00:00:00
Welcome to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome to a full hour of sports analytics here on
00:00:05
the Wharton podcast network. This is Kade Massie hosting this week with two of my three longtime co-hosts. Shane
00:00:14
Jensen is in here in the room. Audi Winer is in here in the room. Eric Bredlo will probably be here eventually.
00:00:22
He's got some responsibilities he's trying to clean up this afternoon. As
00:00:26
you guys know, some combination of us are here almost every week of the year. Have been for pushing 12 years now, 11
00:00:32
and a half years, something like that. We are recording on Tuesday afternoon as we typically do these days. Show will go
00:00:38
up on Wednesday. We're going to go about an hour. Going to split it into halves
00:00:42
like we usually do. Going to have a guest in here first half and then we'll do the open line segment second half.
00:00:49
For our guest this week, we have Kevin Cole. Kevin is basically family. A frequent guest on the show, one of our
00:00:56
favorite people to talk NFL with, one of the best analysts out there on the NFL.
00:01:02
I think he's one of the best thinkers out there on the NFL. Always a pleasure
00:01:06
to get some time with you, Kevin. Thanks for making time for us. >> Well, thank thanks for having me. I'm
00:01:11
I'm pretty early in the season, so I know where I am in the pecking order. >> Well, that's right. That's high on the
00:01:17
list. Exactly. Exactly, man. Week week week three. This is only our second NFL guest. We We're down to an hour now,
00:01:24
Kevin. You know, we have a hard time getting all we want to do, all we need to do. We're also breaking in a new
00:01:30
producer, so we're kind of figuring things out as we go. Baseball's been on
00:01:34
the back burner for a couple of weeks. I don't know how I'm getting away with
00:01:37
that, but it can't last for very long. So, we're going to squeeze a little more
00:01:41
NFL in here while we can. You guys, Kevin Cole runs Unexpected Points Substack. That is really kind of a real
00:01:50
delight. I want to say must readad, but really it's more like a delight for those of you interested in the NFL. Go
00:01:56
sign up for it. Great emails come out on a regular basis. Great stuff. Unexpected
00:02:00
points. Kevin has been in the business for a while. He ran through PFF for a little while doing his own thing lately.
00:02:08
One of our, just to let you know, one of our favorite segments typically in the off season is Kevin doing kind of a
00:02:15
breakdown of the front offices. He grades in in a way ranks the front offices and he's a hardcore analytics
00:02:21
guy, man. If you're not doing if you're not doing it right, he's going to let
00:02:24
you know and he's gonna he's going to die on that one and that's a pleasure. I
00:02:29
think I think he makes us all a little sharper because of it. Anyway, Kevin. All right, week two in the books. That's
00:02:36
pretty early pretty early days. So, I think one of the things that's fun early
00:02:41
in any season, if you're an analytics person, is to see what your models are
00:02:46
telling you that maybe the one loss records aren't telling you. You know, these are really small samples right
00:02:52
now, but we like to think models see a little more clearly. If you if you take that perspective on the NFL so far, you
00:02:59
know, we've got some two and0 teams, we've got some 0 and2 teams. Who is on
00:03:03
your list of teams that are probably better than their record? And who's on your list of ah the record might be a
00:03:08
little bit elucory the other direction? >> Well, I mean it almost feels like
00:03:12
cheating to mention the the Kansas City Chiefs being being an 0 and2 team and and being part of that. Um although when
00:03:21
I put up my you know power rankings as you have to do in order to get people to yell at you as much as possible on the
00:03:28
internet. Um, you know, I always find a surprising number of people, even for the Kansas City Chiefs now, are saying,
00:03:33
"Hey, you can't have them ranked to get over, you know, X team because because
00:03:37
they're 0 and2 so so far this season." So, I mean, they would be the obvious
00:03:41
one where you're looking at them and you're saying, "Okay, the record is
00:03:45
poor. Um, the offense looks disjointed at best. the defense, you know, looks okay, I would say, but maybe not not not
00:03:56
fantastic as it has been and kind of carried them more so last year than in previous seasons. Um, but but you have a
00:04:03
high degree of I think they're going to figure this out and they have Patrick
00:04:06
Mahomes and all those sorts of things together. the the real the real separation of course comes down to what
00:04:11
does it mean for their chances to win the division, win the Super Bowl, and now the Chargers are basically a coin
00:04:18
flip type of uh favorite to win the division and then spread out to the the rest of the 50% odds are spread out
00:04:24
amongst the other teams in the division. So that that's going to be a problem.
00:04:27
And they have been, you know, a team that's had the by-weeks in in this in all of these successive
00:04:32
Super Bowl runs that they've had. Well, look, man. If you want to talk about the Chiefs being 0 and2, we're
00:04:39
just here for you all day long. We've been dying for those guys to not make it
00:04:43
out of the AFC. So, hey, we got time. You got time. You want to talk about that? We got time. Um, it is interesting
00:04:48
though, you you name the Chargers being a a coin flip. I'm not sure you're
00:04:53
probably running your own sim, but I ran a quick unabated sim using uh is it in is it's uh Inpredictable. Inpredictable.
00:05:02
They back power rankings out of betting odds. Now, it's not like that makes it
00:05:07
sound like it's math and it's not because you still have to decide how much weight to put the past like how how
00:05:13
recently you want to weight things. So, there's some subjectivity to it. You can
00:05:17
fit those things, but some art to it. Anyway, if you run those odds, market odds through the unabated sim, you do
00:05:25
get the Chargers at 53.8% 8% 54% to win the division. And the Chiefs down there at 19 19% to win the division this time
00:05:33
of the season. Just absolutely remarkable. If you want to roll it out, only 50/50 Chiefs 50/50 to make the
00:05:39
playoffs and way down at two and a half% to win the Super Bowl. This is uncharted
00:05:44
territory in the Mahomes era. >> It definitely is. and and like you um not that it's not not that life should
00:05:54
give us a perfect uh distribution of events based on exactly how good teams are. We like
00:06:00
luck. We like surprises. We like other things like this. But there probably is a factor when it comes to the Chiefs of
00:06:06
being a little bit lucky. I mean, let's face it, any anytime you accomplish a
00:06:09
lot, it's a combination of luck and skill. So, you're probably going to have
00:06:13
a little bit more luck than others when you accomplish. It's not it's not, you
00:06:16
know, discounting what you've done or taking credit away. It's just a natural
00:06:20
fact that those two things are going to go together. So, teams like the Bills and the Ravens, you know, maybe if one
00:06:25
of them can can get into the Super Bowl this year, they're probably a little bit
00:06:28
overdue for at least having had that chance. >> Well, um you know that you you mentioned
00:06:35
the Ravens. I'm curious where you have them in your power rankings because I
00:06:39
was shocked at how high inpredictable has them. unpredictable. You You run their numbers in, you throw it in a sim,
00:06:45
and you end up with the with the Ravens way up there most likely to win the Super Bowl. 22%
00:06:51
likely to Is that win? That's probably win Super Bowl. Is that win Super Bowl?
00:06:55
That's win Super Bowl. 22% to win the Super Bowl. The Bills are next to 14. Packers after that 11. It's head and
00:07:02
shoulders. And the reason is because In predictable, based on market numbers, has the Ravens up top power ranking in
00:07:11
the NFL by a full field goal. They have Ravens plus eight and a half. Next is Bills. Bills just beat the Ravens in
00:07:18
Buffalo plus 5.7 and you got a drift under, for example, the Chiefs are down there at plus 2.9.
