|
|
Monthly Archives
October 24, 2005
Posted by Nick
Is there a way to use stats in basketball like you can in baseball? There's a movement to sabermetricize (is that a word?) big-time hoops.
Not until recently, however, did a community analogous to baseball's SABR evolve, when the Association for Professional Basketball Research was founded in 1997. Today, the APBRmetricians -- who are clearly better with numbers than acronyms -- tend to agree on certain truths. For example, a team's efficiency is best measured per possession, not per game (a running team may rack up points but still be an inefficient offensive team), and the one inscrutable player stat is how a team fares when someone is on the court versus when he is off it, because this ties back to point differential. And point differential, obviously, is the end goal.
Unlike baseball, however, in which pitchers and hitters create individual matchups, every action on a basketball court is influenced by nine other players, not to mention a coach. For this reason, there is no "holy grail" in basketball equivalent to baseball's on-base percentage. Instead, the APBR community looks at factors like adjusted plus/minus, eFG percentage, rebounding rates, shot-charting and defensive "stops."
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Basketball
Posted by Nick
The Miami Herald has a long and interesting piece on the debate over using instant replay in sports. With lots of obvious and not so obvious blunders in the CS and World Series, the piece examines why baseball is reluctant to embrace what lots of other sports have embraced.
The Herald provides some terrific history:
It was nearly 43 years ago, on Dec. 7, 1963, that revolutionary CBS producer Tony Verna changed the way America -- and eventually the world -- watched sports.
Verna believed there was too much dead time during football game broadcasts. ''You could eat a ham sandwich in the time it took Norm Van Brocklin to get back to the huddle,'' he told reporters.
So, he came up with the idea of reshowing plays immediately after they happened. Until that point, replays were available only at halftime and postgame. Verna chose the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia as a guinea pig because Roger Staubach was the hottest quarterback around.
He spent three quarters trying to get it right, at one point discovering an I Love Lucy episode where he had hoped a football play would be.
Finally, in the fourth quarter, he got it to work and alerted game announcer Lindsey Nelson, ''Here it comes.'' Viewers got an immediate second look at Army quarterback Rollie Stichweh's 1-yard touchdown.
''This is not live!'' Nelson screamed into the microphone. ``Ladies and gentlemen, Army has not scored again!''
Voila! Instant replay.
Within a few years, it was a regular part of sports programming.
RTWT
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
October 20, 2005
Posted by Nick
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Sports and Health
Posted by Nick
Here's a look at new video games that make kids sweat.
Video games have long been blamed for creating couch potatoes. Yet several new games are actually getting kids to break a sweat.
The new video games, known as "exer-games," come with special equipment to replace the traditional hand-held joystick -- including pads kids can jump and dance on, isometric equipment that requires muscle to control a game and cameras that put kids in the center of kung-fu and skateboarding action. Some games even include calorie counters.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Video Games
Posted by Nick
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: TV/Video/Film
October 19, 2005
Posted by Nick
One of the greatest things about the internet is the ability to use it while watching sporting events. Commercial television hampers sports viewing by insisting on too many commercials during games. I can’t walk THAT slowly to the fridge for more beer, so I have to suffer through too many lame commercials. But with a laptop I don't. While watching game 6 of the ALCS, when commercials arrive, I can check email and the web.
However, law of unintended consequences being what it is, sometimes I come across dumb columns about sports, like this one by Phil Taylor.
Taylor argues there is no good reason to oppose instant reply in sports. He says
Yet there is still a school of thought that objects to the use of replay, for no good reason. There are those who contend that human error by referees and umpires is a part of sports, but that's not quite correct. Unavoidable, uncorrectable human error by officials is a part of sports, but the errors that can be fixed, should be. Arguing against instant replay to correct calls is like arguing against erasers on pencils.
Some so-called traditionalists resist the notion of replay, arguing that our games have survived for decades without high-tech help, but technology has improved the equipment athletes play with, the arenas and stadiums they play in and the training that allows them to play better. There's no reason it shouldn't be used to improve the officiating in the games they play.
Part of sports' appeal is the certainty they offer. Teams win or lose. Players are out or safe. When bad calls are allowed to stand it erodes some of that certainty, and that's a far worse thing for the game, any game, than taking a few moments out to check the instant replay. It doesn't take a second look to see that.
This is so goofy on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin, but let's start with, well, the game I'm watching.
The Cards had 1st and 2nd nobody out and a ground ball to second. The Astros second baseman clearly missed the tag of the Cards' Molina running to 2nd, but Molina's large frame blocked out a good view for the ump, so he botched the call and called Molina out. It was, with replay, an obvious bad call. And there will be lots of other bad calls in this series and future series. But I have no problem with this. In fact, I rather like it.
