Sammy Sosa can't believe he was not included in a list of five Chicago Cubs "Hometown Heroes."
That's great, Sammy. Whom would you bump from the list?
Ernie Banks -- Hall of Famer; number retired by Cubs
Ferguson Jenkins -- Hall of Famer
Ryne Sandberg -- Hall of Famer; number retired by Cubs
Ron Santo -- number retired by Cubs
Billy Williams -- Hall of Famer; number retired by Cubs
The Cubs have only retired the numbers of four players, and all four of those players made the list. The Cubs also have had only four players in the past 50 years that spent more than two years as a Cub and were elected to the Hall of Fame, and all four of those players made the list. So when you pull off one of those, Sammy, I'll listen to you.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Friday, March 31, 2006
Not a good year to receive AP Coach of the Year votes (and why Bruce Weber still rocks the house)
I got a chuckle out of how this year's AP Coach of the Year vote recipients' teams performed in the NCAA tournament, with respect to their seed:
Roy Williams, North Carolina (29 votes, -1 round*)
Jay Wright, Villanova (15, -1)
Bruce Pearl, Tennessee (11, -2)
Bill Self, Kansas (7, -2)
Thad Matta, Ohio State (5, -2)
John Calipari, Memphis (2, -1)
Karl Hobbs, George Washington (1, 0)
Ben Howland, UCLA (1, +1 or more)
Al Skinner, Boston College (1, 0)
*[I'm defining this as the number of games a team wins in the tournament minus the number of games the team is originally (i.e., ignoring upsets) supposed to win within its region based on seeding. Anything in the Final Four is a bonus, even for 1-seeds, because in theory the Final Four should be all 1-seeds.]
So of the teams with the top six vote-getters, not one lived up to its seed in the tournament.
Last year, you ask?
Bruce Weber, Illinois (54 votes, +1 round)
Mike Krzyzewski, Duke (6, -2)
Al Skinner, Boston College (5, -1)
Lorenzo Romar, Washington (4, -2)
others (3, unknown...because some AP writer decided these votes weren't worth mentioning, and now they've vanished into the mists of antiquity)
In 2004 the teams of the top two vote recipients, Phil Martelli (29, -1) and Eddie Sutton (13, +1), were cast as the 1-seed and 2-seed in the same region.
And as it's not quite 5:00pm, here is how the teams of each of the past winners performed in the tournament, back to 1985:
2006 Roy Williams, North Carolina 3 seed, -2 rounds
2005 Bruce Weber, Illinois 1, +1
2004 Phil Martelli, Saint Joseph's 1, -1
2003 Tubby Smith, Kentucky 1, -1
2002 Ben Howland, Pittsburgh 3, 0 (although the loss was to 10-seed Kent State)
2001 Matt Doherty, North Carolina 2, -2
2000 Larry Eustachy, Iowa State 2, 0
1999 Cliff Ellis, Auburn 1, -2
1998 Tom Izzo, Michigan State 4, 0
1997 Clem Haskins, Minnesota 1, 0
1996 Gene Keady, Purdue 1, -3
1995 Kelvin Sampson, Oklahoma 4, -2
1994 Norm Stewart, Missouri 1, -1
1993 Eddie Fogler, Vanderbilt 3, 0 (although the loss was to 7-seed Temple)
1992 Roy Williams, Kansas 1, -3
1991 Randy Ayers, Ohio State 1, -2
1990 Jim Calhoun, Connecticut 1, -1 (Laettner I)
1989 Bob Knight, Indiana 2, -1
1988 John Chaney, Temple 1, -1
1987 Tom Davis, Iowa 2, 0
1986 Eddie Sutton, Kentucky 1, -1 (11-seed LSU)
1985 Bill Frieder, Michigan 1, -3 (8-seed, and eventual champion, Villanova)
Sure, the higher a seed a team has, the more games they have to win to live up to their seed. Still, in the past 22 years, Bruce Weber is the only AP Coach of the Year to lead his team to additional victories beyond validating their seed. In fact, only two the past thirteen 1-seeds led by an AP Coach of the Year validated their seed with a trip to the Final Four.
