00:00:00
Welcome, welcome to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome to a full hour of sports analytics here on the Wharton podcast
00:00:07
network. This is Kade Massie hosting this week with two of my longtime colleagues and collaborators here at
00:00:14
Wharton Moneyball. Eric Bradloow. Eric's already in here with us in the studio.
00:00:18
Shane Jensen. Hey, >> our other collaborator will be in here momentarily. We'll be here for about an
00:00:23
hour as we usually are. Audi Winer is out this week teaching. I believe he'll
00:00:28
be back. Some combination of us are here almost every week of the year. We're
00:00:32
talking 48 49 weeks a year and we've been doing it coming up on >> 12 years. We're about a month out from
00:00:38
the 12th anniversary. Thank you guys for listening. We're recording on Tuesday
00:00:42
afternoon as we usually do. Show will go up on Wednesday. We're going to run with
00:00:47
the usual format. We have a guest here in the first half hour. We have open lines in the second half hour. So, Eric
00:00:54
Bradloow is booking guests this month. It's no surprise that Craig Oanesy real
00:01:00
high on his list. Craig making time for us just out of the Australian Open going
00:01:05
to talk a little tennis. Craig Oanisy, welcome back to the show. Well, well, this time yesterday, what is it? 2:30 in
00:01:12
the afternoon. I was dead asleep. I'm battling some worldass jet lag. Um, >> but I I you know, I slept a little last
00:01:21
night and I'm just glad I was able to stay awake and feeling fresh for you guys today.
00:01:25
>> Craig, you look fresh. You sound fresh. You'd never know that you were asleep
00:01:29
this time yesterday. So Craig, as many of you guys know, is an analyst, strategy analyst in particular for
00:01:36
Wimbledon, the Australian Open, ATP World Tour. He writes for the New York Times. He works with the Italian Tennis
00:01:41
Federation. Longtime tennis coach and an Aussie as you might be able to tell. So,
00:01:46
he makes most majors anyway, but he's certainly not going to miss the Australian Open. What were you doing
00:01:51
over there for the How long were you there, Craig? What What did your life look like for those couple of weeks or
00:01:56
few weeks, whatever it was during the Australian? >> Well, I went, it was a very long trip.
00:02:00
Uh, I went for the first two weeks. I'm on the Australian senior paddle team.
00:02:07
Paddle's my paddle's my new jam. >> So, they've they've got a couple of
00:02:12
world ranked tournaments there early January. So, I went with those. I took my son with me who's 18. In fact, we
00:02:20
left Austin. We spent 48 hours in Beverly Hills, um, doing some work with a with a junior there that, um, I've
00:02:27
coached for a while. Okay. >> Then we flew into Aubry, which is my hometown. We hit on the We got straight
00:02:35
off the plane. We went and played paddle with some friends. And then the next day, we went and played at the Aubry
00:02:40
grass courts. 25 grass courts. gorgeous, perfect, beautiful. And um I I remember
00:02:47
my son, you know, he's like, "Oh, the ball doesn't bounce. It's so low." And
00:02:51
we start playing points and he he serves my forehand and I just go back and rip this return and everything comes
00:03:00
flooding back to my head. It's like, you know, I know why I've got this short
00:03:04
forehand back swing because of this court that I'm on, because of these beautiful grass courts, this surface.
00:03:10
and he's like, "How did you do that?" And I'm like, "Mate, I I grew up here
00:03:14
for I was on these courts for about eight years." And and it felt so good to
00:03:19
to go back to my roots. So, that's how it started. And then, okay, >> uh a couple of weeks of paddle
00:03:24
tournaments and then into the Australian Open, then it keeps rolling. I've started into the world of business
00:03:32
speaking, taking the tennis message of excellence and analytics. Um, I was at the Tatisol Club in Brisbane and had a
00:03:40
an an an amazing evening speaking tennis and washing that over into business and
00:03:45
and finally I found my way home. >> Mhm. >> That's a substantial trip. Um, I want I
00:03:51
want I want to do something cheap and you might not let me get away with it, but give us give us one of your talking
00:03:57
bits. Give us a >> Bon Mo from your lunch and engagement on when you take what you you've learned
00:04:02
from tennis over to the business world. Just give us one. Yeah, it was it was a wonderful evening. We're in this
00:04:07
beautiful long narrow room about 25, you know, very um high-hitting businessmen from the local area. And so
00:04:16
the first thing I said, what is, you know, we've all watched the Australian Open, everyone, you know, tennis is
00:04:21
Australia. Uh I asked them, what is the mode in tennis? What is the number one rally length? You get all the seven shot
00:04:28
rallies, add them together. All the 20 shot rallies, add them together. I said, "Take two minutes, talk to the person
00:04:33
next to you, discuss it." Then I go around the room. I'm like, "What do you
00:04:37
think is the answer?" So, we got a a bunch of fours. We get, you know, sixes,
00:04:42
eights, tens, and twelves that they think. And these people have all were all very tennis savvy. They've either
00:04:48
played it or watched it or, you know, go down and and watch it live. Well, as you
00:04:52
know from past um >> I forget if I was one, two, or three, but it's some small number. It's one.
00:04:59
The rally length is one. And it blows everyone's mind. But it gets it goes better than that is that I pull up a uh
00:05:07
a sheet and it says a oneshot rally is around 30% of tennis. When I asked No, when I was working with Novak, I asked
00:05:13
him what do you think you play? He said four. He said he plays more shot rallies. Andy Murray asked him the same
00:05:19
thing. He said four. So a four shot rally is only 7.5% of all points. a oneshot rally is 30. So
00:05:28
we're 400% wrong. We're so far wrong. And so I challenged them. I said, "In
00:05:34
your business," some of the people were in mining. Some of the people were in
00:05:38
racing. Some of the people were in a bunch of different fields. Um so I asked him, I said, "In your business, rally
00:05:48
length exists. We haven't counted the length of the rally for 100 years. The
00:05:52
first time we counted it was 2015. And we found out how substantial it is because the rally length of 0 through
00:05:58
four is 70% of our sport. We used to think we play a sport of of uh consistency, shot tolerance, repetition,
00:06:06
grinding, and if you grow up in Spain, suffering. We thought that was what it's
00:06:11
all about. But it it's seven points out of 10. The player, the the worldass player only hits the ball on the court a
00:06:19
maximum of two times. So I challenged them. And I said, "There is some statistic in your business that is
00:06:27
sitting right in front of you. There has to be that you're not giving any credit
00:06:31
to." I go, "Go find it. Go find and help revolutionize whatever business field
00:06:36
that you're in." That That's awesome. That's awesome. Um, all right. Let's
00:06:41
let's transition to the middle part of your trip to Australia, which was the
00:06:44
first pager of the year. Um, Eric's going to dive in with God knows how many
00:06:49
questions. Let's just start with when you think back to that tournament, what
00:06:52
observations do you have about about what you saw down there? >> Uh, listen, it was a great tournament.
00:06:59
There wasn't a lot of five setters until you got to the semis of the men's semis
00:07:04
and then everything exploded. Then the tournament just blossomed. >> Mhm. >> Uh, the heat was unrelenting. We had two
00:07:11
days, one of I think 42 Celsius, another one 46. I think it was the hottest day ever in Melbourne. And it felt like you
00:07:18
were inside an oven. It normally in Australia the heat comes directly from the sun and you almost want to reach up
00:07:26
and push the sun back because you get fried in about 15 minutes. But this was a different heat. It was an oven heat
00:07:34
that it was hard to breathe. It was hard to move. It was hard to do anything. So
00:07:38
I couldn't imagine the radiant heat also coming off the court. And it's no wonder
00:07:43
S and Alcarez, you know, both had troubles with cramps that the time of day they play, the opponent they're
00:07:49
playing. Um, it was it was very difficult for them. But other than that, you know, the next day it's 22 Celsius,
00:07:56
it's it's windy, it's beautiful, and uh you know that was nice. But what struck
00:08:02
me, we're a country of serve and volleys. We always have been, we always will be. The men served and volied 2.6%
00:08:13
of the points. I think it was a 2.3 when I wrote it early on after a couple of rounds. The women didn't even register
00:08:20
get get to zero. Um I actually have it here. Let's have a look. Where is >> Craig? While you're looking at that, let
00:08:26
me bring up something related to that which it's directly related to this. >> I saw an interesting quote I'm sure you
00:08:31
saw too by former Wimbledon chairman Richard Kichchek yesterday. His comment was, remember he I forget he's 6'8,
00:08:38
whatever he is, big man. His comment was, here's what's going to happen with
00:08:44
certainty. You will not beat Alcarz and center from the back of the court. Therefore, why don't you try an
00:08:51
opportunity? All right, if center hits and Alcarz hits 70 passes, they win. But I'm coming to the net every point. I'm
00:08:59
going to make them because I can't beat them from the back of the court. So when
00:09:02
you related to that, can't you talk to players and just say the data is out there now? It's nine straight majors won
00:09:10
by one of the two of them. I'm sure you've studied the analytics of it. You're not going to be you're not going
00:09:15
to be Jookovic from the back of the court either. Let's just add him into that mix. So why wouldn't you develop a
00:09:21
servant volley game whether it's Ben Shelton or Jack Draper or what Fana one
00:09:27
of the other players who has a big part of their game why don't they add the
00:09:32
serve and volley >> so I've got right in front of me I've got Alcarz baseline points one round one
00:09:40
against Walton he won and again the baseline's a difficult place to be when Roger won the Australian Open in 2017 he
00:09:47
won 48 8% of his baseline points. Serena won it that year. She only won 48%. Um,
00:09:53
when Andy Murray won the US Open in 2012, he only won 50%. You know, it's it's difficult because your your
00:09:59
baseline points are counted against the opponent being anywhere at all. So, if the opponent comes to the net, that's a
00:10:07
high win percentage for them. That is also a baseline point for me when if I happen to be standing at the baseline.