00:07:24
So that's five and a half point difference between the Ravens and the Chiefs. I'm curious. I mean, that feels
00:07:29
a little sharp to me. Um, that those differences. I'm curious where you have
00:07:32
the Ravens and how much separation you have at the top, if any. >> Yeah, not much at all. I mean, I had the
00:07:39
Ravens as number one coming into the season. I had them at number one after week one, despite the fact that they
00:07:46
lost to the Bills. I had them being maybe a slightly better team in that game. I mean, things like the Derrick
00:07:51
Henry fumble and of course the improbable comeback come into play. And again, that's a great one for people to
00:07:56
yell at you. power rankings, you know, to keep them keep them above the Bills despite the fact that they they lost at
00:08:02
the Bills, though. So, that's important. Um, what's what's weird though is now
00:08:05
now they win this game against Cleveland, but they weren't great offensively in that in that game and
00:08:11
Cleveland turned the ball over, uh, you know, as Joe Flacco has want to do. Um, so even defensively, maybe my numbers
00:08:18
didn't say they were great. So, the Bills actually rose up a little bit above them and I have the the Bills
00:08:22
being number one. I'll say one thing about the the the marketbased betting market based numbers over in
00:08:28
predictable. It's kind of like Tuesday they're in a certain state Wednesday
00:08:32
because they're using successive weeks too if they're available to try to
00:08:35
figure out the you know the matrix to put together everything let's check back
00:08:39
on Thursday maybe and see where those numbers at. I bet there will be less of a of a dividing line between the Ravens
00:08:44
and everyone else and and sometimes it actually even changes up at the top once we get once we get to Wednesday and
00:08:49
Thursday. >> Okay. Okay. That's a good that's a good warning to me and to others who might
00:08:53
use those numbers. What can you say to us on the over on the NFC side? How do you how do you feel that looks so far?
00:08:59
And again, we're most interested in things where the models are seeing something different from the record so
00:09:04
far. >> Well, different from the record, I would necessarily say, but I mean the the
00:09:11
Eagles were a team that maybe I wasn't as high as some others coming into the
00:09:16
season because they the Super Bowl champion. they were kind of the default number one team. I had them ranked
00:09:21
incrementally lower than the Ravens and the Bills coming into the season. Um I still have them being a little bit lower
00:09:27
than the Packers right now. So maybe the Packers maybe I'm overrating the Packers
00:09:32
a bit, but their numbers have been a bit stronger coming on the season. And you know, the Eagles are they get they're 2
00:09:37
and 0. They're the Super Bowl champions, but they haven't been impressive in
00:09:41
necessarily in these wins, at least according to my numbers. So maybe they're a team to look at and say, you
00:09:47
know, it's interesting to see what's going on. Um they're not as strong as
00:09:51
maybe a Super Bowl champion 2 and 0 team that's that's that's come into the
00:09:55
season, beaten, you know, perennial Super Bowl team uh at least appearance team like the Kansas City Chiefs already
00:10:02
this season. Maybe I'd be fading them a little bit versus some uh market opinions.
00:10:07
>> Staying with market, we we have the we're seeing in predictable right right
00:10:11
on those two teams right on top of each other and the sim. So, they're positioned, you know, their relative
00:10:15
position, their schedule, all this stuff also right on top of each other. Um, in
00:10:19
terms of Super Bowl odds, um, any any dark courses, any interesting teams out of the out of the NFC's early on that
00:10:27
intrigue you? >> Um, well, I mean, the Rams are interesting if, uh, if Matthew Stafford
00:10:32
can can stay healthy. I mean, there may be a team that was outside of the top teams. Now, they had a little bit of a
00:10:38
of a playoff run last year, so so they snuck in there. So, I think that they're
00:10:42
kind of interesting. Um, the Commanders would be another team that I'm a lot
00:10:46
higher on, I think, than the market. I know that Jaden Daniels had one of his very infrequent poor games last week,
00:10:53
but it's another thing where if the defense starts to to put things together
00:10:57
with a bunch of different pieces, there's potential to move forward. And again, I see the Eagles as being a
00:11:02
little bit weaker than what some others may may think in that same division. Um,
00:11:07
but this is another one where I've been higher on the Lions coming into the season. it was higher on them going into
00:11:13
week one that looked really bad after week one, but maybe the Packers are really good and it was against the
00:11:18
Packers. And then they came back and at least kind of reassured me that I wasn't
00:11:21
I wasn't crazy being as high as I was on them because I value this offense and
00:11:26
this offensive performance and they showed that against against the Bears this last week.
00:11:33
>> Well, you know, there was a time where we thought that division might be a
00:11:36
little tougher, you know, all the way down than it looks so far this season. Uh certainly the Packers and the Lions
00:11:43
are legit. Um Minnesota had the great week one win, but you know, they're still breaking in a new quarterback in
00:11:48
Chicago. Good lord. Um so, um that's that's helpful to Detroit, I suppose.
00:11:53
You know, you mentioned Jaden Daniels. You you do a fair bit on quarterbacks and some of the main analytic stuff
00:11:58
you've been pushing lately has been essentially like adjusting efficiency, quarterback efficiency numbers for Kevin
00:12:05
Cole considerations. Um, I'm I'm curious. Can you say more about what you're doing, how you think it's shaping
00:12:10
up, and then what does it tell us about the QBs? And let's do that in general,
00:12:14
but I I'm curious about some young guys like Jaden Daniels. I mean, these are
00:12:18
really famously hard to project early because, you know, the base rate on quarterback performance early in a
00:12:26
career is really bad, but then every now and then someone comes in and really performs well, like Jaden Daniels did
00:12:31
last year. Pennix has looked pretty good so far this year. I didn't see enough of
00:12:34
that week two game to really say, but >> I'll throw in Drake May for personal
00:12:37
considerations as well. Let's >> Okay, Drake May. Shane's got some
00:12:41
interest in Drake May. There's lots I mean I mean what do you do when guys change teams? Do we know we got Daniel
00:12:46
Jones apparently is a good quarterback now. So I mean let's talk tell us something about QBs. Help us understand
00:12:52
what we're seeing. >> Yeah, it's interesting with with with rookie quarterbacks or early career
00:12:59
quarterbacks. Um, I tend to value their performance um as being a bit more predictive than
00:13:08
some others may say. I mean, I know it's a it's a common thing to say we we don't
00:13:13
know a lot about them, but then if everyone thinks we don't know a lot about them, or if we can take a a bad
00:13:18
rookie season like Caleb Williams and just, you know, toss it out the window and say we're starting fresh, then we
00:13:24
might actually have some value flipping to the other side of saying there really
00:13:27
is something here. And I know it's mostly directional and there are some guys who have who've had very poor
00:13:32
starts to their careers like um Matthew Stafford for instance who was on a you know kind of a dysfunctional Lions team
00:13:38
the 16 team that was there Jared Goff came in played maybe half a season where he looked really really poor but beyond
00:13:45
that there there haven't been that many guys at least in recent history who've
00:13:48
been legitimately bad as rookies who have gone on to be to be really really good. Maybe they've gone on to to be
00:13:54
mediocre. I'm really looking at this stuff. like I'm really looking at Cam
00:13:58
Ward and seeing what he's doing these these first few weeks and and one of the
00:14:01
times I got people very mad at me last season of the many times was when a few weeks into the season I said you know if
00:14:09
I was reddrafting and it's not you know it's not like a a slam dunk that I'm
00:14:15
going to be right but if I was reddrafting I I would say you had to take Jayen Daniels over Caleb Williams
00:14:20
even though it's only been three games just because you should assume the number one and number two picks don't
00:14:24
have that much separating them in the first place and if Look, even three games into their careers, the
00:14:29
distribution of uh how efficient they've been over those three games, you know,
00:14:33
it matches up pretty well with like how well they end up doing in their career. Surprisingly well with how well they're
00:14:38
doing in their career. >> Really? >> Yes. Yeah. So, you know, it's it's
00:14:42
something to look at. I'm probably going to put something out after next week
00:14:44
where maybe I'll do the same thing because I have the three the three weeks of data and I could get more people in
00:14:49
Tennessee uh than this time mad at me for for saying what's going on with these quarters. But yeah, I mean, a lot
00:14:55
of the rookie quarterbacks who were were outstanding, whether it's, you know,
00:14:58
Herbert or Dak Prescott or uh Russell Wilson or, you know, these guys came right out the box looking competent and
00:15:06
looking really good um as rookies, >> but maybe you have to look more wisely
00:15:10
than the casual fan looks or even the longtime fan looks. You're looking at them a little more analytically. I
00:15:18
suspect you're probably trying to condition out some things that affect performance. So when you watch Cam Ward
00:15:24
say play two games in his NFL career so far, what are you trying to focus on or what are you trying to not focus on so
00:15:32
that you can see his ability most clearly? >> Well, I'm I'm I'm only looking at my
00:15:37
adjustments that I make to to efficiency. So, you know, if there's drops, I try to make an adjustment for
00:15:43
that. If there are, you know, interception worthy throws that aren't intercepted. if there are, you know, a
00:15:48
fumble, a sack fumble happens to be taken back 80 yards for a touchdown, that's kind of bad luck. So, so I'm
00:15:53
making some adjustments there, but I'm also incorporating PFF grading into it.