Roy Williams, North Carolina (29 votes, -1 round*)
Jay Wright, Villanova (15, -1)
Bruce Pearl, Tennessee (11, -2)
Bill Self, Kansas (7, -2)
Thad Matta, Ohio State (5, -2)
John Calipari, Memphis (2, -1)
Karl Hobbs, George Washington (1, 0)
Ben Howland, UCLA (1, +1 or more)
Al Skinner, Boston College (1, 0)
*[I'm defining this as the number of games a team wins in the tournament minus the number of games the team is originally (i.e., ignoring upsets) supposed to win within its region based on seeding. Anything in the Final Four is a bonus, even for 1-seeds, because in theory the Final Four should be all 1-seeds.]
So of the teams with the top six vote-getters, not one lived up to its seed in the tournament.
Last year, you ask?
Bruce Weber, Illinois (54 votes, +1 round)
Mike Krzyzewski, Duke (6, -2)
Al Skinner, Boston College (5, -1)
Lorenzo Romar, Washington (4, -2)
others (3, unknown...because some AP writer decided these votes weren't worth mentioning, and now they've vanished into the mists of antiquity)
In 2004 the teams of the top two vote recipients, Phil Martelli (29, -1) and Eddie Sutton (13, +1), were cast as the 1-seed and 2-seed in the same region.
And as it's not quite 5:00pm, here is how the teams of each of the past winners performed in the tournament, back to 1985:
2006 Roy Williams, North Carolina 3 seed, -2 rounds
2005 Bruce Weber, Illinois 1, +1
2004 Phil Martelli, Saint Joseph's 1, -1
2003 Tubby Smith, Kentucky 1, -1
2002 Ben Howland, Pittsburgh 3, 0 (although the loss was to 10-seed Kent State)
2001 Matt Doherty, North Carolina 2, -2
2000 Larry Eustachy, Iowa State 2, 0
1999 Cliff Ellis, Auburn 1, -2
1998 Tom Izzo, Michigan State 4, 0
1997 Clem Haskins, Minnesota 1, 0
1996 Gene Keady, Purdue 1, -3
1995 Kelvin Sampson, Oklahoma 4, -2
1994 Norm Stewart, Missouri 1, -1
1993 Eddie Fogler, Vanderbilt 3, 0 (although the loss was to 7-seed Temple)
1992 Roy Williams, Kansas 1, -3
1991 Randy Ayers, Ohio State 1, -2
1990 Jim Calhoun, Connecticut 1, -1 (Laettner I)
1989 Bob Knight, Indiana 2, -1
1988 John Chaney, Temple 1, -1
1987 Tom Davis, Iowa 2, 0
1986 Eddie Sutton, Kentucky 1, -1 (11-seed LSU)
1985 Bill Frieder, Michigan 1, -3 (8-seed, and eventual champion, Villanova)
Sure, the higher a seed a team has, the more games they have to win to live up to their seed. Still, in the past 22 years, Bruce Weber is the only AP Coach of the Year to lead his team to additional victories beyond validating their seed. In fact, only two the past thirteen 1-seeds led by an AP Coach of the Year validated their seed with a trip to the Final Four.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Even in politics, two wrongs still don't make a right
Today U.S. Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) took the floor of the House of Representatives to condemn the treatment of his wife, Beverly, at last night's State of the Union address. Great job, Bill. Here's why this was a political stunt, pure and simple.
"House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries." This is Rep. Young's 18th term in the House; I'm sure both he and his wife are aware of the rules. This is also George W. Bush's sixth State of the Union address, and he's held office for five years; I think the entire nation knows how his administration feels about letting people do things in their own way. Additionally, it isn't too far-fetched to suggest that Rep. and Mrs. Young knew that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan had been invited to attend, and would likely attempt to make an unspoken statement of some kind (which she did).
Putting all this together, Mrs. Young showed up to the State of the Union address in a shirt that would undoubtedly be censored, just so her husband could feign outrage the following day to drown out any backlash over Mrs. Sheehan's arrest (although I'm surprised they actually arrested her...it's not like this was the Final Four or anything).
I have no problem with the message on Mrs. Young's shirt -- "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom" -- but there's a difference between wearing a symbolic ribbon and wearing a shirt with text on it. There are times to make an overt statement, and last night was not one of those times. All attention at the State of the Union should be on the president, and any attempt to draw attention away from the president during the event is inappropriate. I believe the motivation for Mrs. Young to wear her shirt came in part from the desire to cancel out the impact of anything Mrs. Sheehan might do, but that doesn't justify it. Doing something wrong isn't the way to make something else right.
"House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries." This is Rep. Young's 18th term in the House; I'm sure both he and his wife are aware of the rules. This is also George W. Bush's sixth State of the Union address, and he's held office for five years; I think the entire nation knows how his administration feels about letting people do things in their own way. Additionally, it isn't too far-fetched to suggest that Rep. and Mrs. Young knew that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan had been invited to attend, and would likely attempt to make an unspoken statement of some kind (which she did).
Putting all this together, Mrs. Young showed up to the State of the Union address in a shirt that would undoubtedly be censored, just so her husband could feign outrage the following day to drown out any backlash over Mrs. Sheehan's arrest (although I'm surprised they actually arrested her...it's not like this was the Final Four or anything).
I have no problem with the message on Mrs. Young's shirt -- "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom" -- but there's a difference between wearing a symbolic ribbon and wearing a shirt with text on it. There are times to make an overt statement, and last night was not one of those times. All attention at the State of the Union should be on the president, and any attempt to draw attention away from the president during the event is inappropriate. I believe the motivation for Mrs. Young to wear her shirt came in part from the desire to cancel out the impact of anything Mrs. Sheehan might do, but that doesn't justify it. Doing something wrong isn't the way to make something else right.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The treatment of Intelligent Design
Is the theory of Intelligent Design held to abnormal standards by the scientific community?
ID exists in the environment of today, and that environment that can be characterized by multiple, distinct dimensions. These dimensions include time (the year 2006) and field (biology). The comparison of ID to the early years of evolution theory holds all dimensions constant save time. The inherent uncertainty in reliance on historical records presents a challenge in our development of a full understanding of the environment of evolution theory in its early years. Any comparisons we may yet draw will suffice only to describe how the environment may change along this one dimension -- a partial derivative, so to speak, with respect to time.
It is certainly valid to consider a comparison that holds all dimensions, including time, constant save the field of study. To what standard are other scientific theories in their early stages held in the present day? How does the treatment of ID compare with the treatment of new theories in anthropology, seismology, or quantum physics? In other words, what is the partial derivative with respect to field?
Does the theory of Intelligent Design receive abnormal promotion from its supporters?
In the present day there are undoubtedly individuals and groups whose passion for their own theory, in their own field, is as great as or greater than ID proponents’ passion for ID. How does ID compare to other theories with respect to the following:
- production of for-profit books and other items in support of the theory;
- appearances in mainstream media reports; and
- funds allocated for research and awareness?
If ID does receive abnormal promotion, there are two possible reasons why. First, ID’s proponents may have ulterior motives. The terms “for-profit” and “awareness” hint at this possibility. Second, ID’s proponents may feel that ID is more important, socially and culturally, than other new theories. Quite simply, why? Why is ID so important that it should be thrust into the public consciousness prior to the development of a scientific core of evidence?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Worth the stretch
Big Ten Wonk Word Of The Day for Thursday, January 19:
lacuna (luh-CUE-nuh) n. An empty space or a missing part. (more)
At first glance, I thought this word would describe a sexual position to be used during a full moon. Or maybe a combination of the two. Guess I was wrong. Bonus points for the add-an-"e" pluralization, though.
A defining characteristic of a Wonk Word Of The Day is its debatable usage. Is it too much of a stretch to use an anatomical term to describe a player's failure to contribute? The fact is that any difficult word that appears in a discussion about sports is probably a stretch simply because it appears in a discussion about sports. At least when Wonk does it, he uses a word that's so far beyond the sports landscape that it's obvious he knows what it really means. Even if it's not always a perfect fit, sometimes it's more descriptive to grasp at a distant comparison than to use a more common, accepted, boring turn of phrase.
Plus I'm always in favor of learning a new word.
lacuna (luh-CUE-nuh) n. An empty space or a missing part. (more)
At first glance, I thought this word would describe a sexual position to be used during a full moon. Or maybe a combination of the two. Guess I was wrong. Bonus points for the add-an-"e" pluralization, though.
A defining characteristic of a Wonk Word Of The Day is its debatable usage. Is it too much of a stretch to use an anatomical term to describe a player's failure to contribute? The fact is that any difficult word that appears in a discussion about sports is probably a stretch simply because it appears in a discussion about sports. At least when Wonk does it, he uses a word that's so far beyond the sports landscape that it's obvious he knows what it really means. Even if it's not always a perfect fit, sometimes it's more descriptive to grasp at a distant comparison than to use a more common, accepted, boring turn of phrase.
Plus I'm always in favor of learning a new word.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Superstition ain't the way
sports fan : superstitious :: dog : licks self
It only takes one. One event so "traumatic" that it forever alters the way you think.