00:10:13
So, it's always going to be low. It's always going to be those low 50s. But
00:10:17
here's Alcarez at the baseline. Um, round one against Walton, he won 54% which is really good. Uh, round two
00:10:26
against Humphman 51% respectable. Round three, Mout 60% off the charts. Round four, Tommy Paul, 51% just fine. Round
00:10:36
five against Demon 55% of his baseline points. Uh, 50% against Verv and 52% against Jovovic. You know, he's not
00:10:45
below 50%. And Novak gets crushed. Actually, I have Novak's numbers here. Novak, this is fascinating for Novak on
00:10:53
his baseline. He starts out against Martinez, he wins 58%. Round two against Mistelli 62%. Round three against Bodic
00:11:02
60%. He's flying. Then he doesn't have to play Mensik and then it hits the fan.
00:11:08
Against Misetti, Novak only wins 43%. against center he wins 48% and in the final he only wins 42%.
00:11:17
So Kryek is so correct. You are not going to beat Alcres from the back of the court. You must come to the net. You
00:11:24
must hit a return approach against second serves. You must hit runaround for inside in down the line and follow
00:11:30
those in. It's it it's the the here's the problem. The baseline is everyone's
00:11:36
happy place. When they go there, when they go there for uh to to rally and to practice, they stand on the baseline.
00:11:44
They feel good there. No one I'm looking around Melbourne Park. I'm there early.
00:11:48
I'm I'm there for qualies. No one's up at the net working that. No coaches are
00:11:53
feeding, approaching volley. And it's it's just terrible that this is so obvious. It's
00:12:02
so it it's so obvious that we go, "No, it can't possibly be true. It can't
00:12:08
possibly be true." The the the everything goes in waves and we're in this wave now of two amazing players
00:12:15
from the back of the court in center and Alcraz and you if you think you're going
00:12:18
to stay back there and beat them, you're delusional. >> I'm I I'm with you. Craig, you're
00:12:26
talking about something you're talking about trying to change people's behavior
00:12:29
and it it it raises this question to me of coachability. What what would you what would you say about coachability?
00:12:36
You've worked with a lot of players over a lot of years. The real problem, the real problem
00:12:43
starts out when when a when a player is eight, eight and 10 and 12. In that 8 to
00:12:48
12 range, the the kid is going to be fed a lot of forehands and a lot of backhands. You know, kids don't typ
00:12:56
they're small. They don't have a lot of power. They get lobbed easy when they go
00:12:59
to the net. So, what typically happens is we overdose on forehands and backhands when they're young. We we we
00:13:08
pay just a little bit of lip service to the serve and we almost forget about the
00:13:13
art of how do we approach which is you know the little steps to it running through it what are the targets where is
00:13:20
my first volley and then the volley technique you know the the greatest volley of all time I mean let's have a
00:13:27
crack at it Pat Cash um John McEnroe Pat Rafter Martina Jan >> they all played in a sim
00:13:36
Keep going. These are all my >> God waver, Tony Roach, Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampas. Here's the deal. Every one
00:13:45
of them has a one-handed backhand from the back of the court. So, the great volleyers, when you are a great voler,
00:13:51
it's your opposite hand. I'm a lefty, so it's my right hand up on the throat of
00:13:56
the racket that you you know the players now just stick two hands down together on the grip and and do everything from
00:14:02
there and they run to the net and they've got this disgusting eastern grip that means they've got to scoop it like
00:14:10
ice cream to get the ball up. You know, the low foreand volley is a disaster in today's game. It's because that left
00:14:16
hand is not up on the throat. It's not clicking the grip. It's not opening the
00:14:20
racket face. When you go to volley with a good continental grip, 90% of the volley is done because you've got your
00:14:25
body in position and the racket face is open. In today's game, the low forehand
00:14:30
volley is a disaster. So, um, now I'm just getting back to answering that question specifically. We don't teach it
00:14:38
really well >> from 8 to 12 years of age. So, by the time we get to 16 and 18 and we're in
00:14:43
college and we're competing and you try and go, okay, now we're going to we're
00:14:47
18 and we're going to learn the volley. Good luck. Good luck with that. So, there's players that I work with, Novak
00:14:54
was one of them. He goes, "Craig, should I come to the net more?" I'm like,
00:14:57
"Absolutely. Here's your win percentage. It's It's way above your baseline
00:15:01
percentage." And he's like, "That's why I hired you. I don't want an opinion
00:15:05
about whether I should come forward. I want data and I want video." So, I showed him the video of all of all his
00:15:11
best patterns. >> Amazingly, he said to me, "Gra, okay, how do I get to the net?"
00:15:16
>> Well, that's that. There you go. >> And I look around. I'm in this room in
00:15:20
LA, 60 stories up, sushi restaurant, private room. I look up for for cameras. I'm like, "Okay, this is a prank." You
00:15:28
know, I this the Novak's asking me the simplest questions possible. I go, "Well, then, you know, Novak, there's
00:15:34
four ways. You can come in forehand or forehand. You can come in backhand or backhand. For end of forehand's not so
00:15:40
good, backhand or backhand's not so good. Your fore end of their backhand is
00:15:43
great, and your back end of their forehand is terrible." So he goes, "Okay, I'm looking for a fore end to go
00:15:48
into their back end." I'm like, "That's by far the best." And he's like, "Okay,
00:15:51
I'm running in. I got a first volley around the service line. Where do I hit
00:15:54
it?" I almost stand up and go, "Please stop it. This please stop."
00:15:59
>> He's saying, "How could he have 24 Grand Slam titles?" >> He had 11 pre Craig. He had 11. So he
00:16:04
wasn't bad. >> All right. All right. >> Um so so I say, "Well, if you have a
00:16:09
first volley, if you go open court, you've hit your foreand approach. They've run over and hit a backand.
00:16:14
They're running back to the middle. They're quick. They're quick running
00:16:17
back. They're quick recovering. I go, you're running an offensive strategy,
00:16:21
but you're in a defensive volley position. You're around the service line. You can't stick that. And
00:16:26
everybody can run across and just flick a passing shot back crosscourt for a winner. So, you don't really want to hit
00:16:32
into that. Let them run and take your first volley back behind. And then I said, almost always when they hit the
00:16:38
next shot, it's going to be a lob. Come in with a forehand approach. Doesn't
00:16:42
need to be great. He almost hit a defensive volley behind. Doesn't need to be great. And then you're sitting there
00:16:47
with an overhead. It's amazing. So, you know, and and that worked for him. He he
00:16:52
got better at that. He had a horrible overhead, but his overhead his overhead got better if he was expecting it. If he
00:16:59
had a plan, if it was part of the overall master plan to do that 2018 at the US Open, his overhead was amazing.
00:17:06
He match point against El Potro, he had an overhead winner to to win the tournament. So, he got better with it,
00:17:12
but we must be mandated as coaches to teach the front of the court. It's not
00:17:19
really the players fault when they they become good based on their forehand and backhand and the rest of the stuff is
00:17:26
kind of left behind. >> But it's a it's astounding. You've just
00:17:29
told a story about one of the greatest players in the game not having learned the front of the court at all at that
00:17:35
stage. >> Not at all. And and having he's his grip isn't great. His grip is still eastern.