00:15:57
And how I like to do things often is, you know, you can model um it's a little
00:16:03
bit more opaque. It's it's it's sometimes difficult to get to get your
00:16:07
head around on it. I like sometimes just to visualize things. So, just if I visualize a couple of different metrics
00:16:12
versus each other, look at the layout. Look at where these other quarterbacks have fallen even a few weeks into the
00:16:17
season, that's when I start to get an idea of like, oh, there really is there's something here. You can you can
00:16:21
get an idea that there's something here just simply by glancing at it. Honestly,
00:16:26
>> what role do the surrounding cast play? It's it seems like it's inevitable that
00:16:32
guys on worse teams look worse. I mean, just offensive line alone, receivers aren't getting open, that kind of thing.
00:16:37
How well are you picking up on that in your numbers or or in the PFF grades? >> Well, I mean, the grading probably tries
00:16:45
to control for that a little bit more than than my numbers. Again, we have drops and things like that or Yak um
00:16:52
yards after catch versus expectation. So, maybe that could be something that's
00:16:55
like a scheme or a receiver type of number that you can you can figure out. So, it it does account for some of that.
00:17:01
But I mean, the thing is, even if you look at quarterbacks who have um emerged maybe later on in their careers, I don't
00:17:10
know, Gino Smith would be an example of someone who had a poor surroundings and then emerged later on. I don't know if
00:17:15
you want to say Baker Mayfield because he was kind of up or down those first few years and then, you know, the Browns
00:17:20
probably would have would have kept hold of him if not for the fact that, you know, at the time they thought Deshun
00:17:26
Watson was an elite quarterback who they could who they were willing to upgrade with. Um, there aren't a lot of guys. I
00:17:31
mean, I obviously you can go back to the past like a Steve Young or something like that. So, there are some guys who
00:17:35
go on to be like Hall of Fame level type of quarterbacks, but even so, the guys who emerge later and even Sam Darnold
00:17:40
we're talking about here. I mean, are we really expecting that much better than
00:17:43
average quarterback play out of these guys? Probably not. So, yeah, it matters, but I think if you're truly
00:17:48
elite, you're going to get a hint of something almost no matter who the who the surroundings are because a rising
00:17:55
tide lifts all boats in this type of scenario. If we're trying to predict how
00:17:59
surroundings will affect quarterbacks, it's it's almost impossible to do. You
00:18:03
would have said that Caleb Williams had the greatest surroundings coming into last season and Jaden Daniels had
00:18:08
horrible surroundings and a bad offensive coordinator and everything else that people hated and then now, you
00:18:13
know, he looks like he has much better surroundings. So, it's just really hard
00:18:15
to predict. And when you can't predict something, I have difficulty figuring
00:18:18
out whether it's a real phenomenon or not. >> Okay. You you said something there that
00:18:22
I think might be a part of this conversation that we're not focusing on that matters and that is you said elite.
00:18:30
I think maybe what you're trying to predict here is elite and what you're
00:18:34
saying if conditional on elite you're going to see early separation and I think a lot of the confusion over
00:18:40
quarterbacks in the last five six years has been these guys who look like utter trash to begin with and then they end up
00:18:47
being average or just above average kind of quarterbacks like Sam Darnold for example. And that that
00:18:53
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. And Dan Jones, maybe Dan Jones and Baker Mayfield. Baker
00:18:57
Mayfield wasn't trash and he's not elite, but he was like, you know, third
00:19:02
quartile and now he's first quartile or something. It's like he he moved from
00:19:05
one part of the distribution to another. It's all still kind of confusing to the
00:19:09
casual fans like, hold on, I thought Mayfield was any good. I thought Daniel Jones was any good. And and that is
00:19:14
maybe that's harder to predict and you're talking more about No, I'm
00:19:17
talking about elite pops. Elite pop. if it's going to be elite, it's going to
00:19:20
pop early. Do is that a fair distinction? >> Yeah. No, I think that that's a very
00:19:24
fair fair distinction. Yes. Not only the the floor, but the ceiling that we're
00:19:28
talking about sometimes um with these quarterbacks. And I mean, it's good to
00:19:34
it's better to be a fan of a team with an average quarterback than with a poor
00:19:37
quarterback where you can almost write off the season. And for instance, the the Raiders, I think they one of the
00:19:42
reasons that they signed Gino Smith is they said, "We've been so bad for so
00:19:45
long and had such inconsistent quarterback play that, you know, getting an average NFL quarterback is probably
00:19:50
more valuable to the Raiders than it would be would be to another team." But
00:19:54
I think for most of the league, you really have to be targeting this elite quarterback play. That's the
00:20:01
differentiator, especially when we talk about, you know, if we're not to get too
00:20:05
far into it, but we get into salary cap and things like that, how much money these averageish sort of quarterbacks
00:20:11
can make versus the elite quarterbacks. They're just such a huge differential
00:20:15
there that I would I would just overweight that that ability, you know, finding that that top quartortile of
00:20:21
consistently top cortile type of quarterback so far that I'm willing to ignore maybe the he hey, he could still
00:20:27
be average. she could still be average because then we're getting two, three
00:20:30
years into someone's career where you could have been taking more shots at someone who could be elite in the
00:20:35
meantime. >> Okay. And just to be clear, what you mean is the the the ability is very
00:20:40
different for relatively similar compensation when you're talking about versus, you know, middle, you know,
00:20:46
average quarterback is shockingly similar. And so you want to play on that inefficiency. Okay. Before we leave
00:20:51
quarterbacks, tell us some quarterbacks that you think are misunderstood or misjudged in the NFL right now in either
00:20:59
direction based on your analysis. >> Um, let me see. So, the guys that I would say are probably misunderstood
00:21:09
uh in a in a they're maybe a little bit better than what some people think. I
00:21:14
mean, it's it's weird to say Dak Prescott because maybe >> he is someone who's making 60 million
00:21:21
million dollars a year. So, so he's not exactly, you know, um >> you know, out on the streets bouncing
00:21:28
around from team to team. But I think he is someone who has performed very well,
00:21:31
at least by by my metrics, for a number of seasons. And even early in his career, I think he had a little bit of
00:21:36
struggles as a secondyear player. And I don't know if it was because of his draft capital, if it was because they
00:21:42
ran the ball so well with Ezekiel Elliott as a rookie season, but he never really got as much credit as he deserved
00:21:48
until then. So I do think he's a very very solid quarterback, you know, with
00:21:52
the context that he's making uh lots and lots and lots of money. Um so so that's
00:21:57
a guy that that I would put into that bucket as maybe being a bit probably being a bit better than you might think
00:22:02
there. Um another I would say is is Jared Goff. I mean, again, it's probably
00:22:09
a similar type of situation where I know people look at quarterbacks doing what they're supposed to do on a play.