The sports fan in me wasn't superstitious until Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. I was at home, lying down on my couch, for the first seven innings of the game. Then before the top of the eighth, I sat up. I don't blame myself (wait, that's not 100% true), and I don't think that I caused events a half-mile west along Addison to happen as they did. While Big Ten Wonk has mentioned the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think sports fans fall somewhere between Vulcan logic and fantasy. Between causality and coincidence lies superstition.
Superstition happens after just as much as it happens before. When Illinois coughed up a 17-6 lead in the blink of an eye, I thought to myself, "Should I have waited until the TV timeout to start eating my buffalo wings?" When Charles Tillman fell down on the second play from scrimmage, I tried to figure out what I should have done differently. Superstition means second-guessing as much as it means preparing.
I don't really think that I caused any of those things to happen. I understand the concept of the butterfly effect, but I believe that chaos outweighs anything I could do. [The random -- yes, apparently it is random, on a quantum level -- nature of interactions of atomic and subatomic particles means that nothing I would be likely to do could be "heard" above the "noise" of randomness by the time it reached the subject of my attention.] That's the scientific rationalization. But I do second-guess myself all the time. Yes, James probably should have made that jump-hook. But if I had been standing up at the time, would it have gone in?
I'm used to being in control of much of what goes on in my life. My brain constantly evaluates how I do in these matters. I try not to care about the things that I don't control, but with sports, I have decided to care. Caring leads to evaluation, which leads to second-guessing. I don't second-guess whether I should have been sitting in a different seat when Vanderjagt pushed that field goal attempt into immortality. But I do wonder whether Shaun Pruitt would have hit those free throws if I had only used my straw rather than drinking straight out of my water glass.
It only takes one. One event so "traumatic" that it forever alters the way you think.
The sports fan in me wasn't superstitious until Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. I was at home, lying down on my couch, for the first seven innings of the game. Then before the top of the eighth, I sat up. I don't blame myself (wait, that's not 100% true), and I don't think that I caused events a half-mile west along Addison to happen as they did. While Big Ten Wonk has mentioned the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think sports fans fall somewhere between Vulcan logic and fantasy. Between causality and coincidence lies superstition.
Superstition happens after just as much as it happens before. When Illinois coughed up a 17-6 lead in the blink of an eye, I thought to myself, "Should I have waited until the TV timeout to start eating my buffalo wings?" When Charles Tillman fell down on the second play from scrimmage, I tried to figure out what I should have done differently. Superstition means second-guessing as much as it means preparing.
I don't really think that I caused any of those things to happen. I understand the concept of the butterfly effect, but I believe that chaos outweighs anything I could do. [The random -- yes, apparently it is random, on a quantum level -- nature of interactions of atomic and subatomic particles means that nothing I would be likely to do could be "heard" above the "noise" of randomness by the time it reached the subject of my attention.] That's the scientific rationalization. But I do second-guess myself all the time. Yes, James probably should have made that jump-hook. But if I had been standing up at the time, would it have gone in?
I'm used to being in control of much of what goes on in my life. My brain constantly evaluates how I do in these matters. I try not to care about the things that I don't control, but with sports, I have decided to care. Caring leads to evaluation, which leads to second-guessing. I don't second-guess whether I should have been sitting in a different seat when Vanderjagt pushed that field goal attempt into immortality. But I do wonder whether Shaun Pruitt would have hit those free throws if I had only used my straw rather than drinking straight out of my water glass.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
It's More Fun Being Green
It's like professional wrestling, in a slightly more noble setting.
Medieval Times: Dinner and Tournament is a journey to a time and place that may not have existed. Brave knights, Andalusian horses, Dragon's Tail soup, an arena full of weapons, and a dungeon full of implements of torture. Courage. Treachery. Skill. Intrigue. Romance. Oracles. Spotlights. Reverb.
You get the idea.
Above all else, it's a performance, from start to finish. All employees -- whether king, herald, bartender, or wench -- remain in character throughout. They all need to play their roles to create this world for the audience. The audience, in turn, has a part to play...but not necessarily a role. Cheering when you're supposed to doesn't, in itself, convert you from an observer to a participant in this world. Many adults that return to Medieval Times, though, have found one true way to play a role -- supporting the Green Knight.
