Thursday, August 30, 2007

NFL Predictions: Writers v. Vegas 

NFL prediction time is here again with writers from various outlets providing their views. Here are SI's Preview predictions. Betting markets such as Vegas Insider supply futures bets on AFC, NFC, and Super Bowl Champions from which relative rankings of teams can be inferred.

Last year at this time, I collected the predictions from senior SI writers Peter King and Dr. Z along with rankings implied by Vegas futures. For conference rankings, Peter King's accuracy (measured by R-square from regressions with actual rankings) was only 11 percent. Dr. Z came in second at 21 percent with Vegas topping the group at 26 percent (Yahoo didn't provide comparisons). At the divisional level rankings, Dr. Z came in at 8 percent, King at 14 percent and Vegas at 15 percent.

A couple of observations come to mind. First, the NFL future is an uncertain place regardless of whose predictions one wants to use. Second, few, if any, economists would be surprised by the outcome. In the end, the writer picks are just one guy's view. The Vegas line represents an initial estimate by a stat-based person or group that then gets adjusted up or down by the opinions of hundreds or thousands of bettors. In fact, I expected the Vegas advantage to be a bit higher than it actually was. In looking at the big misses, they tend to be the same whether writer- Vegas-based. Nobody had the Saints doing anything close to what they did. The Redskins tended to be overvalued, and so on. Third, most of the differences lie down in the middle and bottom teams. Vegas is picking a New England-Chicago Super Bowl with Indianapolis and the Saints as runner-ups. That likely reflects what many writers would pick.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Coaches vs. Governors: Coaches in a Landslide! 

The Kansas City Star has compiled a list of each state's governor's salary and the highest paid head coaches in that state. The coaches win 49-1 with Alaska being the only state where the coach is not paid more than the governor.

Labels: ,


Ticket Scalping Law in Missouri 

A post at Missourinet reports:
The economic development bill before the Senate today legalizes ticket scalping and says local governments cannot ban it. That's good news for St. Louis Cardinals lawyer Ron Waterman, who says Major League Baseball already has set up its own scalping outlet that would operate through the Cardinals website, giving fans a safe, secure way to buy and sell tickets--if ticket scalping is legalized in Missouri.
The internet obviously made it much easier for buyers and sellers to exchange tickets to sporting events, and I'm all for loosening the restrictions on secondary markets. It should surprise no one that former opponents of scalping (the sports franchises) are now in favor, given that they can get a piece of the action. As has been pointed out here before, resale demand increases the value of the initial sale as well. Thus the franchise can win on both ends, particularly by earning a return from offering a safe and secure exchange mechanism. The only losers are the ticket touts operating under the corner lamp post. Long live ticket scalping!

But I do have a gripe. Why does every piece of special interest legislation have to be rolled out under the label of "economic development"? What garbage! By the time the fat cats and politicians get done with it, "economic development" will be shed of any real meaning.

Monday, August 27, 2007

New Twist on Stadium Subsidies 

Developers in Cincinnati are getting a subsidy to build a housing and shopping project, called "The Banks", along Cincinnati's waterfront . The project has not progressed as planned, and the developers have recently proposed expanding the project in return for more public funds. The expansion would increase the size of the construction project but not increase the land area on which it sits. The change is to make the project 30 stories high rather than the previously planned 16.

Here's where the Cincinnati stadium subsidy comes in. Under the lease with the Bengals on Paul Brown Stadium, "the team controls building heights for structures built near the football stadium, in an effort to preserve view corridors. County officials will have to persuade team executives to allow changes there."

County Commissioner David Pepper "says he believes the team will be more amenable (to allowing the taller buildings in The Banks) now that the county's anti-trust lawsuit against the Bengals is dropped."

So, what we have here is a stadium led development project that may be stalled because of the concessions made to the franchise when giving them that very stadium.

The full article is here.

Specific Performance and Stadium Leases 

From the Seattle Times, an interesting discussion regarding the specific performance clause in the Sonic's lease with KeyArena, a city owned facility:
Mayor Greg Nickels says he'll force the Sonics to remain through the end of the lease in September 2010, despite owner Clay Bennett's stated desire to take the team to Oklahoma if he doesn't get a deal for a new arena in the next two months.

City Council members say they'll introduce legislation prohibiting any early buyout.

But can city officials really chain the Sonics to KeyArena for three more years?

As a general rule, tenants cannot be forced to stay until the end of a lease; landlords can merely collect monetary damages for breach of contract.

But the Sonics' lease contains language that could allow the city to reject an early buyout. The single paragraph, known as a "specific performance" clause, essentially says the city can require the Sonics to stay at KeyArena for the full term.

...If it comes down to a fight, the specific-performance clause in the Sonics' lease could give the city important legal leverage. While it would not permanently prevent a move, the clause could jack up a settlement price or even encourage a team sale.

"That's the silver bullet," said Fred Nance, a Cleveland attorney who used similar lease language to fight Browns owner Art Modell's efforts to move the NFL team to Baltimore in the mid-1990s.

Nance said the language in the Browns' lease allowed the city to get an injunction requiring the team to play the remaining three seasons on its lease at Cleveland Municipal Stadium. That prompted Modell and the NFL to negotiate a deal that eventually allowed the team to move to Baltimore but guaranteed Cleveland an expansion franchise that kept the Browns name.
Perhaps Seattle will keep the Sonics name, Bennett will move the franchise to Oklahoma City, and the next stop for the erstwhile Hornets will be in the Pacific Northwest. But it will take plenty of negotiation to get to that point.

Marketing the Hornets in New Orleans 

Given the economic devastation in post-Katrina New Orleans, it's no surprise that demand for professional sports has fallen. This story in the Times-Picayune discusses the efforts of the Hornets to make a go of it there. The salient facts: ten game packages are being marketed for as little as $10 a game. North Carolinian city-shopper George Shinn sold 25% of the team to a Lousiana "barge and vessel tycoon" for $64 million. Shinn and said tycoon, Gary Chouest, are in negotiations with the state over subsidy terms, which currently pays the team up to $6 million per year.

These moves by Chouest and Shinn appear to make sense. But marketing, local ownership, and local subsidies can only take a team so far. As Gary Roberts states in the article, the Hornets survival in New Orleans requires "a miraculous economic rebirth."

Friday, August 24, 2007

Cardinal Baseball is a Subsitute for Mizzou Football in St. Louis 

Mizzou's game against the Fighting Illini that will be played in St. Louis this year is not the blockbuster ticket that some hoped for:

Matching the attendance numbers the Missouri-Illinois football game achieved in the 2002 and 2003 seasons is going to be difficult for the St. Louis Sports Commission.

Less than 50,000 tickets have been sold for the Sept. 1 game at the 66,000-seat Edward Jones Dome, which is off the pace of the 63,576 tickets that were sold in 2003 and the 61,876 in 2002.

"The upper 50 thousands would be a nice place to be this year," said Marc Schreiber, the commission's vice president of marketing and development. "The key for us is that this is sort of a long-term thing for us. We're not just looking at this year and what we do to say whether it's successful or not."

Still, the interest in the season opener is low considering that both schools are expected to be improved, and possibly bowl-caliber. That's in contrast to the 2002 season when neither team went to a bowl and the 2003 season when Mizzou went to the Independence Bowl. In 2003, despite both teams coming off 5-7 seasons and Illinois ultimately going 1-11, the series hit a high in attendance as far as games being played in St. Louis are concerned.

Jeff Gordon thinks fans are taking a wait and see approach to this game. I think there's something else going on. The game starts at 2:30 on Sept 1 and the Cards - a substitute product - play the Reds at 6:15 in St. Louis. With the Cards in the race for the divisional title and Rick Ankiel being the feel good story of the year that, at least for St. Louis, really needs one, that game will command much interest.

In 2002, the MU - IU game was played on Aug 31st. That evening the Cards played at the Cubs (the Cards swept them that weekend, those cads). Over 61,000 went to that game. In 2003 the Tigers played the Illini on August 30th. Over 63,000 fans went to that game. That night, the Cards played in Cincy.

So my guess is that Mizzou fans can blame the Cardinals for producing an intrguing substitute good that evening just down the road from the dome.

Labels: , , , , ,


Thursday, August 23, 2007

A curious post from D.C. 

The Washington Post's Marc Fisher discusses the failure of stadiums in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit to spark economic revival in these rust-belt cities:
The extraordinary frenzy of construction that surrounds the new Washington Nationals ballpark is a tribute to former mayor Tony Williams and those who believed that bringing baseball back to the District would be a smart move, even if taxpayers and fans are fronting $611 million to build the stadium.