00:17:40
Um, you know, two players come in, he gets in a little sword fight. He's not
00:17:44
great with that, but you know, he's he's he's so willing to learn. He he wants to
00:17:48
know. Can we stay? >> Can we stay with that for a second? What have you seen? What role and I don't
00:17:54
want this to be the obvious. I don't want to just This isn't meant to be a
00:17:56
softball. What can we learn about how you've seen players learn? Some players
00:18:02
are more coachable than others. Some players remain learning deep into their careers more than others. Is this is
00:18:08
this true? And is does it relate? Can you consider this, Craig? Next time you're talking to a business audience
00:18:15
about lessons from tennis, coachability is an important thing among leaders. Like people need to continue to develop
00:18:22
well after they've become successful. What can we learn from the players you've seen who continue to learn
00:18:27
mid-career, late career, and get better because they're coachable? Well, the the
00:18:32
first first thing I talked about in Brisbane at that that wonderful business dinner was the first time that I met Mo
00:18:39
Novak. You know, I'd gone through Murray and Vider to to bring all this together.
00:18:44
It took about 6 months for it all to gel and then I'm sitting 2017 January Aussie
00:18:50
open. I sit down at a table. Murray invites there. Novak's sitting across from me. I'm nervous. Little bit of
00:18:57
small talk. Craig, where are you from? I'm like 3 hours north. go to Aubry, you
00:19:01
know, get bitten by a snake and and that's that's where I'm from out in the
00:19:05
country. So, you know, a little bit of small talk and we we chat and I'm like,
00:19:10
you know, I could have screwed this up hundred ways, but I ask him, "How best
00:19:15
can I help you?" And he goes, "Craig, there's three things I want from you.
00:19:19
Number one, the most important, make me better. You're the guy in tennis with
00:19:24
the data. You're the guy in tennis doing the video. I don't want to guess. I
00:19:27
don't want somebody saying I think you should do this. You know, should I hit
00:19:31
more forehands or backhands? Should I go to the net? What should you know where where are my serve targets? You have the
00:19:36
data. I want to believe in that data. I want to use that data as my road map. That's what we're going to do. That's
00:19:43
why I hired you. Make me better first and foremost. There's patterns on the court that, you know, for instance, he
00:19:49
talked about he's run around forehand. He didn't know where to hit it. He's
00:19:52
running around and going inside in, but the opponent's in the middle of the court. They flick across court. Now he's
00:19:57
on the run. Now he's sliding. So you know the number one thing when you hit a
00:20:01
runner on a forehand is to go deep through the ad cord to the backhand to push back. Then that makes the juice
00:20:07
cord on your side evaporate. They're on the back foot. Can't really go down the
00:20:12
line. They come back a little shorter. You take two steps in. Then you go, you push back. Now you push wide. Now you've
00:20:18
opened up the hole. Those two balls are the assist through the ad court. Now you've opened up the juice court for a
00:20:25
unspectacular winner down the line. So he's like exactly that's what I want. I
00:20:30
want clarity with with all of that. So um if you're number one in the world and
00:20:35
you are light years ahead of everybody else except Rafer and Roger obviously um he he wants to get better. So that was a
00:20:43
great message for the room that, you know, you may be sitting high, you know, within your industry, but you better be
00:20:52
putting on the learning cap every single day that you're going in there. Do you
00:20:56
think he would have asked you those questions, brought you in, been as interested if not for the other two, if
00:21:04
not for having? >> Well, this was 2017, so they've been, you know, Roger started it first and I
00:21:10
think 2004 won Wimbledon when he uh he beat San I think it was 04. 03 04 >> 04 I think.
00:21:17
>> 04. Thank you. So he'd been so Roger had been around and then Rafa came on the
00:21:21
scene, you know, a little bit later and those then the three of them, you know, around 2010 onwards were battling each
00:21:28
other like crazy. So I don't think it w I don't think it was because of them. I
00:21:32
just think it was time. I, you know, analytics >> was bubbling and he saw it bubbling. I
00:21:37
was writing, you know, every week for the ATP website, the number one tennis website in the world. I was able to
00:21:42
write about the things that I was learning such as surplus one which I was learning from Rafa. And you know what
00:21:49
was amazing? All three of those guys in in and I say this in the nicest way possible in the best way possible was
00:21:56
stealing from each other. They're all learning from each other. I was writing
00:22:00
something about a story about Roger one week and you know Moya Carlos Moyer Rafers coach gets interviewed and he's
00:22:08
saying it about Rafford for the next week and I'm like I know I know what story you read. I I I see what you're
00:22:14
doing but it's the way that it works. You should be looking at your peers. You
00:22:19
should be taking what they're doing, you know, um wrong and right and and and
00:22:24
learning from that and becoming a better player. And that's why we're seeing
00:22:26
Alcarez today because he is the child the you know the the child of these three greats that um have all kind of
00:22:34
elevated and he can now stand on their shoulders. He has he doesn't have to do
00:22:37
that. So >> well you're identifying Alcarez in particular, but just a grand slam or two
00:22:42
ago they were very much talking about each other and how they learn from each other and they're they're they're
00:22:47
thankful for that rivalry because each makes the other better in very much the same way. We're gonna Eric, I know had
00:22:53
let let me turn the mic over to Eric for a while. >> Yeah. So, Craig, I want to do something
00:22:57
if you don't mind. I have nine questions for you. I really want to know the answer to, but I'm I'm cognizant of
00:23:03
time. So, can we do this like in a rapid fire way? Like I'll ask you a question.
00:23:07
You give me the 60-second answer. >> Done. >> All right. The first one. Is it possible
00:23:12
to compare eras across tennis? We hear Patrick Mortagaloo say, "Oh, Algarz and
00:23:16
Center are much better than the big three." Uh, can we compare eras across tennis? Of course we can. So you look at
00:23:23
you look at uh Federra. Federra lost to Agassi and Agassi lost to Sampas and Sampas lost to Gerelitis and Gerelitas
00:23:34
lost to Lever and Lever lost to Hope and you just keep going back. You know, somebody lost to somebody in that era.
00:23:40
The only thing that's really changed is we are now full on with the with the
00:23:45
body, the fitness of the body. We've got, you know, Roger was the the the king of this, having a physio every
00:23:52
single day looking after his body. You can look back and say, well, if Agassi was good, but he beat, you know, he lost
00:23:58
to this guy and this guy lost to that guy. So, I, you know, yes, you >> just so you know, the most one of the
00:24:04
most famous papers I've talked about on the show lots, Shane, uh, this Shane
00:24:08
knows it as well. It's a, uh, sports paper called Bridging Easy by Shane Ree.
00:24:13
It's exactly how you do it. As long as you have A plays B, B plays C, C plays
00:24:18
D, you have the potential to be able to do it. Let me move on to question number
00:24:22
two. One minute each. We're at nine majors in counting that Alcarz and Sinner have one of the two of them has
00:24:28
won. If you had to predict right now, how high are we going to get where the two of them win every major? We're going
00:24:34
to be at 12, 15, 20. >> The uh one of them for sure is going to be 20 plus. Probably also
00:24:42
>> No, no, no. I'm not a different question. >> You're saying won nine consecutive
00:24:45
majors between the two of them. >> How many do you think? Like will I don't
00:24:50
know will grab one? Will >> no. >> Okay. So we What's the number you think
00:24:56
we're going to get to where one of the wins before someone else wins? We're
00:25:00
already at nine >> infinity. >> It could be. Let's double it to 18. I
00:25:09
don't see it. The only one is um FCA, you know, FCA. >> You mean the guy beaten by my friend
00:25:15
Elliot Spazeri? >> Yeah. Yeah. He got But but uh now and Elliot's an amazing player and and
00:25:21
rapidly improving, but Fona was nicked up from last season. All right, we got to move on. All right. In the last nine
00:25:28
majors, Alcarz has won five and Ser was won four. By the way, we could both agree Ser probably should have won that
00:25:36
French. Why is the narrative or in your mind is it lopsided or are they that close?
00:25:43
>> They're very very close. They're they're unbelievably slightly different in the
00:25:47
way they play which is great. Um but you they really are that close and they really are a full level above anybody
00:25:56
else trying to trying to reach them. >> Okay. Do you predict either Alcarez or
00:26:01
sinner? So you I think you just answered 20 to a different question but it's
00:26:04
fine. If you had to forecast right now, do Alcarz and Sinner one both of them get above I'll just say Sampas at the
00:26:12
moment do they both get to 15? >> 100%. 100%. They'll get to 15 by you know two more
00:26:21
Christmases they'll both be there 100%. You know they could Alcarez could be the
00:26:26
first guy to get to 30. >> Wow. Well he's got seven. He's 22. Um, here's a question where I hope from you.