I hate instant replay for a lot of reasons, but primarily because it slows the pace of play, by a LOT. Football replay is infuriating. Pro football games are glacial, and replay makes it worse, without a significant boost in strategic intrigue (will Dick Vermeil croak in the time it takes for the zebras to get out of that weird voting-booth-replay-thing, or will Gibbs beat him to the punch?)
What's especially annoying about Taylor's argument is the assertion that what's appealing about sports is the certainty they offer. I don't even know what that means. Physics offers some certainty. Mathematics. Maybe chemistry. But sports? Sports are interesting precisely because there is no certainty. Ask Yogi Berra. No one ever, while waiting in a physics lab for water to boil at 100 degrees, said It Ain't Boiled, Till It's Boiled, because we know that the water is gonna boil when the thermometer gets to 100. It's certain. But in sports, It Ain't Over Till It's Over. Which is what's great about it. There are no certainties. Ask Albert Pujols and the Cards with two outs in the 9th. That's why more people watch ESPN than NOVA. As for why people read Phil Taylor, I've no idea.
With few exceptions, sports columnists suck. Why don't sports editors insist on more from their columnists? I can't believe people like Taylor can even make a living. Does this make me a 'so-called traditionalist'?
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
October 18, 2005
Posted by Nick
Hawk Eye was given a green light by the ITF.
A system of computer-generated video replays to monitor line calls could be in place at Wimbledon and other major events next year after the technology - known as 'Hawk-Eye Officiating' - was given the thumbs-up by the International Tennis Federation yesterday.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Nick
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Soccer
Posted by Nick
Interesting history from the Beeb on golf club technology.
The game's law makers have had to keep a close eye on technology to make sure science does not ruin the game of golf - a putter with wheels is among the innovations that have had to be banned.
Given the advances in technology it is perhaps surprising that the game has not changed more.
According to statistics in America, since 1980 the average professional has become only 11 yards longer and is hitting six per cent more fairways.
The range of the old hickory clubs is only 5 per cent less than modern ones.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Golf
October 14, 2005
Posted by Nick
Here's very interesting research from Art DeVany claiming that roids cannot explain the seeming surge in home run hitting. If you still have an open mind about these issues, pls read it (I'm not saying it's conclusive, just that it's worth learning more ab out it (hat tip MR).
I take up the matter of steroids more directly and also such possible influences as "hotter" baseballs, altered ball parks, smaller strike zone and find them all to be lacking. They do not stand up to verifiable tests or statistics. And they shouldn't because no explanation is required. There has been no increase in MLB home run hitting. Three home run hitting geniuses appeared in a brief time span and will soon be gone. Enjoy them and don't look for explanations when none are required. The law of home runs and extreme human accomplishment that I develop tell us that we never know when this kind of genius will appear, only that it will be rare and intermittent.
RTWT. That's an order.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Baseball
October 13, 2005
Posted by Nick
Interesting report on a new test for roids
"Drug cheats should beware," said Dr Mark Sephton of the Department of Earth, Science and Engineering at Imperial College London.
"Thanks to our technique, in the future it will be much more difficult to escape detection when using performance-enhancing steroids," he said, publishing research results in the journal Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry.
The new approach, developed by scientists at Imperial College and the University of Nottingham, will enable testers to analyze more easily the carbon in steroids.
In the past, carbon molecules reacted too aggressively with laboratory instruments to allow accurate analysis.
"The carbon-based secrets of steroids are now apparent to the analyst," Sephton said.
.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Nick
My friend John points out: Can you imagine what would have happened if game 2 between the Angels and White Sox -- decided as it was thanks to a terrible ump call in the 9th -- happened in Boston or New York with the Stanks and the Dead Sox playing one another? Good grief. All holy hell would have broken out.
I will say this: If the Angels win this series it will be because Mike Scioscia decided after the game not to make a big issue of it. If the Angels went into Anaheim with their skip bitching and moaning about how they were robbed, they would have lost the series. Since Scioscia did the right thing by not making a huge issue of it after the game, the Angels stand a good chance of taking this series.
Some commentators after the game suggested the call proves the need for instant replay. I totally disagree. The game is more interesting because of the human error. Seeing Scioscia handle it was great (I say this as someone who loathes Scioscia -- don't ask me why, ask Frank Robinson). It has made the series far more interesting. Yeah, the Angels got jerked around, but hey, that's baseball.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Baseball
October 12, 2005
Posted by Nick
Here's the beginning of an interesting series on gene doping.
What happens when sports can't test for performance enhancement? What happens when all the current testing — mostly through blood and urine samples — becomes irrelevant?
"We put so much stock in improving the testing program and having more tests, that when we lose testing as a tool, we're going to be screwed," says Will Carroll, author of "The Juice," a book that looks at baseball's drug problems.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Nick
Why are people so freaked out by the Bulls' desire to give Eddy Curry a DNA test?