But there is nothing automatic about sparking the economic development that stadium proponents cite as the justification for public investment in a ballpark.

I saw that this month on visits to Cleveland, Detroit and Cincinnati, where new downtown stadiums have done little to cure urban ills or inject street life into places that can be empty except right before and after a game.
Read the whole thing to gauge this subsidy-supporter's account of the lack of economic impact associated with these stadium projects. Curiously, you can get the piece (right now, at least) under two headlines:

Spin (a): Ensuring the Promise of D.C.'s New Stadium

Spin (b): A Warning from Cleveland: Could Baseball Fail D.C.?

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

An odd bird takes flight 

I am speaking of a privately funded sports arena, to be built in Las Vegas. From CNNMoney.com:
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. and AEG today unveiled plans for of an approximately 20,000-seat, privately financed, state-of-the-art arena. This arena is envisioned to be Las Vegas' new home for the most popular and important sports and entertainment events. The site of the venue will be one block east of the world famous Las Vegas Strip on approximately 10 acres of land that is part of the current Harrah's land holdings.

As managing partner, AEG will be responsible for developing, operating and programming a full range of live sports and entertainment events including concerts, boxing matches, special events and awards presentations, as well as sporting events, tournaments and exhibitions. The arena will be constructed and configured in a manner that will make it capable of housing an NBA or NHL franchise.

What, no public subsidy? Heavens to Mergatroid!

Labels: ,


Friday, August 17, 2007

Tail Wags Dog -- In Some Leagues 

Skip's post on Tuesday along with the NBA ref scandal brings to the front differences in league management of their referees. All referees-umps will make mistakes whether calling balls and strikes, pass interference, or goal tending -- such errors are embedded in the process of what they do. The presence of error does not mean that all such errors are just random or not assignable to specific causes (to use Deming-like terms), and, therefore, capable of being reduced. Pro sports league differ considerably in their ability and commitment to reducing these errors through referee evaluation.

The Hamermesh paper provides systematic evidence of what a friend of mine closely connected to an MLB ump transmitted on a personal level many years ago -- MLB umps can and do pursue personal agendas -- whether those agendas are based on ego, racial bias, dislike of a particular manager or player. Of course, such personal indulgence is what one would expect from a league where umps consistently and effectively resist performance evaluation. When the league started using statistical data on balls and strikes as an evaluation tool, the umps went ape. Now, a new technology from QuesTec can plot ball and strikes in 3-D with quite a bit of precision (see NYT article). Not surprisingly, "the system is a sensitive issue with the umpires union."

The NBA, despite David Stern's protestations to the contrary, has also struggled with referee evaluation -- a topic highlighted by Mark Cuban (with an axe to grind) but also many in the media (see Bill Simmons) and former refs (podcast with Mike Mathis). In contrast, the NFL is much more rigorous in its evaluation and what this evaluation means for continuance and assignment.

The differences in referee management extend well beyond evaluation to hiring practices. While the NFL appears to seek out and employ individuals with relatively stable and calm demeanor (calm assertive, I guess, in the "Dog Whisperer's" words), the NBA and MLB ranks appear filled with a lot of volatile personalities -- Donaghy and Joey Crawford as Exhibits A and B.

Why such institutionalized differences? Stronger referee unions in NBA and MLB? Sure, but that just backs the question up one level. How did they get to be powerful enough to not just influence compensation but hiring and evaluation practices? Maybe the answer speaks more to league managerial skill. With a couple of minor blips along the way, the NFL seems to understand that compensating refs well is small potatoes -- what you do not do is cede managerial control over the product. That is what MLB, and to a lesser extent the NBA, have struggled with.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Calling strikes & discrimination in baseball 

Here is the main finding from a working paper by Parsons, Sulaeman, Yates and Hamermesh:

What are the main results of the study?

There are three. First, umpires are more likely to call strikes for pitchers who share their race/ethnicity. The second result is an extension of the first: Umpires are more likely to express a preference for their own race/ethnicity only when their behavior is less closely scrutinized: 1) in parks where QuesTec (a computerized system set up to monitor and review an umpire’s ball and strike calls) is not installed, 2) in poorly attended games, and 3) on pitches where the umpire’s call cannot determine the outcome of the at-bat. Finally, game outcomes are influenced by the race/ethnicity match between starting pitchers and home-plate umpires. Home teams are more (less) likely to win a game when their starting pitcher and home plate umpire have the same (a different) race/ethnicity.
Science Daily reports on the paper here. Dan Hamermesh sent me the paper just before I went on vacation. I haven't read the paper carefully, but it appears to be well done. The finding that "favoring your own type" varies with monitoring and game conditions -- i.e. that discrimination is essentially price-sensitive (umps do it when it is cheap) -- is especially interesting. You can get directly from Dan's web page; here is the direct link to the paper (pdf).

