Tangotiger Blog

Friday, July 12, 2019

What is the chance I could win a point off Serena Williams?

I too thought it was ridiculous that one of out eight men thought they could.  

But, the key is the competition setup.  Is it a one-shot deal?  Then, yes, that is totally laughable.

But, if this was a 2-set match?  Things are different.  This is where we rely on good luck.  A game is made up of at least 4 points. (The way tennis is setup, you need to get 4 points and win by 2 in order to win a game.)  You need to win 6 games to win a set, and two sets to win a match.  And serves alternate.

So, for Serena to win the match on a shutout, she has to score 48 points to my zero.  That would mean scoring 24 points by her serving, and she needs to score 24 points on my serve.

The only conceivable way for Serena to not score on her own serve is for her to double-fault.  The chance that she would do that against me is probably 1 in a thousand. Or 99.9% she won't double-fault on any serve.  So, .999^24 she won't double-fault, or 97.6%.  

What is the chance she won't return my 24 serves?  Let's see, she'll get 12 points simply because I'll double-fault.  In the next 11 serves, she'll hit them back 99.99% of the time.  And on the last serve, I'll Nick Kyrgios an underhand serve.  She'll return that one 99% of the time.

So, she'll return my serve .9999^11 x .99 = 98.9%.

And 97.6% x 98.9% = 96.5% chance that Serena will get a shutout.

So, I think I have a 3.5% chance of scoring one point, if I'm given 48 opportunities to do so.  That's 28:1 odds.

This would mean that I would be willing to bet 1000$, with the chance of winning 28,000$.  And I think there's no way I would do that.  You can do all the math I did, but the reality is that if I'm laying out 1000$ that I can get one point out of 48 tries on Serena, I'd expect at least a 100,000$ payout.  That's 100:1 odds.  That means I really have a 1% chance of getting a point.  And I think that's probably being optimistic.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Tango’s Lab: Netless Badminton

?Sometimes my kid and I play badminton without a net.  I don't know if such a game already exists, but I'll tell you our rules anyway.  It's pretty straightforward.

You have two lines about 20 feet apart.  Each player is trying to protect his "end zone", which is some 5-10 feet deep.  You serve from behind your line (inside your end zone).  Other than the serve, any player can stand anywhere on the field.  Your objective is to get the birdie to land inside your opponent's end zone, either by a direct hit, or off your opponent, which include an "own goal" if your opponent can't clear his own end zone.  Typically, you will try to "protect" your end zone by not doing a kill shot, but just blocking a good hit from your opponent.  Serves rotate, except when a score is made, in which case the loser serves.

That's it, hope someone out there has fun with it!

Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Athletes and drugs: tell me how to react!

?I don't know anything about drugs outside of Tylenol and Advil.  So when Sharapova gets suspended, I have no idea how to react.  If the drug is not on the banned list one day, I'm supposed to be ok, like corticosteroids is ok (Kirk Gibson, Curt Schilling).  If the drug is on the banned list the next day, I'm not supposed to be ok.  This sounds straight out of 1984.  Orwellian logic makes no sense to me, and I'm not going to react based on how someone is telling me how I should react.

By the way, I think corticosteroids is banned in the Olympics?  If it is, I'm not supposed to enjoy Kirk Gibson v Eck in 1988.  Doesn't it seem weird that I'm supposed to consult some list to know how to react to something that has already happened?

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Is there anything better than good sportsmanship?

?One of the beautiful things about golf is that the lack of an official almost obligates that players make calls on themselves, to their detriment.  (Except Tiger, who will never call himself on anything, especially his bullsh!t.)

In head-to-head sports and team sports, you do have an official, and so, players aren't going to call themselves to their detriment.  Here's Derek Jeter when he did not get hit by a ball, but he takes 1B anyway.  This is a rule, not an exception, and so, Jeter is just like everyone else.

Everyone that is, except.... here we have it in tennis, which DOES have an official, yet a player is telling his opponent to use his challenge so that his opponent benefits.  And it's not like his opponent is one of those nice guys like Federer.  No, his opponent was Lleyton Hewitt. This is a beautiful thing.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

How can we come up with 20:1 odds, Serena:Vinci?

