The Game Designer

Pardon The Interruption

2012-02-15T16:15:00.001-05:00

This picture is awesome.

I wonder if these guys are popular in Japan.

Obama's New Budget Doesn't Add Up

2012-02-13T21:00:00.000-05:00

I don't understand the math for the Department of Education in Obama's new budget.

First, we have a new $8 billion program to get community colleges to actually train people for jobs that are going unfilled.

Second, we have a reduction of college loan interest rates from 6.8% to 3.4%. According to House Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Mille (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), this will give more than $2,800 per year to about 7 million undergraduates.

Seven million times $2.800 is about $17.6 billion.

Finally, there's the $2,500 "partly refundable" tax credit for college education. There are about 21 million students currently enrolled in college programs that would qualify for this credit. This tax credit is aimed at "low income families", which the government defines as families earning less than $160,000. Wow. That's almost 4 times the median household income, and enough to put a family in the top 5% of household income. That's what happens when you let millionaires write the laws: they decide that someone earning $80 an hour is "low income".

Anyway, let's be conservative and assume that only 80% of those 21 million qualify for the credit. That's another $42 billion.

Forty-two billion plus $17.6 billion plus $8 billion is $67.6 billion.

But the article says that the Dept. Of Education budget is only going up by 2.4% (to $69.8 billion).

So there are $67.6 billion in new programs squeezed into a $1.6 billion budget increase?

Which means these proposed expenditures are hiding somewhere else in the budget...

50 Albums For A Desert Island

2012-02-11T16:45:00.000-05:00

Rank	Artist	Album
1	The Beat	I Just Can't Stop It
2	Red Hot Chili Peppers	Californication
3	Oingo Boingo	Dead Man's Party
4	U2	War
5	The Police	Outlandos d'Amour
6	The Clash	London Calling
7	Madonna	Like A Prayer
8	R.E.M.	Murmur
9	Duran Duran	Rio
10	Bruce Springsteen	Born To Run
11	Fleetwood Mac	Rumours
12	Dire Straits	Love Over Gold
13	Queen	A Night At The Opera
14	The B-52's	The B-52's
15	Good Charlotte	The Chronicles Of Life And Death
16	Elvis Costello	This Year's Model
17	Rush	Permanent Waves
18	The Who	Who's Next
19	Yes	90125
20	David Bowie	Changes
21	Everclear	So Much For The Afterglow
22	Elton John	Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
23	Van Morrison	Astral Weeks
24	Blues Traveler	Four
25	The Rolling Stones	Let It Bleed
26	Depeche Mode	Violator
27	311	Transistor
28	Genesis	Abacab
29	Public Enemy	Fear Of A Black Planet
30	Roxy Music	Avalon
31	Sting	Ten Summoner's Tales
32	The Cure	The Head On The Door
33	Hole	Live Through This
34	No Doubt	Tragic Kingdom
35	The Specials	The Specials
36	The Offspring	Smash
37	Peter Gabriel	Peter Gabriel (1982)
38	Jethro Tull	Aqualung
39	New Order	Substance
40	Cake	Comfort Eagle
41	Owl City	Ocean Eyes
42	The Smiths	The Queen Is Dead
43	Led Zeppelin	Led Zeppelin II
44	The Pretenders	The Pretenders
45	The Eagles	Hotel California
46	Barenaked Ladies	Gordon
47	Billy Joel	Glass Houses
48	Talking Heads	Remain in Light
49	James Taylor	Sweet Baby James
50	Coldplay	A Rush Of Blood To The Head

Worst Ad In Super Bowl History?

2012-02-05T22:46:00.000-05:00

OK. I realizing I'm feeling hyperbolic tonight. But my jaw dropped when I saw this Silverado ad in the first quarter.

The first 38 seconds were an amusing depiction of the impending 2012 apocalypse. But then our driver meets up with his friends and wonders why one of them hasn't arrived yet:

Chevy Driver 1: “Where’s Dave?”

Chevy Driver 2: "Dave didn’t drive the longest-lasting, most dependable truck on the road. Dave drove a Ford.”

Bzzt. Wrong answer!

Here's what they should have said:

Chevy Driver 1: “Where’s Dave?”

Chevy Driver 2: "Dave didn’t make it. Dave didn't drive a Silverado.”

Why this ad failed:

1) Every ad man knows you don't spend good ad dollars just to plug the competition. But the most memorable line of this $7 million-dollar debacle ends with the word "Ford" and doesn't include the word "Chevy" (or "Silverado"). Oops.

2) No women. Forty-six percent of Super Bowl viewers are female. Not including the animated ads, this was probably the only ad (other than the creepy one for David Beckham's underwear) that didn't include women. Seriously, what's the point of surviving the apocalypse if there's no one to breed with?

3) Ten years after 9/11 and four years after the Wall Street meltdown, you aren't going to win any points by bashing another American brand. GM could have picked on Toyota or Nissan, the only two full-size truck brands that have actually gained market share over the last 10 years.

4) When you take $50 billion in bailout money, you don't get to use it to bash a company that employs over 100,000 Americans. Sixty-one percent of GM is still owned by the federal government. Your tax dollars are being used to bash the one major American car company that didn't need bailout money. Not good.

5) As if in response to the above, Chrysler aired this brilliant ad at the beginning of halftime. During the Super Bowl (America's national holiday) you don't sell American cars by denouncing American brands. You sell American cars with optimism and patriotism.

This ad just felt like the execs at GM trying to start a pissing match with Ford. Ironically, Ford won the pissing match without even wasting any pee. And the folks at GM are just left standing there with their pants down.

Related post: Worst Call In Super Bowl History

Worst Call In Super Bowl History

2012-02-05T22:39:00.000-05:00

Photo by Ed Yourdon

I realize that it's hyberbolic to call today's safety call the worst in 46 Super Bowls. But somebody needs to do it. Right now, there are thousands of people out there Googling "worst super bowl call ever", and they need to be able to find something.

On the Patriots' very first play of the game, Brady dropped back in the pocket, couldn't find a receiver, and threw the ball away. The refs called intentional grounding, and awarded a safety because Brady was in the end zone at the time. WTF?!?

This led to 2 points for the Giants, and gave the ball back to New York, leading to another 7 points. The Giants' first 9 points were a direct result of this absurd call.

Brady didn't even throw it out of bounds like he normally does. And he didn't just spike it into the ground like Peyton Manning always does. He threw it 45 yards downfield.

I have never seen intentional grounding called on a 45-yard pass. Never. And I can't find anyone who has.

The average NFL quarterback "throws the ball away" a couple times per game. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady probably do it three or more times each game. Twelve minutes later, Eli chucked it out of bounds under similar conditions. But no grounding call.

I'm not blaming the game per se on that call. The Giants D played well, Manningham made an unbelievable catch, Eli was surprisingly accurate, and Welker couldn't hold on to the most important pass of the game. But that is certainly the worst call I can remember in a Super Bowl.

The offensive pass interference in Super Bowl XL was pretty dubious, but it was a judgment call that the ref had to make in real time. So if the ref see a lot of contact and throws a flag, that's the way the ball bounces. But on today's safety, the refs had all the time in the world to get together and make the right call, and they still blew it. That's the amazing thing. You can't criticize the refs too badly when they have to make a call in real-time on a close play. But when you have the time to get it right, you should get it right!

Considering how bad this call was, I'm surprised that Brady and Belicheck didn't throw a complete hissy fit. But keeping a level head was the right thing to do. NFL rules don't allow for a penalty to be overturned, so it's not worth getting ejected. Also, I think they were just stunned at seeing a call that has never been called in the history of the league.

