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 today with the whole
00:00:10
crew. It feels like it's been a while
00:00:12
and rare lately that we have everybody
00:00:14
in here, but today we do. Shane Jensen
00:00:16
is in wearing his Phillies red. Audi
00:00:18
Winer is in wearing his Yankees blue,
00:00:21
I'm assuming. Eric Bradlo is in wearing
00:00:24
something baseball related. Hall of
00:00:25
Fame. Hall of Fame. And I'm in here
00:00:28
wearing a just a normal button-down
00:00:30
shirt because, you know, it's not
00:00:32
college football day yet. It's only
00:00:34
Tuesday. This is Tuesday afternoon.
00:00:36
We're going to we're going to record as
00:00:38
we usually do this afternoon here at the
00:00:41
very end of the Cleveland Guardians
00:00:43
Detroit Tigers first wild card game
00:00:45
kicking off the playoffs this afternoon
00:00:46
in the ninth inning. We'll probably have
00:00:47
an update here in the next few minutes
00:00:49
as that game wraps up or not or goes
00:00:51
into extra innings. But otherwise, we're
00:00:53
going to run um a regular show in that
00:00:56
we'll have a guest here in the first
00:00:57
half hour. We'll have open topics in the
00:01:00
second half hour. And then we are going
00:01:02
to have an overtime guest in a third
00:01:06
half hour. If you want to stick around,
00:01:07
if you want a little more conversation,
00:01:08
we're going to have uh uh talking a
00:01:11
little writer cup in the last in the
00:01:14
last overtime segment. You want to stick
00:01:15
around. We got analytics. We have a a
00:01:18
wonderful conversation lined up. We'd
00:01:20
like to welcome back to Wharton
00:01:22
Moneyball, Jamie Smoliga. Jamie has even
00:01:24
more letters than we have after our
00:01:26
names, guys. He's got a DVM name. That's
00:01:29
Oh, I don't even know. Is that Well,
00:01:31
he's going to tell us what I can imagine
00:01:32
what it might be. He's got PhD out of
00:01:34
his name. We know that he has FACSM
00:01:37
after his name. Um but his title which
00:01:40
is a cool one professor department of
00:01:42
rehabilitation sciences and director of
00:01:43
research doctor of physical therapy
00:01:45
program in Seattle Washington at the tus
00:01:48
university school of medicine. So Jamie
00:01:50
uh welcome back to Wharton Moneyball.
00:01:53
>> Thanks so much for having me again. I
00:01:54
really appreciate it. So it's clear, you
00:01:57
know, from reviewing your academic work,
00:02:01
you do work, let's call it, broadly in
00:02:03
translational medicine, athletic
00:02:05
performance, injuries. Um, you also
00:02:09
write about these topics. Um, I did not
00:02:11
know, but uh I will be the abstract and
00:02:14
you're a lifelong Olympic sports fan. We
00:02:16
could ask you about so many things, but
00:02:18
I think one of the topics you've been
00:02:20
working on lately is I'll probably
00:02:23
mispronounce her name, but Faith
00:02:26
Kipiggon
00:02:27
um and her attempt to break the 4-minute
00:02:30
mile. So, could you please give us a
00:02:32
status? Maybe this would be good for our
00:02:35
listeners. Obviously, Dr. Roger Banister
00:02:38
broke the 4-minute mile for men years
00:02:40
and years ago. You'll probably even know
00:02:42
the date. probably sometime I don't even
00:02:44
know the 60s 50s I don't know
00:02:45
>> 50s I think it was 19 late 50s right
00:02:48
>> y
00:02:48
>> and so just you're gonna give us uh
00:02:50
Jamie the history like how close are
00:02:53
women to breaking the 4-minute mile will
00:02:55
it actually happen you know we'd love to
00:02:57
start there and there's lots of stuff we
00:02:59
want to talk to you about
00:03:01
>> sure that sounds great
00:03:04
yeah I mean as far as uh you know track
00:03:07
and field you know it's it's definitely
00:03:08
a passion of mine um I got into it in
00:03:10
high school and have been hooked ever
00:03:12
since. So, yeah, Faith Kipon, she is a
00:03:16
three-time gold medalist uh in uh in
00:03:20
track and field uh from Kenya and she is
00:03:24
the she's gotten the closest uh as to
00:03:26
breaking the sub4minute barrier as any
00:03:28
female has right now. She is the current
00:03:30
world record holder in the mile and that
00:03:34
is uh her time is 407.64.
00:03:37
So, she's about 7 and a half seconds
00:03:39
away from a sub4-minute mile. And let's
00:03:41
just stop by saying that's really fast.