Eddy Curry, a 22-year-old player in the National Basketball Association who missed 19 games last season because of an irregular heartbeat, refused the Chicago Bulls' request that he take a DNA test to determine whether he is susceptible to a potentially fatal heart condition. He was traded last week to the New York Knicks, and he passed his physical on Friday.
Although some specialists in the field said it has happened before, this is the first reported instance of a professional athlete in the United States being asked to submit to genetic testing. Some doctors think such tests are accurate. Many inside and outside the medical community oppose it for privacy reasons.
Some members of the press reacted harshly, targeting Bulls general manager John Paxson, who asked Curry to be tested. "Butt out, Bulls," one Chicago columnist wrote. "Even if your heart is in the right place. ... you have dangerously stepped past a health issue and into a privacy issue."
We will likely see more of this -- the stakes are too high. But I'm not sure I understand the argument that they shouldn't. Can someone help me on this?
Comments (10)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Basketball
October 11, 2005
Posted by Nick
Golf continues to innovate in amazing ways. Here's a cool new technology coming to a range near you.
Chipping a golf ball takes on a whole new meaning, thanks to British leisure company, World Golf Systems Group, the makers of a new driving range technology, TopGolf.
The company's technicians embedded radio frequency identification computer chipping tags into balls, allowing driving-range computers to track the accuracy of players' shots. And the technology is coming to Australia.
During a TopGolf game, players take aim at 11 targets ranging in diameter from about five to 22 metres, that are up to 220 metres away. Each target is divided into sections, like a dartboard. If the ball lands on a target section, it drops through a funnel beneath that is equipped with a computer-chip reader and the range system scores the player accordingly. If the ball misses a target, the player slides a fresh ball out of the dispenser. That tells the computer the previous shot was a dud and sets up the player's next turn.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Golf
October 03, 2005
Posted by Nick
Readers of this blog know I focus a lot on golf, but that's partly because there's so much interesting stuff going on in the golf/tech realm and the debates are intensifying. Read this Guardian article on the debate between techno-dystopians and ball manufacturers about how best to control the evolution of the game
Sample sniping from an industry guy:
Wally Uihlein, chairman and chief executive officer of Titleist, has led the way, arguing that, while the modern golfer is hitting the ball farther, that extra distance is not solely due to the ball.
"There has been a paradigm shift towards the 'power game' but that has been the result of six variables, five of which are continually overlooked by the anti-technology pundits," he says. "In addition to low-spinning, high-performance balls there has been the introduction of larger, titanium drivers with graphite shafts; bigger, strong athletes playing the game; improved technique and instruction; greater customisation of equipment; and improved golf course conditioning."
This last factor was certainly an issue at this year's Open at St Andrews, where the fairways were as fast as the greens, which meant the balls were running a lot further than they did in years past. "It's also the case that the swing speed of the average PGA tour pro has increased by 6-8mph over the last 20 years. That increase is responsible for a 12- to 15-yard increase in distance. But what the hell, forget the facts and let's just blame the golf ball."
.
Great stuff throughout. RTWT
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (20) | Category: Golf
Posted by Nick
Wall Street Journal (alas $) has a great piece on the use of robots as camel jockeys in Qatar:
Two years ago, Swiss robotics company K-Team SA received a curious email from the state of Qatar about camel racing. It landed on the desk of Alexandre Colot, who had never heard of camel racing. He needed a map to find Qatar.
Yet here was the tiny desert state asking his company to help save its national pastime by designing a robotic camel jockey.
The camel-racing world in Qatar, an island nation in the Persian Gulf, was on the brink of turmoil. Although a minimum age of 15 years for jockeys was set in 1980 across the Gulf, antislavery groups estimate that thousands of underage jockeys are still used in the region. Children as young as four are bought from impoverished parents or simply kidnapped in countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Two years ago the U.S. State Department and human-rights groups began sharply criticizing the use of children as jockeys, and last year the United Nations urged prosecution of adults involved in it. Qatar, along with the United Arab Emirates, raised the minimum age to 18, and expressed a new determination to enforce it.
Subscribe and RTWT
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Nick
I can't totally figure out what this is supposed to be without video or visuals, but I think these soccer folks are experimenting with putting colorful socks over players' cleats and then telling them how best to strike, pass, stop the ball, kick, etc. by telling them where exactly on their sock-covered show to strike a similarly color-coordinated ball. This could be helpful, especially with younger players.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Nick
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Misc.
Posted by Nick
I know people are wondering why Bush picked that woman from the Golden Girls to be on the Supreme Court, but there's other interesting stuff going on, folks. For example, it looks like this new chip-in-ball technology will get approved for the World Cup (provided nothing weird happens in the enxt few months).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Soccer
|
|
|
| |