?Ideally, we'd have "common opponents".  If let's say Serena wins 75% of her games (not matches) and Vinci wins 60% of her games against the same opponents (these numbers made up for illustrative purposes), this would suggest Serena would win 66.7% of her games against Vinci (using Odds Ratio Method).  In their actual previous outings head-to-head, Serena won 70% of their games.

So, let's go with 66.7%.  In tennis, we can say that a set is essentially a best-of-11 (first one to six wins, though it's actually first one to seven, unless you are at six and your opponent is at 4 or less).  Anyway, in a best-of-11, when one is likely to win two-thirds of her games, she'll win 88% of her sets.

And in a best of 3 match, winning 88% of sets would imply winning 96% of matches.  And 20:1 odds is 95.2%.

Therefore, all we need is for someone to supply accurate numbers.  And if someone wants to add the extra wrinkle of best-of-11 or -13.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Is it likely that Serena was 300 times more likely to win than to lose a semi-final match?

?It seems absurd when I heard those odds.  Just on the chance of losing a game due to injury, it would seem to be 1 out of 300.  If I am reading this data from Jeff properly, it might even be 1 out of 100, though maybe that includes retirements between games.

Anyway, if someone can point me to a site that shows how often each player wins their points, games, and/or sets, we can try to figure out the odds of Serena v Vinci.

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Change in playing time, as a proxy for aging in talent

?Good stuff from the soccer world.  I'd like to see this for the other sports.

You can even start with just total playing time by age.

Friday, January 02, 2015

How should tennis players be rewarded?

Tennis, golf, and other similar sports have an ideal compensation system: you get paid for your output.  If a #16 seed beats a #1 seed, the #16 seed will earn more prize money in that tournament.  This is unlike all the other team sports where players are paid on their potential.

So, we know that the more you win, the more you will get paid.  There are therefore two issues to decide:

1. What is the minimum level of compensation for a tournament player?

2. Does each win give you the same multiplier, or should each round increase the multiplier effect?  That is, if a player wins two rounds before eliminated, but a second player wins four rounds before eliminated, should the second player earn 2x (after the minimum) of the first player?  Or maybe it should be 3x or 4x or 10x?

The answer I think should be easy enough: look at ticket sales.  How much does each round generate in sales?  Let's say there are 7 rounds in a tournament, and the per-match revenue, relative to the first round match is the following:

Round Revenue

1 1x

2 1.25x

3 1.5x

4 2x

5 3x

6 4x

7 5x

So, winning all 7 rounds means you will earn 18x what the guy who won only the first round would earn (after the minimum).  Therefore, I think it would be pretty straightforward to come up with a purse distribution based on this idea.  Does someone want to take it from here, with different models for point #1 above??

***

Related article.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

How much parity should there be?

?According to one sports book, the (unvigged) lines of the top 8 MLB teams to win the World Series stands at 50%.  This means that choosing the Dodgers, Redsox, Nats, Cubs, Tigers, Angels, and (two of) Giants/Mariners/Cards as a group is a flip-the-coin bet as choosing that the winner will come from the other group of 22.

How much parity do we want?  In tennis for example, at the height of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, the 50/50 odds would be to choose the top two of those guys as one group, and then choose the third seed that day and EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLAYER in the tournament for the other group.  (Something like that.)  Which I think is GREAT for tennis.  Imagine tennis with no clear favorites?  Ugh for a fan like me, but maybe it's great for a huge tennis fan?

I don't follow NCAA, but I presume the top 4 seeds end up winning something like 75% of the tournaments?  Somebody can chime in here on that.

Anyway, so that's the question: how much parity do we want?  In other words, how many top teams in group 1 would you want to match up against every other team in group 2, in order for it to be an even bet?

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Is the penalty box the greatest rule in sports?

Joe loves the penalty box in hockey, which I kind of take for granted as a normal part of the rules.  He thinks we should apply it to more sports, where he supports the idea of removing players in soccer in OT, and he wouldn't be against it in baseball extra innings.  He's even thinking it should apply to doubles-tennis!

I love the card system in soccer, where it's essentially an official warning.  Not the timeout that is a hockey penalty, but not just a useless verbal warning.  When a MLB umpire warns a pitcher about hitting a batter, I'd love for him to actually go to the pitcher and flash a yellow card.  And when he throws out a manager, flash a red card.

