Customer Reviews

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I greatly enjoyed Moskowitz and Wertheim's Scorecasting. Much like the highly successful Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.), the authors examine some of the preconceptions surrounding sport, using statistics and other empirical evidence to reach some interesting conclusions. As the authors stated in their forward, they hope this book will be used to start conversations, settle bar bets, and generally entertain the thinking sportsman. I think they have succeeded.

By and large, Scorecasting is highly readable. My one critique would be that the chapters a highly variable in length, and in particular some of the shorter chapters seemed to be just tossed in. (Did we really need 4 pages to show that, indeed, the Yankees win because they have the biggest payroll in baseball? Three pages to show that the coin toss at the start of NFL overtime is important?) I would also point out that, again like Freakonomics, the chapters are unconnected by any underlying theme, unless that theme is to examine preconceptions and use evidence. I don't consider that a flaw, more a notation of what type of book this is.

In addition, I was reminded of my favorite sports book, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. Just as a large part of Moneyball was devoted to showing how a systematic statistical approach to building a team could lead to better results than traditional scouting, Scorecasting can give a reader an appreciation of some recurring trends in sport. It is not just descriptive, but predictive. (The one thing that sets Moneyball apart is that is also has the very compelling story of Oakland A's manager Billy Beane woven in. That human element is absent in Scorecasting.)

Some quick examples from chapters I enjoyed:

Why you should (almost) never punt in football, including an example of a coach who followed the philosophy to a state title. Also, why most coaches still punt, in spite of the evidence.

Why Tim Duncan's 149 blocked shots are more valuable than Dwight Howard's 232 (Answer: Duncan tends to block the ball to his teammates, Howard tends toward the spectacular swat that goes into the 4th row...then back to the other team.)

The incredible differences in strike zones when comparing a 3-0 count to a 0-2 count. (Hint: umps expand the zone in the former, shrink the zone in the latter, allowing the hitter to determine the outcome)

So, if you are a sports fan, a bit of a stats geek, and enjoy a well thought out contrarian argument, this is a 5 star book. If you generally enjoyed the other two books I mentioned, I think this would be a good choice.

4.5 stars overall

This latest addition in the Freakonomics-driven behavioral economics genre is probabaly the best. It is Scorecasting and to a sports fan it is a can't-put-down type of book. The book is written extremely well with a mixture of famous sporting anecdotes and hard statistics that include research of the authors and others.

Some of the eye-opening subject include:

1. very solid evidence that umpires bias games - however what is interesting is the bias is not random. The bias tells a story.

2. the subject of home-field advantage was mesmerizing. Turns out not at all what sports pundits tells us are true or at least not in the way you might think so.

3. incentives lie at the heart of the Chicago Cubs dismal century.

4. great use of numbers to show how desperate baseball players are to have a batting average of at least 0.300.

5. a look into why some stats are not telling us all we need to know (i.e. blocked shot stats in basketball).

6. why don't football coaches go for it on 4th down when it is a statistically correct move?

Turns out that psychology (namely loss aversion) and incentives dictate a lot of sports decision making.

There are several shorter chapters that seem to be 'unfinished' which is a shame. For instance a chapter just mentions the Yankees 'buying' of championships. It would have been great to see a more in depth statistical analysis of how spending money predicts success in baseball.

As I hear constantly on the sport talk radio, the Seattle Seahawks benefit from their 12th man - the crowd. It would have been interesting to see if this claim stacks up and is in fact a larger effect on winning than at other venues.

Great, fast read. Highly recommended.

Scorecasting solves many puzzles on both a micro- and macro scale...

that sports fans have wondered about for years.

For example, when baseball home plate umpires have made an obvious mistake in calling

a ball or strike do they then try and fix that mistake by making a call the "other way?"

(The research done by the authors of Scorecasting reveal that it does indeed happen.)

Another example: When do ref's throw flags in football? Early in the game or late

in the game? Why? You'll find out.

On a bigger scale, why is there a home field advantage in sports? We can understand

the Boston Red Sox....but why the Indianapolis Colts or other teams that play in

domed stadiums, say, in football. It turns out that you will likely be shocked to find

out this answer and because the home team wins around 53% of the time in baseball vs.

about 69% of the time in College Football, what you learn will change the way you

look at the game forever.

In the book, Stumbling on Wins, we found out that coaches aren't as important as

we once thought they were. That was a bit of a jaw dropper. In Scorecasting the authors

go further and deeper explaining why coaches tend to be so interchangable...it turns

out they all are programmed by the pressure of the fans and industry itself to

call plays that are very predictable ...even when they are the wrong choice...such as

punting in many fourth down situations.