Cris Collinsworth, in an attempt I assume to quell any controversy, did point out that the referee's call matched the rules in the rulebook: Brady was under pressure, in the pocket, and in the end zone. But he sounded surprised as he made this argument. As in "I've never seen this call before, but I'm being told that this counts as intentional grounding according to the letter of the rules."

Photo by Abqtrucker on flickr

Of course, Collinsworth and everyone outside New York knew it wasn't intentional grounding. It was just another QB throwing the ball away when he can't find someone open -- something that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have been doing for 10 years (and a skill that has helped pave their way to Canton). If Eli Manning had made the same throw I wouldn't have been screaming for intentional grounding. It wouldn't have even have occurred to me. Instead, I would have been commending Eli for his poise in the pocket, and getting ready for 2nd down.

I have seen worse calls in the playoffs. But I haven't seen a worse call in the Super Bowl. Perhaps this is payback for "The Tuck Rule". By all common sense, Brady fumbled the ball in that game. But according to the rulebook, it was incomplete. So, this call was the same thing. Everyone knew it wasn't intentional grounding, but the refs chose this one play to apply the rulebook as written (and then ignore that section of the rulebook for the rest of the Super Bowl).

"Throwing the ball away" is so common in the NFL that we have a phrase for it. If every time you "threw the ball away" you were called for intentional grounding, we wouldn't call it "throwing the ball away"; we would call it "intentional grounding". And we wouldn't have every talking head on ESPN heaping praise on every QB who chucks the ball out of bounds instead of trying to force a play downfield.

Heck, even Madden even has a player rating called "Throw The Ball Away" that specifies whether a QB is more likely to thow an intentional incompletion or try to make something happen. And, as we already knew, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have high ratings in this area.

As an NFL fan, I would like to see intentional grounding called more often. The defense should be rewarded for getting pressure on the QB. But you don't all-of-a-sudden decide to start calling this penalty in the last and most important game of the season.

Related post: Worst Ad In Super Bowl History?

The Truth About Gingrich And Romney

2012-01-27T00:53:00.002-05:00

Graph by Clay Dreslough

Super Bowl MVP Predictions

2012-01-26T13:11:00.000-05:00

Photo by Keith Allison

As mentioned on Sunday, we used Football Mogul to predicts the results of Super Bowl XLVI by simulating the game 100,000 times. We also recorded the MVP of each game.

Odds are that it will go to a quarterback. But there's a 48.7% chance of someone else taking home the MVP trophy.

Player	MVP Chance
Tom Brady (NE)	31.6%
Eli Manning (NYG)	19.7%
Wes Welker (NE)	5.9%
Rob Gronkowski (NE)	5.7%
Aaron Hernandez (NE)	4.7%
Victor Cruz (NYG)	4.6%
Hakeem Nicks (NYG)	4.1%
Ahmad Bradshaw (NYG)	3.4%
BenJarvus Green-Ellis (NE)	3.4%
Deion Branch (NE)	2.6%
Jason Pierre-Paul (NYG)	2.1%
Vince Wilfork (NE)	1.2%
Brandon Jacobs (NYG)	1.8%
Mario Manningham (NYG)	1.4%
Jerod Mayo (NE)	0.9%
Justin Tuck (NYG)	0.9%
Osi Umenyiora (NYG)	0.8%
Kyle Arrington (NE)	0.7%
Antrel Rolle (NYG)	0.6%
Lawrence Tynes (NYG)	0.5%
Devin McCourty (NE)	0.5%
Danny Woodhead (NE)	0.4%
Chad Ochocinco (NE)	0.3%
Jake Ballard (NYG)	0.3%
Stephen Gostkowski (NE)	0.3%
Stephen Hoyer (NE)	0.2%

Note: This simulation assumed that Gronkowski is at 90% because of a high ankle sprain. If he's 100% healthy, his chance to win the MVP will be higher than Wes Welker's.

I'm amused by the 1-in-500 chance that Brady gets injured and Hoyer leads the Pats to their 4th Super Bowl victory.

I'm a bit surprised that Julian Edelman didn't make the list, as the only guy that's playing on offense, defense and special teams. He could conceivably get a receiving TD, a return TD, and a "Pick 6".

Related article: Football Mogul Predicts Super Bowl XLVI

Football Mogul Predicts Super Bowl XLVI

2012-01-22T23:23:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year again. Another Super Bowl between the Giants and Pats. To predict the result, we used Football Mogul to simulate the game 100,000 times.

Note: this year's version of Football Mogul is 100% free. No time limits. No strings attached. Please download it. :)

Bottom line: Pats have a 60.78% chance of winning. The most likely score is 31-27.

Here are the average results for each team:

	New York Giants	New England Patriots
Win Chance	39.22%	60.78%
Average Score	26.9	30.6
Most Likely Score	27	31
Pass Yards	278.3	319.2
Rush Yards	94.2	99.7
Pass TDs	1.98	2.44
Sacks (by defense)	2.15	2.02
Turnovers (committed)	1.20	1.16
Interceptions (thrown)	0.94	0.81

It's interesting that even though the Giants have a better running game, the Patriots average more rush yards. This is because they have a higher chance of being ahead in the 4th quarter, when their play-calling will favor plays that eat up the clock.

Some other interesting facts:

The Giants have a 15.6% chance of getting 4 or more sacks. If they do, their chance of winning goes up to 67.3%.
Tom Brady has a 47.1% chance of passing for 3 or more touchdowns. If he does, the Patriots' chance of winning goes up to 74.3%.

Conversely, if the Giants can hold Brady to less than 3 TDs, their chance to win the game goes up to 51.4%.
Brady has a 0.47% chance of passing for 6 touchdowns (matching his performance against the Broncos in the AFC Divisional Playoffs). Amazingly, the Giants still have a 4.3% chance of winning these games.

Have more questions about the data? Drop me a line in the comments section.

Clay

Related article: Super Bowl MVP Predictions

Do Be Evil

2012-01-21T10:29:00.000-05:00

Photo by Tangi Bertin on Flickr

This is the day that Google went evil. At least in my mind.

I realize that Google has done many things over the years that could be assessed as evil. But today is the first day where I caught them presenting themselves publicly as evil for all the world to see.

The first ad I saw this morning was one for Google's new "Good To Know" initiative.¹

This ad campaign tells me that it's a good thing that Google remembers everything about me
and tells it to all the web sites that I visit, so that I don't have to "re-introduce" myself to each web site. The comparison is made to a friendship, where it would be a waste of time if you had to remind your friends of your name, age, interests, personality, etc. -- every single time you met up with them.

As Mitt Romney might say, "web sites are people too, my friend".

An ad campaign like this, where you try to convince the world that your questionable practices are actually good for them, is one of the biggest signs that a company has gone full evil.

See, for example, the recent ad campaigns about fracking. I was on the fence about fracking until I saw that millions of dollars were being spent to get me to think that it is lets us drill for shale gas "safely and responsibly".

"Orwellian language," as George Lakoff says, "points to weakness." Google realizes that keeping every iota of personal information in order to maximize their revenue is bad. It goes against their policy of "Don't Be Evil". This is new. That is, Google's public acknowledgement is new. Google (or at least a senior exec inside Google) thinks that Google has joined the ranks of evil uber-corporations and needs to start acting like one.

When I woke up this morning, I wasn't too worried about the info Google keeps on me. I admit it's annoying that almost every single web page I visit is trying to sell me things that I *just bought online*. But annoying isn't evil.

:(

¹ As an aside, I must give props to the subtle naming of this initiative: a name that subconsciously implies that it is good that Google knows so much about you. I bet they spent at least six figures on cognitive science consultants to come up with this one.

The NFL's "Worst" Pass Defenses

2012-01-15T00:12:00.000-05:00

In tonight's 45-7 drubbing of the Broncos by the Patriots, I have to admit that the 2nd half was pretty boring.

Here's what I did see that was interesting:

CBS put up a graphic showing that the best teams in the NFL this year also had the worst pass defenses. This wasn't the first time I had seen this stat trotted out as "proof" that the Packers, Saints and Pats have horrible pass defenses.

Team	Won	Lost	Pass Yards Allowed Per Game	NFL Rank
Green Bay Packers	15	1	301.2	32nd
New England Patriots	13	3	283.0	31st
New Orleans Saints	11	5	266.7	30th

Well ... duh.

Teams that win most of their games are often playing with the lead. That means that their opponents are playing from behind. Teams trying to catch up have to pass more. And teams that pass more get more pass yards.

Furthermore, these three teams have the three best QBs in the NFL. With Brady, Brees and Rodgers leading your passing attack, it doesn't take very long to score. And teams that pass use up less time on the clock. That gives opponents of these teams even more opportunity to rack up passing yards.

The problem with Passing Yards is that it's an absolute stat, not a rate stat. So circumstances that cause a team to pass more will make it look like they are "better" passing teams.

To show that good teams allow more passing yards, I took the free version of Football Mogul and created a universe where every team had the exact same players on defense. And then I used the "Simulator Tool" to simulate the 2011-2012 one hundred times, to look at the impact that a team's offense has on their passing yards allowed:

Team	Wins	Pass Yards Allowed Per Game
Great Teams	13 - 16	259.7
Good Teams	10 - 12	257.2
Average Teams	7 - 9	244.3
Bad Teams	4 - 6	240.1
Horrible Teams	0 - 3	241.6

As you can see, the better teams allow more passing yards. Using passing yards allowed to measure a football defense is like using double plays to measure a baseball defense. Counterintuitively, bad teams turn more double plays, simply because they allow more base runners, and you need someone on base to turn a double play.

If the talking heads really wanted the truth, they would show this:

Team	Won	Lost	Opponent Passer Rating	NFL Rank
Green Bay Packers	15	1	82.2	11th
New England Patriots	13	3	84.7	16th
New Orleans Saints	11	5	88.1	24th

Alas, saying that the Patriots have an "average passing defense" doesn't make for eye-catching on-screen graphics. So for now we'll have to continue to hear about New England's incompetent secondary.

Changing Team Names (Miami Marlins)

2012-01-07T21:51:00.000-05:00

Some people have been asking how to change the 'Florida Marlins' to the 'Miami Marlins' for the 2012 season in Baseball Mogul.

On the League Menu, choose 'League Editor'.
If it asks if you would like to turn on 'Commissioner Mode', click 'Yes'.
In the upper left, select the 'Florida Marlins'.
In the edit box, change 'Florida' to 'Miami'.
Change 'FLA' to 'MIA'.
Click 'Done'.

If you want a team logo that says 'Miami', here's one we created using the correct color scheme:

Copy this to the 'Logos' folder, which will be here by default:

C:\Sports Mogul\Baseball Mogul 2012\Skins\Digital\Logos

As you have already changed the team abbreviation to 'MIA', that logo file will be used automatically.

You can also find your own logo(s) online, as we don't have the rights to include the real MLB logos.

Decoding With A Twist

2012-01-05T10:31:00.000-05:00

A puzzle I sent to a friend today. Thought it up while trying to get out of bed.

2011 Offensive Line Rankings

2011-07-23T11:36:00.000-04:00

Based on career stats for all active linemen (adjusted for age, and weighted for recent performance and injuries) here are ratings for the current offensive lines for all 32 NFL teams.For individual ratings for each offensive lineman, you can download this year's version of Football Mogul, which is 100% free (no time limits or registration required).

Rank	Team	Overall	Run Blocking	Pass Blocking	2010 Rank
1	New Orleans Saints	94	94	94	1
2	Carolina Panthers	92.5	98	87	4
3	Tennessee Titans	89	85	93	2
4	Minnesota Vikings	87.5	95	80	10
5	New England Patriots	87	82	92	5
6	Baltimore Ravens	86.5	90	83	7
7	Atlanta Falcons	85.5	81	90	6
8	Denver Broncos	85.5	86	85	14
9	Cincinnati Bengals	85.0	79	91	16
10	New York Jets	84.5	84	85	3
11	Buffalo Bills	84.5	89	80	26
12	New York Giants	84.0	79	89	13
13	Houston Texans	83.5	79	88	20
14	San Diego Chargers	83.5	76	91	19
15	Dallas Cowboys	83.5	85	82	9
16	San Francisco 49ers	83.0	85	81	18
17	Philadelphia Eagles	83.0	84	82	21
18	Arizona Cardinals	82.5	81	84	11
19	Green Bay Packers	82.0	86	78	22
20	Detroit Lions	81.5	81	82	28
21	Oakland Raiders	81.5	83	80	29
22	Jacksonville Jaguars	81.0	86	76	17
23	Miami Dolphins	81.0	86	76	8
24	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	80.5	76	85	25
25	Cleveland Browns	80.0	76	84	15
26	Chicago Bears	79.0	77	81	24
27	Pittsburgh Steelers	78.5	83	74	27
28	Kansas City Chiefs	78.5	80	77	23
29	Indianapolis Colts	77.0	74	80	12
30	Seattle Seahawks	73.0	75	71	30
31	Washington Redskins	73.0	76	70	32
32	St. Louis Rams	72.0	76	68	31

We Are The 53%!

2011-06-12T11:17:00.000-04:00

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) pointed out yesterday that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. In her defense, I think she meant that 47% of U.S. households don't pay federal income taxes. Nevertheless, income taxes are the biggest part of my yearly tax bill, so it seems that she has a point. As someone in the 53% that actually does pay income taxes, I'd like to know how our income tax system lets 47% of us get by paying nothing.

Here are the income tax rates, by income category, provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

Representative Bachmann is right. There are about 140 million Americans on the left side of the graph that aren't paying any taxes. But income taxes aren't the only federal taxes. Almost $900 billion in annual revenue is collected through payroll taxes on each and every paycheck. Another $75 billion is collected in excise taxes, such as those on gasoline. When we add these things in, things become a bit more equal.

However, it's clear that federal taxes still fall disproportionately on the top 20%.

Unfortunately, those aren't the only taxes we pay. More than 40% of our yearly tax bill goes to state and local governments, mostly in the form of sales and property taxes.

Wow.

This is hard to believe. But the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. The working poor spend the highest share of their income on basic necessities like housing and transportation. This is where property and sales taxes hit the hardest.

When I started researching this, I honestly thought that I would find out that the richest Americans were paying the highest tax rates. Of all the groups above, the top 1% actually have the 2nd lowest tax rate. The poorest Americans have a tax rate that is 38% higher than the rate paid by the richest Americans.

Wow.

So, the next time someone tells you that 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes, show them this graph:

Sources:
Historical Effective Tax Rates: 1979-2006. Congressional Budget Office.
Additional Data on Sources of Income and High-Income Households. Congressional Budget Office.

Go For Two!

2011-01-16T23:46:00.000-05:00

Photo by Keith Allison

While most New England fans are still recoiling from today's loss to the Jets, I thought I would take a moment to draw your attention to a huge error by coach Belichick that significantly reduced our chance to win the game.

With less than two minutes left in the game, the Patriots scored a touchdown and kicked the extra point, to bring themselves within 7 points of the Jets.

Before the score, the Patriots were down 31-17. It's pretty clear at this point in the game that the only way the Patriots could win is to score two touchdowns while preventing the Jets from scoring.

So, any assessment of the correct strategy should assume that the Pats will score two touchdowns while holding New York scoreless.