00:26:34
If the answer is no to this one, then we all have a problem. Can other players, whether it's Verif, Shelton, Draper,
00:26:40
etc., >> use analytics and data to help them shorten the gap between them and the big
00:26:47
two more quickly. >> It's the only way. It's the only way. You have to sit down and pull up. You
00:26:54
know, Alcarez did it after he lost Wimbledon. He walked off the court, says, "I've got to improve." They sit,
00:27:00
he sits down with the team, they watch the match, they go over it, they take notes for two weeks before Cincinnati.
00:27:07
They only do drills based on center, only those drills. Uh they go to the US Open and it's just variety. It's a high
00:27:15
ball. It's a slow ball. It's attacking wide to the forehand. It's a drop shot.
00:27:19
You know, center was getting jerked left and right all over that place. >> Real quick, Eric, let me jump in. Can
00:27:25
you tell us what a a drill based only on center looks like? like what does that mean? What is what is an example?
00:27:31
>> Uh well, one of the things that Alcarez does is he hits all it's not a lob, but
00:27:36
it's up there. It's closer to a lob than a ground stroke. This high rolling
00:27:41
forehand. You'd see it more in women's tennis. And what he's doing is he's
00:27:46
giving he just doesn't want what what Sinn wants is a powerful ball 80 miles
00:27:51
an hour sitting off his hips. That's what he wants. So Algra says, "I'm going
00:27:55
to do anything but that. Maybe I'll hit one there and then the next one's really
00:27:59
high, then the next one's flatter. Um, what he also is is building this uh backhand slice. He hit it a bunch in
00:28:07
that US Open fire where he knives down like with a machete so hard on the ball that he gets so many RPMs and it goes
00:28:15
over it goes over the net, but it's not going fast. And by it's but it's
00:28:18
spinning like crazy. And by the time it reaches the baseline, the ball would slow down considerably. And then it the
00:28:25
brakes really going with all that spin. And the second bounce would be only about a meter away. So it's got no
00:28:31
power. And S hates that ball. It's low with nothing. It's like S's dropping it
00:28:36
out of his hand. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, do we I'm I'm a big fan of
00:28:42
theirs. Do we under have we underappreciated given his career is about to come to an end, Warinka, but do
00:28:47
we underappreciate what Warinka and Murray accomplished in their careers? >> I don't think that we've
00:28:53
underappreciated. I think they've got exactly what they deserve. I mean, we called it the big four for quite some
00:28:58
time, which is a tribute to Andy. When Winka was on his game, we were apporting him as well. I mean, that those two are
00:29:06
very, very good players. Um, but they're just, you know, there's three guys that look down the mountain and
00:29:14
Andy Murray and Stan Marink are not one of them. They are excellent players, but
00:29:17
they look up the mountain. >> Okay, we haven't talked yet. Let me focus on the women's side for a minute.
00:29:23
So, right now, I don't know what like we just said, Al Grassen have won the last
00:29:27
nine majors. I I'm going to say on the women's side, it might be seven or eight
00:29:32
different women that have won the last nine majors. Uh, and of course, Robbakana just winning, although she had
00:29:37
won another major, but not in the last couple years. Do you think we're going
00:29:40
to see a dominant player again on the women's side, whether it's the next
00:29:43
Serena Williams or the next Stephie Grath or the next when they were in their heyday, Martina and Chrissy, like
00:29:50
where like why do you think do you think it's just that player is not here yet or
00:29:55
do you think there's something systemic in the women's game that's preventing
00:29:59
anyone from getting to that level of dominance? I just think everything goes in waves, everything. And you know, you
00:30:06
have we're in an era with in the women's game where we've got, you know, several
00:30:11
players at the top that that aren't reaching the level that say a Stephie did or a Martina did or Serena. We don't
00:30:19
have that that dominant player. I think that dominant player is maybe 14 or 15 right now. Yeah. Um and and is looking
00:30:27
to come through, but there's there's a lot of parody. There's a lot of holes
00:30:30
like Sphere has a hole with the forehand or you know can have that hole, a hole with a serve. Golf can have serve
00:30:38
problems and forehand problems. Uh Rebecca is what I like about her is her attitude. It's even she's very even keel
00:30:46
and she's got a big game and she's a smart player and you know Sabal Wanka
00:30:51
has far more emotion to her but can crank a ball and can hit through most players but she can't hit through
00:30:57
Rebecca. If you I was this wasn't on my list but I might as well ask if you had
00:31:02
to predict between I'll predict uh Swante Sabalanka Goff Rabakana who ends up with the most
00:31:12
majors among that group >> maybe and >> uh and she's at zero and Swante I
00:31:23
think's at six by the way I think I think that's the right number but Hey,
00:31:28
>> if she's at six, she's got such a head start. Probably Sabalanka, but out of
00:31:34
that group. Well, how many Sabanka got now? >> Four. Four. >> Yeah, got four.
00:31:38
>> I I would say Sabalena's got But she's only two ahead of Rebecca. I really like
00:31:42
Rebecca. I think Rebecca's got a bunch more. So, it I think those two may end
00:31:46
up even, Rebecca and Sabalena, by the time it's all said and done. Okay, my last question is um you know obviously
00:31:53
by one match uh Djokovic didn't win the calendar slam. He got beaten by Medvidev
00:31:58
as you remember in the US Open. Do you think in the next 10 years someone playing now? How about that? Is there
00:32:06
someone playing now men or woman who you think will win the calendar slam? >> Alcarez.
00:32:13
>> Do you think he has a chance this year? He's already won the Australian. He has
00:32:15
to be the favorite at the He has I would think he's a favorite at the French. I I
00:32:20
I would think Wimbledon's a tossup now between him and center and maybe the US
00:32:25
toss up, but you think Algraz has a chance to you think that's his next great like he he as you said this you
00:32:30
remember Craig this year he would trade the other three majors this year for the
00:32:35
Australian because he wanted the career slam but now that he's won the Australian trust me he ain't trading
00:32:39
those other three majors away. Do you think no chance? >> You think he has a chance this year to
00:32:43
win the slim? >> Absolutely. Absolutely. There's there's no, you know, the only thing he's so
00:32:49
athletic. He There's no ball that he looks at on the court and says, "I can't
00:32:53
run this down." The problem is when he's getting around the edges of the court to
00:32:58
defend the ball, he's also getting around the edges of uh of injury, you know, in you sliding to a ball, pulling
00:33:06
something, whether it's, you know, nicking up an ankle or a knee or a hip. uh you know there's some balls I wish he
00:33:12
wouldn't run for because his chance of winning them is so low but he just it's
00:33:17
almost a game. It's like I I can run this down and I can get it and you know
00:33:21
the crowd will go nuts and you know you get an endorphin hit and but uh there's
00:33:25
nothing he can't do nothing. >> So maybe it before I turn it back over
00:33:30
to K maybe just one broad question then since I've asked you some very specific
00:33:34
ones. Do you see more players embracing the Craig Ashesy data analytics view? Are is that becoming more and more
00:33:44
popular as you know both your success as a coach and strategist? But do you see it broadly being embraced more?
00:33:52
>> I I really do uh in a couple of ways. I go to Italy as I mentioned twice a year.
00:33:58
I for 10 years I've done coach education. I'll get every coach in the country at times. you know, they have a
00:34:05
big symposium and I talk about strategy. I talk about analytics. Uh I go and work
00:34:11
with their high performance team and their their best juniors and I get so many coaches come up to me and goes,
00:34:16
"You've changed the way that I coach. Thank you so much. I'm doing more
00:34:21
serving now. We're doing more returning. I got a 10-year-old girl. We're
00:34:24
returning like crazy. We are teaching the volley more." So from Italy, I hear
00:34:29
it. I'm at the Australian Open. I I get so many players and coaches that that
00:34:34
chat with me and and and and express their gratitude for the the work that I've done in the sport. And some some
00:34:42
younger players at the moment that are really coming up and the coach would come up and the player. I'm like, this
00:34:48
is this is why I do it. This is why I I enjoy my job so much. I want to help these players train the correct way,
00:34:56
understand the sport the correct way, and have a great the greatest chance of success. So, um, the feedback I'm
00:35:02
getting certainly attributes to that. And what I've also seen is this, you know, we talk so much about 0 through 4
00:35:09
being 70%, 5 through 8 being 20 and and 10% in 9 plus. We're seeing this bleeding out of 0 through 4 into 5 plus.