It turns out that punting on fourth down IS the right decision often enough but it is

the wrong decision so often that coaches would win a lot more games for their team

if they went for it on fourth and X. So why not? Because not all coaches have job

security and losing a game or two because of a couple of fourth and two calls could cost

a coach his job. No one will be getting fired for punting on fourth down.

And the revelations go deeper and deeper up and down the scale...

You'll find out the difference betweeen the strike zone in baseball when a hitter is

3-0 vs. when the hitter is 0-2. Turns out the difference is enormous and the authors

reveal precisely what a hitter should do 3 - 0 and what a hitter should do 0 - 2.

Ah...and then there are the Chicago Cubs. I grew up visiting Wrigley Field on opening

day year after year. Each year hope sprang eternal...and today 35 years later...I'm still

hoping...why haven't the Cubs WON? It is a painful but enlightening read that every

fan will appreciate.

Scorecasting is densely detailed. It is a compelling read and offers a great deal

of wisdom for fans, coaches and players. You'll never look at a game quite the same way

after you've had your eyes opened to what ELSE is really going on.

Brilliant!

Kevin Hogan, Author

The Science of Influence: How to Get Anyone to Say "Yes" in 8 Minutes or Less!

While I am an avid reader and more than willing to share my thoughts about the books I read on the pages of Bookreporter, I am rarely willing to join book groups or literary discussions about what I read. This may be the result of many bad experiences in high school and college when I was unwilling to participate in discussions about books that held little interest for me. The years have passed, I now read what I want, and I have finally found a book that cries out for the creation of a discussion group. SCORECASTING by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim may be the most thought-provoking sports book I have ever read. I want to purchase a dozen copies and pass them out to my sports-loving friends so we may meet over beer and wings to discuss and debate what the book tells us about what we think we know about sports and what the numbers actually tell us.

Moskowitz and Wertheim are an eclectic duo. Wertheim has a sports background as a writer for Sports Illustrated. Moskowitz is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago. They are not jocks writing from their on-field experience. Instead, they use concrete numerical studies and economic analysis to make a strong case for theories that at first blush seem unorthodox.

Forget all you have been taught about conventional sports strategy. Want to know how to improve your chances to win football games? Stop punting on fourth down and start going for a first down. Don't talk to me about field position, read what the authors have to say. They cite an economics paper by David Romer suggesting that the play-calling of NFL teams shows "systematic and clear-cut" departures from decisions that would maximize winning. Coaches should more aggressively go for first downs on fourth down but fail to do so almost 90% of the time. While the four-down game plan may not be popular in the NFL, the authors cite high school power Central Arkansas Christian and its multiple state championships in support of the "go for it" strategy.

Moskowitz and Wertheim identify how individual behavior is directly related to what happens on athletic fields in all sports and at all levels. Loss aversion is an economic principle that refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Loss aversion abounds in sports, explaining why a professional golfer facing a five-foot putt is more likely to make the putt for par than for birdie. It explains why pitchers throw strikes on a 3-0 count and balls on an 0-2 count. It is a pervasive principle in sports, often with a negative impact on winning.

Provocative insights can be found on page after page of SCORECASTING. Space prevents me from giving attention to many of the authors' findings except to briefly mention them. But here are a few to whet your appetite: The notion of the "hot hand'" is a myth as is the belief in the home field advantage; Does icing a kicker work?; Are NFL draft choices overrated? Chapter after chapter, page after page, the book's conclusions will astound you.

One small criticism must be mentioned. Moskowitz and Wertheim, long-suffering Chicago Cub fans, devote the final chapter of their book to seeking an answer as to whether their beloved Cubs are cursed. In this effort, they perpetuate the myth of Steve Bartman. The Bartman play came in the eighth inning of a playoff game when the Cubs were five outs from advancing to the World Series. SCORECASTING suggests that Bartman interfered with a catchable fly ball, and as a result the Cubs lost the game. Sorry gentlemen, it did not happen that way. It is a myth that grows with the passage of time, much like the notion that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet.

As a longtime White Sox fan, I will cut the authors some slack because the rest of the book more than overcomes this one tiny blemish. It cannot and must not detract from the simple fact that this is a book every sports fan must read.

--- Reviewed by Stuart Shiffman

Tobias Moskowitz and Jon Wertheim have written a book for sports fans that, as its subtitle says, explores "the hidden influences behind how sports are played and games are won." Scorecasting does pretty much deliver the goods, but some of what is revealed is at times a bit underwhelming since common sense and careful observation tells much the same story without all the stats.

