Book Review: Scorecasting

I recently read the book Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports are Played and Games are Won by Tobias J. Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim.  Scorecasting came via recommendation from a cousin (Thanks Bob).  He felt that the book's topics were right up my alley.  On the back cover the first topic is introduced: "is defense more important than offense in winning championships."  C'mon, that's not even fair! Check the letterhead if you’re still confused.  This book was shaping up to be attempted first-degree manslaughter of my blog.  Consequently, I was compelled to read it.  The aspiring attorney in me wanted to argue against the authors’ "statistical proof."  So here I am, writing my bias book review.

 

I was captivated by the first chapter “Whistle Swallowing.”  Moskowitz and Wertheim discuss how we expect officials to be least involved in the outcome of the game even if this means losing objectivity.  It's true, as fans we desperately want the players to decide the outcome, not the refs.  As a result, officials succumb to this bias (whether consciously or unconsciously) and the authors use fascinating statistics to prove their point.  The most impressive stats are those that are baseball-related where the authors use recent camera technology to analyze accurately millions of major league pitches in a variety of situations.  The stats don't lie.  Depending on the situation, whether it's a star player, 2-strike count, 3-ball count, or the end of a game, officials are undoubtedly influenced by their desire to remain as much incognito as possible even if it means not making the right call.

Unfortunately, our desire to keep officials from "barring influence" (particularly in important situations) conflicts with the need for objective refereeing.  So where do we draw the line?  The authors effectively illustrate this conundrum by discussing the infamous correct call of "foot fault" on Serena Williams during a heated '09 US Open match.  Despite making the correct call, the judge was threatened by Serena Williams (the threat cost Williams the match).  Many fans, including Mr. John McEnroe, expected the judge to "swallow the whistle" and not to make the correct call because of the "importance of the moment"! Poor officials... damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

Next, the authors address the football decision to "go for it on 4th down" rather than punting.  I couldn't agree more, but for different reasons.  Remember my post on 4-down-offense? I pushed for "going for it" because I believe your best players, if possible, should be in position to control the outcome. The more snaps Peyton Manning gets, the better.  It's a complete change of philosophy to ignore traditional beliefs and adapt to your strengths.  The authors break it down more economically.  They discuss statistics showing relative success rates of "going for it" versus punting.  While again, stats don't lie, they don't give the entire picture here.  They neglect to discuss the foresight that, with a changing philosophy towards 4-down-offenses, those statistics will become relative.  Their stats show the benefits of a suckerpunch without accounting for a counter.

As I got to the most anticipated chapter I was greatly disappointed.  Only 5 pages discussing how defense doesn't win championships?  Yo Barnes, Yo Noble! I want my 26 bucks back.  The authors "show" how defensive teams fair no better than offensive teams by revealing no overall statistical significance among championships and playoff winning teams.  They merely discuss how the top ranked defenses and offenses fair on an overall statistical basis.  Just because you cannot prove a point does not make it not true.  Failing to prove (statistically) that defense wins championships is not evidence to prove that defense doesn't win championships. So, NO, they do not prove that defense doesn't win championships!  Furthermore, the book fails to tackle the true essence of defense--adaptability and reactiveness.  Why is Phil Jackson's "triangle offense" so successful?  It has defensive roots--reacting to what the opposing team does instead of going full steam ahead with an offensive plan.

My offensive plan was to analyze the entire book, but my defense is reacting and realizing that a short and sweet post is better.  Scorecasting beautifully illustrates many sound arguments through the use of statistics.  Some statistics flat out tell the truth and others are more craftily devised to “prove a point.”  Overall, I feel this book is a great read for the sports fan who wants to know subtle influences in sports.  Here's a link if you're interested in the book: Amazon

'D'isecting the Madness

NCAAM

It's been a few days since the dust settled and a champ was crowned. The University of Connecticut's Men's basketball team, better known as UConn, took home the 2011 title by defeating a Butler squad in what has been coined a lackluster final.  Everyone and his mother called the game “poor” by championship standards.  Despite CBS's best efforts, I refuse to  jump on the "ugly game" bandwagon.  What I saw was a defense-dominated game. While everyone focused on the lack of offensive firepower, I saw defensive execution.  It may have looked ugly to some, but a beauty to the defensive minded. Amen!

The title game's pacing and style appeared to be Butler's M.O.  Every shot was contested making the rims look tight.  A low scoring affair was to Butler's advantage, so they say.  Halftime and Butler was up three.  So far, so good for the Bulldogs.  Then came the second half.  UConn clamped down on D, using their superior size and athleticism to stymie Butler's attempt to get inside.  The Bulldogs couldn't penetrate and, as a result, all Butler could muster was to chuck three, after three, after three.  Contested threes proved to be no match for the inside presence that UConn was able to establish.  Butler played great defense too, but was unable to match the defensive dominance of UConn.  12 of 64 from the field is not bad shooting.  It's the result of excellent D.  The Huskies took off after an early second half run and never looked back because their defense was on lockdown.

The two teams only met in the NCAA final because of defense.  Darn straight it should be settled by such.  Coming into the title bout the media, like always, focused on the stars of offense: UConn was riding Kemba Walker, their top playmaker and best individual offensive player in the tourney (other than BYU's Jimmer Fredette).  Butler's "stars" were a clutch Shelvin Mack and a relentless Matt Howard.   However, as we all saw, the true reasons for a UConn v. Butler final was defense and coaching.  These are what should be the cornerstones of college basketball. 

College shouldn't be treated as a stepping-stone showcase for the NBA.  A friend of mine once said college is like a summer camp where parents send their kids to learn and grow up.  It's true, more than the academia, college is platform for maturation.  For athletes it should be no different.  Even if you "know" you're going to the pros, take advantage of what college has to offer and mature your game.  Enroll in Defense 101.  Why? 1) Because learning defense is an essential part of your arsenal if you want to make it in the pros, 2) your team will win and 3) you may win a national championship.

Albeit the UConn Huskies are immortalized for winning the title, I will always remember two professors of defense as the real stars of this year's tourney: coaches Brad Stevens of Butler and Shaka Smart of VCU.  These two led their mid-major teams to the Final Four by preaching defense.  Both teams excelled beyond expectations because of defensive execution and intensity.  For Butler, a team that lacked NBA star power returned to the championship game by playing sound team defense with a well-executed deliberate offense.  Despite their valiant effort, the Bulldogs were no match for the size and athleticism of the Huskies who did what? Play even better defense!

DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!