tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19018327480308269792024-02-02T07:15:47.623-06:00Perfectly CompetitiveMichael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-59350201727642142102015-06-22T14:54:00.000-05:002015-06-22T14:54:57.139-05:00Pixar Movie Rankings (10-14)In honor of the new Pixar movies, I will post my ranking of the Pixar movies out so far. I have not seen Inside Out, so that will not be part of the rankings. For today, the bottom tier.<br />
<br />
14. Cars 2<br />
<br />
The only not good Pixar movie. However, I do appreciate Pixar attempting to make a different movie than just rehashing the original Cars. The problem is by going to the spy theme, but Mater is not capable of carrying a whole movie.<br />
<br />
13. Monsters University<br />
<br />
Again Pixar made a very different movie when they went with this prequel. I like it, just that a Pixar movie list is going to be tough competition.<br />
<br />
12. A Bug's Life<br />
<br />
11. Wall-E<br />
<br />
This ranking is probably the one I'm least confident in. I've only seen this once, so a second viewing might change my opinion. <br />
<br />
10. Cars<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-52006351976154480962014-11-04T10:50:00.001-06:002014-11-04T10:50:57.221-06:002014 Election PredictionsQuickly, my completely unscientific predictions for the election today:<br />
<br />
Senate: +9 for the Republicans (MT, WV, SD, AR, AK, LA, CO, IA, NC and holding all of their open seats)<br />
<br />
House: +11 for the Republicans (NC 7, UT 4, NY 21, AZ 1 and 2, IL 10 and 12, FL 26, WV 3, NH 1, MN 8, IA 1 while only losing CA 31)<br />
<br />
Governor: -2 for the Republicans (losing PA, KS, ME and AK, gaining AR and MA) The Dems would only gain a net of 1 seat since Alaska would go to an Independent.<br />
<br />
Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-43591583034370026032014-01-01T10:00:00.000-06:002014-01-01T10:00:00.844-06:00Winter ClassicHappy New Year! <br />
<br />
<a href="http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/10216931/winter-classic-celebration-game">The NHL's Winter Classic is today</a>. It is very difficult for sports leagues to add something into their regular season that gives them great media exposure. The NHL has done that in this case. The success of this game can be attributed to two factors.<br />
<br />
1) An appealing gimmick that will bring in fans that otherwise would not be interested. This factor is pretty obvious.<br />
<br />
2) An opening on the calender to take advantage of the gimmick. The NHL benefited in this case from the BCS. 25 years ago having this game on New Year's Day would not have worked because the bowls would have sucked up all of the oxygen. But with the extension of bowl season a week into January, the 1st has room for a big hockey game. If the NHL could not put the game on New Year's, I am not sure there would have been another optimal time given the competition of the NFL playoffs and that an outdoor hockey game would not work in October.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-35934729867260263662013-12-05T13:10:00.000-06:002013-12-05T13:10:40.497-06:00The NFL Trying to Take Every Last Surplus from the Super Bowl I think <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/12/super_bowl_committee_to_east_r.html">this story</a> pretty much is the last nail in the coffin of the idea that hosting a Super Bowl is a big benefit to the local community (<a href="http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/super-bowl-v-nj">H/T</a>).Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-20469326020037292912013-11-28T08:17:00.000-06:002013-11-28T08:17:00.530-06:00Happy Thanksgiving!Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.<br />
<br />
And for the Lions-Packers game, I am rooting for a tie. At this point in the season that seems like the best outcome for the Bears.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-73577366857003385962013-10-28T10:09:00.001-05:002013-10-28T10:09:34.954-05:00Selection Bias and Football Parents<a href="http://mmqb.si.com/2013/10/28/matthew-stafford-peter-king-monday-morning-quarterback/3/">From MMQB</a>: <br />
<br />
"It surprises me that parents—and 23 of those we interviewed who spoke
this way, nearly a quarter—cede the decision to play or not play high
school football to their sons. That has changed in the time since I was a
(quite marginal) high-school athlete in Enfield, Conn. If my father and
mother thought the sport I was playing was excessively dangerous,
they’d have interceded and recommended and/or demanded I not play. But
many of <a href="http://mmqb.si.com/2013/10/23/head-trauma-the-season/">the parents we interviewed in 49 states</a>
said it was up to their son where he would play. I understand wanting
to empower your children, but I’m not sure empowering 15- and
16-year-olds who make decisions based very often on emotion is a smart
call"<br />
<br />