First, a little background. There are six knights, each identified by his colors -- Red, Black-and-White, Yellow, Blue, Red-and Yellow, or Green -- and each representing a fictional kingdom. Each knight and kingdom has its own backstory, for anyone paying close enough attention. Unique among these is the wicked Green Knight, who hails from the kingdom of Leon, a land known for its liars, cheats, and charlatans. The inhabitants of Leon are unsavory and belligerent characters, despised by the other citizens of the realm, and openly mocked by the king's servants and guards.
A great number of audience members are children, awestruck by the spectacle and indifferent to their knight and kingdom affiliation. Many adults are indifferent as well. But a few adult guests, returning visitors no doubt, request to sit in a particular knight's section. And no one requests the Yellow Knight.
Supporters of the Green Knight are free to play a role that casts them directly into the world created at Medieval Times, time and time again. Adults cheer the Green Knight with passion and devotion that border on the surreal. Whether this is due to an us-against-the-world mentality, or perhaps a desire to play the bad guy, I don't know. Through this role, though, we as adults transport our emotions into this fantasy world, even as our eyes and body remain rooted in reality.
The Green Knight benefits from this expression of emotion as well. All knights salute their supporters, but the eyes of the Green Knight betray the rush he feels when showered with affection. The other knights' supporters came to cheer the spectacle; the Green Knight's supporters came to cheer him. He's Hulk Hogan on horseback.
It's more fun being green. No matter who you are.
Medieval Times: Dinner and Tournament is a journey to a time and place that may not have existed. Brave knights, Andalusian horses, Dragon's Tail soup, an arena full of weapons, and a dungeon full of implements of torture. Courage. Treachery. Skill. Intrigue. Romance. Oracles. Spotlights. Reverb.
You get the idea.
Above all else, it's a performance, from start to finish. All employees -- whether king, herald, bartender, or wench -- remain in character throughout. They all need to play their roles to create this world for the audience. The audience, in turn, has a part to play...but not necessarily a role. Cheering when you're supposed to doesn't, in itself, convert you from an observer to a participant in this world. Many adults that return to Medieval Times, though, have found one true way to play a role -- supporting the Green Knight.
First, a little background. There are six knights, each identified by his colors -- Red, Black-and-White, Yellow, Blue, Red-and Yellow, or Green -- and each representing a fictional kingdom. Each knight and kingdom has its own backstory, for anyone paying close enough attention. Unique among these is the wicked Green Knight, who hails from the kingdom of Leon, a land known for its liars, cheats, and charlatans. The inhabitants of Leon are unsavory and belligerent characters, despised by the other citizens of the realm, and openly mocked by the king's servants and guards.
A great number of audience members are children, awestruck by the spectacle and indifferent to their knight and kingdom affiliation. Many adults are indifferent as well. But a few adult guests, returning visitors no doubt, request to sit in a particular knight's section. And no one requests the Yellow Knight.
Supporters of the Green Knight are free to play a role that casts them directly into the world created at Medieval Times, time and time again. Adults cheer the Green Knight with passion and devotion that border on the surreal. Whether this is due to an us-against-the-world mentality, or perhaps a desire to play the bad guy, I don't know. Through this role, though, we as adults transport our emotions into this fantasy world, even as our eyes and body remain rooted in reality.
The Green Knight benefits from this expression of emotion as well. All knights salute their supporters, but the eyes of the Green Knight betray the rush he feels when showered with affection. The other knights' supporters came to cheer the spectacle; the Green Knight's supporters came to cheer him. He's Hulk Hogan on horseback.
It's more fun being green. No matter who you are.
Monday, January 02, 2006
A half-assed running diary of the Fiesta Bowl
My pledge to you: This post will contain no analysis of the game itself.
During a pre-game interview, Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel hands sideline reporter Jack Arute a collar stay. My immediate reaction: "One collar stay?" Later in the broadcast, Arute is shown head-on, sporting one sharp-looking point and one awful-looking point on his collar. Did he really need two collar stays and used just the one that Tressel gave him? Did he just need one, but the one Tressel gave him didn't fit his shirt? And is ABC so business-casual that not one off-camera employee is wearing a shirt with collar stays? Is there no VIP wearing a suit today? Couldn't an intern run out to the nearest shopping mall? Shouldn't the hotel concierge have been able to track down a collar stay this morning? And what did Arute do to his shirt in the first place to screw up the collar?
Quite the flashy graphic on the roles played by Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn. My favorite part? They misspelled the last name of head coach Charlie Weis (added an extra "s"). There are 8,643 unemployed college grads in Cook County, Ill., alone that would love to earn $12 per hour as a spell- and fact-checker for ABC Sports. Doesn't a major telelvision network understand the benefits of interns?