The league average success rate for 2-point conversions is 47.9%. Using this rate, it doesn't make sense to "go for 2" if you can tie the game by kicking the extra point. Here's a quick example of how the math works out in that situation (when the trailing team is behind by just 1 point after scoring the touchdown, but before the point-after):

(PAT success is 98.7%):

1) Team scores touchdown to bring score within 1 point. Team kicks extra point.

Chance of leading after this score: 0%.
Chance of being tied after this score: 98.7%.
Chance of trailing after this score: 1.3%.

2) Team scores touchdown to bring score within 1 point. Team goes for two.

Chance of leading after this score: 47.9%.
Chance of being tied after this score: 0%.
Chance of trailing after this score: 52.1%.

A team that ends the game in the lead wins that game. If they end the game trailing on the scoreboard, they lose. All things being equal, a team that ends the game tied has a 50% chance of winning that game.

So, we can award 1.0 wins for a result that puts the team in the lead; 0.5 wins for a result that ties the game; and 0.0 wins for a result after which the scoring team is still trailing.

Using those values, kicking the extra point produces 0.4935 wins but going for two results in only 0.4790 wins.

However, if the trailing team needs *two* touchdowns, the math is totally different.

1) Team trails by 14 points and scores two touchdowns. Team never goes for two:

Chance of leading after both scores: 0%.
Chance of being tied after both scores: 97.42%.
Chance of trailing after both scores: 2.58%.

2) Team trails by 14 points and goes for two after the first touchdown:

Chance of pulling within 6 points: 47.9%.
Chance of pulling within 7 points: 0%.
Chance of pulling within 8 points: 52.1%.

Then, when the team scores a 2nd time, they kick the extra point *if it would give them the lead*. If the team scored 8 points with the first touchdown, they have already tied the game before kicking the extra point.

2a) Team trails by 6 points before the touchdown, and kicks the extra point:

Chance of leading after both scores: 98.7%.
Chance of being tied after both scores: 1.3%.
Chance of trailing after both scores: 0.0%.

If the two-point conversion failed on the first touchdown, the team has to go for two in an attempt to just tie the game:

2b) Team trails by 8 points before the touchdown, and goes for two:

Chance of leading after this score: 0.0%.
Chance of being tied after this score: 47.9%.
Chance of trailing after this score: 52.1%.

To see the overall chance of winning the game with this strategy (going for two after the first touchdown), we have to combine the odds from 2a and 2b:

2) Team trails by 14 points and goes for two after the first touchdown

Chance of leading after both scores: 47.28%.
Chance of being tied after both scores: 25.58%.
Chance of trailing after both scores: 27.14%.

Assuming a 50% chance of winning tie games, here's what we get:

Going for two after the first score: .6007 wins
Kicking the extra point after the first score: .4866 wins

Going for two after the first score increases the chance to win the game by 23.4%. That's a huge difference (and one that Belichick shouldn't have passed up).

The key is that when you know that you need *two* touchdowns, you can make the decision whether to go for 2 on the second touchdown, *already knowing whether you had a successful conversion on the first touchdown*. If you weren't successful, then you need to go for two to tie the game. But if you succeeded on the first touchdown, you can just kick the extra point on the second touchdown, and win the game by 1 point.

2010 Offensive Line Rankings

2010-08-25T20:33:00.000-04:00

Based on stats from the last 12 seasons (yes, Matt Birk has been in the league since 1998), here are ratings for the current offensive lines for all 32 NFL teams.

Rank	Team	Overall	Run Blocking	Pass Blocking
1	New Orleans Saints	95	95	93
2	Tennessee Titans	94	95	92
3	New York Jets	92	94	89
4	Carolina Panthers	92	94	88
5	New England Patriots	91	84	97
6	Atlanta Falcons	90	85	93
7	Baltimore Ravens	89	94	83
8	Miami Dolphins	88	93	82
9	Dallas Cowboys	88	91	86
10	Minnesota Vikings	87	92	83
11	Arizona Cardinals	87	81	93
12	Indianapolis Colts	86	75	97
13	New York Giants	86	82	89
14	Denver Broncos	85	81	89
15	Cleveland Browns	84	81	88
16	Cincinnati Bengals	84	80	88
17	Jacksonville Jaguars	82	91	72
18	San Francisco 49ers	81	83	79
19	San Diego Chargers	81	72	91
20	Houston Texans	80	71	90
21	Philadelphia Eagles	80	81	79
22	Green Bay Packers	79	92	67
23	Kansas City Chiefs	79	85	72
24	Chicago Bears	78	69	88
25	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	77	72	83
26	Buffalo Bills	76	85	68
27	Pittsburgh Steelers	75	81	67
28	Detroit Lions	75	76	74
29	Oakland Raiders	74	79	69
30	Seattle Seahawks	73	72	74
31	St. Louis Rams	73	75	71
32	Washington Redskins	72	74	69

For more information on each offensive lineman, check out the individual ratings in Football Mogul.

Fixing Overtime In The NFL (Revisited)

2010-01-24T22:40:00.000-05:00

We already have a great solution to the problem of the coin flip in overtime games. Nevertheless, it has been almost four years, and we're still stuck with the old system.

After the Vikings-Saints NFC Championship game (and the Colts' failed attempt to go 16-0) the argument for this change to the rules is even more compelling. If this rule had been implemented, both the Saints and the Colts would have still had something to play for in the last month of the season.

To summarize, we can fix the following two problems with one rule change:

1) The coin-flip winner has an unfair advantage in overtime.
2) Teams like the 13-0 Saints and 14-0 Colts have no incentive to win after they have clinched the top playoff spot.

The solution is elegantly simple: automatically award the coin flip to the home team.

In addition to eliminating the coin flip, there are a number of other positive effects:

1) This increases the importance of home field advantage in the playoffs. If a team like the Colts go 14-2, they get an edge if a playoff game goes to overtime (just as the home team in baseball has a strategic advantage).

2) We now know who the "home team" is in the Super Bowl. And it matters. This would have been pivotal this season: the Colts and Saints would continue to play hard, knowing that if they met in the playoffs, home-field advantage would be determined by their regular-season record. Instead, we got five unwatchable games by two teams that had nothing to play for.

3) It adds drama to the final minutes of a game, and clarifies strategy for coaches. If you're the away team, and you're up against a good offense, you want to play for the win, not the tie, in any last-minute play calls. You go for two if you have the chance. And you go for the touchdown instead of the field goal on 4th down. More excitement, and less overtime (which tends to run into the next game, which doesn't make most football fans happy).

Wes Welker For MVP

2010-01-11T09:46:00.000-05:00

Photo by Mike Gil

Peyton Manning was announced two days ago as the MVP for the 2009 NFL season. But yesterday, without even leaving Bob Kraft's luxury box, Wes Welker proved that he was the one who should have received the award.

With Welker on the roster, the Pats were 7-0 at home this season. Without Welker, they lost in Foxboro to the Ravens, 33-14. It seems silly to pin a 19-point loss on an injury to one guy. But the evidence shows that Wes Welker turns Tom Brady from a "very good" quarterback into "the best quarterback ever".

Brady's career Passer Rating with Welker: 108.1. That's easily the best Passer Rating ever. It's not even close. According to Football Mogul, Steve Young has a career Passer Rating of 96.8. Peyton Manning and his vaunted four MVPs: just 95.2. Take Welker away from Brady and his career Passer Rating drops to 88.7, more than two points behind Chad Pennington!

The difference is just as stark in the playoffs. Brady's Passer Rating in playoff games with Welker is 97.1, including an amazing 70.6% overall completion rate. Without Welker, Brady's playoff Passer Rating is a mediocre 83.2. And the icing on this shit cake is a 49.1 Passer Rating in Sunday's game versus the Ravens.

