Don't Cross the Streams: Economies of Scale in Ignoring Sports Teams

 Three weeks ago today, Sept. 5, I paid close attention to the St. Louis Cardinals baseball game against the Brewers. The Cards lost by giving up 5 runs, in stupid and inept fashion, in the 9th inning, blowing a 5-1 lead.

I announced that baseball season was (for me) OVER, and I would be ignoring the Cardinals and all of baseball from this point until Spring training, when pitchers and catchers report in February.

This promise I have kept, scrupulously. 

My impression (I wouldn't actually KNOW, of course, because I'm ignoring baseball) that soon after I unplugged the Cardinals have won some games, and are playing better. Given that their winning percentage at the time I began to ignore them was 0.51, it is a simple binomial calculation to show that the chances of them winning (say, I don't know) 15 games in a row is less than .000001. 

By any reasonable standard of inference, then, it is MY IGNORING OF THE CARDINALS that has produced any success (of which of course I am unaware, but have heard rumors). 

This is an enormous power; my good friend Christina Wolbrecht has gone so far as to suggest that I seclude myself in a remote Unibomber style cabin, to ensure that I am able to continue to ignore the Cards. I should note that Donna Gingerella has endorsed this proposal, on condition that I write home occasionally. 

So far so good. But I have a friend, a pathetic Reds fan (if that is not redundant, and of course it IS redundant), who has asked that I should ALSO ignore the Reds. He would be willing (I won't give his name, but his initials are Michael Martin) to pay a small amount for this service.

It struck me that this is quite a business opportunity. Rooting FOR a team is time-consuming; that's why I gave up on the Cards: it was taking a lot of time and sadness. But IGNORING a team is easy, and of course it SCALES. I could ignore MANY teams, with no additional cost.

But then I saw the problem in the reasoning: what if two teams I'm ignoring PLAY EACH OTHER. It would be the equivalent of "crossing the streams" in Ghostbusters. And that would be very, very bad. Egon said so.

So, sorry folks: ignoring the Cardinals is going to be my sole project for the rest of this year. I'm happy to accept bids to ignore YOUR team next year, once I have started watching the Cards again.

Cream Puffs

Cream Puffs: Why Do Elite College Football Programs Schedule Games Against Vastly Inferior Opponents? 

Daniel Simundza
Journal of Sports Economics, forthcoming

Abstract: This article provides a novel answer to the question of why elite college football programs schedule so-called “cream puff” games against vastly inferior out-of-conference opponents. Using data on college football games from 2002 to 2010, I find that a team’s chances of winning are 5.3–15.6% greater in the game following their victory over a cream puff. In my preferred estimation, this “cream puff effect” is roughly half as large as the estimated home field advantage. I also show that the U.S. Today/Sagarin rating system, which I use to control for team abilities, penalizes teams for playing vastly inferior opponents. I devise two empirical strategies that deal with this potential problem and show that the cream puff effect is not simply an artifact of the rating system. These results contribute to the literature on dynamic contests by showing that not only does the timing of one’s efforts within a contest matter but so does the schedule of one’s opponents.

Lord, Forgive the Economists, For They Know Not What They Do

A remarkable disruption in the force.  How anyone could understand the complex rules of threat, deterrence, and protection as "profit-maximizing" per se is beyond me.  But it does illustrate how bizarrely intellectually impoverished economics is as a field.

Fighting as a profit maximizing strategy in the National Hockey League: More evidence 

Duane Rockerbie 
Applied Economics, forthcoming 

Abstract: This article estimates the effect of fighting in hockey games on attendance in the National Hockey League (NHL) over the 1997–1998 through 2009–2010 seasons. After estimating a system of equations developed from a model of a profit-maximizing club owner, it was found that fighting had a small negative effect on attendance implying that encouraging fighting on the ice is not a profit-maximizing strategy. The results are quite robust when incorporating capacity constraints on attendance and exogenous ticket pricing. Other factors that determine club performance and market size were found to significantly affect attendance. The empirical results also suggest that NHL club owners are maximizing profit.