Except this is from interviews with parents of sons who are playing high-school football. The parents who tell their kids they can't play football are not going to be in the sample. Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-34585407433627014862013-01-08T10:11:00.002-06:002013-01-08T10:11:41.843-06:00One-Point SafetyOverall a pretty dull bowl-season has just concluded. <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130104/fiesta-bowl-safety.ap/?sct=obnetwork">The highlight for me was Oregon's one-point safety in the Fiesta Bowl</a>. I will remember that one for years, which is actually more than I can say for some past seasons.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-82735693355458363902012-11-19T22:45:00.000-06:002012-11-19T22:45:00.068-06:00Inter-Divisional NFL Games, Part II<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2012/11/inter-divisional-nfl-games-part-i.html">Friday I looked at the commonness of the Patriots and Colts playing each other</a>. That match-up has happened 10 out of the 11 years of the current scheduling arrangement. There is one other match-up that has happened 9 out of 11 years:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 292px;"><colgroup><col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3657; mso-width-source: userset; width: 75pt;" width="100"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><br /></td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Panthers</td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Cardinals</td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 75pt;" width="100">Divisions Play?</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2002</td>
<td class="xl65">4*</td>
<td class="xl65">4*</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2003</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2004</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2005</td>
<td class="xl65">3</td>
<td class="xl65">3</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2006</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">3</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2007</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2008</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2009</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2010</td>
<td class="xl65">3</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2011</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2012</td>
<td class="xl65">3</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />Yes. The Cardinals and Panthers have played that often only missing each other in 2006 and this year. While the Patriots-Colts match-up has been the result of consistent excellence of both teams, this match-up is primarily random. They have finished in the same spot in all four possible spots. They have only finished in the same spot in the standings six times, but none of them when they would have been playing anyway. They will also automatically be playing next year, as the South and West are matched up next year.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-3233768003922358192012-11-16T16:37:00.000-06:002012-11-16T16:37:04.642-06:00Inter-Divisional NFL Games, Part I<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/11/16/nfl-game-plan-week11/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a0">Peter King talks today about how the Patriots and Colts have played the past 10 seasons.</a> To do this they had to have finished in the same spot in the standings the previous year except in years where the divisions were matched up. What is amazing is that it is not primarily luck that has accounted for this result, as the Colts and Patriots have finished in the same position all but last year. Here is the how they finished in their division the year before:<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 292px;"><colgroup><col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3657; mso-width-source: userset; width: 75pt;" width="100"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 48pt;" width="64">Year</td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Patriots<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Colts</td>
<td class="xl65" style="width: 75pt;" width="100">Divisions Play?</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2002</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">Not 1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2003</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2004</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2005</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2006</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2007</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2008</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2009</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">2</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2010</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2011</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">No</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl65" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">2012</td>
<td class="xl65">1</td>
<td class="xl65">4</td>
<td class="xl65">Yes</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
The finish in the division refers to the year before. 2002 uses the three division set-up of 2001, so the results are not as obvious. The two teams have been so closely tied together. Usually this is because they are both good.<br />
<br />
There is a second match-up of inter-divisional foes who have played almost as much. They have played 9 out of the 11 years of the current arrangement. However, they are not matched up because of consistently being good or bad. I will discuss that combination in a post on Monday. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 292px;"><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"></td><td class="xl63" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></td><td class="xl63" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></td><td class="xl63" style="width: 75pt;" width="100"></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td></tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td><td class="xl63"><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-30771500556468649182012-11-05T13:34:00.001-06:002012-11-05T13:56:07.524-06:00Amateur 2012 Election PredictionsMy completely unscientific election predictions:<br />