Julian Edelman caught two touchdowns in Brady's first home playoff loss. But he didn't move the chains like Welker. And he didn't free up Moss to go deep. Brady spent a lot of time holding the ball and getting pressured, because he didn't have Wes to go to when he needed to.

For some final perspective, note that Matt Cassel's season with the Patriots (and with Welker) in 2008 was better than four of Brady's seasons without Welker. But it was worse than the seasons that Brady has had with Welker. So, Brady is better than Cassel. But Wes is better than both of them.

So, my vote for 2009 NFL MVP goes to Wesley Carter Welker. Without Wes, the Patriots may not have even made the playoffs this year. Tell Peyton to give back that trophy!

Belichick Made The Right Call

2009-11-16T11:14:00.000-05:00

Photo by Keith Allison

Last night, near the end of an important game against the Indianapolis Colts in Week 10, the New England Patriots faced 4th-and-2 on their own 28-yard-line. The Patriots were ahead by 6 points, with 2 minutes and 8 seconds left on the clock. Conventional wisdom said the Patriots should punt the ball, to force Manning to try to drive the length of the field for a game-winning score. Instead, the Patriots went for it and failed to convert. The Colts went on to win.

Commentators are already arguing about whether Coach Belichick showed too little faith in his defense, or too much faith in his offense. It has nothing do with faith. It's all about giving your team the best chance of winning. And the numbers say that Belichick made the right call.

To assess whether Belichick chose wisely, I used Football Mogul to simulate the situation that the Patriots faced. Football Mogul had access to every detail of the game, including current rosters and playbooks for each team. It even takes into account the weather and wind, and the fatigue level of the New England defense.

Specifically, I simulated the remainder of the game exactly 20,000 times. For 10,000 of these simulations, the Patriots went for it on 4th-on-2. For the other 10,000 simulations, the Patriots punted.

We could look at this simply in terms of what chance the Colts had to drive down the field and score, depending on whether or not the Patriots punted. However, that doesn't take into account all of the things that can happen during a football game. For example, in some of the simulations when the Patriots went for it, the Colts got an interception return for a touchdown. This gave Indy the lead, but also gave Brady two minutes to drive down the field for a game-winning field goal. Similarly, the "safe" choice to punt sometimes resulted in a blocked punt and an instant touchdown for the Colts.

Thus, the only way to accurately find the best call is to simulate the exact game situation thousands of times, taking into account all of the different possible results that can happen in an NFL game.

The verdict: Belichick made the right call.

Breaking down the numbers, we see that when the Patriots went for it, they got the first down in 55.2% of all the simulations. After the first down, they won the game 94.3% of the time (the Colts' one timeout gives them the chance to get the ball back and still score a last-second touchdown, which they were able to do about 1 time in 20, even when the Patriots got the first down).

When the Patriots went for it and didn't convert, the Colts won the game 76.1% of the time. Most of these were because Peyton drove the ball 28 yards for the score. But sometimes the Colts won for another reason. For example, the Colts might score a quick touchdown, leaving Brady enough time to get a winning field goal, but still have enough time to score on the following kickoff return (leading to the Colts winning 42-37).

All-in-all, Belichick's call to go for it gave the Patriots a 62.8% chance of winning the game.

On the flip side, punting the ball only gave the Patriots a 41.3% chance of winning the game. That's right; the Colts won the game 58.7% of the time when the Patriots punted.

So, not only did Belichick make the right call. It wasn't even close. He made the call that increased his team's chance of winning by more than 50% (from 41.3% to 62.8%).

The End Of The 50-Yard Field Goal

2008-11-25T19:53:00.000-05:00

Stephen Gostkowski, the kicker for the New England Patriots, has one of the strongest legs in the NFL. Most of his kickoffs go into the opponent's end zone -- many of them for touchbacks.

But he doesn't have any 50-yard field goals this year. That's because Coach Belichick hasn't asked him to try any. Gostkowski has a 93% success rate on kicks less than 50 yards. But no attempts beyond that distance.

This stat is part of a larger trend in the NFL.

In 1994, the NFL changed the rules for missed field goals, so that the team taking possession got the ball at the point of the kick -- not at the previous line of scrimmage. This is only a 7-yard difference. But it's enough to shift the odds away from the decision to try long field goals.

This rule helped create a "no man's land" near the opponent's 35-yard line. On 4th down, it doesn't make sense to punt from within 40 yards of the end zone -- there's a good chance you'll kick too far and end up with a touchback, and a net gain of only 15-20 yards.

But a field goal attempt doesn't make much sense either. Let's assume the average kicker has a 50% success rate on 52-yard field goal attempt (this is a kick from the opponent's 35-yard line). Half the time, you get 3 points. The other half of the time, the other team gets the ball with good field position -- at their own 42-yard line. Getting the ball at your 42-yard line is worth, on average, about 1.8 points.

So, half the time you get 3 points; but the rest of the time you lose 1.8 points. This means that a field goal attempt from the opponent's 35-yard line is worth less than a point (0.6 to be more exact).

By contrast, having the ball at your opponent's 30-yard line is worth about 4 points. So even if you have less than a 50% chance of getting the 1st down, it frequently makes sense to go for it instead of trying to kick the field goal.

Although kickers continue to get stronger and more accurate, we'll see fewer and fewer long field goals as more coaches continue to realize that 50-yard field goal attempts are bad bets.

Cliff Lee For MVP?

2008-07-26T16:51:00.000-04:00

Photo by aturkus on flickr

Cliff Lee is now 14-2 for an Indians team that has won only 45 games. Lee has over 31% of his team's wins.

The last pitcher to finish the season with more than 30% of his team's wins was Fergie Jenkins, winning 25 games for the 1974 Texas Rangers. And Jenkins pitched in a 4-man rotation, allowing him to get 41 starts.

In other words, no pitcher has ever done what Cliff Lee is doing: winning 30% of his team's games while pitching in a 5-man rotation.

Over-Active Game Design

2008-07-16T23:35:00.000-04:00

Photo by Bari D

It's not surprising that everybody wants to be a game designer. What's bad is that everyone thinks they can be a good game designer.

Probably the most telling aspect of bad game design is "over-active" game design: the desire to "improve" games by adding complexity.

The media response to tonight's All Star Game is a perfect example of over-active game design. Some suggestions I've heard on T.V. and radio:

Anyone who pitched on Sunday should be banned from the All-Star Game.
The All-Star rosters should be even bigger (as if 32 players per team weren't enough).
Starting pitchers should be required to stay in for 4 innings.
Pitchers should be allowed to go back in the game, even if they were already used.
All pitchers on the Mets and Yankees (since they are probably already in New York) should have been available to pitch.
In extra innings, award a run for every hit.

All of these ideas are dumb: examples of fans thinking they can "fix" a game system by adding more rules.

Of course, the worst ever example of bad game design at the All Star Game was when Bud Selig stood up and declared a "tie" in 2002. He actually changed the rules of the game -- in the middle of the game!

Can you imagine the NFL Commissioner changing the rules for overtime of the Super Bowl?

"I just decided that for this overtime, you only need 5 yards for a first down. I know it's weird, but I'd like the game to end sooner."

It's absurd. But it's not as bad as what Selig did in 2002. Not only did he change the rules in the middle of the game, but he called a premature stop to an exciting extra-inning game. It was horrible game design and horrible showmanship, rolled together into one burrito of suck.

By now, you probably want to know what I think we should do about the problem of extra-inning All Star Games.

The answer: nothing.

When you run out of pitchers, let the position players pitch. It happens several times each year, in games that actually count. Which of the following would be more interesting to watch as a fan?