00:22:17
Um, making the right throw, making it accurately, and they say, "Okay, you know, that's a you do what you're
00:22:22
supposed to do. I'm going to move on to the next play." But if you can do that
00:22:25
consistently and you can do that more often than someone else, even if that someone else can make a spectacular
00:22:32
play, maybe a little bit more often than you can, uh, I just think it's relatively underweighted as a as a
00:22:38
quarterback and it doesn't flow through. Also, I mean, I love PFF, right? I used
00:22:42
to work there. I love everything that that they do there. But, you know, they also have a grading system that grades
00:22:47
the throws. Basically, there's a lot of there's a lot of plays that just get a
00:22:51
zero grading on a play-by-play basis. Now, a zero play could be, you know, could be, you know, hit the guy in
00:22:58
stride and now he runs for another 50 yards afterwards, but it's like you did
00:23:02
what you were supposed to do. Or a zero could be, you know, maybe you held the ball a little bit too too long, but the
00:23:07
quarterback, but the the offensive line also allowed pressure and you got sacked, but we're going to say it was
00:23:11
the offensive line's fault or something like that. So, you know, just doing what
00:23:14
you need to do under certain circumstances is probably an undervalued sort of category. So, Goff has shown
00:23:20
elite play. Like, he has actually done that, even if you don't think he's a
00:23:23
consistent elite quarterback. So, I'm not sure for all quarterbacks, even if
00:23:27
you put all the pieces around them, they can do that. So, he's probably someone I
00:23:30
give a little bit more value than others. >> Okay. All right. We've been talking
00:23:33
about quarterbacks. One of the other super important guys in the stadium that are hard to understand, hard to value
00:23:41
are coaches. And increasingly, people are trying to get at that a little bit. Historically, we just kind of threw them
00:23:49
into the residual and said, "Well, maybe the coaches help explain the residual."
00:23:53
That's true, but two things. There's a lot of other things in the residual. Oh,
00:23:57
and by the way, they're in all these numbers. They're in these stats. the
00:24:00
coach effects are in these stats that that that that are showing up on the field in some way. So, how do you get at
00:24:05
it? And, you know, it's, you know, we So, how do you get at it? That's a broad
00:24:10
question. And tell us, tell us how you're thinking about NFL coaches these >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think um I could just
00:24:17
be behind the curtain here. So, I think I I mentioned this as as a possible topic because last week the the
00:24:23
narrative was John Harbaugh, this guy's horrible. Like, I guess I don't know.
00:24:28
Don't ask me why. But this guy needs to go. >> Kevin, don't ask why. They've blown more
00:24:33
twocore leads over the last however few years than anybody else. And the and the
00:24:38
Ravens fans have like suffered as a result. So they will tell you that's why
00:24:43
it's the late game. >> So that we so we heard this about Kyle Shanahan the year before that they that
00:24:48
that they had this problem. So I guess what ends up happening though is again we have we have these stats, you know,
00:24:55
that they've blown a certain win probability a certain number of times. They've blown a certain number of score
00:25:00
lead a certain number of times. Um, you know, things things of that nature. Well, I mean, number one, it's kind of
00:25:07
like the fourth quarter comeback stat for quarterbacks. How >> well, if you're making a lot of fourth
00:25:13
quarter comebacks, you were also down in games a lot. So, maybe you weren't playing well going into it. So, there's
00:25:19
like a reverse element of that. If you're losing a lot, well, that means you you were ahead. And then the second
00:25:25
point I would make is, you know, separating these things is really really difficult. But I think what we know, at
00:25:30
least I believe what what we know is that the players are more important than than the coaches, right? Um just in in
00:25:36
whole. So anytime you're using a stat um and you're saying, you know, John
00:25:42
Harbaugh has done X, you could very easily say, you know, Lamar Jackson has done X. And I think while it's not
00:25:49
necessarily right in either circumstance, if you can pin it down, you're probably going to be right more
00:25:53
often pinning something on on the quarterback versus the coaches. So I think what you have to do is you have to
00:25:57
just be able to assess what we can assess. And there were some poor decisions that he made in that game. But
00:26:03
we have to be, you know, we have to be cognizant of how big of a difference those decisions make. And normally they
00:26:09
make, you know, a few percent win probability or something like that, which can also swing on, you know, in
00:26:14
the course of a single play during a game, too. So, I think it's it's you you
00:26:18
you apply blame and you say coaches should should be optimizing these sort of situations. We don't know a lot of
00:26:24
what's going on behind the scenes, but if they've been consistently good, I'm
00:26:27
going to give them more credit for it. Um, but we don't necessarily overweight
00:26:31
the coach's decisions versus what's going on with the with the players on
00:26:35
the field. >> Yeah. I mean, I I on the one hand, I agree the things that we focus on as
00:26:40
analysts tend to be relatively small potatoes. um you know, fourth down conversions and two-point attempts and
00:26:46
most of those are relatively small. On the other hand, the hypothesis, as you know very well and and preach is that
00:26:53
that if they're consistently good or bad at that stuff, it probably indicates
00:26:58
other stuff like they probably go about their business and on other domains behind the scenes poorly or well. So,
00:27:05
it's kind of a sign. Do we see coaches who are consistently good or bad on the few clear signals we
00:27:13
get? I know there's there's a lot of noise. Even even the coaches that we
00:27:19
think are advanced tend to be a little inconsistent. So, do we see much regularity on either side of that?
00:27:26
>> Yeah, I I think I think there is there is some consistency, but like you said,
00:27:30
there's a ton of noise to it. um even the coaches that you believe may be just
00:27:36
constitutionally conservative or aggressive and more more aggressive or more analytical if you want to call it
00:27:41
that in some of these circumstances can be highly affected by things like a kicker missing a couple of field goal
00:27:49
attempts in a row. Um, and and so that that can be a big big deal. And I think for for again the stuff that we don't
00:27:56
see, there have been studies, one of them by Andrew Healey who works at at the Browns, there have been studies that
00:28:01
have shown, you know, a winning head coach in the past is the most reasonable bet you can make as to who will be a
00:28:10
good head coach in in the future versus good offensive coordinators and other things. So I think that's it's also hard
00:28:15
when you're looking at what happens within a game. So, in other words, comebacks within a game, things like
00:28:20
that. Because what what these coaches are probably doing is not really like the within the game stuff. It's
00:28:25
organizing the staff. It's managing people. It's knowing how to lead a team.
00:28:31
And what does that have to do with a 90% win probability? I mean, maybe it has something to do with preparation or
00:28:36
something, but probably not. It's probably all the stuff that you're doing
00:28:39
during the during the week that's making a huge huge difference. So, that's
00:28:42
another reason I kind of discount maybe the in-game stuff when we're talking
00:28:45
about head coaching, who's really like the CEO in a way of the organization.
00:28:49
>> Yeah, it's they're so that job is so highly dimensional. I mean, that the
00:28:53
guys who make those hires, it's so it's it's not just highly dimensional, but
00:28:57
like unrelated dimensions, possibly negatively related dimensions. I mean, it's a it's a really hard job, but I'm
00:29:02
not going to let you off the hook that easy. If you were a GM and you could bring in, you know, any one of NFL
00:29:10
coaches or, you know, past No, no. One of the existing 32 NFL coaches, who would you bring?
00:29:15
>> Okay. I can't bring Vince Lombardi back. >> Oh, you can't go You can't go to the
00:29:18
past. Of the 32, who's top of your list? If you're the GM, >> it's a good it's a good question. Um
00:29:28
>> because so far you've been kind of saying we can't tell other than the guys have won in the
00:29:33
past. >> That that is a good that's a good I'm trying to think. I don't I want to make
00:29:37
sure I don't I don't get this I don't get this wrong. So let me let me think
00:29:40
here. I mean it's easy to say Andy Reid, but why not? you know, we have we have
00:29:46
we have someone who's been successful at two different organizations, which again, it's it's two, but it's, you
00:29:51
know, it's it's it's a lot more than one organization, I guess, when we have
00:29:55
something like that. So, so I guess I would put him there, but you know, I put someone like John Harbaugh right in that
00:30:02
same sort of sort of category. So, he would be someone who would be up there. I mean, Shawn Payeyton was someone who I
00:30:08
said I thought he was going to be a great hire for for the Broncos. So, he's
00:30:11
he's an interesting guy. I mean, even his brother, Jim Harbaugh, I thought that he would also be a good a good
00:30:16
hireer. I don't know, just guys who have really had that that level of success.
00:30:21
Um, without saying that they were completely reliant maybe upon uh high level quarterback talent or something
00:30:28
like that, although that that doesn't hurt. >> Okay, good. Just very reasonable. Very
00:30:33
reasonable. And it's shockingly unanalytical. Well, you've taken us to the simplest of all base rates. Just
00:30:38
past past win record conditioning out like some stellar quarterback situation. That's it's really interesting. Okay,
00:30:44
we're going to have to let you go, but I do want to ask one question on behalf of
00:30:47
Audi Winer. You're a good person to ask this because you do you know we're
00:30:52
talking about quarterbacks and coaches, but you also take a look at front offices.
00:30:57
Why are the New York Jets so terrible? Can you just can you explain especially to our friend Audi who we recruited back
00:31:04
into the football world but he came on this he came tethered to the Jets and now I feel guilty that we've drugg him
00:31:10
into the football world while he's tethered to that organization. Can you explain to us the New York Jets?
00:31:16
>> So, you know, you have this we have this like normal distribution, right? So,
00:31:20
somebody's got to be down there, right? Somebody has to be down there. >> Kevin, that's not true persistently.
00:31:25
They don't have to persistently be >> and in a long enough his even in a long
00:31:31
enough timeline, you know, uh maybe we're we're maybe we're getting into,
00:31:35
you know, monkeys pounding on keyboards and doing the complete work of Shakespeare type of timeline. Yeah.
00:31:40
>> Um >> but yeah, I mean I I put it down to that more than anything because it's not like
00:31:46
they haven't taken shots, I guess, at quarterback, but it's really a quarterback issue, right? Like if we're
00:31:51
if we're saying again, I guess I'm going to default back to the players on the
00:31:55
field versus necessarily the coaches and the GM, you also look and you say like who have they had at quarterback since
00:32:04
uh I don't know, Joe Nameoth or something like like who have they really had who could be an elite type?
00:32:10
>> Well, what once you start focusing on quarterback, I don't even think they're
00:32:13
the team with the worst history. something like the B the Bears could e a Bears fan could easily argue
00:32:19
specifically quarterback that they've had an even worse history than the Jets.
00:32:22
I mean, the Jets, I think, are maybe worst five in in >> Am I remembering right, the great the
00:32:30
great quarterback draft of 83 was uh um Elway and ends with Montana and Kelly's in there, but then there are
00:32:41
three others and one of them, I think, went to the Jets. So, they were in that draft. Is that right? Who was who was
00:32:46
the Jets quarterback drafted in 83? I >> think it was Ken O'Brien, but he was the
00:32:51
24th overall pick I'm looking at here. So, not that >> was ahead of Marino. Marino was after
00:32:56
that. >> Correct. Marino was after that, but you know, a lot of teams seem to mess up. I
00:33:00
guess it just when it comes to the Jets, we have, you know, we have, you know, Zach Wilson number number two pick. Sam
00:33:07
Darnold number three pick. >> Uh Mark Sanchez number five pick over >> Chad Pennington was pretty good.
00:33:14
Remember Chad Pennington? >> Chad Pennington was >> I say he was decent. I mean I mean again
00:33:19
during the Brady years it was kind of a tough slog you know that was even >> can I get some context here how bad are
00:33:26
the Jets in sort of standard deviations are they >> two what period of time
00:33:31
>> or five >> no not five not five >> no so where are they how I mean it's it
00:33:37
feels horrible but I'm biased so what what is in our in our adult life let's
00:33:41
just let's call us an average of I don't know I don't want to impugn Kevin too
00:33:45
much let's call us an average of 50. Me and Audi gonna take you guys down. Um,
00:33:50
so the past 30 years, the past 30 years, >> what do you think the Jets are win loss
00:33:57
record versus the league? Minus one and a half standard deviations. >> I feel like they haven't even
00:34:05
necessarily I mean I mean I I guess maybe bottom third team, but I wouldn't put them much below that when there's
00:34:11
teams like the Browns and stuff like that. What they've done over the last 30
00:34:14
years. >> Yeah. Yeah. the Browns, the Jags probably are another >> I mean look at the Lions up until a few
00:34:20
years ago and I mean that's the hope you have. I mean you know any any team can
00:34:24
have a 40 50 86 year run of terribleness right and then turn it around. So >> you're right the recent history you know
00:34:34
it's like the last 15 years your one winning season was when Ryan Fitzpatrick
00:34:39
had a had a great season. So, you know, yes, you're right. The last 30 years, if
00:34:43
you weight them all equally, but if you're waiting the last 15 years a little bit more heavily than the prior
00:34:48
15 years, that's when the Jets start to look. >> That's true. And that's what that's the
00:34:51
Wharton Moneyball relevant window. We could just say last, you know, this is 12 seasons that we've had Wharton
00:34:56
Moneyball that we drug Audi into this world and he's just been beat about the
00:34:59
B. >> They haven't had a winning record in all that time. >> Yeah. Okay. That's we're going to start
00:35:04
working with the with the with the Wharton Moneyball era. I think that'll quickly become a thing, the Wharton
00:35:09
Moneyball era. Um, all right, Kevin, we should let you go. Thanks for making time for us. Always, always enjoy the
00:35:16
conversation. >> Thanks for having me. >> Kevin Cole, pick him up on Unexpected
00:35:21
Points. Says, "Subsack Unexpected Points is fantastic reading if you're
00:35:24
interested in analytics and the NFL and you can catch him here periodically and many other places." Kevin Cole, welcome
00:35:31
back to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome back to the second half of this week's show.
00:35:35
An open line segment with Kade Massie, Audi Winer, and Shane Jensen. Some chance our buddy Eric Bradloow slides in
00:35:42
here after he wraps up some business on campus, but probably not. We'll probably
00:35:47
have to wait another week to catch Eric. Dion Simpkins, running the show behind the scenes. It just struck me, guys.
00:35:51
Dion counts us in. You know what Dion does in his spare time? He plays drums. He counts musicians in all the time. I
00:35:59
didn't realize after 11 enough years that he's doing the same thing with us
00:36:02
that he does with his bands. Counting us in. Dion Simpkins. We depend on him. Big
00:36:06
Eagles fan. Dion. Big Eagles fan. He's had a good run lately. Audi at the break
00:36:12
was musing about the Eagles. We're just off the line with Kevin Cole. We talked
00:36:17
NFL for half an hour, first half of the show, and Audi is musing about the Eagles. What do you got, Odd? What are
00:36:22
you worried about? >> Yeah. So I I just um recalling a couple years back actually maybe maybe many
00:36:28
years back I built a model to predict next year's performance given the past
00:36:33
that was incredibly simple and it essentially took two elements last year's performance and the average of
00:36:38
the three years and it was a really good predictor. It is about almost as good as
00:36:43
the odds which the current odds which are which are which are very updated in their in their data and should be much
00:36:50
better because they have information. And so I asked the question um given our discussion with with with Kevin that the
00:36:58
Eagles don't seem to be one of the top three or even five teams um in the league right now. And what happened to
00:37:05
the Eagles over the break that my simple model would have missed? They've already
00:37:10
now won two games. And maybe it's because they didn't look too impressive
00:37:12
in the two games. Is that what it is? Or is it that something happened over the offense? So, can I do one one quick bit
00:37:19
on your model before we go to the Eagles? So, in terms of just ordering, I can imagine that that would do well, but
00:37:26
in terms of >> variance explained, it can't do that well, right? Is is my memory of the
00:37:32
persistence of records is that there's a fair bit of regression to the mean. Like
00:37:36
maybe maybe a third of the record persists. >> Well, yeah. You know, no, there's a
00:37:42
coefficient that cuts them down. It's just the inputs to the model were just
00:37:45
those two. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I I mean I don't know if I mean Kate you could
00:37:48
maybe correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if there's that many power rankings
00:37:51
that have the Eagles out of the top five in the league. I mean I think >> but not one
00:37:56
>> one Well yes one could right several I mean but you know I I think probably the
00:38:01
teams the two teams at the top of last year's power rankings I bet weren't in
00:38:05
the Super Bowl. It's probably the Bills and the Ravens, you know. So I I I so
00:38:11
you know I think maybe >> I I I think there's some top teams out there that obviously you know weren't in
00:38:17
the Super Bowl last year. >> I think what you're saying they weren't
00:38:20
the best team last year by the >> by the by the power. They might well not
00:38:25
have been. I think the Ravens were probably top. >> I think that's right. But, you know, I
00:38:31
think some people have talked about there may be ways that they play that are outside of good models.
