Do You Remember This?

Twenty-seven years ago today:

Priorities on Capitol Hill

Take a look at Dwight Howard's Superman dunk. I suppose he'll now have to testify to Congress about it.

Sports Surprises

Sometimes, when you order a cupcake, you get served humble pie. Congratulations to the Moutaineers of Appalachian State University, but don't ever do this again.

Congratulations as well to Clay Buchholz on his no-hitter for the Red Sox. I've never seen a pitcher work a change-up, curve ball, and fast ball so well.

Race and Performance in the NBA

The New York Times article this week about the study of racial bias in NBA officiating by Joseph Price and Justin Wolfers generated quite a bit of commentary. What is amazing is how little people understand, or are willing to understand, about statistics. Here's what the authors claim in the abstract of the study:

We find that--even conditioning on player and referee fixed effects (and specific game fixed effects)--that more personal fouls are awarded against players when they are officiated by an opposite-race officiating crew than when officiated by an own-race refereeing crew.

Much of the reaction among sportswriters has been to take the authors to task for calling the refs racist. (See Mike Wise in his column in Thursday's Washington Post and Kevin Hench at FoxSports.) Having taken a look at the study myself, I am surprised that those who make a living based on the sport would be so dismissive of the result. The main result of the paper is that the foul rate (fouls called per 48 minutes played) increases for black players when the racial composition of the three-person crew of referees goes from black to white. (See Table 4 and the discussion on page 8.) Any honest sportswriter should hold the NBA accountable for the result--why are the outcomes for fouls different across different racial configurations of refs and players?

It is very difficult to posit an explanation for these results that would attribute them to something other than race. First, no one disputes the NBA's claim that it does not assign referees to games based on their race or the racial composition of the two teams. (See page 4 and Table 1 of the study for discussion and evidence.) With (conditionally) random assignment, and the fact that the explanatory variables are fixed characteristics of people (i.e., race), we have the conditions for a clinical trial here, where "controlling" for possibly confounding factors is not likely to be important. Second, the authors do in fact control for a number of "fixed effects," exploiting the fact that their dataset is a panel consisting of a limited number of individuals observed in numerous interactions. This includes characteristics of the player and the refs that don't change over time. As the authors note, the most comprehensive results "are identified only off the differential propensity of teammates to earn extra fouls when the refereeing crew is of the opposite race."

Having said that, I think the authors soft-pedal one possible explanation of the results that would exonerate the refs. The following passage appears on pages 12-13:

The fourth point speaks to a relatively subtle interpretation issue: while we document a correlation between a player’s foul rate and the race of the referee, this may reflect the players responding to the race of the referees, rather than the referees policing opposite-race players more aggressively. Strategic responses by players would lead to an attenuation bias: expecting to receive more fouls for a given style of play, the players may play less aggressively, minimizing the impact of referee discrimination on realized fouls. This suggests that our results understate the amount of discrimination. Alternatively, if players exhibit oppositional responses, they may play more aggressively when policed by the opposite race. Importantly, such oppositional responses suggest that our findings are driven by changes in player behavior, rather than referee behavior. Yet if this were driving our results, one might expect to see effects not just on the number of fouls earned, but on the likelihood of fouling out, as well as other indicators of aggression, including blocks and steals. Instead, we find that blocks and steals actually decline under opposite-race referees.

I'm not persuaded by this reasoning. The player response needn't take the form of aggression--it merely needs to be a general decline in player performance in the presence of opposite-race referees. What if, for example, players find it more difficult to concentrate on their tasks when the refs are of opposite race? Elsewhere in the paper, the authors write, "Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees." So why assume that it's the refs not the players? And why make a statement, "Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games," even under the possible coaxing of a reporter?

The interpretation of the results that it's the players, not the refs, may also reconcile the results of NBA's internal studies that claim that, on a call-by-call basis, there is no evidence of racial bias. (The NBA has not released the results of these studies, much less the data.) If the players are changing their game based on the racial composition of the refereeing crew, then it is possible that every call or non-call is legitimate, and both studies can be accurate.

Flagrant Fouls

In story number one, the woeful New York Knicks come to epitomize much of what is wrong with professional [sic] sports today with this display at Madison Square Garden last evening:

Perhaps we've now found the home for Terrell Owens next year.

In story number two, we have the University of Florida changing the rules of the game in its Prepaid Tuition Plan. Here are the details:

The prepaid plan allows people to start saving for college when children are young and guarantees them current tuition rates regardless of what tuition actually costs when the student reaches college.

Because UF's proposal, called the Academic Enhancement Plan, is a fee separate from tuition, it wouldn't be covered by either Florida Prepaid or the merit-based Bright Futures Scholarship Program.

About 2,800 Palm Beach County students currently attend UF, the state's flagship university.

If approved, the fee would be charged to all new and transfer students beginning next fall.

UF President Bernie Machen said the school needs the fee because its cut-rate annual tuition of $3,206 set by the legislature has forced administrators to increase class sizes. UF ranks last nationally in tuition costs when compared with other national flagship universities.

The approximately $36 million that UF would gain from the fee could be used only to hire new faculty.

Machen said he's against exempting prepaid students from paying the fee.

"I don't see why they should be out," Machen said. "Those students will benefit ultimately from it as much as other students."

They should be out because they prepaid their tuition. That's the guarantee they were given. The current price for buying a unit of tuition should go up, commensurate with the new costs, but the value of existing units as a share of tuition should be preserved. I'm all for my home state improving the quality of instruction at UF, and I agree that the current tuition rates look pretty low, but a deal is a deal, even in Gainesville, no?

Catching up

World Cup celebrations, done wrong. I guess one game doesn't change quite everything.

Huge infrastructure projects, done very wrong. Get Ted Williams's name off that tunnel--it makes no sense to honor the greatest hitter who ever lived with this big strikeout of a money pit.

Budget spin, done wrong. If there is no recession in the forecast, then why isn't the on-budget account in surplus? If not with robust economic growth, then when will the debt be repaid?

Fish, done right. I got a behind-the-scenes tour of this remarkable place.

World Cup Apathy

The first time I was aware of the World Cup was in 1994. I happened to be making my first trip to the UK to present some work on savings at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was a fantastic trip, and I recall that year that the US and Ireland were in the tournament and doing well, but the English were not. You would hardly know this from fans in the pubs. They loved the game, and I drank for free, just for the novelty of being an American there while the team was doing well.

Twelve years later, I have fond memories of my trip to the UK, but I really don't care about the World Cup. Andrew Seal posts at The Little Green Blog about why Americans don't seem to be able to get excited about the World Cup. I'm probably guilty of each of his criticisms, but the reasons given are not why I don't have more than a passing interest in the World Cup.

The single reason why I don't care is that I see too many players faking like they are hurt to draw a yellow or red card for the opposing team (or to secure a penalty kick at close range). Not everyone who winds up on the grass is faking it, but too many of them are, and obviously so. Taking a dive may not be unique to soccer, but the extent to which it is manufactured and the advantage it confers when successful do seem to be larger in the World Cup than in other sports.

The sport that almost uniquely captures the interest of the American fan is football. Look at the contrast. Football is built on contact. It glorifies defenses that dish out punishing tackles and offenses that can survive the beating and score. Penalties are discrete, measured events. (The exception is the long pass interference call, which is in my view the worst part of the game in the way it is called too frequently for incidental contact.)

I'd be a much bigger fan of the World Cup if they stopped faking it for a red card, got off the grass, and just played the game.

Add this to the list ...

... of things you just shouldn't do. From the AP, via ESPN.com:

Ames was on the practice range Monday afternoon when he was asked if he would take a carefree attitude into his match against the No. 1 player in the world because not many expected him to win. Ames shook his head.

"Anything can happen," Ames said, breaking into a big smile. "Especially where he's hitting the ball."

Woods apparently took his comments seriously. As he climbed into a van behind the 10th green after halving the hole with pars, he was asked he had seen what Ames said.

"Yes."

Did it motivate him?

"Yes."

Asked if he cared to elaborate, Woods smiled.

"No."

Woods dispatched him 9 & 8 in Match Play. Ames is now on the wrong side of the record book.

The Most Amazing Statistic in the History of Baseball

Powerline had a post this week honoring Sandy Koufax and his performance in the 1965 World Series, in which they reported:

To an astonishing degree, that game was typical. Bill James did a statistical analysis of Sandy's career, tabulating his won-loss record when his team scored 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 run. (The Dodgers hardly ever scored more than five.) James thus uncovered what he described as the most amazing statistic in the history of baseball: when the Dodgers scored just one run, Koufax's W-L record was better than .500.

I agree. That's simply unbelievable. I wonder if it has ever been true for any other pitcher who played as many games.