00:03:45
I mean that's that's really really
00:03:47
really fast. And I think that's that's
00:03:50
one of the first things I really want to
00:03:51
acknowledge is whether you're a man,
00:03:52
whether you're a woman, it's a fast
00:03:54
time. Now if if you are an NCAA Division
00:03:58
One men's track and field competitor,
00:04:02
then you're surrounded by a bunch of
00:04:04
other fast people. 407 doesn't seem
00:04:05
fast, but trust me, it's really fast
00:04:08
whether you're a man or a woman. And so
00:04:10
she's about seven and a half seconds
00:04:11
away. But the thing is seven and a half
00:04:14
seconds away from a mile world record in
00:04:17
the grand scheme or sorry seven and a
00:04:19
half seconds away from a sub4minute
00:04:21
mile. There's a lot of ground there. I
00:04:23
mean that's you know it it could be um
00:04:26
despite what Nike told us in the
00:04:28
breaking four attempt it could be
00:04:29
decades before we see somebody go under
00:04:31
four or maybe it could happen in the
00:04:32
next few years but but there's still a
00:04:34
lot of round to go uh before somebody
00:04:36
breaks four.
00:04:37
>> Let me ask you a question. I've always
00:04:38
thought about this. Okay. One of my
00:04:40
former colleagues when I worked at ETSS,
00:04:42
AI and Shane know him well. His name's
00:04:44
Howard Wner, studied this issue a lot,
00:04:46
which is trajectories of records. And
00:04:48
there's lots of neat graphics.
00:04:51
How far back would we have to go in
00:04:54
time? Like when was the women's record
00:04:56
roughly 4:15 and how long has it taken?
00:05:00
And I imagine whatever number you give
00:05:02
me, let's say you tell me 10 years ago,
00:05:04
20 years ago, 30 years, I don't know
00:05:05
what it was.
00:05:07
I guess your point is it's going to take
00:05:10
potentially longer to get the next seven
00:05:12
and a half seconds than it took to get
00:05:14
the last seven and a half. But that I
00:05:16
could be wrong, but yeah, you know, that
00:05:19
that's what I would say. I I I think all
00:05:21
these we we get to this point where
00:05:26
there's you know uh we start getting to
00:05:28
this threshold where you know we've got
00:05:30
diminishing returns where people start
00:05:32
just chipping away at the world record
00:05:35
and it's measured in ten of seconds you
00:05:38
know or maybe even seconds. Now, Faith
00:05:39
Kipon, you know, to her credit, she took
00:05:42
the world record down from uh I believe
00:05:44
it was 412 to 407, you know, which is
00:05:47
which is, you know, really uh you know,
00:05:50
impressive, you know, in itself
00:05:53
that translation.
00:05:55
So, it's possible somebody could come
00:05:57
up, you know, somebody could have a
00:05:59
really breakthrough performance, but a
00:06:00
breakthrough performance would be two or
00:06:03
three seconds. Seven and a half seconds
00:06:06
is going to be is going to be a lot
00:06:08
>> quickly. Yeah, I'm looking at the record
00:06:10
charts. Uh so it stayed very for over 20
00:06:13
years pretty much right around that time
00:06:15
412 or so and then Faith did drop but uh
00:06:18
anything any of that drop have to do
00:06:20
with technology shoes or something? I
00:06:22
mean how I mean because that's always
00:06:24
the wild card in all these things,
00:06:26
>> right? And I I would say definitely
00:06:28
pretty much all the world records in
00:06:29
track and field have something to do
00:06:30
with shoes. Again, anytime we talk about
00:06:32
any of these world records, I think we
00:06:34
need to start off by saying that number
00:06:36
one's the athlete is putting in the hard
00:06:37
work. You know, if we we go to some
00:06:39
random person on the street or even a
00:06:41
really good runner and we give them a
00:06:42
pair of shoes that are spectacular,
00:06:44
they're not going to become a world
00:06:45
record holder because the shoes. Faith
00:06:47
Cape Bon, it's a combination of
00:06:49
incredible hard work, incredible
00:06:51
coaching, you know, just motivation,
00:06:54
drive, and then you add a pair of super
00:06:57
shoes onto that. And these super shoes
00:06:59
that have been around since 2017, those
00:07:01
are going to improve in performance by
00:07:03
maybe up to five five percent, which is
00:07:06
gigantic. And this is why we've seen
00:07:08
since 2017, we've seen all these
00:07:10
distance running world records fall and
00:07:12
the entire field has gotten fast. And so
00:07:14
the shoes are definitely a big part of
00:07:16
her world record and everybody's world
00:07:18
record.
00:07:19
>> Just if you took the the world record
00:07:21
from 1995 and put them in the shoes,
00:07:23
they'd be running 4072 is roughly.
