Re: SABR/Sports Econ update
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
> 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
> 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.
> .Cause and effect aren't clearly different, I guess. Coaches tell
> I actually believe that the pace decrease is pretty much a cause
> and not an effect.
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
> my belief that the Celtics dictated pace (or that anyone can in acontribute
> meaningful sense) rather it was a dramatic league-wide stylistic
> error to try to mimic the aspect of their play that did not
> substantively to their success (with a couple of caveats that IYes, teams probably mimicked their style rather than being dictated
> won't elaborate on here.)
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
> Finally, I anxiously await your publication date to see the
> evidence that better offensive teams tend to be faster paced. It
> certainly a plausible empirical result, though I am not sure howChapter 3. It's actually a small small part of the book because I
> prescriptive this is. Might you preview the explanations and
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.
- ----- Original Message -----From: Gary CollardSent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PMSubject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ updateJim 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"
Gary CollardMaybe 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 38.9On 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.htmed