Blogsearch Technorati

We're Still Going

The reported death toll from this morning's explosions in London is listed as "at least two," but that seems likely to rise. Prime Minister Blair asserted that it was "reasonably clear" that these attacks were designed to coincide with the opening of the G-8 summit in Scotland. He also captured the essence of what terrorists are about with this statement:

He added that it was "particularly barbaric" that the attacks had occurred during a summit intended to aid people in developing nations.

I'm glad to see that the plan is to continue with the summit, even if the Prime Minister cannot attend all of it. An AP story also reported the following:

Recent intelligence indicated that London was considered a prime target for Islamic extremists, in part because al-Qaida was having difficulty getting people into the United States, the official said.

If true, it's good to see that homeland security is also stepping up to its challenge, at least in part.

My prayers and condolences are with the people of London this morning.

Other blogs commenting on this post

London Calling

Congratulations to London for its winning bid to host the 2012 Olympics. The Samwick family plans to attend, and we'll be live-blogging it on our cell phone, PDA, wristwatch, or whatever the latest gadgetry turns out to be.

I think Londoners are some of the best sports fans anywhere. Judging the English based on the conduct of soccer hooligans would be a bit like judging Americans based on the end zone of an Oakland Raiders game. I recall being in London during the 1994 World Cup, when England failed to qualify but the U.S. and Ireland were in and doing well. I drank for free that week in every pub.

Other blogs commenting on this post

Hockey, I understand ... but lacrosse?

I took some time this weekend to enjoy the Dartmouth-Cornell men's lacrosse game, in which the Big Red edged the Big Green, 8-7. This was the first game I have seen in over a decade, and I confess that I couldn't figure it out. It seemed like Cornell was playing a different sport than Dartmouth was.

Hockey, I understand quite well, after 20 years of watching it closely. It basically comes down to three principles:

1. Failure to clear the puck out of your defensive zone is the source of all bad hockey. (This means that the entire team, including the forwards, must work as hard as possible to get the puck across the blue line.)
2. If there is a 2-on-1, and you are the 1, prevent the pass not the shot. (The goalie has to play the opponent with the puck no matter what, so the defender's primary objective should be to make sure he doesn't also have to worry about a pass to the opponent without the puck.)
3. Favorable rebounds far outnumber perfect passes. (The best opportunities arise when the puck is near the net, so when in doubt, shoot.)

Can anyone enlighten me on comparable principles for lacrosse? And what are the rules governing physical contact and contact with the stick?

Other blogs commenting on this post

Philadelphia Eagles, Meet Irony

These items were too much to pass up:



1) For all of the inane flapping of their arms they do, the Eagles could have moved with a bit more alacrity in the fourth quarter as they were trying to come back from 10 points down.



2) Before the game, Freddie Mitchell was talking trash about Rodney Harrison and the rest of the Patriots' secondary. By the end of the game, Harrison caught more passes (2) thrown by Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb than did Mitchell (1). And he also made 7 solo tackles and one sack.



Mr. Mitchell would do well to remember the adage, "Keep your words soft and sweet. One day, you might have to eat them."



UPDATE: Wizbang picks up the irony, too, giving Mitchell's original statement its "Quote of the Day."



Congratulations to the Patriots!



Other blogs commenting on this post

Maybe His Daddy Moved to Queens

This week, my fellow Red Sox fans and I learned that Pedro Martinez opted for a $53 million contract over four years with the Mets rather than the best offer the Red Sox could muster ($40.5 million over three years). Best of luck to a heck of a pitcher. And the Boston sportswriters should stop whining about it. It's a business, and if you can trade Nomar for your own reasons, then you can't complain when Pedro leaves for a bigger paycheck. Meanwhile the Mets continue their efforts to become the best team in baseball--in January rather than October.



I'll still be cheering for the Red Sox next year, now with Edgar Renteria playing shortstop, though I don't hold out any hope that they can get back to the World Series without filling this hole in their pitching rotation. I guess there will be plenty of time to watch Faith Rewarded next October.



Other blogs commenting on this post

Indiana Pacers, Meet Irony

Earlier this month, the Indiana Pacers benched player Ron Artest for two games for making a ridiculous request for time off to promote an upcoming rap album. I suspect that after his exploits last evening in Detroit as the game against the Pistons came to a close, management is wishing that it had granted the request. After being involved in an on-court shoving match with Ben Wallace of the Pistons, Artest was hit by a beverage thrown by someone in the stands. Artest charged into the stands and started swinging at the Detroit fans, followed by his teammate Stephen Jackson.



What we are witnessing is the collision of two deplorable phenomena in sports: the lack of class and sportsmanship on the part of some players and the unchecked stupidity on the part of some spectators.