00:07:27
>> Yeah. I mean, I I think that's I think
00:07:28
that's fair to say. I I think they would
00:07:30
be maybe if not 407, it would be close
00:07:33
to that. These shoes, the super shoes
00:07:34
have changed everything in distance
00:07:36
running,
00:07:36
>> right? Because it it puts in perspective
00:07:38
the forecasting. So, the forecasting is
00:07:40
really really hard when you are when you
00:07:42
are assuming or don't assume there's
00:07:44
some sort of human limit and it changes
00:07:46
the entire way you do the mathematics.
00:07:48
Um, and shoes just really break through
00:07:52
that kind of barrier because it it's
00:07:53
it's not a human limit. It's all of a
00:07:55
sudden finding a technological
00:07:56
advantage. All right.
00:07:59
>> Right. Right. Yeah. So if we look back,
00:08:01
you know, again, you know, Kipun broke
00:08:02
the world record, you know, in um in
00:08:05
2023
00:08:07
and you know, before that, you know, in
00:08:09
2019 had been down to to 412, but before
00:08:12
that, you mentioned 1996 that that was
00:08:14
uh Satlana Masterova had the world
00:08:16
record in 1996. And you know, could she
00:08:19
have run 5 seconds faster with Super
00:08:22
Shoes? You know, per perhaps. Um, and so
00:08:24
again, we think about like the cinder
00:08:26
track versus rubberized track versus now
00:08:29
the really fantastic track surfaces that
00:08:31
we have, even indoor records, banking,
00:08:34
things like that. You know, it's a
00:08:36
completely different game.
00:08:37
>> Jamie, let me ask you, is there
00:08:40
>> is there an ideal size for a track and
00:08:45
field person that's trying to run a
00:08:47
mile? Have you I mean, because you're
00:08:48
both obviously a doctor of well,
00:08:50
physiology. I mean you I assume you
00:08:52
you're actually just correct me you're a
00:08:54
real doctor right now we're like we're
00:08:56
PhD doctors but you you got some sort of
00:08:58
medical degree no
00:08:59
>> yeah I I've got a doctor of veterary
00:09:00
medicine degree now now how I went from
00:09:02
veterary medicine
00:09:03
>> that's what I thought DM was but I
00:09:05
didn't want to okay
00:09:06
>> but how I went from veterary medicine to
00:09:08
a PhD in sports medicine that that those
00:09:10
are that's a story for another day but
00:09:13
um but as as one of my colleagues put it
00:09:15
I'm qualified to treat the horse and the
00:09:16
jockey I guess although I I really can't
00:09:19
treat the jockey I could just analyze
00:09:20
their performance I'm not a medical
00:09:21
doctor.
00:09:22
>> Could you give us a sense though? What
00:09:23
size is Faith? And like is there an
00:09:26
optimal size? Like you could argue I
00:09:28
could argue both ways. Like if she were
00:09:29
maybe a little bit taller, she'd have a
00:09:31
longer stride length. Maybe it wouldn't
00:09:34
slow down the speed of her movement and
00:09:35
she could still get as many I'll call
00:09:37
them RPMs and therefore she could run
00:09:39
faster. Is there any like is there an
00:09:41
optimal size? Well, you know, this is a
00:09:44
this is such a loaded question and I I I
00:09:47
think if if we think back to the
00:09:50
pre-susain bolt era, there is some
00:09:52
actual research done to show what the
00:09:55
optimal size is for running 100 meter uh
00:09:59
dash and about predictions of the future
00:10:01
world record holder, what they would be.
00:10:03
And then 6'5, Usain Bolt comes along and
00:10:06
just demolishes these these expectations
00:10:09
that the tallest any successful sprinter
00:10:11
would be I think would be something like
00:10:13
6'1. Um so I think you know it's hard to
00:10:17
say. Now Faith Kipon she's she's listed
00:10:19
as uh being five feet tall you know 5
00:10:22
feet on the dot and you know some you
00:10:24
read 93 to 97 pounds. Again, these these
00:10:27
numbers vary, but you know, she she's
00:10:29
pretty short, but again, it's within the
00:10:32
normal realm of female distance runners.
00:10:34
Um, somebody like Paula Radcliffe, who
00:10:36
was the former world record holder on
00:10:38
Marathon, I think she was around 5'6.
00:10:40
Uh, I think in the mile and the 1500 for
00:10:43
both men and for women, we see a variety
00:10:46
of um body heights. You know, we see
00:10:50
guys that are are right around Faith
00:10:52
Kipan's height, you know, maybe 5'2, 53
00:10:55
to men that are over six feet tall
00:10:56
running sub4minute miles and at the
00:10:58
worldass level. Uh, and also too, we
00:11:00
also see a range in um, you know, by
00:11:03
dimensions. You'll see some really
00:11:05
really lanky people and then you'll see
00:11:06
some that are a lot more muscular. So, I
00:11:08
I think it's hard to say, you know, is
00:11:11
there an ideal size? I I think the one
00:11:14
thing within track and field where there
00:11:16
seems to be one specific body type, one
00:11:18
specific phenotype is the high jump.
00:11:20
Every single high jumper is tall and
00:11:22
lanky, but other than that, there really
00:11:24
does seem to be a lot of body,
00:11:27
>> you know, Mondo Delantis,
00:11:31
he he's he's the best that's ever been.
00:11:34
I don't know. I I feel like if you saw
00:11:35
him in, you know, t-shirt and shirts at
00:11:38
Walmart, you wouldn't know that he's the
00:11:39
best Paul Walter that's that's ever
00:11:41
been. I think he's pretty non-escript. I
00:11:42
think he's right around six foot tall.
00:11:44
Yeah, he looks muscular, but you know, I
00:11:46
think there's been some more muscular
00:11:47
ones, some some leaner ones, maybe Paul
00:11:50
Vault, but yeah,
00:11:51
>> please.
00:11:52
>> Yeah. Well, I know I know it's
00:11:53
impossible to satisfy uh Eric's
00:11:55
curiosity. He loves to learn about
00:11:57
everything, but there's a big event that
00:11:58
happened in with Nike and Faith that
00:12:01
that that I I did some reading. Um it's
00:12:04
extremely interesting and so can you
00:12:06
tell us about that event and and what
00:12:09
happened?
00:12:09
>> Right. So, I I think it's important to
00:12:11
get to the backstory of the event. Um,
00:12:13
and that's what made the event happen.
00:12:15
So, back in June, um, Nike staged the
00:12:18
Breaking Four event in which Faith Kipan
00:12:22
was going to become the first woman to
00:12:24
attempt to run a sub4-minute mile. And
00:12:27
so the backstory behind this is in
00:12:29
February of this year, February 2025, um
00:12:32
there was uh some a research paper that
00:12:35
came out um proposing that Faith
00:12:38
Capagon's world record of 407 in the
00:12:40
mile if she had proper pacing throughout
00:12:44
and proper aerodynamics throughout meant
00:12:47
if she drafted just as NASCAR drivers
00:12:50
draft. if she used like the most perfect
00:12:53
of the perfect drafting techniques,
00:12:56
maybe, just maybe, she could run a
00:12:59
sub4-minute mile. In other words, her
00:13:00
407.64 mile was equivalent to a
00:13:04
sub4minute mile under the absolute
00:13:07
perfect ideal conditions. So, this
00:13:08
paper,
00:13:09
>> would that qualify as a world record
00:13:10
under those conditions or would it not?
00:13:12
>> It would depend how it was run. Um, you
00:13:15
know, I would I would say probably no.
00:13:16
like uh if if if this happened
00:13:18
organically during a race or even if it
00:13:20
was an actual race with actual
00:13:22
competitors and all of her competitors
00:13:24
said, "You know what? We're going to go
00:13:25
around you. We're going to try to
00:13:26
support you, then then it could qualify
00:13:28
as a world record." But the only way
00:13:29
they could really do this proper
00:13:31
drafting was by having a bunch of people
00:13:34
who could run faster than the sub4minute
00:13:36
mile pace support her, and that's men.
00:13:38
Um, you know, men biologically have many
00:13:41
different advantages uh that happen
00:13:44
physiologically and as a result they're
00:13:46
capable of running sub4-minute miles a
00:13:48
lot easier. So she needed a team of men
00:13:50
to surround her to
00:13:51
>> or you have a team or you have a team of
00:13:53
women who support her for short
00:13:55
stretches of course.
00:13:56
>> For short stretches. Yeah. So you rotate
00:13:58
in and out but that would not count for
00:13:59
a
00:14:01
>> so so yeah this paper came out in
00:14:04
February and it generated a lot of buzz
00:14:06
and the way I got I got into it is um
00:14:08
yeah somebody at uh NPR had reached out
00:14:11
to me Jonathan Lambert uh from their
00:14:12
science desk had reached out to me he
00:14:14
and I had been in touch with some other
00:14:15
things and he asked me to review the
00:14:17
paper and just provide some expert
00:14:18
commentary for NPR on it and it was
00:14:20
really fun. I looked at the paper and I
00:14:22
really want to state the researchers
00:14:23
behind this paper they did a great job.