<br />
President: Obama 294-244 (Obama wins Ohio and Virginia; Romney wins Colorado and Florida)<br />
Popular vote: 51-49 (two-party vote)<br />
<br />
Senate: Republicans +1 Gain Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana; Lose Maine and Massachusetts<br />
<br />
House: No net change. 242-193. <br />
<br />
I actually went through and assigned each seat based on my predictions and came out with exactly the same numbers as last election. This result is pretty unlikely given that there are new seats, lost seats and redistricted seats due to the new census. I have 10 seats switching from R to D, 7 switching from D to R and both member-on-member fights going to the GOP. These numbers don't necessarily add up because of reapportionment and redistricting new seats.<br />
<br />
I tend to be skeptical of big gains from redistricting since there seems to be some backlash by voters to it. However, I do see multiple seat gains for the Republicans in North Carolina and for the Democrats in Illinois because many Representatives in those states won by close margins last time as it was. <br />
<br />
<i>Edit: Right after I posted this, I decided to flip-flop Colorado to Romney.</i>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-26698489768953672322012-11-02T17:34:00.001-05:002012-11-02T17:34:40.733-05:00Way Late 2010 Election Prediction Analysis<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZuKBPfli-26c99QDSQZC2PG89uiV-2JypixFYbc-BCrutvlXD-XzG6I8E5DBSE6OX80jJzwK0EYkIeTQHhzl8q30s-xArY1Y9XT9xmTJsixCp-QEOe8BVVZXSNfl672_c0ZdSbIC-Ndi7/s1600/PB202712.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5566169126624405074" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZuKBPfli-26c99QDSQZC2PG89uiV-2JypixFYbc-BCrutvlXD-XzG6I8E5DBSE6OX80jJzwK0EYkIeTQHhzl8q30s-xArY1Y9XT9xmTJsixCp-QEOe8BVVZXSNfl672_c0ZdSbIC-Ndi7/s320/PB202712.JPG" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0 10px 10px 0; width: 298px;" /></a><br />
I was thinking about doing another House of Representatives prediction. <a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-election-predictions.html">Since my last prediction hit the Republican gain exactly</a>, and <a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-election-prediction-analysis-part.html">I did not do a full <strike>gloating</strike> analysis post</a>, I am doing that first.<br />
<br />
While my overall prediction last time of a 63-seat gain for the Republicans was exactly right, I did miss about 8-12 seats in both directions, so my actual prediction may not have been that great.<br />
<br />
I think there were three causes of my missed predictions.<br />
<br />
1. I just did not have enough knowledge about individual candidates. For instance I picked the Republicans to win Arizona 8, but Gabrielle Giffords was probably a much more appealing candidate than was apparent to me as an outsider, and she held it for the Dems.<br />
<br />
2. My main point that I missed for the Republicans was their strong showing in the suburbs.<br />
<br />
3. The main thing I missed for the Democrats was that I expected African-American turnout to drop more than it did.<br />
<br />
Those last two things only affected a couple of races each. The truth is that there are actually very few true suburban districts. Either they are suburban-urban and therefore solid Democratic or suburban-exurban and solid Republican. Very few districts are suburban and thus toss up. The few seats like this are concentrated around New York and Chicago. With majority-minority districts, there are not very many districts where African-Americans make up a sizable but not determinative proportion of the electorate. Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-65215654130545533132012-11-01T08:00:00.000-05:002012-11-01T08:00:06.079-05:00Long Live the Electoral CollegeGarett Jones has a post at Econlog stating <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/why_i_love_the.html">why he is a fan of the electoral college</a>. His basic argument is that it lowers regional conflict by forcing politicians to aim for the median voter in swing states as opposed to running up the score in individual states, and thus overemphasizing regional differences.<br />
<br />
Another advantage I see is that it weights the votes of each state by their population, not by the number of people voting. Therefore, if we see a scenario<a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2012/10/state-poll-national-poll-divide.html"> where a natural disaster hits one or two states and depresses their voting</a>, it lessens the probability of that affecting the election.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-56323712715073041612012-10-31T12:45:00.000-05:002012-10-31T12:45:10.376-05:00State Poll-National Poll DivideOne thing that has bugged me about the coverage of the election was the idea that there was a high probability of Romney winning the popular vote by a decent amount (>1%) and Obama winning the electoral college. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/"> Joe Scarborough</a> seems to be one of the worst offenders at this. Much of the polling seemed to suggest that not only is this a possibility but a fairly likely event as well. However, it never seemed intuitively to me to be a all that probable. Yes, there have been a few elections where the popular vote loser won the electoral college, but in each of those cases the popular vote was quite close.<br />