Update: Here's an MSNBC story on the paper, with commentary from Dan Hamermesh. A sample: "I expect that [MLB] will not be very happy about this, but the fact that with a little bit of effort this kind of behavior can be altered, that's very gratifying. I wish with society as a whole we could reduce the impact of discrimination as easily as it could be done in baseball."

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The Vanishing Complete Game -- Better "Technology" or Just Agency Problems 

During Sunday night's game where Tom Glavine reached his 300th victory, ESPN displayed a graphic showing number of complete games by a few prior 300 game winners. Jon Miller then noted that Cy Young threw over 700 CGs and Warren Spahn over 300. Last year, the two MLB leaders pitched 6 CGs each. Prior to 1980, these figures were in the 20s and 30s. (See Baseball Reference.com). These same kinds of pitcher utilization differences can be seen in innings pitched where as recently as the 1960s and 1970s, legends (several with long careers) such as Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Don Drysdale, Gaylord Perry, and many others pitched near or over 300 innings per year. (Knuckleballer Wilbur Wood started 49 games one year, pitched 276 innings, and even started both games of a doubleheader! Knuckleballers are treated differently even today.) These figures are now in the 230 and 240 range. (Yearly Leaders). They pitched as part of 4-man rotations rather than the 5-man staffs now the standard.

These differences in pitching management are not merely historical. A Sports Illustrated column on Daisuke Matsuzaka highlighted the wide gap in philosophies in Japan and the U.S. Matsuzaka, like other Japanese pitchers, paid no attention to pitch counts, pitched frequently, and threw a lot in between starts. In contrast, the U.S. practice is to limit pitch counts below 120 (and sometimes lower), limit starts, and limit throwing in between starts.

The U.S. system is treated as if it were a technological advance that has developed because of better understanding of pitchers and physical science. As Tom Verducci notes in the SI column, the "pitch count police" in the media and sabermetrics tend to reinforce these practices to the point that they are not questioned. Yet, the Japanese system, not merely existing but thriving parallel to the U.S. system rather than vanishing, offers evidence against the technological superiority of the U.S. system. The Scouting Director for the Angels, Eddie Bane, says

"I think we're going to have to take a look at our system. It's a slap in the face [to Japan] if we don't. And they won the World Baseball Classic, don't forget. "Their philosophy is, If you're a pitcher, you need to throw. It makes sense to me. We're training our pitchers to throw less. And nobody wants to try anything different. If [Matsuzaka] is this good, we might want to take a look at it."

His views are backed up by Bobby Valentine, former MLB manager now in Japan. Verducci writes:
Valentine ... admits that he too coddled pitchers in the majors, though it took understanding the Japanese throwing philosophy for him to see the error of that accepted practice. "The Japanese pitchers have superior mechanics," Valentine says. "They also have wonderful balance and core and foundation strength. They work the small muscle groups, and [Americans] work the large ones. The large ones make you look better. Valentine allows most of his starters to throw 200 bullpen pitches a day in the spring. "They have been doing it forever and have not broken down," he says. On the day before a starter takes the mound, he'll throw 90 pitches in the pen and, Valentine says, "have [his] best fastball in the ninth inning" the next day.
Eddie Bane's quote is telling -- "we're training our pitchers to throw less." It is like training marathon runners by keeping their mileage under 10 per week. Verducci adds, "the system guarantees diminishing returns: Despite advances in medicine, nutrition and training, teams work pitchers less than ever before and yet pay them more."

For me, that last statement sets off an alarm. Maybe this reduction in pitcher use has little to do with better know-how with pitchers and more to do with either pitchers being able to reduce their workloads. In the near term, this increases pay per pitch thrown, and they may believe that in the long-term it increases career length and total career compensation. Curt Schilling, a Red Sox teammate of Matsusaka, implies as much, saying
"He is a big league ace in the making. The question is, Does he throw his last pitch at 31 or at 39?"