00:14:26
There's nothing wrong with what they
00:14:27
did. There's, you know, I actually I've
00:14:29
gotten in the field of research
00:14:31
integrity and and and I could be a
00:14:33
research skeptic with something
00:14:34
sometimes. These people, these
00:14:35
researchers, Roger Cra, Shayla Kip, and
00:14:38
and her team, their team, they they did
00:14:40
fine. There's nothing wrong with the
00:14:41
study. They were very transparent about
00:14:43
all the limitations in the study. Study
00:14:45
is great. But the study kind of feels
00:14:47
like a bunch of people saying, you know,
00:14:50
well, what if we did this? You know
00:14:51
what? If what if instead of running 1.3
00:14:54
meters apart for wind resistance, what
00:14:55
if they ran 1.2 meters? And they they
00:14:57
they looked at all the literature and
00:14:59
they developed a mathematical a series
00:15:01
of mathematical models to predict if you
00:15:04
gave her the ideal conditions, what
00:15:06
would she be able to run? And if in
00:15:08
certain conditions, maybe she could run
00:15:09
sub4. And so now what happened is we
00:15:12
took this this theory, this interesting
00:15:15
science story, this interesting paper
00:15:17
got translated from
00:15:19
maybe this could possibly happen with
00:15:21
perfect conditions to headlines say
00:15:24
Faith Keepon's, you know, mile record is
00:15:27
equivalent to a sub4minute mile. She's
00:15:29
capable of doing it. It's just a matter
00:15:31
of time. She'll be the first to break
00:15:32
it. And in April of this year, Nike
00:15:35
announced they're going to actually have
00:15:37
Faith Kagun try to do this um and put
00:15:40
together a team of male pacers and use
00:15:43
Nike technology to make this happen. So
00:15:46
that's kind of the backstory of how the
00:15:47
Sub4 started. It started with a research
00:15:49
paper and again a good research paper
00:15:51
that Nike tried to translate into
00:15:54
history.
00:15:55
>> Jamie, before you tell us what happened,
00:15:56
because I know you're going to tell us
00:15:58
what happened here and obviously it
00:15:59
didn't happen, but you'll tell us what
00:16:01
happened in all of this. Were they not
00:16:03
worried about let's even say all the
00:16:06
math is correct, the paper had been done
00:16:08
correctly, everything else. Um, part of
00:16:11
it may have been there might have been
00:16:12
some extrapolation issues, but ignoring
00:16:15
that for just a second, let's just
00:16:16
ignore that for just one second. What
00:16:19
about just intra interday variation?
00:16:23
Like, how do they even know?
00:16:26
Maybe she like that 407 under what she
00:16:29
actually ran tomorrow. It could be 412,
00:16:33
411. Like, how about that? Barry, I know
00:16:35
I just want
00:16:35
>> They're making a bet. They were kind of
00:16:36
making a bet on both the kind of
00:16:38
environmental conditions being ideal as
00:16:40
well as kind of best day.
00:16:42
>> No, no, I know. So, Shane, what I'm
00:16:43
trying to get Jaime's thoughts on I
00:16:45
agree with you. What I'm trying to get
00:16:45
Jaime's thoughts on is how much interday
00:16:49
variation is there and like what a
00:16:52
better quote unquote study design is.
00:16:54
you know, let's have her run 20
00:16:57
independent days and let's promise that
00:16:59
maybe on one of those days she might be
00:17:02
able to do it. But isn't there just
00:17:03
massive interday variation?
00:17:05
>> There's going to be absolutely there's
00:17:07
going to be there's going to be interday
00:17:08
variation. I, you know, as far as how
00:17:10
massive it is, I I wouldn't expect
00:17:11
somebody at her level to if if she times
00:17:15
it right, I I would expect her to run a
00:17:17
407 one day and, you know, a 412 the
00:17:21
next day given everything the same, you
00:17:23
know, as far as, you know, she's timed
00:17:24
her schedule with her workouts and her
00:17:26
previous routine. But, you know, I I
00:17:28
don't think it's outside the realm of
00:17:30
possibilities for her to run, you know,
00:17:32
somewhere between a 407 and maybe a 409
00:17:35
just in day variability. you know, one
00:17:37
or two seconds and exactly as you say,
00:17:39
maybe that 407.64, every world record,
00:17:42
everybody's personal best at some point
00:17:44
that is the best they're going to do.
00:17:46
And maybe for her it's 407.64. Maybe
00:17:48
that's the best she could ever do. It's
00:17:50
the extreme outlier value for her. The
00:17:52
>> See, the paper didn't try to didn't try
00:17:54
to propose what Nike did. That was
00:17:56
Nike's decision to try to run this off.
00:17:59
The paper had nothing to do with
00:18:00
interday variance. It said if she ran
00:18:02
the same race she ran and they got the
00:18:04
4.7 with the essentially the drafting
00:18:07
conditions that they estimated in that
00:18:09
race which is roughly 30 30 for the four
00:18:12
laps. They they said what if it it gets
00:18:15
to 71% which is the kind of what they
00:18:18
essentially estimated you could do. What
00:18:20
would she run then? And they estimated
00:18:21
that at almost exactly four minutes
00:18:23
flat.