<br />
Well today a couple of the better analysts have examined the problem and basically said that one of the polls has to be wrong. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/31/whats_behind_the_state-national_poll_divergence_115979.html">Sean Trende says when you aggregate all of the states, the state polling is not consistent with the national polling. </a> <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/oct-30-what-state-polls-suggest-about-the-national-popular-vote/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Nate Silver suggests that the state polling is better.</a> <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-polling-quandary-buckeye-state_659852.html">While Jay Cost seems to be skeptical of the state polling, at least in Ohio.</a> It is good to see some confirmation of my own intuitive thoughts.<br />
<br />
One caveat is Hurricane Sandy. If the hurricane really depresses voting in New York and New Jersey, it probably will not have much of an impact on the electoral college as Obama would likely win both states anyway. However, it could impact Obama's popular vote total enough that Romney wins the popular vote by a bigger amount (i.e. 1-2%) and Obama still wins the electoral college. There again this scenario would not be able to explain the current polling discrepancy.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-40527188438103738362012-10-08T14:15:00.001-05:002012-10-08T14:15:38.396-05:00Extra Wild Card Excitement?I am not buying any added excitement from adding an extra wild-card team in baseball. <br />
<br />
In the AL if there had not been an extra wild card, the end result would have been exactly the same. Since the Orioles and Rangers finished with the same record, the result would have been a one-game playoff like what happened. The added wild card probably only removed drama, as the Orioles could see the Yankees winning early and knowing they were playing in a one-game playoff on Friday whether they won or lost. Without the extra wild card, the Orioles could have been playing to avoid the one-game playoff. Also the A's-Rangers loser would not have been guaranteed at least a one-game playoff, likely increasing the drama associated with that game. <br />
<br />
In the NL, the extra wild card probably increased interest, though the Cardinals race for the last spot never got that close down the stretch, and <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=321005115">the one game playoff was pretty dramatic</a>. Still I would take the un-manufactured drama of the A's-Rangers game or last year's final day over the manufactured drama of the Cardinals-Braves game.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-41121624131383045552012-10-05T16:56:00.000-05:002012-10-05T16:56:10.876-05:00No Statistics in MVP Discussions?The other day on Pardon the Interruption, Michael Wilbon was arguing for Miguel Cabrera as the AL MVP. (Sorry I can't find a link). As part of his argument he said he did not want to hear anything about "statistics" in arguing against Cabrera. Those arguments all pale in comparison when put next to Cabrera winning the Triple Crown. <br />
<br />
Huh? The Triple Crown argument is a "statistical" argument as home runs, RBIs and batting average are all statistics. I guess it just depends on what statistic you use.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-38317507393008724392012-08-03T11:00:00.000-05:002012-08-03T11:00:07.757-05:00Olympic Badminton IIThere are always problems with teams throwing games when you go from multi-game rounds to single-elimination tournaments. The problem for the Olympics is that single-elimination tournaments are a horrible way of determining the second and third-best teams. Because of the silver and bronze medals this matters a lot more here than most playoffs.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-20922592002221921082012-08-02T15:57:00.002-05:002012-08-02T15:57:42.066-05:00Olympic BadmintonHey, I'm almost good enough at a sport to play in the Olympics. <a href="http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/badminton/all-eight-women-disqualified-for-throwing-badminton-matches.html">Oh wait, they were trying to lose.</a>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-75132804793331989902012-04-04T13:35:00.004-05:002012-04-04T13:44:12.932-05:00Free Agents are not the Cubs Problem<a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2012/01/myths-about-cubs.html">As I pointed out before</a>, the primary problem of the latter years of the Hendy regime in Chicago was not the overspending on free agents. The better culprit is the complete incompetence in drafting and developing young talent. <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/free-agent-value-and-building-teams-from-within1/">Here is more support for this view</a> (see the Table 3 at the end). In fairness, this study probably would underestimate the negative impact of the Soriano contract since the last three years of his contract are not included. However, the overall point is that the free agent signings were not the biggest problem of the Hendry years.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-2033689379949025522012-03-30T14:14:00.002-05:002012-03-30T14:30:04.963-05:00Shameless Self-PromotionLast week I did an interview with Brian Schwartz who published a short editorial about my work in the Daily Camera. The paper he cited was my <span style="font-style: italic;">Economic Inquiry </span>article with Christian End, "A Winning Proposition: The Economic Impact of Successful National Football League Franchises". One interesting thing to come out of the interview was that I realized when I give estimates for the dollar impact of a team winning, I typically use the real income number. Using real income makes sense from a research point of view, but people do not think in 1984 dollars. Inflation has more than doubled the dollar amount in the last 25 years, so I should probably adjust the numbers to state nominal income.