There is something in the book for fans of both professional and amateur sports, and everything in between, such as our semi-professional college sports programs. The authors take a hard look at football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, and soccer and use statistics, personal observation, interviews, and speculation to make surprising points concerning what is really happening out there.

I suspect that most fans will be least surprised by the book when it comes to whatever sport they spend the most time following. In my case, that sport is baseball. While the authors spend a substantial number of pages explaining what goes on in the head of a major league umpire when the game is being played in a loud and hostile ballpark, little about "makeup calls" and special treatment for star players, especially in late innings or in crucial situations, will surprise baseball nuts.

The chapter on the use of steroids in baseball did, however, give me something new to think about. Ever wonder why most of the players caught using steroids are minority players from poor countries? Moskowitz and Wertheim will fill you in.

There are chapters on home field advantage, the relative value of blocked shots in basketball, the situational pressure of putting, the "myth" of the hot hand and momentum, icing the field goal kicker in game situations, why early draft choices are so overvalued and, among a few others, whether or not defense really wins championships.

There really is something here for everyone, regardless of how rabid a sports fan one might be, and there are some surprises and observational gems to be found. If you enjoyed Freakonomics or SuperFreakonomics, the odds are pretty high that you will love this one. If you hated those two books and dislike sports, run away from Scorecasting.

Just remember, sports fans, as one of the book's chapter titles puts it, "There's no I in team, but there is an "m" and an "e." Or as Michael Jordon once said when a team owner chastised him by using the "there's no I in team," thing, "There's an I in win. So which way do you want it?"

This one will make you chuckle a bit while it presents you with a new way to look at something you've been watching your entire life. It might even make you feel a little smarter because you already knew some of this stuff.

Rated at: 3.5

I was excited the day a copy of "Scorecasting" arrived at my doorstep. I had read numerous favorable reviews about the book, and indeed, Steven Levitt (coauthor of one of my favorite books, "Freakonomics") had given it high-praise.

The first two chapters entitled "Whistle Swallowing" and "Go For It" (about why coaches make decisions that reduce their team's chances of winning) were fascinating. "The Value of a Blocked Shot [in Basketball]" also piqued my interest, as it called to mind my own rudimentary research as a child into the value of Bill Russell's blocked shots to a teammate vs. Wilt Chamberlain's blocked shots to a fan in the eighth row. Unfortunately, the chapter called "Rounding First" (on the rarity of .299 hitters in baseball compared to those who hit over .300) and the two chapters about how referee bias effects home field advantage (HFA) were poorly researched and fraught with errors.

For instance, authors Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim reference a study that argues "in that final at-bat of the season, .299 hitters have hit almost .430 [while] players hitting .300 have hit only .230." In reality, most .299 hitters are benched (or bench themselves) when they get a hit to surpass .300 in the last two days of the season. On the other hand, if that player makes an out, he often has one or two more chances to hit .300 "in his last at-bat," simply by getting a hit. It's the hit that causes the at-bat to be the final one, not vice-versa.

The authors also present arguments favoring their theory on the significant effect (almost 100%, in their view) referee bias has on HFA, while other, more convincing arguments to the contrary have been made by dozens of researchers. Moskowitz and Wertheim entirely ignore those studies, which, wholly contradict their own.

Another annoyance to me was Moskowitz and Wertheim's predilection for massaging numbers to fit their theories. For example, when referring to the reason why teams repeat as champions, the authors write "Teams play a best-of-five game series followed by a best-of-seven League Championship Series followed by a best-of-seven World Series. [That] sample size is large enough that the best team ought to win the series." Moskowitz and Wertheim clearly understand statistics, and must know that last statement is, at the very least, terribly misleading. Hockey and basketball both send 16 teams to the playoffs, while football sends 12. Even baseball sends eight -- enough to effectively nullify any modest HFA that might otherwise exist. In fact, the "better" team in any of the four major U.S. sports wins only slightly more than 50% of the seven game series played, let alone any microscopically-small-sample-sized five game series! And that presupposes the "best" team even makes the championship game in the first place.

When authors use parlor tricks to force the facts and evidence to fit their theories, they lose credibility in my eyes. There is some valuable information to be found in "Scorecasting," but the process of separating the wheat from the chaff becomes frustrating after awhile.

After having high hopes for another "Freakonomics," I regrettably must give "Scorecasting" only one star out of five.

This book consists mainly of counterintuitive statistical findings about sports, along with a few confirmations of conventional wisdom.