1) David Wright takes the mound in the bottom of the 16th. He gets the first two batters out but then gives up a walk-off homer to J.D. Drew.

2) Bud Selig waddles onto the field and declares a tie.

It's a no-brainer. Keep it simple. And stop trying to add rules where they aren't needed.

Varitek Isn't The Weak Link

2008-07-02T21:27:00.000-04:00

I don't live in Boston anymore. But I still live in Red Sox Nation. This means that the radio next to my desk gets WEEI. The hot topic this week is how Jason Varitek's offensive drought is hurting the team.

Tek is definitely worrisome. However, his OPS of .672 is only 118 points below his career average.

Manny Ramirez has an OPS of .884 this year: 113 points below his career average of .997.

So you could argue that Manny's "slump" is hurting team offense just about as much as Tek's.

It's an interesting way to look at things. Varitek is getting close to the Mendoza line, so he's the one that stands out. But Manny's "dip" has actually cost the Red Sox more runs (because he gets more at bats, and has played in 11 more games).

Of course, I put "dip" in quotes because the truth is that both Manny and Tek are 36 years old -- so it's likely that this is exactly what we are supposed to expect from these two. Neither of these players is "slumping". They are both just getting old. Unless you are Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, this is when your stats begin to take a nosedive. It's actually refreshing to see their performance taper off, instead of seeing them "reborn" as 40-year-old superstars because of steroids and HGH.

Varitek stands out to Red Sox as the bigger problem, because you shouldn't pay a guy $10 million to hit .220. But the upside of Tek's problems is that he's more easily replaceable. Assuming for a moment that his "game calling" abilities are over-rated, it can't be that hard to find a catcher that can hit .220. On the other hand, Manny is a future Hall-Of-Famer. Replacing that kind of offense is going to be nearly impossible. So, in the big picture, Manny's drop-off is actually more damaging to the Red Sox playoff hopes than Varitek's.

The downside of Tek's problems is that he's locked up through 2009, but Manny is a free agent after this year. After a season-and-a-half of Manny with a sub-.900 OPS, Theo can be pretty sure this isn't a fluke, which means it's unlikely we'll see him in a Red Sox uniform in '09.

Predictions At The Halfway Point

2008-06-29T16:42:00.000-04:00

As of today, the average Major League team has played exactly 81 games. We are officially at the halfway point. For about an hour last night, the Tampa Bay Rays had the best record in baseball! Are they for real? What about the Cubs, White Sox and other division leaders?

Using Baseball Mogul 2009, we updated our database to reflect current records and injuries, and we simulated the second half of the season one thousand times.
Here are our predictions. 'WC%' refers to each team's chance to win the World Series.

AL EAST	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
Boston	95	67	--	22.8%
Tampa Bay	92	70	3	12.6%
New York	90	72	5	4.3%
Toronto	80	82	15	0.4%
Baltimore	74	88	21	0.0%

The Red Sox will probably win the division, and have a good chance at repeating as World Champions. But the Rays should keep it close, and the Yankees will probably play well in the 2nd half, even with Wang on the DL.

AL CENTRAL	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
Chicago	84	78	--	1.9%
Minnesota	84	78	--	1.7%
Detroit	82	80	2.0	1.5%
Cleveland	78	84	6.0	0.3%
Kansas City	73	89	11.0	0.0%

The tightest division in baseball. Even the Royals have an outside chance to win the division.

AL WEST	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
Los Angeles	91	71	--	5.1%
Oakland	85	77	6.0	0.8%
Texas	76	86	15.0	0.1%
Seattle	71	89	20.0	0.0%

The Angels should be able to stay atop the AL West. It looks like the Wild Card will come out of the AL East for another year.

NL EAST	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
New York	89	73	--	14.1%
Philadelphia	87	75	2.0	7.8%
Atlanta	82	80	7.0	1.1%
Florida	73	89	16.0	0.0%
Washington	66	96	23.0	0.0%

The Mets have a good team, even with Pedro injured and near the end of his career. They should be able to pull ahead of the Phillies and undo last year's collapse.

NL CENTRAL	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
Chicago	90	72	--	8.4%
Milwaukee	86	76	4.0	1.4%
St. Louis	86	76	4.0	1.3%
Pittsburgh	77	87	13.0	0.1%
Houston	76	86	14.0	0.0%
Cincinnati	75	87	15.0	0.0%

With 7 teams projected for between 86 and 90 wins, the National League should have a very tight and very exciting playoff race -- including a Wild Card that goes down to the wire.

NL WEST	Won	Lost	GB	WC%
Arizona	88	74	--	10.3%
Los Angeles	86	76	2.0	3.5%
Colorado	72	90	16.0	0.0%
San Diego	71	91	17.0	0.0%
San Francisco	70	92	18.0	0.0%

The Rockies won't repeat as NL Champs. But the Dodgers and Diamondbacks each have a decent shot at making it back to the World Series.

Steve Phillips Is A Moron

2008-06-23T00:00:00.000-04:00

Steve Phillips, former Mets GM and current ESPN commentator, probably isn't a moron. But he did just say something really dumb on Baseball Tonight.

He just accused Paul Janish of the Reds of making a "bad baseball play" by trying to bunt with men on first and second and one out in the 6th inning of Sunday's game at Yankee Stadium.
His beef wasn't based on straight-up analysis of the situation. It was based solely on the fact that it was starting to rain.

Here's what he said:

"If the game ends with them not scoring, they don't end up ... umm ... extending that game."

That's crazy! Letting the rain dictate your strategy, even though rain-shortened games are now rarer than a pitcher throwing a 1-hitter (there were less than a half-dozen rain-shortened games in 2007). In this day and age, it was virtually impossible for the umpires to just call the game in the 6th inning and award the win to the Yankees.

The overwhelming majority of major league baseball games are played to their conclusion, regardless of weather, even if the fans have to endure long rain delays, or come back at a later date to play the remaining frames. The last rain-shortened game in the majors was almost 10 months ago.

More importantly, Mr. Phillips lives and works in Connecticut -- about 80 miles from Yankee Stadium. All he had to do was flip on the Weather Channel to see that we've been getting short afternoon thunderstorms all week in the Northeast.

The rain delay lasted less than an hour, and the Yankees won. But not because Janish made a "bad baseball play".

How You Can Fix The Wild Card!

2008-02-10T17:56:00.000-05:00

It's been almost ten years since we came up with the right way to fix the current wild card system.
The 2007 AL East race between the Yankees and Red Sox was the closest since 1978, but I stopped watching in early September, because the current wild card system makes the division title worthless. Once the Yankees put enough space between themselves and the Tigers, the rest of the season became meaningless.

Last year could have been the most exciting playoff chase in recent memory. A chance for the Red Sox to collapse as badly as they did in 1978. Instead, we got to see a bunch of games where Terry Francona sits his best players and experiments with how best to use Eric Gagne.

It seems like calls to fix the wild card have died down. It's because the ALDS and NLDS can produce some exciting playoff baseball. That's great. I don't want to get rid of the wild card. I just want to fix it so that the division races regain some importance. In case you missed it the first time, here's the proposal again:

1) Replace the current Wild Card system with two Wild Cards. Because these are the 4th and 5th teams in each league to earn a playoff spot, we will call these teams #4 and #5.

2) As with the current system, the division winner with the best record is the #1 seed, the division winner with the next-best record is the #2 seed.

3) On the first day after the end of regular season, team #5 plays a one-game playoff at team #4.

4) The winner of this game advances to meet team #1 in a best-of-five series.

In other words, this is identical to the current system, except that each league adds a 2nd wild card team which faces off against the 1st wild card team in a one-game showdown.