<br /><br />You can find the editorial <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_20242241/from-editorial-advisory-board-peyton-manning-and-tim">here</a> (it is the last one), and you can find Brian's blog entry about it <a href="http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/peyton-manning-salary/">here</a>.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-52566152153850837682012-03-21T15:21:00.003-05:002012-03-21T15:30:00.424-05:00Quick Advice for NFL PlayersA quick personal service announcement to all professional football players. <a href="http://nfl.si.com/2012/03/21/nfl-hammers-saints-gregg-williams-for-bounty-scandal/?sct=hp_t11_a0&eref=sihp">Do not say anything about the Saints' Bounty story.</a> Do not become the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77aw9dG7tis">Clinton Portis </a>of the Bounty story. The implications in this case are probably worse, as Portis only embarrassed himself, whereas this time players might inadvertently implicate their own teams.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-83159378277705140922012-03-19T15:21:00.002-05:002012-03-19T15:21:46.771-05:00Upsets on the First Two Days of the Tournament<span xmlns=""><p>The first two days of the NCAA tournament provided a number of upsets. Two 15-seeds, one 13-seed, two 12-seeds and two 11-seeds all won, along with <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tim_layden/03/15/Syracuse.UNC.Asheville/index.html">one 16-seed who may have won without the hindrance of the refs</a>. Most commentators seem to be describing the upsets as being due to more general parity. That parity has been evident in the last few years with Butler's multiple trips to the Final Four, along with VCU's and George Mason's runs as well. However, an additional factor likely on display this year was the overall quality of the lower seeded teams. In particular, the usual bottom feeders that inhabit the 15 and 16 seed lines looked much better than usual. I think part of the reason was that many of these weaker conferences put their best team forward. In past years, many of these leagues would see their top team get knocked off in the conference tournament. <a href="http://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2012/conferencerpi">The conferences ranked 20<sup>th</sup>, 21<sup>st</sup> and 23<sup>rd</sup> – 27<sup>th</sup> by RPI all sent their regular season champion</a>. Of the higher ranked conferences only the Sun Belt sent a clearly inferior team that belonged on the 16-seed line, Western Kentucky. A couple of them sent teams that weren't their strongest, Detroit from the Horizon and Loyola from the MAAC, but those conferences sent teams that were at least in their top four teams. Add it all up and there was a logjam of teams that typically would have been 13 and 14 seeds getting pushed down to the 15-seed line. If you have enough good teams, some of them will pull off the upset.<br /></p><p>Of course this might not be a sufficient excuse for Mizzou, as the one 15-seed that seemed like a typical 15-seed was Norfolk State.</p></span>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-32473843192232874352012-03-14T16:18:00.002-05:002012-03-14T16:19:37.169-05:002012 96-Team NCAA Basketball Field<span xmlns=""><p><a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2011/04/projected-2011-ncaa-basketball-field.html">As I did last year</a>, and <a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-hypothetical-96-team-field-for.html">the year before</a> I tried to come up with what my projection would be for the NCAA field if it was 96 teams instead of 68. One assumption I make is that they will take no losing teams. Two years ago this was a strong assumption, but this year it probably would not have made a difference. Unlike in last year's projection I will not assume that all of the NIT at-large teams will make it. While there were a lot of automatic bids to the NIT, like in years past, the different thing this year was that there were a lot of automatic bids who would have made the NIT without the automatic bids (Washington, Drexel, Nevada …). What that means is that we cannot assume that all of the NIT at-large bids would have made the NCAA tournament. In particular, it is hard to imagine Iowa making a 96-team NCAA tournament. However, being a large university with a large fan base who could host an NIT game made them a good choice for the NIT. I was also skeptical of Stanford, but they received a 3-seed so maybe my view of them is probably lower than that of the people making the decisions.<br /></p><p>Clear additions to a 96-team field: Washington, Tennessee, Arizona, Seton Hall, St. Joe's, Mississippi, Miami, Dayton, Oregon, Drexel, Oral Roberts, Northwestern, Mississippi St., Akron, Nevada, Marshall<br /></p><p>Likely additions: La Salle, Middle Tennessee, UMass, Central Florida<br /></p><p>Bubble teams: Cleveland St., Northern Iowa, LSU, Valparaiso (The Horizon was a pretty highly rated conference so I think Cleveland St. and Valpo would have been selected)<br /></p><p>Last 4 in: UMass, Bucknell, Stanford, Minnesota<br /></p><p>Last 4 out: George Mason, Weber St., Princeton, Buffalo<br /></p><p><br /> </p><p>I ended up taking all of the at-large teams from the NIT except Iowa (RPI in the 120s) plus two additional auto bids from the NIT that had 7 or 8 seeds (Valparaiso and Bucknell)<br /></p><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p></span>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-71162152306984090652012-03-01T13:30:00.000-06:002012-03-01T13:24:11.521-06:002011 AL MVP Picks<span style="font-style: italic;">I wrote this post back in November but never got around to posting it. I will post it now.