Examples include evidence that the home-team advantage generally isn't due to players playing better at home (blame the refs!), and that streaks in performance, such as shooting baskets or hitting baseballs, are random, not due to ability heating up or cooling off. The chapter on the Chicago Cubs debunks the myth of a bad luck curse and confirms what most outside certain parts of Chicago already suspected: they lose the old-fashioned way, by being bad. The more interesting part of that story is evidence that their diehard "lovable losers" fans actually lessen the incentive for better performance, e.g. that attendance at Wrigley Field is much more affected by their beer prices than their team performance, in contrast to better teams.

The myth-busting is fun, as is having the light come on when the authors explain why things aren't as they seem. The explanations are generally easy enough to follow.

The frustrating part is when the light doesn't come on. Some findings remain counterintuitive even after the explanations, and sometimes the analysis is crucially incomplete or partially faulty.

For example, the analysis of performance streaks as random doesn't address how it could be that performance remains so unaffected by effort, illness, injury, family problems, drug use, extra or less practice, rest or no rest, strong or lax defense, and so many things one would expect to lead to streaks. In illustrating the endowment effect (a form of loss aversion), the authors point to the vast difference between the amount Duke students are willing to pay for basketball tickets ($170) and the least amount they're willing to sell them for ($2,400), without considering that many students may not be able to or want to pay what they think the full value is. They don't give any clue how it's possible for "the average NBA player" to have a +/- two points lower in the fourth quarter than in the first (apparently the average player doesn't play against average players part of that time). There are numerous lapses like that, mostly minor.

Fortunately, the authors usually make a strong cumulative case, all things considered.

Great stuff for the sports fan, especially the slightly wonky one.

The main idea of this little book is to apply data -- statistics -- to debunk common jock-think cliches in sports. Is it really defense that wins championships? What's the reason for home field advantage, if any? What's the relative value of draft picks? Are the Chicago Cubs "cursed"? [Spoiler alert: No, it's just that they're not very good, but the authors do offer an interesting possible explanation for why that's the case.] On the other hand, although I am not a statistics expert, or even a general mathematician, I think I know enough to call the work "statistics lite." A lot of the "analysis" simply involves regression to the mean, although I do not recall that concept being explained in the book, as such. I also believe there's a fair amount of cherry picking and shading going on. Author Moskowitz is a finance professor at the University of Chicago, while Wertheim is a writer for Sports Illustrated magazine. I think Wertheim must have been the moving force here. The book reads more like an extended SI article than an academic work. Another criticism, if you want to call it that, is that it's sometimes not clear whether the authors' statements are intended to be serious or merely "wink, wink." One weird example is the following sentence in a chapter that plays off the idea that the golfer Tiger Woods is human ("and not for the reason you think" -- clearly a wink, wink): "He [Woods] performed miracles such as the famous chip shot on the sixteenth hole at the 2005 Masters, an absurd piece of handiwork that defied all prevailing laws of geometry and physics." Of course, the authors know, as do we, that in fact there was no miracle here. Woods simply used his skill or touch and at least an intuitive or experiential knowledge of the laws of geometry and physics to pull off what turned out to be the famous Nike logo shot. So, yes, it was an exceptional shot, but defying the laws of geometry and physics? No, applying them. Probably this is just sportswriter-trying-to-be-colorful, but it and similar examples still bugged me. In sum, however, though light on data (in the book itself) and hardcore analysis, there are enough nuggets to keep you reading and, if you can remember them, to use as trivia questions when talking sports with your buddies at the bar.

There are some fascinating and enlightening portions of this book that make the dry sections and stilted views of some chapters worth reading. The section that detailed how a baseball umpire's strike zone is affected by the count is astonishing and inarguable as presented ( although the graphics look to have been done on the cheap ). The ferreting out of the reason behind home field advantage is noteworthy. But to me, what's missing from this book, and perhaps by design, is the lack of accountability for the "soul" of competition; the non-measurables that clearly have a say in the outcome of athletic competition. Part of the real beauty and allure of sports is that part of competition that cannot be explained statistically. Too many chapters contained herein, and too much of the writing is so dry that it detracts from the message.

Wade through the dross to find the worthy gems which are certainly there.

After being intrigued by an interview with the authors on my local radio talk station, I was eager to get and read this book. My expectations were high, as they sold it as being very evocative and insightful. The sportscaster even compared it as the "Freakonomics" of sports. I was intrigued!

So I got the book and I find it only somewhat interesting. The analysis it provides seems limited to percentages of this or that with no real insightful trending of any data. In the end the conclusions were rather predictable and defend what we all know as sports fans:

Officials are corrupt or at least not fair, the league wants 7-game series to go 7 games to increase drama ... and revenue, who we think are stars are not the real performers, and the home team has an advantage.

If I fall asleep while reading more than once, it's a boring book. This is a boring book with some interesting parts.