00:18:23
>> You know I I wasn't asking what the
00:18:26
paper did. I was just asking did anybody
00:18:29
even realize that even if all the math
00:18:32
were correct there's interday variation
00:18:35
and that you know I and and also I think
00:18:37
Jaime's point is great obviously AI
00:18:39
you've brought up the idea of the
00:18:40
maximum of a distribution many times
00:18:43
like I'll call it observed equals true
00:18:46
plus error so you know that implies that
00:18:50
this may well be the place where she got
00:18:52
the I'll call it negative residual like
00:18:55
her true strength is 409 n today just
00:18:58
happened to be a minus two second day
00:19:00
and that ain't going to happen again or
00:19:02
it can't you just can't make it happen
00:19:03
on demand.
00:19:04
>> Yeah. A and so like the research in this
00:19:07
the researchers in the study like Shala
00:19:09
Kip she's an Olympian like she would
00:19:11
know that. Roger Crown he's he's you
00:19:13
know worldleading biomechanics and
00:19:15
sports uh sports performance modeling
00:19:17
researcher. He would know that too. But
00:19:18
this is what makes me question how did
00:19:21
Nike get themselves into this? Did did
00:19:24
Nike not conserve this? Listen, there
00:19:26
have to be people at Nike. I'm sure they
00:19:29
had to have known this. And and that's
00:19:31
kind of some of my point. I did Nike
00:19:34
realize what they were setting
00:19:36
themselves up for or did they did they
00:19:39
not care? Um, and that's kind of where
00:19:41
I'm going with this.
00:19:42
>> Well, maybe they didn't care.
00:19:44
>> Why don't you tell us what happened?
00:19:45
>> Yeah, tell us what happened.
00:19:47
>> So, well, going back to the paper again,
00:19:49
as as Audi and Eric, you've both alluded
00:19:52
to, there's a lot of factors that are
00:19:54
going into here. There's extrapolations,
00:19:56
there's there's modeling, assumptions
00:19:57
built upon assumptions built upon
00:19:59
assumptions and which model you use. And
00:20:01
even in this paper, they come up with
00:20:03
multiple different results depending on
00:20:05
on how you tweak the parameters. Any
00:20:07
kind of mathematical model, there's lots
00:20:08
of parameters and you could tweak them
00:20:09
one one way or the other and you you
00:20:11
could get lots of different results. And
00:20:12
so again, the paper's really
00:20:14
transparent. But somehow so Nike decided
00:20:16
to do this and and to have and to create
00:20:19
this this event where she's going to run
00:20:21
in this perfect formation. But here's
00:20:24
here's what happened. If you watch the
00:20:26
it was about a one-hour broadcast
00:20:29
essentially. It was more of a
00:20:30
coronation. It was more of, you know,
00:20:33
she's decided that she's going to be the
00:20:34
first or they've decided that this is
00:20:36
going to be the first time anybody's
00:20:37
even going to attempt to to break four
00:20:40
minutes or any woman's going to attempt
00:20:42
to break four minutes. Which again I had
00:20:43
an issue with because it's it's as if
00:20:46
she she just it never even occurred to
00:20:49
her like, "Oh, well maybe I could run
00:20:51
maybe I could run faster." like that.
00:20:53
That's what everybody's trying to do.
00:20:54
They're trying to run faster. Nobody's,
00:20:55
you know, she never set out to say,
00:20:56
"Today, I'm going to try to run a 406.
00:20:58
I'm not going to try to run four
00:21:00
minutes." Now, Mando Deontis can do that
00:21:02
in the pole vault where he could set the
00:21:03
bar and and at how high he wants to put
00:21:05
it. But, but no runner is is just trying
00:21:08
to hold back or anything that. So, so
00:21:11
that whole thing was an issue. But Nike
00:21:13
really emphasized the technology and
00:21:15
basically they they've got these special
00:21:17
super shoes for her. And again, if super
00:21:19
shoes were new, if nobody had ever done
00:21:21
super shoes before, well, maybe there'd
00:21:22
be a gigantic leap in performance, but
00:21:24
we've already had that gigantic leap in
00:21:26
performance. We're at that point of
00:21:27
diminishing returns. And so these super
00:21:29
shoes they had for her and they had all
00:21:31
these pacers that were going to surround
00:21:33
her just right. And then they had the 3D
00:21:36
printed sports bra. And this 3D printed
00:21:38
sports bra was going to be more
00:21:40
aerodynamic and and and support her
00:21:42
better. And yes, that's all important.