00:35:19
And I believe that's because players are handling zero through four better. They're understanding that their job at
00:35:26
least 50% of the time when you when they're hitting a second serve or they're returning a first serve is to um
00:35:33
is to stay alive. The first thing that you ought to do is, you know, is is stay in the point as much as you possibly
00:35:39
can. So, I'm seeing I'm seeing players being better defensively and surviving
00:35:44
the first four shots because they know once they get the halo effect of the serve lasts for two more shots. So you
00:35:50
get the serve a oneshot rally, then you get the next one is three and the next one is five and then it becomes even. So
00:35:56
if you're a returner, you got to survive that period of time. And we're just
00:36:00
seeing a nice bleeding out of 0 through four and a five plus. And I truly believe that that's because of uh we're
00:36:07
just understanding it more. >> It's great. Great. Fantastic. So fun, entertaining. Um get gets us rejuvenated
00:36:16
on tennis. We've got a few months to wait for the French, but a lot of great
00:36:19
scoop there. Craig, thank you very much for making time for us. >> Pleasure.
00:36:24
>> Craig Oanisy, you'll see him on TV. You can read him. Rice for the New York
00:36:28
Times. Coaches all over the world. And we'll talk with him again down the road.
00:36:32
Been on the show many times. Greg Oanis. >> All right, guys. That has been the first
00:36:37
half of Wharton Moneyball. Stick around and join us. Come back after this break.
00:36:42
Welcome back. Welcome back to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome to the second half of this week's show. Kade Massie here with
00:36:49
Shane Jensen. Now with us, recovered from teaching and in the room, Eric Bradloin for the full ride. Audi Winer
00:36:57
out and about doing Audi Winer things. Just off the horn with Craig Oanisy from just a few miles west of here, southwest
00:37:04
of here where I am anyway. Um, return guest, multi-time guest, friend of the show. Fantastic discussion. Eric, I say,
00:37:12
I mean, it's a hard road, but you're getting me excited about tennis. Listen,
00:37:16
that conversation is fun. Fun stuff. Um, we are just two days removed from Super
00:37:22
Bowl 60 where the Seattle Seahawks put on one hell of a show. Um, we we in our text thread, Audi was winging about the
00:37:32
game being a little slow and and it was a little slow clearly, but defense the defenses were actually fun. And then and
00:37:38
then shortly after that that comment, the t defenses got real fun. I mean, it it was no longer slow. It was
00:37:43
defensively driven, but no longer slow. Um, gentlemen, what were your observations coming out of Seattle's
00:37:51
victory over Shane Jensen's New England Patriots? For me, I mean, obviously, sadness,
00:37:58
sadness, and dismay. It was my my init my my my main reaction uh on Super Bowl Sunday. Um, I actually kind of thinking
00:38:06
about it, I was I I'm marveling actually kind of at I think how similar this game
00:38:11
was to last year's game in the sense that, you know, I mean, essentially that
00:38:17
the game was driven by one team's defense. That was the predominant thing that driving both these. Seattle's
00:38:23
defense this year, the uh Philadelphia's defense last year. The game flow was
00:38:29
different last year, but I think that's only because, you know, if you kind of
00:38:32
take Drake May's, you know, lack of success in the first half, he wasn't
00:38:37
turning it over and not moving yet. In the second half, he started turning it over. The score got a hand. If you just
00:38:43
kind of read like Mahomes last year, it was a little different of game flow because some of his turnovers came
00:38:48
earlier in the game, so I think the game got out of hand a little quicker, but it
00:38:52
was watching it was the same thing. It's like I mean I I I guess you enjoy maybe
00:38:59
I I didn't find it enjoyable to watch my quarterback struggle to that it was he he could do
00:39:05
effectively nothing with the pressure that he was dealing with and when he was and when he was not pressured he was
00:39:11
throwing inaccurately and it was a lot like Mahomes last year. I I'll stop making the analogy now, but that was
00:39:17
kind of >> You should look I I've said this on a number of different tech streams with
00:39:22
people and other stuff. >> Shane, this is what happens when a defensive line that's a wrecking crew
00:39:30
goes up against a mediocre offensive line. >> Yeah. >> And it happened last year in the Super
00:39:36
Bowl when the Eagles defensive line destroyed the Patriots offensive line. I saw it uh sorry the uh Chiefs. I saw it
00:39:44
three years before that when the Tampa Bay Buccaneers line destroyed the great Patrick Mahomes again because his
00:39:50
offensive line wasn't particularly good. Um I've seen it in a lot of Super Bowls.
00:39:55
Look, the Patriots way overachieved, accomplished a huge amount. Drake May is a championship level quarterback, but
00:40:04
you take a quarterback and you give them a bad offensive line, they're gonna have
00:40:10
a problem. And that's to me, I made we all made predictions. I'm on air saying
00:40:15
I thought the score was going to be 28 to 14. Look, whatever the score is, doesn't matter. I just didn't. That's
00:40:20
exactly what I thought was going to happen in the game. >> All right. So, you just said the thing
00:40:24
about real quickly, did we learn anything? Can you learn anything about Drake May from that game?
00:40:32
>> Yes. I mean, I think you can learn uh certainly compared to other elite pro I
00:40:37
I think his his his pocket presence needs work. I I I think there's room for
00:40:42
improvement in his pocket presence and his decisionmaking under pressure. >> Okay, hold on.
00:40:48
>> Let me revise the question. Do we learn anything about his ceiling or his
00:40:53
underlying theta if you will like the true quality? He has some unobservable quality. Did we learn anything about
00:40:58
that? >> Is it stationary or you saying today versus what he can achieve? >> We should have learned that it's not
00:41:04
stationary. So what did we learn anything? Based on the observation of that game, I am moving his theta out of
00:41:10
the range of the Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes can keep your team competitive even I mean maybe Patrick Mahomes not
00:41:17
even in this category but like certainly Tom Brad Tom Brady would not have let that happen under the same amount of
00:41:22
pressure and he has faced those kind of offenses in >> at the same stage of his career
00:41:26
>> at no no no not necessarily no uh I would say talk we we have I I I there
00:41:34
was evidence in that Super Bowl that Drake Mace ceiling or at least early stage ceiling is lower than Tom Brady's
00:41:40
like career whatever I >> would say that's almost always going to be a good prediction no matter what you
00:41:46
say but I would say the following I would say that I completely agree with Shane's analysis what
00:41:54
>> not even just Tom Brady of his yester year Matthew Stafford put him on the
00:41:59
Patriots and I'm going to tell you that game ain't the same game >> no and the playoffs gave us a lot of
00:42:05
insight into that MVP debate kind of retrospectively, right? Cuz we saw Stafford Stafford was able to handle
00:42:11
that same pressure. >> He dropped 90 plus points on the Seahawks this year. He threw for over a
00:42:16
thousand yards in three games. >> But Stafford's been in the league like
00:42:19
15 years. So So here's the right here's the right parsimonious version of the
00:42:24
question. >> Did do you change your projection of Drake May as a result of that game in
00:42:29
any form? >> So I'll say what I'm going to say first and I'll Shane's thinking about it. Um,
00:42:35
I'm going to say this in a not a crass way, but a worrisome way. If I were a
00:42:39
Drake May fan, this better not happen again because if it happens again, then I'm
00:42:47
going to start to worry that, you know, his ceiling, if it's not like if it happens in his third year, his fourth
00:42:53
year, his fifth year, like at some point, not now, at some point he has to get to the point where he doesn't have
00:43:00
to be a 15-year veteran like Matthew Stafford or any of that stuff. But no, I don't change my belief about Drake May.