Some advantages of this new system:

a) Division races gain importance. Settling for the wild card means there's close to a 50% chance you'll get eliminated in one game. Even if you do win, you have to hop a plane and go face the best team in your division, the very next day.

b) "Home field" races (such as between the 2007 American League division winners) gain added importance. Wouldn't you rather face a team that just used their best available pitcher in a one-game playoff than a team that had the ability to set their rotation?

c) This addresses the frustation that the current wild card system is "unfair" because the wild card has as good a shot (or better) at making it to the World Series. No team wants to face a 1-game elimination playoff, no matter how good their best pitcher is. Moreover, it's unlikely that a wild card team's best pitcher will be rested for this playoff game. And even if he is, and the team manages to win the one-game playoff, they have to start the division series with their #2 starter.

d) This adds to post-season excitement, and TV ratings, without lengthening the playoffs. We don't have to worry about playing November games in Boston or Cleveland.

e) The one-game playoffs create instant excitement to kick off the post-season. It's like scheduling a couple of Game 7's right at the beginning of October. Baseball needs this, because a lot of fans are losing interest in the playoffs. It's ridiculous that the Braves would have thousands of empty seats in the playoffs because "it's only the first round".

At least from Bud Selig's point of view, this system seems to be an improvement on all grounds. It restores the importance of each division race while also increasing fan interest -- because even more teams now have a shot at the post-season. In fact, although we are adding 2 teams to the playoffs, we actually increase the chance that each division winner has of reaching the World Series (because we disrupt the starting rotations of the wild card teams -- putting them at a disadvantage in the ALDS and NLDS).

But instead of actually fixing the current system, Selig has been busy making bizarre tweaks to the post-season format, like giving home-field advantage in the World Series to the team from the league that wins the All-Star Game. This year, he created a new rule that most baseball fans don't even know about: the division winner with the best regular season record gets to decide whether the ALDS will span 7 days or 8 days (the best National League team gets no such benefit, but it appears that the leagues will "trade off" this lovely privilege in future years).

Anyway, it's about time to restore the division races to prominence, while also adding some post-season excitement. It shouldn't be too hard to get baseball to stand up and notice this idea. Just print out this letter and mail it to Bud. You can probably find his e-mail address online, but I've learned that snail-mail works better for these kinds of things:

Mr. Allan H. "Bud" Selig
Commissioner of Baseball
777 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 3060
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

Thanks for your support!

Clay

Does GoDaddy Support Internet "Kiting"?

2007-12-09T09:40:00.000-05:00

Has this ever occurred to you?

1. You think of a domain name you would like to register (for a business or other organzation).

2. You go to a domain registrar (like godaddy.com or register.com).

3. You search for the domain and see that it is available, but you don't immediately plonk down your money to buy it (perhaps you are considering several domain names, and would just like to know which ones are available).

4. You go back a few days later to register the name that you decided on, and it's already been registered (a name that hadn't been registered for 10+ years is now "coincidentally" snatched up).

It's not your imagination. Companies out there are sniffing your web searches and squatting on domain names that you come up with. The biggest offender seems to be a company called Metapredict.com.

Bob Parsons, the CEO of GoDaddy, has come out against this practice. But he didn't actually say that his company, the world's largest domain registrar, has done anything to stop it.

I wrote to Bob Parsons at GoDaddy and got an email including the following:

“We can tell you that GoDaddy.com is no way associated with Metapredict.com or UltraRPM dba. However, we cannot comment on this practice with any further details.”

In other words, GoDaddy and Metapredict don’t have a direct financial relationship. But, it seems to me that GoDaddy has a financial incentive to support Metapredict, and isn’t going to do anything to stop them. The fear that Metapredict will hop on your domain name forces many people (myself included) to always immediately register any name idea, instead of just searching for it — a habit that greatly increases the revenue of domain registration firms like GoDaddy. Shame on you, GoDaddy! And if I'm wrong, then you need to change your stance that you "cannot comment on this practice".

Did Bill Belichick Use the "Maddux Gambit" Against Tony Dungy?

2007-11-17T16:36:00.000-05:00

This weekend, we will see the third post-season matchup between Tom Brady's New England Patriots and Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts. As my fellow New Englanders know, the Patriots have won the previous two games. At least some of the credit for these two wins was given to Belichick for "outcoaching" Tony Dungy in both meetings. But when the Pats and Colts played in Foxboro during the regular season this year, it looked like Dungy was doing the "outcoaching".

Even though the Patriots were having success running the ball up the middle, Belichick chose to try some tricky plays, such as a reverse that was stopped for a big loss, and a delayed draw that had Brady and Faulk tripping over each other in the backfield. The Patriots lost 27-20.

At the time, I was baffled by Belichick's play-calling -- a bit like when Grady Little left Pedro Martinez on the mound to start the 8th inning in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. It seemed like Belichick was more worried about trying different plays than about winning the game. And then I wondered if Belichick was actually willing to lose during the regular season if it created an advantage that the Patriots could use if they met the Colts again in the playoffs.

Of course, this is ridiculous. The example above of the Maddux Gambit was when Greg Maddux was winning 8-0. Why would Belichick be so crazy as to use the Maddux Gambit in a game that decided home-field advantage in the playoffs?

When you think about it, there are several reasons that Belichick might play the game this way.

1) He wanted to "save" his best plays. This is the primary argument for the "Maddux Gambit" at work. Belichick gave up an advantage during the regular-season game so that he would still have an advantage in this area if the teams met again. In the first three quarters of the game against Indy, Corey Dillon rushed up the middle six times for gains of 4, 4, 7, 9, 9, and 10 yards. In short, they had found a play that worked consistently against the Colts defense (if I remember correctly, most of these plays involved trap blocking by the Tight End or Guard). But when the 4th quarter started, Brady went to the air and the trick plays came out, even though the Pats were only down by 4 points.

The Pats ran Dillon up the middle enough to learn that it was effective, but not enough to win the game. If Bill had kept calling this play in the 4th quarter, they could have driven for a game-winning score, but they also create more film for Dungy and the Colts staff to study. If you assume instead that Bill's primary goal wasn't to win the game, but to use the game as a practice session where he found the Colts' weaknesses, then it makes sense to stop calling this play before the Colts see it enough to figure out how to defeat it.

2) He used the game as a scrimmage. The best way to see how a team will respond to a play (or defensive scheme) is to use it in actual game against them. It's possible that some of the trick plays weren't intended to win the game, but simply to test the Indianapolis defense in case he needed to use these plays at a later time.

3) He didn't want to spoil the Colts undefeated record. Last season, the media spent much of the season talking about the Colts matching the feat of the 1973 Dolphins and playing a "perfect season". Peyton Manning has never even played in a Super Bowl, but the media was assuming the Colts were good enough to not only win the Super Bowl, but also finish 16-0. As it turns out, the Colts not only lost a couple of regular-season games, they didn't even make it to the AFC Championship Game. An undefeated record can distract a team more than it helps them, and Belichick knows that.

4) He didn't want home-field advantage. The Patriots were 7-1 on the road this year, and only 5-3 at home. The Patriots players have been quoted as saying there are fewer distractions on the road; you go straight from your hotel to the game.

5) He wanted to create a psychological advantage. Beating a team builds confidence. But losing by only a touchdown when your QB throws 4 picks and your coaches are making unorthodox play calls. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill sits down with his team this week and admits that he got "cute" with the play-calling in Week 9, and assures them that he learned a lot from his experimentation and now he has a complete plan to pick apart the Colts and go to Super Bowl XLI.

I'm not saying Belichick threw the November game. But it's not the craziest idea that winning a single game in Week 9 wasn't his only goal that day.

About This Blog...

2007-06-07T12:18:00.000-04:00

Why is this blog a mish-mash of sports and politics, economics and game design?

