Steve Phillips Is A Moron

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!

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"?

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?

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...

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

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)

Stretching The Definition

My wife just told me about "OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb". It's a planet we've discovered in another solar system. Here's an exact quote from the news story:


"with a gravity like ours. And the great news is that it’s five-and-a-half times bigger than Earth." (emphasis mine)

Five-and-a-half times bigger means that I wouldn't be able to walk on the surface. I think that's stretching the definition of the word "like".

That's like saying "Billy Bob Thornton has breasts LIKE Jane Seymour". I mean, each one has a nipple, but after that the similarity fades.