Look, folks, hockey fights, like stylized fights in the animal kingdom, prevent actual violence and injury.  Having specialized goons makes the game cleaner.  And, in equilibrium, there is less violence.  Selecting on instances of violence and then drawing inferences is not just a misunderstanding of hockey, but a show of ignorance of basic game theory.  If you have a reputation for effective violence, you won't have to fight.  And you won't get that stick handle poke-check to your star forward's chest, breaking his rib.  Gretzky pretty much never got touched.  'Cause if he did, there would be a fight.  Gretzky wouldn't fight, and not because he was a pussweiler.  Gretzky didn't fight because he was too valuable, TO BOTH TEAMS.  Nobody wanted Gretzky hurt, and someone who hurt Gretzky was gonna get an ass-whuppin'.  Knowing that, the "no violence" equilibrium could be supported.

For a Canadian (and Duane Rockerbie is clearly a Canadian, eh?) to make this mistake is even more inexcusable.

For those seeking enlightenment, the answer (as always) is one of my appearances on EconTalk.  This one, in fact.  This recent book does a nice job of discussing when violence is "virtuous."  And, like any literate people, they know enough to reference EconTalk as THE authoritative source. Or, something like that.

Nod to Kevin Lewis

Without Much Strain?

This story contains a number of jaw-dropping assertions.  I was hoping it was an ironic parody, but the New York Times doesn't really have enough self-confidence to be ironic.  It's just painfully earnest, shading over into earnestly painful.

Excerpt:

When city leaders and state legislators agreed last year to fund roughly half the $1 billion cost of a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings, they attached the usual strings for such projects: It had to be architecturally iconic, employ steel made from Minnesota iron ore and offer at least a few cheap seats. 

So... Minnesota has a total population of 5.4 million souls.  Minneapolis has a population of just under 500,000, if you count the surrounding cities like St. Paul.  They need a $1 billion football stadium?  Really?  And taxpayers need to pay for half of it?  That's $2,000 per resident of the Minneapolis metroplex.  For a sports stadium that will be used, at most, 30 times per year, even counting monster truck shows.  The state is going to hit up taxpayers $1,000 per resident of the city to pay for a football stadium.  That's not $1,000 per fan, that's $1,000 per resident, in tax money.

That's the NYTimes' idea of "saving"?  Well, at least they have cheap seats.  Which will be scalped to rich people anyway.  Because the poor folks would prefer to have the money than the cheap/expensive seat.

I guess it's okay, though.  Knowing that they are using locally-mined, free-range artisanal iron gives folks a warm glow.  Because you should make sure and create giant, dirty mines as near as possible to where you live.  Oh, and the bathrooms will all be lit with $25 LED bulbs, too.  So that's something.

I guess Nick Gillespie just isn't a football fan.  Because he doesn't get it.

Seriously, the NYTimes is demonstrating a pretty remarkable support for crony capitalism here.  There is no conceivable "stimulus" justification, and the environmental justification is nonsense.  This is a giant waste of money, a giveaway from taxpayers to highly profitable large corporations.  And a perfect description of the program of the Democratic Party in the U.S.  Also the Republican Party in the U.S.

Nod to MK, who notes:  "I'm in the wrong business.  If a small amount of carbon is worth $500 million, I should set my hair on fire and sell the right to put it out on Ebay!"