</span><br /><br />My picks for the AL MVP:<br /><br /><table style="width: 172px; height: 220px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64" height="17">Bautista</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Ellsbury</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Verlander</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Pedroia</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Kinsler</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Granderson</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Sabathia</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Miguel Cabrera</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Adrian Gonzalez</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Zobrist</td> </tr> </tbody></table><br />I had the top 3 reversed from the actual voting (Verlander winning). Obviously, I am not afraid of picking a pitcher as MVP, as I had Verlander 3rd and Sabathia 7th, and in the NL I had Halladay 3rd, Kershaw 5th and Cliff Lee 8th. I just didn't have Verlander winning this year.<br /><br />Among the other players, Kinsler did not get as much support as he probably should have.Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-39620693291599596382012-02-29T11:29:00.003-06:002012-02-29T14:04:50.106-06:00Grand Junction Rockies<span xmlns=""><p>Every year I analyze the movement of minor league baseball teams from one city to another (<a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/search/label/minor%20league%20baseball">past analyses</a>). These analyses are based on a paper I published a few years ago in the <em>International Journal of Sport Finance</em>, "Called Up to the Big Leagues: An Examination of the Factors Affecting the Location of Minor League Baseball Teams". For a short description of the model see <a href="http://perfectlycompetitive.blogspot.com/2009/10/minor-league-baseball-returns-to.html">this post from 2009</a>. One caveat to all of these analyses is that the data for the study comes from 2003 and may be out of date.<br /></p><p>The Rockies Short-Season A affiliate in the Pioneer League is moving from Casper, WY to Grand Junction, CO for the upcoming season. By my analysis moving away from Casper makes sense. It was not one of the ten least likely cities to have any baseball team, but it was just above those cities. My research found that Grand Junction would have been more likely to have a minor league baseball team, but neither was particularly likely (15% for Grand Junction vs. 9% for Casper). Grand Junction is almost twice as big as Casper, but the per capita income is higher in Casper. The higher population makes it a much more attractive market, but the income mitigates that effect slightly. Grand Junction has also experienced fairly rapid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas">population growth in the last decade</a>, so the percentage might be understating its appeal.<br /></p><p>Grand Junction is in Colorado and they are affiliated with the Rockies so there may be some positive aspect to that. However, Wyoming is also in the Rockies' "sphere of influence" and Grand Junction is only 50 miles closer to Denver than Casper.<br /></p><p>Grand Junction does have a fairly low probability of having a team, and I had it third on the list of potential markets in the current geographic scope of the Pioneer League (Northern Rocky Mountain States) behind Fort Collins and Greely, CO. There also seem to have been a couple of less desirable markets than Casper that still have their teams (Helena and Great Falls, MT). However, given all the evidence, this is pretty close to an example of a move that would have been predicted by my model.</p></span>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1901832748030826979.post-44622903390603809792012-02-28T10:22:00.002-06:002012-02-28T10:25:38.457-06:00Large Market Teams Do Not Conduct Fire Sales<span xmlns=""><p>Look at this quote from a Cubs blog (Obstructed View):<br /></p><p><a href="http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/complete-rebuild-cubs-re-sign-reed-johnson.html">"It's too bad the Cubs don't have a couple more Garza's they could trade to add some elite talent to their farm system."</a><br /> </p><p>If the Cubs had three Garzas, they would not be rebuilding. As a big market team that finished the previous year with a near .500 record (+5 wins for each Garza), and quite a bit of financial flexibility, they would have gone all in. They probably would have signed Prince Fielder, C. J. Wilson (or Yu Darvish) and a right fielder. They would have made trades to improve the current club, such as emptying the farm to get Chase Headley from the Padres. They also would not have made trades that hurt the club this year with the intention of improving it in the future, i.e., they would not have traded Marshall and Cashner for prospects. Most importantly they would not have traded Garza I, Garza II and Garza III.<br /></p></span>Michael Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01436413848700780335noreply@blogger.com0