00:38:38
>> Like for example, >> certainly I I think >> the tush push people the tush push is a
00:38:42
a quality of their team that's just not picked up and that might be >> substantial that it might be enough. It
00:38:48
might be significant. It might be enough to to make >> I actually we were actually talking
00:38:52
about that at lunch over our analytics meeting. the fourth down play where you can increase your your conversion
00:38:59
probability as significantly as the Eagles can do it with the tush push from probably low 70s to mid 90s at a with a
00:39:07
play that has that much leverage. I mean, think about in football a fourth down play has incredible amount of
00:39:14
value. That's just I think that's just not captured. >> Then it's not even it's more than that
00:39:20
because I mean basically if they can get like seven yards on first down it's a
00:39:25
guaranteed it's guaranteed they will >> right because they've got one or two
00:39:30
like you I mean maybe you stop the push push once you cannot stop it two three times in a row. It's just not doable. So
00:39:36
it's kind of a cheat code. >> Okay. So that I'd be interesting to know. We I we it'd be fun to have a
00:39:42
modeler who's tried to work on that and ask how much difference does that make?
00:39:45
Like what are we missing? What are the traditional models missing by not having >> the the other thing with the Eagles that
00:39:50
I think gives them kind of has given them at least observationally a positive residual the last few years is they have
00:39:56
a defense that always shows up against good QBs. And I think that's kind of exceptional. I saw somewhere, I think
00:40:02
maybe it was on Reddit, that since the start of the 2023 season, the Eagles are 9 and0 against teams with like a top
00:40:10
tier QB. The the tiers here are defined by the athletic. I'll tell you who they
00:40:15
are. Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Mahomes, Stafford. >> Yeah. >> And against those teams, Rams, Chiefs,
00:40:22
Bills, Bengals, Ravens, the Eagles have are nine and0 since the start of the 2023 season.
00:40:28
>> That's absurd. So sort of exceptional performance against top talent.
00:40:34
>> Can I throw out another possibility? This is again related to the tush push.
00:40:38
Isn't the EPA per play becoming a dominant measure? And EPA per play is expected points added per play. And if
00:40:47
you have if you can extend your your plays because you can because you have the tush push to convert short ones,
00:40:54
you'll have a lower average EPA per play because you have more plays in your
00:40:59
possessions. And that might be something that is that is not being accounted for.
00:41:04
Um or is EPA because I'm hearing EPA per play everywhere these days. And I always
00:41:08
found that a little bit odd because shouldn't it be EPA per possession? But that's not the right thing. That's
00:41:13
>> Yeah. I I I also don't I don't work like as much with EPA as kind of like a a
00:41:18
modeler would, but like uh I would assume that like you'd want to first of all cut out like EPA per play on passing
00:41:25
versus rushing like you you know you you I I think there's certain like kind of
00:41:29
ways of subsetting the data where you that would make it a lot easier. >> So So Kade, what is your way in this APA
00:41:35
per play? What is your you know do you see the problem as I see >> I thought you were going somewhere that
00:41:40
you that you didn't go and I turned my attention somewhere else for a moment
00:41:44
and I realized that you had gone someplace unexpected. So restate your issue with EPA.
00:41:50
>> My EPA EPA So EPA per play is expected points added on a per play basis. That
00:41:56
seems to favor um teams that get it done quickly as opposed to teams that ek out a little
00:42:05
extra play expected value over many plays because then your EPA per play is going to be lower as opposed to with big
00:42:12
big plays and moving the ball quickly down the field. But it's expected points. So that doesn't it automatically
00:42:18
adjust for fourth down? Like a fourth and two being more like two yards on a fourth down would be actually more
00:42:24
highly valued than for two yards on a first. Yeah. You know, so it almost maybe rewards for getting stretching it
00:42:30
out into those fourth downs. >> So you don't you don't So the issue is
00:42:34
it's if you if you get a little bit of value on a lot of plays, you get you to
00:42:39
the same place as getting a bunch of values on a fewer number of plays. So I so it's a interesting question and I
00:42:47
don't I don't have the goods on it but a couple of observations. I I think
00:42:51
there's I suspect that that if you're just barely ekking it out that that that there's information in
00:42:58
that and that and and the chance of stringing a bunch of those together breaks down. Um on the other the other
00:43:04
end is is true as well. Like big explosive plays are not very predictive. they they matter a lot in the outcome of
00:43:12
the game, but they don't tend to persist. But there I think where I think what EPA captures well is kind of that
00:43:17
middle ground where you're in general you're you know you're getting chunks
00:43:21
you're just getting chunks at better rates than other people. The I think your argument would break down Audi
00:43:27
because I I think if you're just ekking it out it's like teams that barely win
00:43:31
games there's not this special thing about being able to win. They're just
00:43:35
generally >> or you're you're almost talking about like what would be the strategic value
00:43:39
in a team basically just tush pushing the whole time like what happened if that was the only thing they did?
00:43:45
>> Yeah. >> And how they kind of crawl could you crawl down the field basically like
00:43:50
that? >> What I'm conjecturing is is there a team for which EPA per play doesn't capture
00:43:55
their value? >> That's essentially the question. And what would it look like? And what I
00:44:00
would argue is it's a team that has this ability to to get a couple yards when
00:44:04
they need it on a really regular basis. >> Yeah. >> And really what you're talking about
00:44:08
there I think is well what's not being captured by the EPA the expected value
00:44:12
is how much variation like at the team level how if a team really vary you know there is a team that could consistently
00:44:19
get that expectation every time would be valuable. Exactly. Low variance in the in in the very low E small EPA but low
00:44:28
low variance. the question. Okay. Well, now you've now you can go look at data
00:44:33
to see whether there is such a thing, whether that is a trait of a team, whether that's a consistent thing.
00:44:38
>> Sure. I mean, we must observe it sometimes, but is it just by chance or
00:44:41
is it persist? Is is that it would be tied to, you know, the style of play or really good quarterbacking maybe? Um,
00:44:49
but I think it's an interesting question, guys. We should talk about something besides NFL. We've been doing
00:44:53
NFL for pushing threequarters of an hour now. So, of course, let's talk about
00:44:57
college football. Um, >> come on. Get a little baseball. Yeah. >> Was a player of the week in the American
00:45:06
League last week. Hold on. Give me Give me >> Let me just before we transition before
00:45:11
we transition to baseball, let's What do we have to say about football, college
00:45:15
football? Um, >> I don't know, just as a summary, I I looked at the title odd. So, we're we're
00:45:22
three weeks into the college football season, four if you count week zero, but mostly three weeks in. And the title
00:45:28
odds, the the remarkable thing about the season so far is that it still seems quite open. So the title odds are quite
00:45:34
flat at the top still, but I was curious where they were. And what the most interesting thing to me is that the top
00:45:40
three teams, the shortest odds right now, Tuesday afternoon, are Ohio State, Penn State, and Oregon, who are all
00:45:47
members of the Big 10, which is a little bit surprising. And I and I think that's
00:45:52
because there's not much else going on in the Big 10. like we can be pretty dang sure those three teams are going to
00:45:57
make the playoffs. More confident than any three teams in the SEC and I think that's where their advantage is coming
00:46:04
from. But it's it's it's interesting and kind of unique that you have Ohio State,
00:46:08
Penn State, Oregon at the top of the the odds board. >> And it's kind of interesting because
00:46:13
normally you would sort of say like you know like >> because because the foot because the
00:46:18
playoffs are more open now and their path doesn't necessarily exclude each other. they don't they're not competing
00:46:23
for the same kind of allocation. Before like when we were talking about kind of the football odds, I was surprised that
00:46:28
the Bills and Ravens were like the top two just because they kind of they have to go through each other basically.