The simple answer is that the game that pays my bills is both a sports simulation and an economic simulation.

The more complicated answer is public policy is game design. And yet legislators seem to be among the worst possible game designers.

A well-designed sports game is one that is easy to play for any sports fan. If you know the sport, you should be able to use the simulation as an interface between you and enjoyment of that sport. You shouldn't get frustrated just trying to understand how the game works.

Similarly, well-designed public policy should create a smooth interface between citizens and the basic laws of economics that allow them. A tax system that flushes more than 20% of the economy down the drain is bad game design, regardless of whether it is inherently "fair" or "unfair".

Although I have been writing games since I was five years old, I majored in public policy because I wanted to apply good game design to something more important than computer games. After 20 years, I'm still writing computer games for a living, but that hasn't stopped me from trying to fix bad game design when I see it.

Fixing Overtime In The NFL

2006-02-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

Every year there's a clamor to "fix" overtime in the NFL. The complaint is that the results of a crucial game (especially a playoff game) can often be "decided by a coin flip".

The most popular idea is to adopt something like the NCAA, where each team is guaranteed a chance to score. I've also heard the idea to get rid of "sudden death" and play overtime periods until one team ends the game with the lead, much like in the NBA. I've even heard that field goals should be outlawed in overtime.

All of these ideas are horrible.

Football is a tough game. We don't want games stretching on to five or six hours. We also don't want to miss our favorite team's game on TV because the previous game runs over.

The solution is elegantly simple: play with the current sudden death rules, but automatically award the coin flip to the home team.

In addition to eliminating the coin flip, there are a number of other positive effects:

1) This increases the importance of home field advantage in the playoffs. If a team like the Colts goes 14-2, they should get an edge if a playoff game goes to overtime (just as the home team in baseball has a strategic advantage).

2) We now know who the "home team" is in the Super Bowl. And it matters. This could have been especially important this season, in that when the Seahawks and Colts faced off in Week 15, they would have had home-field advantage to play for. Instead, nothing was on the line and the game was unwatchable.

3) It adds drama to the final minutes of a game, and clarifies strategy for coaches. If you're the away team, and you're up against a good offense, you want to play for the WIN, not the tie, in any last-minute play calls. You go for two if you have the chance. And you go for the touchdown instead of the field goal on 4th down. More excitement, and less overtime (which tends to run into the next game, which doesn't make most football fans happy).

Related post: Fixing Overtime In The NFL (Revisited)

Will The Real Guillermo Mota Please Stand Up?

2005-11-25T19:17:00.000-05:00

By now we all know that Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett are headed to the Red Sox in exchange for Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Jesus Delgado and Harvey Garcia. But it was just announced the Red Sox insisted that Guillermo Mota be added to the deal, in exchange for even more players from Boston's farm system.

Mota is an interesting commodity. In 2003, and part of 2004, all with the Dodgers, he had an ERA near 2.00. Since being traded to the Marlines in mid-2004, his ERA has ballooned to 4.74.

So the question is, who is the real Guillermo Mota? The dominating setup man that helped the 2004 Dodgers win the N.L. West? Or the struggling reliever who was relegated to a reduced workload in the 2005 Marlins bullpen.

When I wrote Baseball Mogul, I realized that ERA isn't the best indicator of a pitcher's underlying ability. So I created a stat called Defense Independent Component ERA (aka DICE). DICE looks only at the events within a pitcher's control: Home Runs, Walks, Hit Batters and Strikeouts. It then uses these events to project that player's ERA. This gives us a number that looks like ERA, but with the bloop singles, great defensive plays and other random events removed.

DICE is pretty easy to calculate. We start with an ERA of 3.00 and modify it according to the walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs allowed by the pitcher:

DICE = 3.00 + (3*(BB + HBP) + 13*HR - 2*K) / IP

Mota's 2003 ERA was a tiny 1.97. Here's how we calculate his DICE for that same year:

2003 (LA): 26 BB, 1 HBP, 7 HR, 99 K, 105.0 IP

DICE = 3.00 + (3*(26 + 1) + 13*7 - 2*99) / 105.0

= 3.00 + (81 + 91 - 198) / 105.0

= 3.00 + (-26) / 105.0 = 2.76

So we see that Mota's actual 2003 ERA was more than 3/4 of a run lower than what we would expect from how he pitched.

Here's a table of his DICE over the past 3 seasons, along with his real ERA in each season:

Guillermo Mota: DICE
Season	Team	BB	HBP	HR	K	IP	DICE	ERA
2003	LA	26	1	7	99	105.0	2.76	1.97
2004	LA/FLA	37	4	8	85	96.2	3.58	3.07
2005	FLA	32	1	5	60	67.0	3.66	4.70

As we can see, Mota's ERA in 2003 and 2004 was better than what you would expect from the underlying stats. It's no surprise that his ERA went up in 2005.

What is interesting is that Mota's 2005 DICE was virtually the same as his 2004 DICE. In other words, Mota's core ability appears essentially unchanged from 2004 to 2005. It's only the final outcome -- his ERA -- that went up by more than 50%.

Guillermo's struggles in 2005 appear to be due primarily to his defense and bad luck. If the Marlins had stuck with him and given him as many innings as he had in 2004, it's likely that his ERA would have moved closer to the 3.66 figure predicted by DICE.

What does this mean for the Red Sox? Will we see the 2005 Mota? Or a return to the 2004 edition? The question is misleading. Mota was essentially the same pitcher in 2004 and 2005. It's only the ERA that changed. Therefore, we should expect Mota to continue on the same path his been on for the last 2 seasons -- an above average relief pitcher capable of posting ERA's below 4.00.

That said, we should point out that both Dodger Stadium (in L.A.) and Pro Player Stadium (in Miami) are pitcher's parks. Pro Player has about 5% less offense than an average NL stadium. Dodger Stadium is roughly the same, with even a bit less offense. By contrast, Fenway is a hitter's park with about 5% more offense than average. This fact, combined with the shift from the National League to the American League, means it's extremely unlikely for Mota to match the numbers he put up with the Dodgers in 2003 or even 2004.

An ERA just under 4.00 is the most likely projection. Considering the troubles the Red Sox bullpen had in 2005, that still makes Mota a valuable acquisition.

The Maddux Gambit

2005-05-03T18:33:00.000-04:00

In chess, a gambit is the sacrifice of material (such as a pawn) in order to gain another type of advantage in the game (such as a positional advantage). This strategy can also be used in sports such as football or baseball, where a player or coach may sacrifice something on one play (sometimes even allowing one or more points or runs to score) in order to gain another kind of advantage.

A simple example occurs frequently in baseball when there are baserunners on first and third with no outs and a hard grounder to short. The shortstop will often let the runner on third score, and choose instead to turn the double play. Although a preventable run is allowed to score, the team on defense has gained a positional advantage in that they have recorded two outs and eliminated a runner from the base paths.

However, I think an even more interesting (and much rarer) "gambit" occurs when a player or coach makes a sacrifice in one game in order to achieve an advantage in a game played at a later date. This might be done in a situation with a lopsided score, or when the later game has more importance than the current game (for example, the second game is an anticipated matchup during the playoffs).I am choosing to call this strategy the "Maddux Gambit" because because the first description that I remember reading about such a strategy refers to a pair of situations in which Greg Maddux pitched to Jeff Bagwell. These are the events as described by George Will:

"Leading 8-0 in a regular-season game against the Astros, Maddux threw what he had said he would never throw to Jeff Bagwell—a fastball in. Bagwell did what Maddux wanted him to do: he homered. So two weeks later, when Maddux was facing Bagwell in a close game, Bagwell was looking for a fastball in, and Maddux fanned him on a change-up away."