00:21:43
Like good sports bra like is is
00:21:45
important for female runners. But was
00:21:48
this going to really make the
00:21:49
difference? Was this going to help shave
00:21:50
seven and a half seconds off her mile
00:21:52
time? And so, long story short, they
00:21:54
made this big hype machine and it was
00:21:56
this kind of coronation. We're here to
00:21:58
celebrate history. She's going to do it.
00:22:00
Nobody's been brave enough to do this
00:22:01
before. And and really the emphasis was
00:22:04
all on Nike's technology. And and they
00:22:06
really did even mention the scientific
00:22:08
paper that started all. They didn't
00:22:10
mention the researchers. Nike kind of
00:22:12
put it on themselves like she's gonna
00:22:14
break it because of her technology and
00:22:16
she didn't run under four minutes. And
00:22:19
this was the thing.
00:22:21
>> Was that
00:22:22
>> what did she run?
00:22:23
>> Well, it depends what time you count. So
00:22:26
when she crossed I see the confused look
00:22:29
on your face. When she crossed the
00:22:30
finish line, the clock read 406.91.
00:22:34
So she took her her 407.64
00:22:37
down to 406.91. So she saved about 7/10
00:22:40
of a second or so off, but the official
00:22:43
time was furough 6.42.
00:22:45
So after the race, her time actually got
00:22:49
faster. A half a second came off. And
00:22:51
that was because normally when a race
00:22:53
happens, the gun goes off, the sound of
00:22:56
the gun triggers the start of the race,
00:22:58
and then when you cross the finish line,
00:23:00
that's your time. Well, to just try to
00:23:03
get the squeeze the last little bit of
00:23:05
juice out of this, her 406.42 42 time
00:23:08
was based on on uh motion on high
00:23:11
resolution uh motion. So when her body
00:23:15
crossed the start line versus her body
00:23:17
cross the finish line that that's not
00:23:18
consistent with any race. It's when the
00:23:20
>> ridiculous that's that's that just makes
00:23:22
her completely uncomparable even without
00:23:24
the drafting.
00:23:26
>> Right. So so but here's the thing.
00:23:29
>> Let me ask a question just just quickly
00:23:31
Jamie. So um if this were me and so I'll
00:23:35
put on my marketing hat for a second. am
00:23:37
a marketing professor. What the hell?
00:23:38
I'll put on my marketing hat, but I'll
00:23:39
also put on my uh sampling hat. I might
00:23:43
have had her try to do this before doing
00:23:46
it on the air and then we would have
00:23:49
seen that it's she's going to run 406.9
00:23:52
something and I'm like, huh, maybe we
00:23:54
shouldn't hype this event.
00:23:56
>> Was there any discussion of like was
00:23:58
this the first time she ever tried it
00:24:00
under these conditions, too?
00:24:02
>> Um, yeah. I don't know the details. It
00:24:04
they did they definitely did practice.
00:24:06
They they practiced having this
00:24:07
formation of these 12ers.
00:24:10
>> There was a lot of practice, but I don't
00:24:11
think anybody tried going all out and
00:24:13
it's a lot to ask an athlete to go all
00:24:15
out in, you know, given maximal effort.
00:24:18
You know, you could get injured. It
00:24:20
could it's going to disrupt your
00:24:22
training and especially she's got bigger
00:24:23
fish to fry. You know, she did have
00:24:24
world championships this year where, you
00:24:26
know, she did actually win a gold medal
00:24:28
um and a silver medal as well. Um, so I
00:24:31
I don't think they actually tried an
00:24:33
all-out version, but I think that, you
00:24:35
know, um I think it it would have been
00:24:38
good to at least do some 100% maximum
00:24:40
efforts with, you know, uh at least
00:24:42
halfway through or something like that
00:24:44
or at least 95% and I don't know what.
00:24:46
>> So Audi, let me give you the one second,
00:24:48
let me give you Audi the last question
00:24:50
before we just ask you Jamie, what
00:24:51
you're working on next and now. So Audi,
00:24:53
please go ahead.
00:24:54
>> Yeah. So um I I mean my immediate
00:24:56
response is I don't think Nike really
00:24:58
cares. Uh maybe they do. That would be a
00:24:59
question for you, Eric, as a marketing
00:25:01
professor. But, you know, I read I read
00:25:03
an article you wrote um which pointed to
00:25:05
another article which was written um
00:25:07
also before the race that said that that
00:25:10
didn't really come to a conclusion in a
00:25:12
formal way, but it did say that
00:25:14
physiologically women are way way far
00:25:18
away from being able to hit four minute
00:25:20
miles.