00:46:34
>> That's exactly right. So, and so I I think that's I think that's that that
00:46:38
and the and the different the difference in the Big 10 versus the Big 12. If you
00:46:42
look at the not the Big 12, the SEC SEC has six of the top 10. Eight of the top 14. I mean, that's just absurd. Eight of
00:46:48
the top 14. It's just incredible. ACC has three teams in the top 20. I'm
00:46:54
talking about top 20 shortest odds to win the championship. But the highest one is Miami. Miami at eighth. And then
00:47:01
the Big 12, the fourth of the four divisions, really the power four divisions have two teams and they are
00:47:08
18th and 20th. So Texas Tech, get your guns up. Red Raiders, highest rated odds team for the championship in
00:47:17
the Big 12 at 18th and Utah just a little behind them. By the way, that's a good promotion. That's a game this
00:47:23
weekend. Texas Tech at Utah. So, at the top of the Big 12 and if you can if you if you're interested enough in college
00:47:29
football to be interested in the Big 12. Good Big 12 match up there. And a second
00:47:32
one, ASU, Arizona State going into Baylor. So, a couple of big Big 12 matchups this weekend.
00:47:38
>> How much title probabilities left over by the time you get down to the 18th or
00:47:42
19th ranked team by probability? >> Not enough to worry about. How's that? I
00:47:45
think three weeks in. >> Right. Right. Don't don't buy be buying. >> Yeah. Right. And like even even when
00:47:51
you're talking about winning the whole damn thing, Shane, I think we can ignore
00:47:55
after 20 even before the season begins. We the guys are going to make the playoffs that come out of the top 20,
00:48:00
but they're not going to win the thing coming out of the top 20. I, you know,
00:48:04
it'd be nice to know how much how many teams you need pretty flat right now.
00:48:07
How many do you need to capture 50% of the probability? Audi could run some odds conversions for us real quick, but
00:48:15
you're gonna need, you know, you're gonna need four or five teams, which is
00:48:20
unbelievable in college football that you would need that much to capture 50% of the probability. It's just not been
00:48:27
that flat in a long time. Um, all right. The we have a lot of good games, but there aren't like monster games on the
00:48:35
college football side. NFL is a lame lame schedule this week. Let me just say Detroit of Baltimore Monday night is the
00:48:41
the headliner I believe. But even the Lions are six and a half point dogs going into Baltimore. Okay, that's
00:48:48
football. Football. What about baseball, guys? What do you got? We got the home run race, I think, is the most
00:48:54
interesting thing right now. No. Or at least the number >> I'm looking at I'm looking at two
00:48:57
forecasts I made many months ago and as as they're starting to resolve, they had
00:49:02
huge uncertainty anyway. So, it's not exactly as if if losing is great, but I
00:49:07
did predict Cal Riley at 57. >> Um, so, um, >> he slowed down a bit. He's still I think
00:49:15
he's still stuck at 54. >> And I had and I predicted Judge at around 323
00:49:22
months and months ago is his final batting average. Um, so Judge has been hot. So, he's got 48 homers. I think he
00:49:29
hit five in six games or something. um after being being on the disabled list. So that does it does ask the question
00:49:36
who's going to win the MVP in the in the American League >> um judge. >> You think it's an automatic judge?
00:49:41
>> Yeah. I mean >> if I had to actually >> all the all the rate numbers argue
00:49:46
guys before you go too fast pass the home run because y'all go in MVP and now
00:49:50
I need more dimensions than I'm paying attention to. Home run's real simple.
00:49:53
It's real simple for like simple distant baseball fans like me. We see some guys
00:49:58
here. We see some numbers. They're all around 50, which is amazing. Do you have
00:50:02
anything else to say here? I mean, I I remember y'all being y'all poo pooing
00:50:06
that Judge wasn't going to win the thing before he got injured. And now that he's
00:50:10
back, he's making a good run at it. But if we get all five of these guys over
00:50:14
50, how how unprecedented is that? That is unprecedented. >> Well, I mean, yeah, if if we were to get
00:50:20
five, uh, that it would be the first time in baseball history that that had happened a couple times.
00:50:25
>> Suarez is at 45. We only have two weeks left. That might not happen. What if you
00:50:29
say four? >> So, the only two previous times that we've had four in history were both kind
00:50:34
of steroid era. I think it was 99 and 2001. I could list off the guys involved, but it's, you know, Bonds,
00:50:41
Magguire, those those dudes. Okay. >> Uh um so this would be certainly the
00:50:45
first non steroid era kind of instance even of four. >> And the fun, you know,
00:50:50
>> the fun thing here is that no, nobody would be surprised at Schwarber Otani
00:50:54
Judge being at the top. I mean that's those are like those are like straight
00:50:57
out of the you know top of the queue but then >> perennial perennial home run hitters
00:51:02
>> but then Raleigh is actually leading the list and it's just I think it's been one
00:51:05
of the great stories. Um I I I'd love to see a good backstory on that whole thing. Um
00:51:10
>> see the the reason why I'm I mean so what makes Judge different than the
00:51:14
others is he has an OPS of 1150 or something. His b his batting average is almost 100 points higher than Raleigh.
00:51:22
his on base percentage is 100 points higher and if you watch you he's just always on base and uh it just
00:51:29
>> he's one of the greatest regular season players we've ever seen.
00:51:32
>> Yeah, thank you very much. He just comes out and got him. >> And there you have it. There you have
00:51:41
it. >> Um but uh but so it's hard not to look the other way. On the other hand,
00:51:46
Raleigh's doing it a catcher. And that is, I think, the position that is most
00:51:51
poorly valued because it's the only position where you can have an enormous gap
00:51:59
between number one and number two on the offensive side. You just don't see that
00:52:03
at first base or the outfield or even shortstop. You third, you just don't see
00:52:09
one guy having that good a season relative to who's two. which means it's
00:52:15
just an automatic competitive advantage that doesn't exist in any other position. And I don't know how people
00:52:22
properly evaluate that. I'm not saying >> I guess the way the way I think about
00:52:26
which I think is mostly just paraphrasing you is that I think it's catcher is such a difficult position
00:52:32
fielding wise both grueling in terms of like the stamina involved as well as the
00:52:37
g the various intricacies of both of both throwing as well as game calling. there's so it's the closest thing to
00:52:43
kind of an onfield coach that you have. So there's all kinds of that skill set
00:52:46
and then to also have that and be a great hitter. It's just I think more rare to see that kind of combination of
00:52:53
skills involved. And that's why, you know, when you look at Hall of Fame hitters, you know, and and you're
00:52:59
comparing across positions, obviously the catchers don't necessarily look on
00:53:02
paper as well because we're kind of baking that into our evaluation, I think. And so when somebody like Cal
00:53:07
Rally stands out or Joe Mau a few years Joe Mau won MVP I think as a catcher um you know sometime when they kind of do
00:53:15
go off like this I do I agree with Audi it really stands out in in a way that kind of you know
00:53:20
>> Yeah sort of norm for Judge doing what he does every >> Yeah. So body talk about how the how we
00:53:27
so that all makes a lot of sense to me and you're saying it's not capt like as
00:53:30
as good as baseball is capturing value they're missing that >> they're they're missing that because
00:53:35
they sort of they they so everything is additive right so you you don't recognize that you have to have a
00:53:42
catcher you can't you got to do it right so there is no way if you have Cal Rally
00:53:48
on your team doing what he does no other team every team is at a big deficit automatically out out the gate relative
00:53:56
to the team that >> shouldn't that be captured in war if it's war is position specific
00:54:00
>> if they could do kind of yeah I I mean so I mean you're right though Kate that at least you could try
00:54:07
and defile define build that into the value like what the concept of a replacement player is and but I don't
00:54:13
think that you know because of the kind of attrition that happens as catcher and
00:54:18
stuff like that the selection bias against catchers means I think it's very hard to define that replacement value
00:54:24
and Maybe I guess Audi's arguing and I would support him that you should sort
00:54:28
of almost tweak like that the concept of replacement player for catcher should be
00:54:31
kind of brought downwards >> because it's such a rare skill set to be competent at all that
00:54:37
>> so it is it is down but here's my here's the observation that I make about war
00:54:41
and how it deals with position and position of catcher in particular. It's invariant to the distribution of talent
00:54:48
above the replacement. Think about that for a minute. So if you have if you think of the replacement
00:54:56
line, there's always someone available right at or below replacement. That's
00:54:59
the assumption. And that there's someone available above the replacement, but
00:55:03
doesn't ask the question, what does it look like? So imagine a just the placement level is zero. Imagine there's
00:55:08
one guy at 10 and another at nine, another eight, another seven, another six, another five, all the way down, a
00:55:13
big pile of three, and two and one. That may be one way it could be distributed.
