: http://users.pullman.com/rodfort/SportsBusiness/BizFrame.htm
         
        ed
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.