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