Late in the first half, Arute mentions that Ohio State's top three linebackers have been growing their hair long in tribute to Pat Tillman. All well and good...except that Bobby Carpenter, A.J. Hawk, and Anthony Schlegel originally made an agreement not to cut their hair until they won a national championship...as reported by ABC on their September 10, 2005, broadcast of the Texas-Ohio State game. Selective reporting doesn't get any better than this.
Well, it took Brent Musburger until the third quarter to mention that A.J. Hawk is dating Brady Quinn's sister, Laura. And it took another ten minutes for the announcers to stop talking about it. We've seen a pre-recorded clip with Hawk; a replay of Laura's anguished reaction in the crowd when Hawk sacked Quinn a few moments ago; a pre-recorded clip with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith; and a sideline interview with Laura, in which she admitted her protective instinct as an older sister, as well as the 21-7 deficit faced by Notre Dame, has her pulling for the Irish.
Ever play the "Which celebrity does he/she look most like" game? Well, it's not really a game, but I find it easier to use a well-known person as a starting point and then modify as appropriate. For example, one of my friends looks like Dina Meyer except about 5'4" with darker, straighter hair. I used to think that another of my friends looks like she could be Brady Quinn's sister. Now that I've seen Brady Quinn's real sister, though, I can no longer use that comparison. I broke even this weekend, though, because after seeing a friend's blond highlights, I decided he looked like he could be the bad guy in a Die Hard movie. My brother was the only one to get that.
Abrupt ending in three, two, one...
During a pre-game interview, Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel hands sideline reporter Jack Arute a collar stay. My immediate reaction: "One collar stay?" Later in the broadcast, Arute is shown head-on, sporting one sharp-looking point and one awful-looking point on his collar. Did he really need two collar stays and used just the one that Tressel gave him? Did he just need one, but the one Tressel gave him didn't fit his shirt? And is ABC so business-casual that not one off-camera employee is wearing a shirt with collar stays? Is there no VIP wearing a suit today? Couldn't an intern run out to the nearest shopping mall? Shouldn't the hotel concierge have been able to track down a collar stay this morning? And what did Arute do to his shirt in the first place to screw up the collar?
Quite the flashy graphic on the roles played by Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn. My favorite part? They misspelled the last name of head coach Charlie Weis (added an extra "s"). There are 8,643 unemployed college grads in Cook County, Ill., alone that would love to earn $12 per hour as a spell- and fact-checker for ABC Sports. Doesn't a major telelvision network understand the benefits of interns?
Late in the first half, Arute mentions that Ohio State's top three linebackers have been growing their hair long in tribute to Pat Tillman. All well and good...except that Bobby Carpenter, A.J. Hawk, and Anthony Schlegel originally made an agreement not to cut their hair until they won a national championship...as reported by ABC on their September 10, 2005, broadcast of the Texas-Ohio State game. Selective reporting doesn't get any better than this.
Well, it took Brent Musburger until the third quarter to mention that A.J. Hawk is dating Brady Quinn's sister, Laura. And it took another ten minutes for the announcers to stop talking about it. We've seen a pre-recorded clip with Hawk; a replay of Laura's anguished reaction in the crowd when Hawk sacked Quinn a few moments ago; a pre-recorded clip with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith; and a sideline interview with Laura, in which she admitted her protective instinct as an older sister, as well as the 21-7 deficit faced by Notre Dame, has her pulling for the Irish.
Ever play the "Which celebrity does he/she look most like" game? Well, it's not really a game, but I find it easier to use a well-known person as a starting point and then modify as appropriate. For example, one of my friends looks like Dina Meyer except about 5'4" with darker, straighter hair. I used to think that another of my friends looks like she could be Brady Quinn's sister. Now that I've seen Brady Quinn's real sister, though, I can no longer use that comparison. I broke even this weekend, though, because after seeing a friend's blond highlights, I decided he looked like he could be the bad guy in a Die Hard movie. My brother was the only one to get that.
Abrupt ending in three, two, one...
Saturday, December 24, 2005
The Validation Of Data Analysts - A Change Is Coming
Basketball TV broadcasts frustrate me when they present statistics like this:
"Offensive rebounds: Michigan State 9, Wisconsin-Green Bay 9."