00:43:08
I think Drake May performed how a secondyear quarterback would perform under immense pressure. And I'm going to
00:43:14
say something funny cuz I I think it's funny cuz it's what people criticized
00:43:17
Darnold was. I think Drake May started to see ghosts. >> And I think Drake May started to see
00:43:24
pressure that wasn't there on certain plays. He rushed throws he didn't need
00:43:28
to. And that was the criticism of Sam Darnold's early >> Momes last year by that definition was
00:43:34
also seeing ghosts in that Eagles game. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, and I I agree like
00:43:38
I guess to reframe I don't think my ceiling on Drake May has has changed as a result of the gay. I mean I think Eric
00:43:45
summed it up perfectly. Um I think you know I I think the Patriot you know I was dra you know kind of uh worried
00:43:54
about this exact outcome because I think the Patriots are the first team actually
00:43:57
in Super Bowl history to go in with two rookies on their own line. >> That is true. I think I'd read somewhere
00:44:03
there. >> Yeah, I just read it this morning. >> Yeah. So that's it showed. It showed. So
00:44:07
I mean, you know, again, they overachieved and they took a chance because they were there, but uh I do I
00:44:13
do think there's a lot, you know, I I think >> Drake Min certainly has has time and I
00:44:19
think hopefully organizational patience to kind of learn how to deal with that kind of pressure and develop more pocket
00:44:26
presence and have, you know, it's probably easier when you're not getting
00:44:29
pressured 14 times in the game to kind of develop those skills. I think >> you know what I find interesting too, I
00:44:33
know you know this Shane, but you know obviously the Patriots um have gone to 12 Super Bowls and as great as they've
00:44:41
been, they're six and six. >> It's hard to win that game. I mean, Brady was six and three. They lost
00:44:46
against the Bears. They lost against the uh Bill Parcels, the Packers, and then they just lost this one. So, I'm just
00:44:54
saying it's I was starting to look at this. It's hard to play. It's hard to
00:44:58
win the Super Bowl. >> No, no. I mean the base rate should be 50% for all kind of Brady gets a 7525
00:45:05
split just cuz of him but like other than that it should just be 50% should be the baseline
00:45:10
>> 7030 don't exaggerate 7030 >> 70 so like like make so making it should
00:45:15
be the thing so the fact that Jim Kelly made it with the Bills four years in a row that's four Super Bowls I just heard
00:45:21
that I haven't seen the 30 for 30 or whatever it's being called about John
00:45:25
Elway that's come out recently but you forget we all remember that he won two
00:45:28
Super Bowls at into his career and not until not until the end of his career did he win one, but he had three others
00:45:34
when he was five Super Bowls as a quarterback. Are you kidding me? >> Yeah. No, that's why I always dislike
00:45:39
the kind of early kind of Brady M Montana comparisons because they're like, "Oh, well, he made it to the Super
00:45:46
Bowl and he never lost. Montana made the Super Bowl, never lost." So, I mean, you
00:45:49
could certainly argue he's the greatest Super Bowl quarterback of all time, but
00:45:54
not, you know, there's plenty of times he lost Montana didn't make it to the
00:45:57
Super Bowl. It's like like you should like you should get credit for making it
00:46:01
to the Super Bowl. >> I'll take seven and three over 4 and 0 all day long. Matter of fact, I'll even
00:46:07
take I know it's going to sound strange. >> I think I'm trying to decide if I would
00:46:11
take four and three over 4 and 0. I think it's more impressive to go four and three than it is to go 4-0. I think
00:46:17
to make seven Super Bowls is ridiculous. You got to win some of them. I didn't
00:46:21
say I'd take three and four or two and five, but I'll take four and0. >> I like that's a that's a nice That's a
00:46:26
nice statement. That's an interesting way to put it. I think that's that's
00:46:28
reasonable. By the way, real quick, this is too old for Shane, but how many Super
00:46:32
Bowls did Fran Tarkin get the Vikings to in the 70s? Cuz they were kind of the Bills before the Bills.
00:46:37
>> They're 0 and four in Super Bowl. Did he go to four? >> Yeah, I think so.
00:46:40
>> No, no, they went to one without they went to one later. >> One in the 90s. I think he might have
00:46:46
taken them to three. >> Okay. So, three same as the Bills, but I think there was
00:46:51
just >> he's three three. He's owing three. It feels like there were some big franchise
00:46:55
effects in those early Super Bowls. I mean, the Cowboys went in a bunch in the 70s. The Steelers went a bunch.
00:47:00
>> It's interesting when you start looking. I was looking at somebody pointed out
00:47:03
like kind of point differential in Super Bowls. So, the New England Patriots 12 and 12 in uh six and six in Super Bowls
00:47:10
minus 52 point differential. >> Hold on. What was the Bears score in 85? That
00:47:15
>> how that's almost all right there. >> Brady won all of his by like three
00:47:20
points or whatever. When New England loses, >> you remember the stat until the
00:47:26
Buccaneers Super Bowl, Tom Brady had not won a Super Bowl or lost a Super Bowl by
00:47:31
more than one score. >> They were all one-sore games. >> All nine Super Bowls were one score
00:47:36
games. >> That minus 52 sounds pretty impressive for the Patriots. You know who the
00:47:40
record is for uh or the record on the negative side for Super Bowl? Uh it was a team mentioned earlier.
00:47:47
>> Well, the Bills got smashed two years. >> Smashed. Okay, Vikings, we've already
00:47:53
gone 0 and4 Vikings. >> You got to think of another team that's gone to a lot of Super Bowls. Maybe the
00:47:57
most other than the Patriots. >> The Steelers. >> Broncos. >> Oh, they have one.
00:48:01
>> Broncos are apparently minus 112. >> Oh, I thought you said single game. I
00:48:06
thought you said in a single >> No, yeah, no, no. Yeah, sorry. I I was kind of comparing franchises. By the
00:48:10
way, Keith P and just kind of talking about errors. The reason this originally popped into my mind is you mentioned the
00:48:15
Cowboys. The Cowboys, I think, have the best. The Cowboys are like plus 89 point
00:48:21
differential in the Super Bowl. >> Geez. And >> I think the question you have to ask
00:48:24
what you put in the rundown change. >> So Eric, let me just say real quickly
00:48:27
that I was think because you mentioned the Broncos and the Cowboys. I was remembering being a kid when the Broncos
00:48:32
played the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. And I I was I was reflecting on the fact that we were just as in West Texas, we
00:48:39
were just born into the the best decade of Cowboys football. like you just kind of took it for granted that they were
00:48:44
going to be knocking around because if they weren't in the Super Bowl, they were into the playoffs deep, you know?
00:48:48
So, it's like you're it's just always there. And now, you know, Jerry Jones is
00:48:52
on the thing for all those years and since Jimmy Johnson left, they haven't been back. And you just can't take a
00:48:58
franchise. >> They won one with Switzer. Let's give Switzer one, but okay, it was Jimmy
00:49:02
Johnson. Switzer was the coach. >> But they do have one of the longest standing basically droughts now of at
00:49:08
least making it to the final four. But in general, we just anybody who's lucky
00:49:13
enough, and this is why we have absolutely zero pity for our friend Shane here. Anybody who's lucky enough
00:49:18
to live through a franchise that just is always there, you just can't take it for
00:49:22
granted. >> I I think your point, Shane, you put in the rundown about next season. See,
00:49:25
here's the problem I have for the Patriots, even though they may well go back.
00:49:30
>> There's no I I think we'd all agree. I'm not saying for the long long run. I'm
00:49:33
saying next year. Who would you rather have, Shane? Drake May, or I'll give you
00:49:38
one of three others. You can have Joe Burrow, you can have uh Josh Allen, or you can have Lamar Jackson. I think it's
00:49:46
hard to say right now you'd rather have Drake May than the three of them. >> So, the first two you mentioned at least
00:49:54
Lamar Jackson, I don't know. I mean, >> let's suppose that what I'm saying is
00:49:58
true. >> Yeah. >> Is there you agree and they're not all 40. They're in their mid to late 20s.
00:50:04
So, I agree they're not. It's not impossible to believe we could be seeing
00:50:10
another Dan Marino situation where Dan Marino went to the Super Bowl in his second year and never got back. I'm not
00:50:16
saying he's not getting back, but all I'm commenting on is he's in a
00:50:21
powerhouse AFC. We could argue the Broncos might have been the best team in the AFC this year without Bon Knicks
00:50:26
getting injured. I'm not saying they would have won. No, I mean the again the
00:50:29
fact that the Pats were such so unexpected in their run and part of their unexpected run was the AFC kind of
00:50:36
usually being a powerhouse but being like every single other AFC team kind of had a key flaw this year that not you
00:50:43
know KC and I guess the Broncos eventually had quarterback injuries. Baltimore >> just didn't you know kind of play well.
