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