For me, the low point in sportsmanship was Roberto Alomar's spitting on an umpire late in the 1996 baseball season, coupled with the remarks he made about the umpire's son afterwards. His career in the major leagues should have been over right there--a lifetime suspension from the playing field (but with no particular implications for the Hall of Fame). Artest should be done for the season, at the very least. There is no reason not to make an example out of him. Artest is a talented player, but he's eminently replaceable. Best of luck with your rap career, Ron.



The low point in spectator behavior had to be two years ago in Chicago when this father and son duo ran out of the stands during a White Sox-Royals game and attacked the Royals' first base coach from behind. The two of them should have gotten jail time (like the 2 to 5 years prosecutors requested), but in a sentence handed down about a year after the assault, the father was given only time served, counseling, parenting classes, a curfew, and probation. What a joke. Those two, like anyone at the Pacers-Pistons game identified as having incited that riot, should be sentenced to jail time. Again, there is no reason not to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.



NBA commissioner David Stern described last evening's incident as, "shocking, repulsive, and inexcusable." He should stick to that description--this incident calls for more than small fines and temporary suspensions. The league should also use this incident as an occasion for a fundamental change in the way the NBA markets itself. Here's what I would do. I would reserve the first dozen or so rows around the court for free tickets for local school or youth groups. Groups would qualify for the tickets based on their community service and other charitable works. The league and the teams could partner with community organizations and local corporations to donate the tickets. There are over a million kids between the ages of 5 and 17 in the Detroit metropolitan area. They should be the ones watching the games up close. No alcoholic beverages, no unchaperoned rowdiness, and nothing but positive reinforcement for the players from the kids who idolize them.

Price Gouging

Catching up on my blog reading over the weekend, I noticed a few interesting posts on Marginal Revolution about price gouging in flu vaccines (see the followup as well). Alex Tabarrok summarizes the problem quite well, and points out a key problem with trying to limit vaccine prices during a shortage:

If the firms can't price high during a shortage then there is no incentive to plan for a shortage.

But doesn't this mean that if prices are allowed to rise to clear the market, then you get a bunch of rich but healthy people getting vaccinated while some poor but vulnerable people go without? Not necessarily. The Boston Globe (sorry, no direct link--the Globe charges for its articles) reported on Friday on the approach being taken by the city of Boston:

CITY SEEKS TO BUY EXCESS FLU VACCINE

Published on October 15, 2004

To provide flu vaccine to those who need it most, the city of Boston announced yesterday a voluntary buyback program, encouraging employers who buy too much of the serum to sell it to the city for distribution to high-risk populations. The Boston Public Health Commission will purchase the excess vaccine and make it available for vulnerable persons including pregnant women, children, the elderly, and people with chronic medical conditions, officials said.

I think that this is the right approach. In fact, the city shouldn't just limit its purchases to "excess" vaccines. The city should figure out the marginal benefit of having another high-risk person vaccinated and purchase vaccines up to the point where the marginal cost of the vaccine just offsets that benefit. This approach provides the right incentives for the vaccine's producers and distributors to deliver more of the product--in future years if not this one--and it allows the city to allocate the vaccines as it sees fit.



The whole process shifts the costs to the public, but this is, at least to some degree, as it should be. It is the public's objective of ensuring that the most vulnerable populations are vaccinated with highest priority. (Though see Alex's discussion of those likely to spread the disease as potentially higher priorities for limited vaccines.) People can reduce the price that the city has to pay by voluntarily staying out of the market if they choose. The story in the Globe reminded me of the Nature Conservancy's land acquisition program--it would be nice to be able to steward key lands without owning them, but when necessary, they just buy the land so they can manage it as they see fit.



Of course, that wasn't the only story in the Globe about price gouging this weekend. There were also reports of the following:

FANS HIT WITH HIGH PARKING FEES

Published on October 16, 2004

Author(s): Heather Allen, GLOBE CORRESPONDENT



Being down two games to the Yankees in the American League Championship Series is bad, but paying $100 for parking in hope of witnessing a comeback is insufferable.



City officials say some parking lot owners near Fenway are trying to gouge game-goers with prices triple what they charge during the regular season or even higher.

Same deal. If you want parking to be available around Fenway during the playoffs, let the people who own land near the stadium charge what they want. At most, the Mayor's office--which was contemplating price regulations--should require lots to post their prices visibly so that people can make an informed choice without contributing to traffic jams.



Of course, any Sox fan who attended Saturday's game deserves a refund of more than just the parking fees.