Short on the Court

Napoleon Complex: Height Bias Among National Basketball Association Referees 

Paul Gift & Ryan Rodenberg
Journal of Sports Economics, forthcoming

Abstract: Given the vast number of observations in a transparent environment, the interaction between players and referees in the National Basketball Association (NBA) provides a real-world laboratory that allows for observation and testing of implicit height-based biases (the so-called “Napoleon Complex”). Controlling for a plethora of referee-specific characteristics and including 4,463 regular season games from 2008 to 2012, we find that (i) more personal fouls are called when a relatively shorter three-person officiating crew is working and (ii) no more or fewer fouls are called when games involve relatively taller players. Such biases are probably not large enough to impact game outcomes but could affect gambling markets. Our findings support the conclusion that relatively shorter NBA referees officiate basketball games differently than their taller peers. The analysis spotlights an oft-suggested but rarely studied bias in a workplace where employees are heavily scrutinized and monitored.

Matthew Effect

I didn't know that the "Matthew Effect" was a thing.  In particular, I didn't recognize the Bible reference.  But then I'm not a Biblical scholar like Angus is.

Anyway, it's absolutely a thing:

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring 

Jerry Kim & Brayden King
Management Science, forthcoming

Abstract: This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high-status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to overrecognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to underrecognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high-status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a “control pitcher” moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Furthermore, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.

Sport Stats

The contract year syndrome in the NBA and MLB: A classic undermining pattern  
Mark White & Kennon Sheldon
Motivation and Emotion, forthcoming

 Abstract: We assembled National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball player performance data from recent years, tracking 3 year periods in players’ careers: pre-contract year (baseline), contract year (CY; salient external incentive present), and post-contract year (salient external incentive removed). In both sports, we examined both individual scoring statistics (points scored, batting average) and non-scoring statistics (e.g. blocked shots, fielding percentage) over the 3 years. Using extrinsic motivation theories, we predicted and found a boost in some scoring statistics during the CY (relative to the pre-CY), but no change in non-scoring statistics. Using intrinsic motivation theories, we predicted and found an undermining of many statistics in the post-CY, relative to both the CY and the pre-CY baseline. Boosted CY scoring performance predicted post-CY salary raises in both sports, but salary raises were largely unrelated to post-CY performance. The CY performance boost is real, but team managers should know that it might be followed by a performance crash — the CY “syndrome.”

 The Hot Hand Fallacy: Cognitive Mistakes or Equilibrium Adjustments? Evidence from Baseball 
Brett Green & Jeffrey Zwiebel
Stanford Working Paper, November 2013

Abstract: We test for a 'hot hand' (i.e., short-term streakiness in performance) in Major League Baseball using panel data. We find strong evidence for its existence in all ten statistical categories we consider. The magnitudes are significant; being 'hot' corresponds to roughly a one quartile increase in the distribution. Our results are in notable contrast to the majority of the hot hand literature, which has found little to no evidence for a hot hand in sports, often employing basketball shooting data. We argue that this difference is attributable to endogenous defensive responses: basketball presents sufficient opportunity for defensive responses to equate shooting probabilities across players whereas baseball does not. As such, prior evidence on the absence of a hot hand (despite widespread belief in its presence) should not be interpreted as a cognitive mistake -- as it typically is in the literature -- but rather as an efficient equilibrium adjustment. We provide a heuristic manner for identifying a priori which sports are likely to permit an equating endogenous response response and discuss potential implications for identifying the hot hand effect in other settings.

Nod to Kevin Lewis

The Ping Pong

If more ping pong matches were like this, more people would like ping pong.



With nod to Susan L.

News: Men are "Kind of Pathetic"

If women are around, men act differently.

I'm not sure it's really "pathetic."  It just means that evolution rewards offspring.  So taking risks of being injured, but buying attention and increased mating opportunities, even just in expected value, is an increase in fitness.  There's no fitness payoff to dignity, or living to 80.  Fitness is just more chances at the bouncy-bouncy.

Interesting, though, that men are so....well, responsive.

Compensating College Athletes?

A guest post from a reader, LAG. Please do respond in comments...

A Simple Solution for Compensating College Athletes 
By Leonard A. Giuliano

The question of paying college athletes has long been a favorite area of debate, but recent events have brought the issue into sharper focus. College football and basketball generate enormous sums of revenue and it seems only natural for the athletes to receive some of this windfall as compensation. But closer and informed analysis reveals the issue is not so simple. How much to pay the athletes? Should the fifth string left guard who rarely sees game action be paid the same as the star quarterback? Should swimmers, wrestlers and other athletes competing in non-revenue generating sports also be paid? Does Title IX require all female athletes to be paid if any male players are compensated? 

With the overwhelming number of schools losing money on athletics (only 23 out of 340 Division I athletic departments posted a profit in 2012), from where would the money come to pay the athletes? If only some schools could pay athletes, or could pay more than other schools, how would that affect competitive balance? Finally, with the cost of college education skyrocketing to upwards of $60k per year, is a free ride plus all the perks that come with college athletics not sufficient compensation? A simple solution could address all of these concerns and protect the value individual college athletes have accrued and risk each time they enter the playing field or arena: draft insurance. 

(MORE AFTER JUMP)

All Hail Serena

Congrats on her 17th major championship. Only 1 away from Chrissy and Martina! After she served for the match twice in the second set and was broken each time, I thought she was doomed, but she crushed the Shrieker in the third set.

Russ Roberts and I talk about sports "codes"

Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the role of formal rules and informal rules in sports. Many sports restrain violence and retaliation through formal rules while in others, protective equipment is used to reduce injury. In all sports, codes of conduct emerge to deal with violence and unobserved violations of formal rules. Munger explores the interaction of these forces across different sports and how they relate to insights of Coase and Hayek.  ATSRTWT!

UPDATE:  A.R. comments over at the podcast about the "greatest scandal in the history of cricket."  Just being able to type that phrase made my whole day.  "Cricket scandal" is an excellent start to any paragraph.  And then the scandal does in fact turn out to be extremely interesting.  Reading the first paragraph of this, I realized that I am painfully ignorant of cricket.  But this is a bit easier to understand.  This is more serious.  And very interesting.  Thanks, Aswin!

UPDATE II:  Ghostbusters!  "More like a guideline than a rule..."  at 0:14.  WARNING:  NSFW!  Her request is rather indelicate.  (Nod to WH)

Leigh Stein

Leigh Steinberg on sports, agents, and athletes, on EconTalk.

Leigh Steinberg, legendary sports agent, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his career as a sports agent. He discusses the challenges of building a clientele, how sports agents spend their time, strategies for building a brand as an athlete, and safety issues currently affecting the National Football League.  

Sergio loses even when he wins

Yesterday, Sergio Garcia won his first PGA tour event in 4 years along with $936,000 in prize money. Sergio won with a local guy as his caddie having separated from his regular caddy the week before.

Here, let Jon Wall tell you about it:


Garcia came into the week without a caddie on his bag, after parting ways with Gary Matthews following the PGA Championship. Looking for someone with local course knowledge, Garcia decided to give Faircloth a try for the week. The move turned out to be a blessing in disguise for both player and caddie, as Garcia went on to win his first PGA Tour event in four years, and Faircloth walked away with the flag on the 18th green -- the winning caddie usually takes the flag as a tournament keepsake -- and a once-in-a-lifetime story he'll be able to tell his grandkids one day. Oh, and another thing: a five-figure payday. Garcia earned $960,000 for his win, and considering caddies usually receive 10 percent of the paycheck for a win, the substitute loop could stand to make $96,000 for four days of work. There's a good chance Faircloth couldn't make anywhere close to that much on the local circuit. Ever. While Garcia wouldn't divulge how much he'd get for the win, he did say, "he's not going to get what a normal caddy would get because his job was fairly easy."


Wow. "his job was fairly easy". Dude you haven't won in 4 years. His job was Herculean!

So the cup-spitter finally gets a win and celebrates by stiffing his caddy.

There's a word for that, and I'm pretty sure it's "douchebag"!

The NCAA and Fed: Two Organizations People Love to Hate

John C. makes some comparisons I had not thought of.  Interesting.