And the one thing that MLB should not tolerate is a player or manager who has been thrown out to continue to argue with the umpire.  No sport tolerates that.  That's a delay of game penalty (a bench minor), and someone from the field should sit out an inning is a player or manager refused to leave after being ejected.

?

Monday, September 15, 2014

Earliest-born player who’d be at least a league-average player

There's an interesting discussion at Bill James' site about who is the earliest-born player, who for his 5-year peak, would be at least a league-average player.  Answer for MLB, including the player's year of birth.

Now do the same for the other sports you follow.

?

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Tennis shot clock

I never noticed there was a pace issue, but the players notice it.  How bad is it though?  Using the data from one match here, I'm able to estimate some data.  Given that Federer averages 15.3 seconds before each shot, and that 4% of his shots take more than 20 seconds, then one standard deviation for him is 2.7 seconds.  Nadal on the other hand has one standard deviation as 5.7 seconds.

If we use Federer as the standard, we can estimate that he exceeds 23.6 seconds one time per 1000 shots.  If that's the defacto standard, we can estimate that Nadal exceeds that level about 40% of the time.  The other two players in the sample are Giraldo at around 3% and Kukushkin at 5%.  If you treat the defacto standard as 25 seconds, Federer would get nailed once every 6000 shots, and the other two guys are at between 1 and 2%.  So, maybe 25 seconds is the defacto standard.  Nadal would still get hit 33% of the time.

It would seem therefore that a 25-second visible shot clock would not affect any player other than those like Nadal who flout/flaunt it.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Wimbledon regulates women’s bras

As we have learned with FIFA and the IOC and Augusta, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Everyone wants to be at the cool party, and so, they accept whatever the organizers say and do.  This time, it's Wimbledon.

But reigning ladies champion Marion Bartoli, who is not competing this year after retiring from the sport, said women players were up in arms over the new rules, which risked compromising their dignity. ..

And former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash claimed his trademark black-and-white check bandana would be banned today, adding that the guidelines were ridiculous and had gone too far, in an attempt to return to tradition.

Ah, that old lazy standby of "tradition".  When you don't have logic on your side, just say "tradition", and that'll buy you some time.

Cash revealed that some of the men were upset over the rules as well, saying: ‘One of the players was called into the referees’ office because he had blue underwear that showed through when he got sweaty, so he was told not to wear dark underwear.

‘Some of the girls have been told to go back and change their bras and tops because they had slight colour on them.

'I believe some of the girls didn’t have suitable sports bras and had to go without them. It has absolutely gone ridiculous.

I think it's obvious that because Wimbledon has clout, it'll do whatever it wants to do.  As long as the players show up.  So, if the players care about the principle of it, they'd all strike the tournament.  But as the old joke ends: "We just established what you are.  Now we're just negotiating a price."?

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Quirky scoring rules of tennis

?I think Carl makes a great point here:

...and lets close matches take all the time they need

I LOVE five hour matches involving two of the big three.  Can't get enough of them.  And a 75 minute drubbing one of star player and one overmatched opponent is about as long as those should last.  Could we get to the same point with a "first to 200?" or some such.  I'd like to see someone go through that.  I don't know if it's 200 or 250 or whatnot. 

Does the quirky rules help give us what we want, or can we simply get there anyway with a simple "first to 200?", and we are simply giving the illusion that the quirky rules help.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Federer v Nadal

?Figuring the odds of who will end up with the most career titles.

Unsaid in the article is the role of Novak Djokovic.  Federer had a few years of not having to face either Nadal or Djokovic.  Nadal of course had to face Federer at his peak and still almost-peak, and Djokovic's peak in its entirety.  While it's interesting to see who will get the most titles, you can still make the argument that Nadal's eventual 16 titles will be more impressive than Federer's eventual 18.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Is there anything inherently wrong with a tie?

For the longest time, NHL games had ties with no OT, then ties even with OT (regular season only).  NFL games has ties (regular season only). 

But even in championship play: You can have matches in chess end in a tie.  They each get half-points.  The Spelling Bee championship has ties to crown co-champions.  Ties are all around us.  ?

