Tennis
tennis
Sunday, April 13, 2014
?This is a pretty fascinating article.
Focus on the part for golf and tennis. Golf spreads out the money more than tennis does. So, the first question is how much should the early round losers get. You want to make it good enough to attract future quality, but not high enough that it'll attract everybody.
You can see in golf, since Tiger has come on the tour, the money has been spread out across more players. I can guess that with total purse up, and more focus on golf in general, you have more talent coming in, more competition, so the money gets spread out more. (I'm assuming that the % share for finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, hasn't changed. Otherwise, what I said might not hold.)
If in tennis the money stay with the top dogs, it might not attract new players as a viable source of employment.
We also see the difference between NHL and MLB, and that's likely tied to the league minimum salary, where the NHL is higher than MLB, even though it has less than half the revenue. But, maybe the NHL needs to do that to ensure that they get as many people playing hockey in the lower levels, to see the NHL as a viable opportunity. (Not that they'd shift to other sports, but simply shift to the real world jobs. NHL and Olympian Joe Juneau for example, or exception, had a degree in aeronautical engineering.)
Anyway, so it's a fascinating topic to try to figure out how to balance out the salary structure to ensure the talent flows continues or increases, without affecting the top guy's "free market" value. Hold back too much, and the top guys can simply start their own league.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
?In other words, what's the point of keeping score, if no one is supposed to care who wins?
Monday, February 17, 2014
?I am fascinated by this question. In the 64-team basketball tournament, how often do we want the top 4 teams to actually be in the Final 4? If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are the top 3 players in a given year, how often do we want them to be 3 of the final 4 players? If the Yanks and Redsox are considered the top 2 teams, how often do we want one of them to be in the World Series?
Then, at the game level, if a team is leading by 1 goal going into the third period, how often do we want that team to win? If a team is going into the final quarter up by a TD, how often do we want that team to win?
And if after three of the four runs, a team is leading, how often do we want them to win the gold?
Glove-slap: Tyler.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
?Tennis technology.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
... whatever universe I happen to be a center of."
That's really what it is, isn't it? You play a certain way, and now, you have expectations that others play the same way. It's Orwellian logic.
Are you really supposed to be quiet when hitting a tee shot? Well, not necessarily. Is the way one baseball player plays somehow supposed to apply to how Carlos Perez should play? How much should we celebrate after we score a goal, a run, or a touchdown? As long as you do it in your own personal space, and you don't delay the game, do whatever the heck you want.
And if it's that important to have "manners", then start a school, and get all the players to join the program, and make them pass a test in order to graduate from Mr. Manners school. Ridicilous? Yes, naturally. But it's at least less ridiculous that the current state of affairs.
So, if you are not willing to go all the way on this, just shut up about it already.?
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
?Seven of the top 10 most outstanding QB ever were born within 22 years of each other.
And that seems.... right. Who were the top 10 pitchers of all time? Were seven of them born within 22 years of each other? No? Then you probably selected wrong. Who were the top 10 hitters of all time? Same question. No? Eh... probably wrong.
Top 10 goalies, top 10 skaters, top 10 soccer players, top 10 basketball players, top 10 tennis players, golfers, swimmers, runners. I mean go through the whole thing.
And see if you can just get past the man-v-man nature of the statistics and zero in on the sheer talent of the players. If you can do that, great, you can probably meet the same results that Poz got. If you can't, then you will justify your selections in a political way.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
The inside story of Riggs v King.?
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
?Obviously, there's an injury-gap that is not being properly weighted. I remember the Williams sisters taking a non-injury sabbatical, and they were very poorly ranked, only to of course set the tournament on fire. They need a better Bayesian prior.
(15)
Comments
• 2013/06/26
•
Tennis
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
I am not a big tennis fan. I might watch when one of Nadal, Djokovic, or Federer is playing. I will watch whenever any two are playing together. And, I plan to spend 4-5 hours glued to the TV when that happens.
And I don't think I'd make that kind of committment for any other sporting event. Hockey is best viewed as a 2-3 hour match. I've watched double- and triple-OT playoff hockey, and by the end, it's more of "ok, just somebody score". What becomes sudden death ends up being drawn out. Maybe it's because those games are already past midnght.
But, Sunday morning? I can't imagine a more thrilling sporting event than finals for tennis involving two of those guys. Except, Nadal and Djokovic will be playing in the semi-finals, and on Friday. Which will make it impossible for me to watch.
(6)
Comments
• 2013/06/07
•
Tennis
Thursday, April 18, 2013
While the Masters was busy asserting itself against the youngest player in its history, and non-pro at that (GREAT way to set the example... pick on the guy that is least representative), tennis decided to do something about it:
While lagging players were supposed to get a warning, then lose a point, tour officials shook things up this past offseason. They reduced the penalty after a warning to a mere loss of a first serve, but promised stricter enforcement, and chair umpires have complied. The result has been lots of grumbling from players, including at this week’s Masters event in Monte Carlo. But as tennis writers reported during the Miami tournament last month, the measure seems to have had the desired effect, reducing the average match by nine minutes.
That figure, alone, doesn’t really say if players are taking less time between points, though. It could be that matches simply have had fewer points. Jeff Sackmann, proprietor of the tennis-stats site Tennis Abstract, provided some more useful data. He sent along average time elapsed per point for each men’s tennis tournament at tour level completed this season — 21 run by the ATP, and one, the Australian Open, run by the International Tennis Federation. At every tournament, the time elapsed per point has declined. The number of seconds per point has dropped by between 0.2% in Brisbane and 11.1% in Rotterdam, with a median figure of 7.2% and an average drop across all points of 6.7%.
Changing the penalty from loss of point to loss of first-serve was a great idea.
Umps hate having such an effect that points are granted. Hockey refs will "even up" penalty calling because they know that it's a big advantage to give a team a power play.
Anyway, by making the penalty less draconian, refs are now free to give out more penalties.
P.S. Nice shout-out to our old buddy Jeff!?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 150 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers