Pater Familias » Sports

ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT).

Philip — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:00:00 +0000

ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). Both Dick Weisfelder and Nick commented on my most recent post on concussions in football, each expressing the thought that people today are more concerned about injuries in sporting event than in the days of gladiatorial combats and bare knuckle fighting—that, as Nick put it, in many ways society is more “civilized”. They are raising issues which have been raised by a new book by Steven Pinker, the cognitive psychologist: THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE: THE DECLINE OF VIOLENCE IN HISTORY AND ITS CAUSES. The book is considered important and controversial—so much so that it was chosen to lead off a new feature in the Guardian (the “Reading room”) devoted to discussions with readers to “explore major new works by contemporary thinkers.” This article by Pinker from 2007 in The Edge website seems to be a good introduction to the book. One sentence which bears on the comments from Dick Weisfelder and Nick: “Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.’

FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS?

Philip — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:32:10 +0000

FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? I have posted several times about the dangers of concussions in football (see this post asking whether the NFL is serious about reducing concussions). Benjamin Wallace-Wells has a post on the New York magazine web site asking whether the New York Giants “strategically concussed” Kyle Williams in the conference championship game for the right to play in the Super Bowl. He has quotes from Giant players which support his suggestion, including this one:: “…we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him outta the game.” In the event, Williams made two critical fumbles which cost his team the game. Notice that the hits on Williams may well have been lawful under the rules. Note also that the comments of the players (and in the comments on the post) show that the culture of the game is that these hits are good plays. Wallace-Wells concludes that: “a history of concussions doesn’t only make you a red flag on your team doctor’s list. It also makes you, in opposing film rooms, a target.”

A KIPLING LIMERICK.

Philip — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:14:47 +0000

A KIPLING LIMERICK. I have posted on limericks and how I think that light verse is an important branch of poetry. Today is the middle of January, and there is playoff game scheduled on the Frozen Tundra in Green Bay. On this winter day in Connecticut (temperature 9 degrees this morning), here is a limerick by Rudyard Kipling from a blog devoted to limericks:

There was a small boy of Quebec
Who was buried in snow to his neck
When they said, “Are you friz?”
He replied, ” Yes, I is —
But we don’t call this cold in Quebec”

WHEN ARE SUNK COSTS SUNK?

Philip — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:20:12 +0000

WHEN ARE SUNK COSTS SUNK? Although the article by Baliga and Ely presents its arguments as an exception to the long-established rule that it is rational to treat sunk costs as by-gones, I think it is easier to view the argument in the article as focusing on the difficulties in applying the long-established rule. If you can’t figure out what went wrong with the original decision, the previous analysis, even though not completely remembered, should be given some weight. To take the example of the expensive outfielder, perhaps some of the scouts who evaluated him before the decision saw some abilities that should be taken into account….

WHY SUNK COSTS SHOULD BE IGNORED.

Philip — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:16:05 +0000

WHY SUNK COSTS SHOULD BE IGNORED. Kids, you have probably encountered the the economic argument that it is a fallacy to take sunk costs into consideration in making a decision (“sunk costs” are defined in this wikipedia article as “retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered.” My post here provides an example of an economist who rigorously refuses to take sunk costs into effect in reading books: “Tyler Cowen in DISCOVER YOUR INNER ECONOMIST says that you should always be willing to treat ‘sunk costs as sunk’, to ‘let bygones be bygones.’ He says he follows this precept by finishing only one out of every ten books he starts.”

The wikipedia article points out that although economic theory says that it is irrational to consider sunk costs in making decisions, evidence from behavioral economics shows that: “Sunk costs greatly affect actors’ decisions, because many humans are loss-averse and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.” An article in the American Economic Journal Microeconomics (November 2011) by Sandeep Baliga and Jeffrey C. Ely—”Mnemonomics: The Sunk Cost Fallacy as a Memory Kludge”—gives the example that: “France and Britain continued to invest in the Concorde supersonic jet after it was known that it was going to be unprofitable.” Nick can sympathize with another example: if a baseball team takes on a very expensive contract with an outfielder who is not good enough to play, it would be rational to release the outfielder and move on.

MY FAVORITE HOAX.

Philip — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:11:14 +0000

MY FAVORITE HOAX. This hoax was sent me by a friend who is a very astute authority on baseball. I wish I had been taken in by it.

TYLER DURDEN IS NOT A HOAX (COMMENT).

Philip — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:24:38 +0000

TYLER DURDEN IS NOT A HOAX (COMMENT). Dick Weisfelder and Nick picked up on the link in my post on rehypothecation to a post by Tyler Durden, whose picture on the blog looks like Brad Pitt. I completely missed that “Tyler Durden” is the name of the character that Brad Pitt plays in Fight Club, which is understandable because Fight Club is one of many markers that separate me from Nick’s generation. Dick goes farther and suggests that I have fallen for a hoax. It is jolly to think of a hoax about rehypothecation going viral. However, scrolling through the ZeroHedge blog shows that “Tyler Durden” is the nom de blog for one or more financial sophisticates. The nom de blog seems to have been chosen to reflect a certain attitude towards life and markets. Here is “Tyler Durden” on the diplomatic war between France and the UK that I posted on yesterday: “As for the idiotic pissing contest between the two countries with epic chips on their shoulders, the final appropriate outcome would be Moodys and S&P coming out and downgrading them both to junk, and even that would be optimistic.” The quote gives a flavor of the style.

BASKETBALL ALL STARS—DOES DEFENSE MATTER?

Philip — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:01:51 +0000

BASKETBALL ALL STARS—DOES DEFENSE MATTER? I posted here five years ago asking how important defense is in basketball; one would think that it is equally as important as offense. Kevin Clark has an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 13) about the defense of the New York Knicks. In it, he gives defensive statistics for last year for some of the Knicks. So little are defensive statistics part of basketball coverage that I had not previously seen the statistic Clark uses: points per shot by the player the defensive player is guarding. Carmelo Anthony is one of the Knick stars, an all star for four of the last five years because of his scoring abilities. Anthony is often described as being a below average defensive player. Clark says that Anthony was ranked 306th in the NBA in the statistic (points per shot for player Anthony was guarding) out of players who had been in over 100 plays. For perspective, if you take the ten players who play the most on a team, you get 300 players. Of course, team defense matters and any one defensive statistic taken alone can be misleading, but still….

TWINS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.

Philip — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:44:14 +0000

TWINS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER. I posted here on twins in sports and speculated that twins seem to have done better in basketball because it is a sport that you can practice one on one. Dick Weisfelder sent me this article about Andrew Reed and Will Reed, identical twins who are outstanding athletes at Amherst. Their success is attributed to the fact that they have always been fiercely competitive with each other. For example, Andrew went out for track so that his brother wouldn’t have bragging rights as a two-sport athlete. The article says: “[Their] ‘Anything you can do, I can do better’ mentality is the foundation of their relationship.” My brother Elmer and I were not fiercely competitive in sports. I think the reason is that we were not good athletes. For one of the Reeds to surpass his brother is an accomplishment. For one of us to be better than the other was no accomplishment at all.

WERE LEATHER HELMETS BETTER?

Philip — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:53:24 +0000

WERE LEATHER HELMETS BETTER? I have posted a number of times on the use of head by football players in making tackles. I began with this post which said that: “With better football helmets, the use of the head to make a hit, a kind of spearing with the helmet, has increased.” Although I was repeating a common assertion, it may be that the belief that modern helmets are better may be mistaken. Christopher Shea in the Wall Street Journal (November 19-20) called attention to a study (which is reported on here in Science Daily) comparing leather football helmets from 100 years ago and modern helmets. The study “compared head injury risks of two early 20th Century leatherhead helmets with 11 top-of-the-line 21st Century polycarbonate helmets.” The helmets were crashed together at various angles to simulate hits that are common in games and practices. The conclusion: “For many of the impacts and angles studied in the lab, the researchers found that leather helmets offered similar, or even better, protection than modern helmets.” Although modern helmets may be better at preventing skull fractures and severe brain injuries, they are apparently no better than the leather helmets at preventing concussion.

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:12:53 +0000

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME. Reed Albergotti explains why the National Football League will not let fans see the All 22 version of the game, even after the game is over: they do not want to open players, teams and coaches up to more criticism. He also quotes a spokesman for the league to the effect that it will be a long time before the league changes its policy. There is already, of course, lots of criticism. Perhaps the league doesn’t mind that criticism as much because it is uninformed.

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:11:04 +0000

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME. I have wondered for over 30 years why television broadcasts of professional football games show only the part of the field near the line of scrimmage. The camera follows the ball, but on passing plays, which are more than half the plays, the camera shows mainly the pass blocking and not what the wide receivers and the defensive secondary are doing—about one third of the players on the field. For example, it is impossible to see any kind of zone defense. Reed Albergotti had an article in the Wall Street Journal (November 4) which explained that there is indeed a distant camera angle in the National Football League that shows all 22 players and is called the “All 22″. Bill Parcells is quoted as saying that what fans see on television is only a “fragment” of what happens in a game. However, the “All 22″ is kept strictly away from the fans.