If ever a sport needed ties to be permitted, it's MLB (regular season only).  First, in the other sports, they don't limit substitutions.  So, the sports that have sub rules would be less inclined to accept ties.  In the other sports, they have far fewer games than MLB, so again, less inclined to accept ties.  Fans don't leave tie-games in the other sports, but they leave in droves for MLB tie games.  Basically, there is a limit to which fans are telling the ballplayers: it's been great, but, not good enough for me to see this to the end.  Text me how it finished. 

People don't leave when they are seeing a great 3 hour movie.  They never leave a 4 hour opera.  And a 5 hour tennis marathon in the burning heat between any two of Nadal, Feder, and Djokovic?  All of that is LIFE.

A 15-inning MLB game?  Well, most people don't like it.  They tell us by leaving.  It's great for me, because I pick the game up in the 10th after my kid goes to bed, in the comfort of my home.  Which is what most of you do.  And if you ask the ballplayers, they'll tell  you the same thing: they hate playing extra-long games. 

Who exactly is left that actually wants the game to continue to be played until a winner is crowned?  The 10% hardcore baseball fans with no kids who are at the stadium, to the end.

If you start with a clean slate, and kick inertial reasoning where it deserves to be kicked, the end result is that ties should be accepted, or accelerated scoring rules should be established.  In the regular season anyway.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Women in baseball

It will be a wonderful day if and when a woman makes it to the pinnacle, be it MLB, NBA, NHL, or NFL.  (Or MLS.)  As the article notes, it's likely that it would have to be in a specialized role.  That would likely mean a knuckleball pitcher, a goalie, or kicker.  Not sure about basketball.  That's at least for the first woman. 

Golf would seem to be the easiest one to at least analyze? to determine the odds.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Meauring court speed

?Cool article as to how they measure the speed of a tennis court.

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Why do MLB managers get ejected at a FAR higher rate than head coaches in the other sports?

I can't remember the last time an NHL head coach got ejected in the middle of a game.  (I have Michel Bergeron in my head, but I don't know why it's there.)  They get suspended for their antics after the game is over?, but even those are few and far between, and make national news when suspensions are discussed.  Tim Horton's anyone?  I don't follow football much, or basketball at all, but again, outside of one or two unhinged college coaches, those don't happen, right?

But in baseball, it happens so often that there's a website dedicated to it, where they essentially  bet on it.  Craig is of the position that Diaz, the UMPIRE, should be suspended.  Again, you don't get this in the other sports.  In the other sports, to get an official suspended would required a high level of incompetence tied together with covering up.  Rangers/Nordiques fans know about the famous Sakic non-goal and Kovalev's diver, and the fallout from the otherwise highly respected Andy Van Hellemond (though the end of his career was pretty sad).

So, is it possible that the MLB umpires are TOO tolerant?  That MLB managers and players are putting the umpires in a spot that their peers don't see, let alone tolerate, in the other major sports? 

Or is it more likely that the referees in the other sports simply ignore the players and head coaches most of the time, since they have the puck and ball in their hands, and once they put it down, the clock starts running, and play resumes? 

And if that is the key, then all we have to do is get the umpire to say "play ball", and if players or managers interfere with the game from resuming, he can start calling balls and strikes, much like a tennis chair umpire will start calling points after a few warnings, if the player isn't in position to play.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Spread in talent in India Cricket league

At least, that's what I think it is.  The league is called IPL, and someone took the methodology I introduced several years back, and applied it to this relatively young league. I love seeing these kinds of results.?

The other thing that we need to include is the post-season.  It's an extra step, but at least we'd be able to answer a question like: "What are the chances that the most talented team will win the league's final game?"

And then we can decide what kind of chances DO we want.  I *think* what we want is what we see in tennis, that the three best players win 75% of the tournaments (or something like that).  Do we want this in NCAA?  I dunno, you tell me.

What about MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA?  I *think* we might want the three best teams to win the Cup/Trophy at least two-thirds of the time, and maybe three-fourths of the time.  That would set the pre-season odds for the top 3 teams at 3:1 each or 7:2.  Is that what we are after?  Or do we want the odds at 5:1 each, and so, the top 3 teams win the final game 50% of the time?

It's always a question of how much random variation you allow to influence the result.  You need some, just for the drama of it.