Both the NCAA and the Fed have a problem of commitment.  And they use threats to try to get what they want.

Iceland. Handball. Silver. Penises. For Dad.

It's hard to know how to describe this story.  There are just so many good parts.  And, no, I'm not making this up.

The Icelandic Phallological Museum ....was moved several years ago to immortalize the victorious handball players in an unusually raunchy sculpture called The Icelandic National Handball Team. The sculpture consists, basically, of a bunch of silver penises pointing at the ceiling in a kind of wild-mushrooms-waving-in-a-field effect.

1.  Okay, so there's an Iceland Phallological Museum, to start with.  It contains either actual penises, or representations of penises, of ALL the creatures found in Iceland. I did NOT know that.  I did not WANT to know that.  I expect to have nightmares about that.  ("Ah!  A butterfly penis!  Enlarged 10,000 times!")

2.  That statue is to honor the "handball" team.  A double entendre, or did the artist really see those heroes as just a bunch of dicks?

3.  And the artist, who is female, claims she didn't have any particular model for the highly idiosyncratic and anatomically correct peni.  She just  "made them from experience."

4.  Finally, the artist made this sculpture to honor her father.  What dad's heart doesn't glow at the thought of his daughter making a bunch of erect silver penises fashioned after an entire men's handball team?

With deep gratitude to reader M. Kaan, who knew that this link need to go to KPC, and NOT to BrendanNyhan.com .

The Koreas at the Olympics

In response to my Grantland Olympic piece with LeBron, a few people have asked why we didn't specifically discuss  the Koreas. Maybe I'm missing the question, but the basic economic model seems to explain them very well.

From the 2000 games to date (including what has happened in London), North Korea has won 20 total Summer Olympic medals, while South Korea has pocketed 101.

South Korea has almost twice the population of the North (48.5 million to 22.6 million) and a per-capita income that is more than 15 times greater ($31,700 to $1,800).

Of North Koreas 20 medals, 15 have come in weightlifting and judo. These are examples of the "easy-pickings" sports we discussed in the piece. South Korea is also strong in tae-kwon-do and archery.

Olympic fever

If you like NBC's tape-delayed coverage, you'll love this.

Here's me and LeBron's Olympics "preview" piece for Grantland.com.

On PSU Punishment....

A friend writes....

Ok, are you bothered by the NCAA action against PSU? I hate PSU and I hate Paterno even more, but this seems to be way over the top. Any punishment before the accused is allowed to put on a defense is wrong, but this punishment is “cruel and unusual.” I do  think Paterno and others made some serious mistakes, mistakes for which they should be held to account, and they are being held to account. BUT to destroy the football program and the school’s reputation is wrong. What Paterno did and is alleged to have done did not involve cheating at his sport. Where Spanier, the VP, the AD, Paterno and the BOT went way wrong was in trying to protect the PSU brand and reputation at all costs. This was their first instinct. Everything else became consciously secondary. All athletic programs with big reputations and “legendary” coaches are subject to this same mistake. As a member of the ******** here, I saw this up close 6 years ago. The first official meetings were focused on protecting the institution and its brand, rather than attempting to find out what if anything happened for which [university] needed to answer. (MORE BELOW THE FOLD)

Worst Fans? Most Dangerous Stadium?

Long-time reader RL writes, with considerable joy, that this means that Philly no longer can be said to have "the worst fans."

Some points:
1.  In Philly, if you get hit with a bullet, it was not "fired in celebration."  It was fired at you.  Probably by the police.

2.  In Philly, the fans don't get hit.  The players do.  Oh, and Santa Claus.  As Chuck Brodsky put it:

Philly fans, they’ve been known to get nasty
When Joe must go, they’ll run him out of town
I saw Santa get hit by a snowball
And then get hit again when he was down

So, no worries, RL: Philadelphia is still the place that would get wet first, if the world got diarrhea.