00:50:52
I I you know that all combined I mean I you know even though New England will be
00:50:56
the defending AFC champions >> they have to be the >> I'm not sure I would put them as like
00:51:01
the top four teams in the AFC next year right >> I put them like maybe fifth or sixth in
00:51:06
the AFC going into next season. It's not usually like that, I guess, is what I'm
00:51:11
saying is that, you know, case last year this time we're like KC got smoked in
00:51:16
the Super Bowl, but they're still my number one pick going for the, you know,
00:51:20
they'll be there for the whereas I don't think we're feeling that same way about
00:51:23
that. You know, I think the Patriots got almost >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. >> But they've still got a they've still
00:51:30
got a tough division. I mean, that >> I didn't say they're I just said they're
00:51:32
in the top three or four. I didn't say they're an overwhelming favorite.
00:51:35
>> That's right. If you were to list the top three or four NFC teams for me next
00:51:39
year, I think Seattle's in there. I'm not sure New England is in there. As
00:51:42
much as I would, you know, >> I mean, one of the things I take from this conversation is we we we're in a
00:51:46
pretty good era of parody now that the Chiefs have leveled off a little bit. We've got a pretty good era of parody. A
00:51:52
lot of teams have fighting chances at this thing. >> Let's shift gears to the Olympics. The
00:51:57
Olympics started opening ceremony anyways, Friday. Started playing a few games before then. So, we're a few days
00:52:03
into it. Shane, can you give us a real time update on the on the preliminary round the the roundroin women's team US
00:52:10
>> the women's and men's uh sorry the women's uh US uh and and Canada are
00:52:14
playing in the preliminary version of their tournament. Um and the US is smoking Canada right now. 5 nothing.
00:52:21
It's 5 nothing. >> Okay. They have been smashing every everybody in the in the in this initial
00:52:26
round. >> No, and I mean I think this is it kind of the women's is I think the disparity
00:52:30
is still I've watched some of the women's games. There's very few other
00:52:33
teams that I think can really skate with the Americans and Canadians. I think it's still
00:52:38
>> But you wouldn't have expected them to smash the Canadians and that should have
00:52:41
been >> No. No. Yeah. It's true that these two I think it's going to come down to these
00:52:45
two teams. Usually these two teams don't play such lopsided games. The biggest
00:52:49
Canadian star I think is out for this game. So maybe that's part of it. But no, I mean still I think this is
00:52:55
probably I think the Americans have been trying kind of >> the Canadians have had the best of the
00:52:59
Americans at most of the last few Olympics on the women's side. I think this is probably the one where the
00:53:04
Americans uh US Americans >> well they've won they've won a lot more
00:53:07
world championships than um of all kinds than the men have. >> Can I bring up something related to the
00:53:12
Olympics? >> Hold on before we go from the hockey. I want to talk about hockey for a second.
00:53:16
Tournament design. Have y'all noticed the difference in the women's and men's?
00:53:19
So this is the craziest thing. you look at the pools, there's AB, A A group and
00:53:23
B-group for um women's hockey. Okay? And I looked at that today, I thought, well,
00:53:28
hell, all the great teams are in the A. What the heck? What kind of draw was that? It turns out it wasn't a draw. It
00:53:33
was tiered where there's a the top teams play in the A group and the other teams
00:53:38
play in the B group and the and everybody from the A group advances, but only three of the five teams from the
00:53:45
B-group advance. And they are automatically seated in the quarters as six, seven, and eight. And so it's this
00:53:51
unusual structure. And the men's, by the way, this is not a hockey. This is not
00:53:54
an Olympics thing. The men's is not that way. The men have three pools and they're seated in the same way that like
00:53:59
World Cup. >> Yeah. I guess there's plus and minuses. I I I mean I because the one complaint
00:54:03
I've sort of heard about the men's side is the US and Canada are it's it's kind
00:54:07
of like the World Cup. There's the round robin and then there's knockout. the ca
00:54:11
Canada and the US are in different groups in the round robin and therefore the Canada US may not even play each
00:54:17
other in the tournament unless they happen to match each other. I don't know
00:54:22
how much the US the men's women's one is to make sure some of the >> well this is this is my question I mean
00:54:27
to the extent that tournament design is rational there's like reasons behind
00:54:31
this and so and why this is my question for you like let's let's hypothesize why
00:54:36
you would set up the women so differently than the men again you tear them completely
00:54:42
differently and and and by give them all essentially buys into the quarters in a
00:54:47
way that's very different from the men I >> I don't have a direct answer to your
00:54:50
question But I I'll say something you've said before, Cade. If your goal was a
00:54:54
tournament design where quote unquote the best team wins, >> the women's design has a higher
00:55:02
probability of that happening. So that would be my argument against I'm just
00:55:07
using what you've said for I've been listening to you for the last 12 years
00:55:10
almost 12 years on tournament design and a lot and you've always talked about
00:55:13
what is the goal of the tournament. If it's that you advance the best teams kind of automatically give a shot to the
00:55:20
other ones. >> It's neat. You know that I always like the weird tournament designs like they
00:55:24
do something unexpected and it's always you you should notice that because it's
00:55:28
towards some goal and this is unexpected and I think it's related to what Eric's
00:55:32
saying. It's like look I think the disparity is probably sufficiently high that they don't want one of the top four
00:55:38
or five teams in the world knocked out in some fluky um round robin stuff. They want to make sure that the top four or
00:55:44
five women who they know are so much better because there's just not as much
00:55:47
talent in women's hockey presumably make it through to the quarters. Something
00:55:51
along those lines. >> One other kind of interesting more on the design side that I noticed about the
00:55:55
Olympic hockey. Um I don't know if the women's side did this but the men's side
00:55:58
for the round robin of course there's like you you accumulate points like you
00:56:02
do in regular hockey. Um you're and that's going to affect the seating for
00:56:07
the knockout. But the way they actually do point games, they still they do have for the round robin games overtime and
00:56:13
shootout just like an NHL regular season game. But they the points they assign it's three points for a victory in
00:56:19
regulation, two points for a victory in overtime, one point for a loss in overtime, and zero points for a loss in
00:56:26
regulation. >> Yeah, >> that's so much better than the NHL. I mean, why don't we do that scoring in
00:56:30
the NHL that way? >> To be honest with you, >> I thought we did. What What is it?
00:56:34
>> I thought it was No, it's two. >> It's two points. The NHL is two points
00:56:38
for either a win in regulation or a win in overtime. Like, you know, not all all
00:56:44
four there. There it's kind of recognizes that there's four degrees of kind of winning or whatever.
00:56:50
>> I was literally talking to my cousin the other day and I said, "Yeah, you know, a
00:56:53
win in hockey is worth three." He goes, "No, you idiot. It's two." And I'm like,
00:56:56
"Wait a second. You're telling me it's not 3 2 1 zero?" Well, that's what ABS
00:57:01
the ABS, this ABS went out this big run at the beginning of the season this year
00:57:05
and but they weren't winning games in regulation. They were just winning games.
00:57:08
>> Well, I've actually got a little point. I threw it in the rundowns. I thought it
00:57:10
was kind of interesting to look at right now actually. I mean, because the NFL is
00:57:14
kind of at it twothirds of the way through the season now that stopped for the um for the Olympics. But yeah, the
00:57:20
the Avalanche and the Lightning both have played 55 games. both have won 55 or or both sorry both have won 37 of
00:57:30
those 55 games but the Avalanche are 379 and nine so they've lost a few more a
00:57:38
few fewer in regulation and but you know lost made up for that in overtime whereas the Lightning have lost 14 in
00:57:46
regulation and four in overtime same number of total kind of losses if you put it all together but the Avalanche
00:57:52
have like >> eight more point like six more points or whatever than the lightning because of
00:57:56
this. And again, I think if if we did the point system the correct way, which I'm now saying is the Olympic way, it
00:58:03
would I think >> completely agree. >> It would kind of like it would make me
00:58:06
feel better about this whole overtime uh shoot. >> Maybe they'll get there eventually
00:58:10
because, you know, even this scoring rule is a little different. They they had it's only it's not that old, but
00:58:14
it's but it's not it's new, but it's not that new. >> Um last thing on the Canada US team, the
00:58:20
women's hockey playing right now. This is going to assure that the US is the
00:58:24
one seed in the quarters. So, they're going to get the third team out of the B
00:58:29
division. They're going to get the best draw in the quarters. They'll get the
00:58:32
best second round game out of the coming in the semis. So, that's a good setup
00:58:35
for the for the US women. All right. Anything else from the Olympics? >> I just wanted to talk about one other
00:58:39
thing, which is um you know, obviously I could talk about Lindsey Van, but I actually don't want to talk about her so
00:58:45
much. I want to talk about something else that's going unnoticed, but maybe it's not that unnoticed. I think it's
00:58:51
fair to say the greatest woman skier of all time is Michaela Shiffren. I think that's fair to say. She's won 104 races.