The broadcast team presents statistics to give the viewer an understanding of how teams or players have performed. If the above statistic were presented, though, the viewer would likely take away the message that the two teams rebounded equally well on the offensive end (and, therefore, on the defensive end, too). While each team did secure the same number of offensive boards, Michigan State did so in only 25 opportunities (22 missed FG, 3 missed FT) while UWGB did so in 41 opportunities (35 missed FG, 6 missed FT). This statistic would convey a much stronger message:
"Offensive rebounding percentage: Michigan State 36%, Wisconsin-Green Bay 22%"
In the past couple years, Ken Pomeroy, Kyle Whelliston, John Gasaway, and others have evaluated players and teams using statistics that measure efficiency (usually named "possession-based stats" or "tempo-free stats") rather than "totals" that depend in part on the number of opportunities a player or team has to obtain them (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). Mainstream media, meanwhile, have continued to focus on totals. Or is there some other explanation for Bracey Wright's selection to the 2004-2005 All-Big Ten first team?
The old guard of sports-talkers is vulnerable to the new breed of data analysts. Dick Vitale's skill as an analyst lies in watching players and teams perform and passing judgment on their ability to compete against other players and teams. I won't dispute his skill in this regard. What data analysts have taught us, though, is that there are tools that predict success with greater accuracy than Dick Vitale. Or just about any other analyst who insists on using his own judgment of specific situations and performances without considering the value of overall statistics.
I refer to Dick Vitale, Bill Walton, Charles Barkley, and others like them as "sports-talkers" because (1) the word would have an entirely different meaning without the hyphen, and (2) their most important skill lies in their ability to perform on live television when they have nothing to say. Data analysts can show so many things through statistics, though, that they would almost always have something to say, even without relying on mentioning J.J. Redick.
Data analysts threaten sportswriters more directly. Sportswriters can make their mark as a reporter (Chris Mortensen), an analyst, or a writer (Bill Simmons). I don't have a good example for the sportswriter-analyst because I really can't think of one. Sportswriters break stories or produce feature articles, or they entertain readers through their writing. Data analysts have a niche waiting for them, because they can make their mark through analysis alone.
The key to writing as an analyst is clarity. An analyst's purpose in writing is to convey to the reader the meaning of the analysis. If the reader can't understand the message, the analyst has failed. Beyond that, it's all good, as long as the analysis is sound and the matter holds significance for the reader. Just because Gasaway, as Big Ten Wonk, is entertaining doesn't mean he has to be to get his point across.
ESPN.com has recognized the analyst niche and begun to fill it -- Pomeroy and Whelliston have, quite recently, joined the payroll. Sportswriters that masquerade as analysts are now officially endangered. Thankfully, most sportswriters are true reporters as well and don't feel threatened. Grant Wahl and Luke Winn from SI.com each endorsed the aforementioned data analysts in an online column earlier this month. And sportswriters like Bill Simmons (not such a large group, is it?) are writers first, so they're not going anywhere, either.
I find the articles from Wahl and Winn encouraging because they signal a shift in the attitude of mainstream media. It's only a matter of time before television broadcasters start citing effective field goal percentage, rebounding percentage, and points-per-possession in their pre-game analysis instead of things like "Shoot The 3; Avoid Foul Trouble; Run, Run, Run." From there it's a hop, skip, and a jump to seeing these figures show up in box scores and in mid-game analysis.
Statistics have analytical and predictive value that rivals and often exceeds the judgment of even the most talented individuals. The next time you read or hear someone disregarding statistics in favor of personal judgment, without any sort of qualification, consider the source and his motivation. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct.
"Offensive rebounds: Michigan State 9, Wisconsin-Green Bay 9."
The broadcast team presents statistics to give the viewer an understanding of how teams or players have performed. If the above statistic were presented, though, the viewer would likely take away the message that the two teams rebounded equally well on the offensive end (and, therefore, on the defensive end, too). While each team did secure the same number of offensive boards, Michigan State did so in only 25 opportunities (22 missed FG, 3 missed FT) while UWGB did so in 41 opportunities (35 missed FG, 6 missed FT). This statistic would convey a much stronger message:
"Offensive rebounding percentage: Michigan State 36%, Wisconsin-Green Bay 22%"
In the past couple years, Ken Pomeroy, Kyle Whelliston, John Gasaway, and others have evaluated players and teams using statistics that measure efficiency (usually named "possession-based stats" or "tempo-free stats") rather than "totals" that depend in part on the number of opportunities a player or team has to obtain them (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). Mainstream media, meanwhile, have continued to focus on totals. Or is there some other explanation for Bracey Wright's selection to the 2004-2005 All-Big Ten first team?
The old guard of sports-talkers is vulnerable to the new breed of data analysts. Dick Vitale's skill as an analyst lies in watching players and teams perform and passing judgment on their ability to compete against other players and teams. I won't dispute his skill in this regard. What data analysts have taught us, though, is that there are tools that predict success with greater accuracy than Dick Vitale. Or just about any other analyst who insists on using his own judgment of specific situations and performances without considering the value of overall statistics.
I refer to Dick Vitale, Bill Walton, Charles Barkley, and others like them as "sports-talkers" because (1) the word would have an entirely different meaning without the hyphen, and (2) their most important skill lies in their ability to perform on live television when they have nothing to say. Data analysts can show so many things through statistics, though, that they would almost always have something to say, even without relying on mentioning J.J. Redick.
Data analysts threaten sportswriters more directly. Sportswriters can make their mark as a reporter (Chris Mortensen), an analyst, or a writer (Bill Simmons). I don't have a good example for the sportswriter-analyst because I really can't think of one. Sportswriters break stories or produce feature articles, or they entertain readers through their writing. Data analysts have a niche waiting for them, because they can make their mark through analysis alone.
The key to writing as an analyst is clarity. An analyst's purpose in writing is to convey to the reader the meaning of the analysis. If the reader can't understand the message, the analyst has failed. Beyond that, it's all good, as long as the analysis is sound and the matter holds significance for the reader. Just because Gasaway, as Big Ten Wonk, is entertaining doesn't mean he has to be to get his point across.
ESPN.com has recognized the analyst niche and begun to fill it -- Pomeroy and Whelliston have, quite recently, joined the payroll. Sportswriters that masquerade as analysts are now officially endangered. Thankfully, most sportswriters are true reporters as well and don't feel threatened. Grant Wahl and Luke Winn from SI.com each endorsed the aforementioned data analysts in an online column earlier this month. And sportswriters like Bill Simmons (not such a large group, is it?) are writers first, so they're not going anywhere, either.
I find the articles from Wahl and Winn encouraging because they signal a shift in the attitude of mainstream media. It's only a matter of time before television broadcasters start citing effective field goal percentage, rebounding percentage, and points-per-possession in their pre-game analysis instead of things like "Shoot The 3; Avoid Foul Trouble; Run, Run, Run." From there it's a hop, skip, and a jump to seeing these figures show up in box scores and in mid-game analysis.
Statistics have analytical and predictive value that rivals and often exceeds the judgment of even the most talented individuals. The next time you read or hear someone disregarding statistics in favor of personal judgment, without any sort of qualification, consider the source and his motivation. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Microwave squares
When my mom reheats a mug of coffee in the microwave, she'll mike it for 12 seconds, or 16 seconds, but not something "normal" like 15 seconds. This works for longer times, too -- I've seen her mike frozen vegetables for something like 2:43. I'm not normal, either, because when I wanted to mike something for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, I used to enter 1:90. The microwave that today I own seems to only accept whole increments of 30 seconds, which disappoints me. In any case, here is a math problem I came up with while waking up on Saturday morning.
The display on a microwave contains four digits, two for minutes and two for seconds (mm:ss). Because there are only 60 seconds in 1 minute, the number that can be read from left to right does not represent the true number of seconds that will be counted down by the timer -- 210 (2:10) represents 130 seconds, while 210 seconds can be represented by either 330 (3:30) or 290 (2:90). If the displayed number is one or two digits only, then the displayed number and true number of seconds will be the same (i.e., this is the trivial or uninteresting case). When the two numbers are different, they still may share interesting properties in some cases...
For what three- or four-digit displayed numbers are the displayed number and true number of seconds both perfect squares?
The display on a microwave contains four digits, two for minutes and two for seconds (mm:ss). Because there are only 60 seconds in 1 minute, the number that can be read from left to right does not represent the true number of seconds that will be counted down by the timer -- 210 (2:10) represents 130 seconds, while 210 seconds can be represented by either 330 (3:30) or 290 (2:90). If the displayed number is one or two digits only, then the displayed number and true number of seconds will be the same (i.e., this is the trivial or uninteresting case). When the two numbers are different, they still may share interesting properties in some cases...
For what three- or four-digit displayed numbers are the displayed number and true number of seconds both perfect squares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)