00:55:18
And now imagine a a different position. There's one guy at 10 and the next are
00:55:21
all at one and below. >> Yeah. No, Audi's made a great point because you're
00:55:25
>> telling me that that 10 the 10 in each group are the same and >> and that's something you can't correct
00:55:31
with just redefining the replacement player because you're talking again about sort of the a different
00:55:36
distribution like we should value somebody who's a fivew player at catcher >> well the replace more than somebody
00:55:45
who's a five war player in the outfield because there's just not that many five
00:55:49
war players in major league baseball >> right so go with me for a moment like
00:55:51
imagine you're running a fantasy draft Right. And you got there's one catcher
00:55:55
at 10 and all the rest are one and lower. And at center field or in the outfield there's one at 10, one at nine,
00:56:00
and one at eight and a seven, a six, whatever. There's lots, right? >> Who you picking first? If you got the
00:56:05
first pick in the trash, >> I don't you know, it's the 10 at catcher
00:56:10
because you just got now nine points over all your competitors that they're never finding.
00:56:15
>> So, it should make that somehow more valuable. And that 10. Now, you could
00:56:20
say if the 10 is already in there, if they've put the 10, but it's not because
00:56:23
I know that the war calculation is relative to replacement value. So, they don't look at that distribution above
00:56:29
the replacement value to find out to figure out your war. And so, I want I can imagine doing that. So, how does it
00:56:34
relate to the MVP race? It it my gut says that if if Judge doesn't have a huge offensive advantage, which right
00:56:42
now he does, but if it's not huge, I'm awarding it to the catcher. Yeah, that
00:56:49
makes a lot of sense. >> Yeah, it's kind of like, you know, if if it was a DH that was kind of running
00:56:54
away like, you know, I think we kind of like like somebody like Schwarber maybe gets dis, you know, naturally
00:57:00
downweighted relative to somebody who's fielding more complex positions. So, I guess he's going up against DH
00:57:07
pitches. >> Guys, we are down to the last two weeks. Are there any races to We haven't talked
00:57:11
about races in a while and yet they're we're we're at it now. I mean,
00:57:15
>> oh my god. Well, it's Yankees Red Sox right now all over again. >> I mean, they're kind of lined up to play
00:57:20
each other in the wild card round if which I I I personally would >> Well, there's a home field advantage
00:57:26
that's really up in the air. >> Right now, the Red Sox have an advantage
00:57:31
in in head-to-head play. So, the Yankees actually have to come out ahead, not tied in order to uh in order to get home
00:57:37
field. Um, that's a big race. >> By the way, the Brewers have have sealed
00:57:42
it up. And h how the hell they did it at this point is just remarkable without any stars. Talk about we asked the
00:57:49
question what what would you rather have in your distribution of talent lots of lots of twos and threes or or is it an
00:57:56
extreme and you know how does that work and talk about a recipe for for winning that no one really predicted at this
00:58:04
level I think. Yeah, certainly. I mean, you know, somebody would I if if somebody asked
00:58:11
who's going to come out of the central, I might have picked the Brewers, but I
00:58:14
would not have had them as the best team in in baseball. >> Well, to make explain, one of the things
00:58:19
y'all are saying is that the Brewers and Phillies are vying for the National
00:58:22
League home field for the for the for the duration, right there. That's the That's a real consequential battle that
00:58:28
it's in. >> It is. >> Okay. So, that's that's interesting. Um,
00:58:36
looks like there's some interesting wild card stuff going on. >> Well, I mean, I think the the AL West
00:58:40
race I think is the interesting one in ter, you know, as well because I mean, >> well, I know. Well, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.
00:58:47
AOS AO AO West I think is the more interesting one just because, you know, we've got the Astros Mariners and I mean
00:58:52
the Mariners in addition to that being like, you know, a half game or game separation between the two, I think this
00:58:58
is the Mariners have the longest postseason drought streak I think in >> like professional
00:59:03
>> in American sports. So that's right. That's right. >> In American In American sports. So, um,
00:59:09
yeah. I mean, obviously that I I kind of feel like you we got, you know, I mean,
00:59:13
I'm not sure how many casual fans would be out there rooting for the Astros anyway, but I I feel like the public
00:59:18
should be really on the Mariners for this one. >> Yeah, for sure. For sure. Okay. Well,
00:59:22
there's a lot of interesting stuff going on. You're talking about So, the Jays
00:59:25
somehow clinch the not clinch, but they're going to win the East. So, it's
00:59:28
about Yankees Red Sox for the wild card there. We're talking about the M and
00:59:33
Astros, right, Shane? That's a great team to pull for. >> Yeah, the Rangers aren't far back. So, I
00:59:40
mean, you know, the you know, the Mariners and Astros have uh have still still got to keep it going as far as,
00:59:46
you know, one the loser of that race could still miss the playoffs. It's not
00:59:50
like they're just competing for the division. >> Right. Right. Right. Okay. And then
00:59:53
flipping over to the NL, I mean, the Phillies have made the East a sleeper, but they are
00:59:58
>> Well, the Mets have really made the East a sleeper. The Mets are really something
01:00:02
we should mention. They were the top team top team in the NL >> at mid Jul mid June I think up until mid
01:00:09
June and now they they're barely holding on to that like last wild card spot.
01:00:15
>> Yeah. Bar it's an incredible collapse. >> Barely barely barely. I could they could
01:00:20
this could easily go away especially if they continue what they've been doing.
01:00:24
>> Um but then that that that NL West is that's a great rivalry in baseball these
01:00:29
days. this Dodgers Padres's thing. The Dodgers do have a two-game lead right
01:00:32
now. Um, which is pretty healthy with only two weeks left, but that that's the
01:00:37
Padres's haven't won many of those divisions, right? That's that's a that's
01:00:40
been a hard thing for them to get over in recent past. So, that's a fun one.
01:00:45
All right. There's a lot of good things for us to pay attention to as baseball
01:00:47
comes down to the wire here. Um, fellas, why don't we leave it there? Why don't
01:00:52
we call that a day for the whole crew here, Audi Winer and Shane Jensen who've
01:00:57
been in here from the beginning for Eric Bradlo and Absentia, our fourth co-host.
01:01:03
This has been Kade Massie. Big thanks to Dion Simpkins. Big thanks to D Patel. Big thanks to Marissa Raina. That team
01:01:10
keeps us going. And thanks to you guys for listening. Come back and join us next time. Between now and then, enjoy
01:01:17
your sports. [Music]