00:58:58
The next closest, by the way, is Lindsey Vaughn with 84. Matter of fact, you could make an argument Michaela Shiffron
00:59:04
is the greatest skier of all time. Downhill, slalom, etc. She she has more wins than Ingamar Denmark by 20. She has
00:59:12
the most wins of any World Cup races in the history of skiing. and she's now
00:59:20
gone seven consecutive Olympic races without even meddling. And people are starting to talk now
00:59:31
about how is this possible for someone who has won so many ter this is what I've always said like this what I said
00:59:38
about majors when it was Rory M. >> This is you and Rory. This is you. >> How can somebody win so many tournaments
00:59:44
but not win majors? How can Michaela shift? By the way, let me just comment. Early on in her career, she does have
00:59:50
two gold medals and a silver in the first Olympics she went to, but she hasn't even meddled in seven consecutive
00:59:57
races, which most people would say given the quality of her I mean, she's been
01:00:03
like the skier of the year for the last eight years. How is that possible? >> And so, just to put some color on that,
01:00:09
I happened to have seen this morning the news out of this morning, Pat 40, I believe, was texting this. So the the
01:00:15
combined this combined event that they do alpine combined which is one team member does a downhill one team member
01:00:22
does a slalom and the combined time is the is the champion. So they they did the downhill first for women this
01:00:28
morning and Shiffron's partner >> came in really high. >> And by the way this was the woman that
01:00:34
won the gold in the race with Lindsey Vaughn. This is the American I forget her first name but it's some interesting
01:00:40
first name. >> Yeah. So go a gold a gold downhiller. She delivers her leg delivers. So
01:00:46
Shiffron is set up and the text the text comment was this was like real time. He's like if Shiffron is shiffron
01:00:50
they're going to gold >> and she came in 15th on the slalom and they came in fourth.
01:00:55
>> Yep. >> So this is this is Eric's choking in the Olympics. So Shiffron way underperformed
01:01:01
just this morning. >> Now she has two more events. She has the giant slalom and the slalom. And so she
01:01:07
has an opportunity, but if she goes another Olympics, she went to the last Olympics being the favorite in all three
01:01:13
races she did and she won no medals. Obviously, I said it's it's at seven
01:01:17
races. So this race, the past Olympics, and the one before that, she has won no medals. Not even made the podium, no
01:01:24
medals. If she goes another two races without winning a medal, I'm going to say this has to affect her legacy. It
01:01:32
has to. But I want to say again, >> she will be considered one of the greatest World Cup skiers of all time.
01:01:38
What whatever the whatever their regular season, >> you need the Bradlo the Bradlo index of
01:01:42
the unlikeliness of major performance essentially and you can do this >> Lorie Moy it's the same situation. So,
01:01:49
by the way, just while we're on skiing here, um we have a we have a alum student came in through the executive
01:01:55
MBA program. Hig Roberts is the name. Wharton alum two years out maybe. He's
01:01:59
done a lot of work with sports analytics. He's he's been great. Hig was a US um world competitive skier. And I I
01:02:08
he may not have been Olympic, maybe an alternate Olympic or maybe Olympic. I don't I don't I I don't remember exactly
01:02:12
how close, but really just right on the edge. And I think it's downhill. And so
01:02:16
this is the first Olympics I've ever experienced in my life of watching these
01:02:21
complete lunatics ski the downhill and know somebody who actually did that in their life. I'm like it just makes it
01:02:28
that much more concrete. Like it's unreal to me. It's it's complete. I
01:02:32
can't sit still watching these guys do what they do. 90 miles an hour. Are you
01:02:38
on the absolute edge of their skis just barely able pulling six G's around some
01:02:43
of the it's just the older I get the more complete completely crazy it seems
01:02:47
to >> Yeah I kind of like with the with the shifron thing I mean seven I mean is is
01:02:52
it mostly just the Olympics don't happen very often there's not a lot of
01:02:55
opportunity like are we just dealing with kind of the variance of small opportunities you said there's basically
01:03:01
it's se you're talking about seven races >> so once >> that she has not performed in
01:03:05
>> Shane he has to develop his index in such a way that it accounts for small
01:03:09
sample. And so we he has to really kind of push this hypothesis into quantitative territory.
01:03:14
>> Well, no, I'll think of the following way. So I let's pretend it's
01:03:17
independent. Although I'm starting to question that, but let's pretend it's
01:03:21
independent. Okay. Well, you could even argue if someone's in bad performance
01:03:25
mode, there's no reason it should be independent, at least within an Olympics, maybe cross Olympics, but not
01:03:30
within. Right? >> But let's ignore that for a second. What are the chances that the best skier in
01:03:37
the world does not come in top three >> in a given race? And I my guess would be
01:03:45
I we could look at the let's assume we use the World Cup which there are lots
01:03:48
of races as a proxy for that. >> I think she wins >> wins >> 40% of the races that she's in.
01:03:57
>> Really? >> She's won I want to say it again. She's got some I may have the number wrong. I
01:04:01
know it's over a hundred. She's >> Yeah, but Eric I mean that a 100 races I
01:04:05
mean there could be like a hundred races I I don't know how many races there are
01:04:08
a year >> like she she's run a 100 races you say over the last 10 years it's like if it's
01:04:13
like golf and they're like every week I mean I I just you know we are kind of
01:04:19
this is how we would want to do this calculation. You're looking up the denominator for our base rate going into
01:04:26
the Olympics and now it's like is it possible to go with >> it's 108 victories she has60
01:04:35
podium finishes. So I don't know out of how many races that is >> that's the key thing high ratio that's
01:04:43
an impressive ratio of wins to non-wins. >> I agree with that too. But let's even
01:04:47
imagine that there's 20 races a year, which sounds a lot to me, but let's
01:04:51
imagine there's 20. She's had a 12 to 13 year career. So, she's been in 260 races
01:04:57
and you're about 50%. >> She's meddled in about 60% of them, but not the last seven Olympic ones,
01:05:03
>> right? though. Really, I mean, I guess if you're if we were to do a true
01:05:08
analysis of her Olympic performance, you'd have to include the three, you know, it's really three out of it's
01:05:13
three out of 10 or whatever if you really if you really don't want to kind of cherrypick this.
01:05:18
>> That's all right. But yeah, I mean, it's kind of like you do. >> Yeah. I
01:05:24
>> What I love about this, it's pushing Eric to be more rigorous about this
01:05:27
hypo. He's got this he carries around across sports, which is reasonable and
01:05:31
fun, but now we're just pushing him to be a little bit Oh, and and I guess I I
01:05:35
think I I brought I you brought up this push back I think by bringing up Rory because it got me thinking in golf
01:05:42
there's four Rangers a year, you know, like he's got basically four opportunities a year to kind of break
01:05:48
this curse or whatever to, you know, >> whereas Michael Shiffron had or Michaela
01:05:54
has one opportunity every four years >> she's podium 160 out of 278 races.
01:06:05
It's spectacular. And by the way, good job. And she's over for her last seven,
01:06:11
>> right? So I guess it's the binomial calculation of widths of probability
01:06:14
greater than 0.5. 0 for seven is pretty extraordinary. >> You can also make it you can make it
01:06:20
better by dropping in this the time series and asking how she was performing before and after the actual events.
01:06:26
>> That would be fine, too. >> More power there. >> More power there. I'm with you. But all
01:06:30
I'm saying is Shane, you agree there could be something that's up reasonable
01:06:34
significance there. >> Oh yeah. I think I think whatever the calculation you do would be significant
01:06:39
now now that given the numbers you've given me. Um I just whether it would be
01:06:43
you know you'd be doing 0 of seven versus three for 10 whatever. In either case in either case certainly recently
01:06:49
she it's disproportionate for sure. >> Okay. I'm hoping she breaks the Bradlo
01:06:54
curse in the next next she wins and makes all this discussion moot next week. Let's let's knock this
01:07:00
out. All right, guys. Let's let's leave this there then. That's been another
01:07:04
full episode of Wharton Moneyball. A full hour here on the Wharton podcast network for the whole team. This has
01:07:10
been Kade Massie, Eric Bradlo, and Shane Jensen through today. Audi Winer and Absentia, Dion Simpkins, big thanks for
01:07:16
making this thing happen. Marissa Raina, our producer, um, and the boss lady, D Patel. Thanks to all you guys. Thanks
01:07:23
y'all for listening. Come back and join us next time. Between now and then, enjoy your sports.