00:25:21
And that should have given Nike a lot of
00:25:23
pause that this is a lot resting on a
00:25:27
draft estimate that seems to be really
00:25:30
really extremal. Um to squeeze out seven
00:25:33
and a half seconds based on essentially
00:25:35
drafting which is that was the point of
00:25:37
the the first paper that drafting can do
00:25:39
that. Um and and so that that that was
00:25:42
another piece of evidence that sort of
00:25:43
stands out in front of them going
00:25:44
wondering. But you know I but you talked
00:25:46
about the mathematics and I want to
00:25:48
respond as a statistician. They built a
00:25:50
mathematical model to estimate the
00:25:53
drafting effect which is probably fine
00:25:55
right you know aerodynamics etc but
00:25:57
there there's a huge difference between
00:25:59
in the field and on the paper and I
00:26:02
would have proposed an actual experiment
00:26:04
where we would have done a designed
00:26:05
experiment to see
00:26:06
>> my point what the percentage that you
00:26:08
could squeeze out of short distances
00:26:10
with different drafting formulations and
00:26:13
that would have been the way to really
00:26:14
figured out and they would have learned
00:26:15
ahead of time that their on paper
00:26:18
calculation was just way out of bounds
00:26:21
for
00:26:21
>> just for the record for people on
00:26:23
Wharton Moneyball. This is the damn
00:26:25
question I just asked Jamie a few
00:26:26
seconds ago, but go ahead Jamie. I'd
00:26:28
like to get your last words on this
00:26:30
race, how you're thinking about it, and
00:26:32
also what you're working on now.
00:26:34
>> Well, what I think I I what's really
00:26:36
important, what I think that the
00:26:37
interesting message here combining
00:26:39
marketing and sports analytics is this
00:26:41
that basically Nike set themselves up to
00:26:44
fail. And did they realize this or not?
00:26:46
I I'm not sure but essentially they
00:26:48
focus so much on the technology that
00:26:50
basically we have very few times in life
00:26:53
where a a company has hyped technology
00:26:56
and and also created an objective
00:26:59
standard. They didn't say it was going
00:27:00
to improve her. They didn't say it was
00:27:02
going to help her get slightly faster.
00:27:03
They said, you know, yes, it's a
00:27:05
moonshot, but we think she's going to be
00:27:06
able to break four minutes. And you
00:27:08
can't say that the three-time gold
00:27:10
medalist in in the Olympics, who also
00:27:12
won a gold medal this year, who also
00:27:14
almost broke the 10,00 meter world
00:27:16
record just, you know, a few months
00:27:18
before this. You can't blame her and
00:27:20
say, "Well, she's not, you know, it's
00:27:21
her fault." The only thing we had left
00:27:23
to say is the technology didn't live up
00:27:25
to the hype. This technology was going
00:27:27
to save seven and a half seconds off her
00:27:28
time. It didn't live up to the hype. And
00:27:30
and we live in a world of wearables that
00:27:32
promise, you know, oh, this is going to
00:27:34
make you healthier. This is going to
00:27:36
help you run faster. And we do. We live
00:27:37
this world of attribution bias where oh
00:27:39
you know I didn't get injured when I I
00:27:41
played today where you know I read a new
00:27:44
PR it must be the tech it must be the
00:27:46
tech and the super shoes I think are an
00:27:47
exception the super shoes
00:27:48
biomechanically really and laws of
00:27:50
physics do support that super shoes do
00:27:54
work but most of this other tech we just
00:27:56
kind of buy it and we assume it's going
00:27:57
to work and I think that's what Nike was
00:27:58
going for with this 3D printed bra and
00:28:01
and all these other things like she's
00:28:03
going to break this barrier and we're
00:28:05
going to all celebrate and it was the
00:28:06
tech that made a difference and it was
00:28:08
this rare moment where I think the tech
00:28:10
failed in front of everybody and that's
00:28:13
why we haven't talked about the sub
00:28:14
four-minute project or the the breaking
00:28:15
four project since because it was just
00:28:18
kind of all right nothing to see here
00:28:19
let's uh let's move on
00:28:21
>> so Jamie maybe in the last minute or so
00:28:23
um if we had you on next year which we
00:28:25
will again what will you be talk what
00:28:27
what are you likely to be talking to us
00:28:28
about a year from now
00:28:30
>> man that could be anything uh that's
00:28:32
kind of the way I roll uh you know
00:28:33
there's there's all types of different
00:28:35
things I work on um My guess is it would
00:28:37
be sports concussions and some of the
00:28:40
technology behind sports concussions and
00:28:43
howto like uh a 3D printed sports bra.
00:28:46
It might not live up to expectations.
00:28:48
That would be my guess.
00:28:50
>> H well we like to thank Professor Jamie
00:28:52
Smoliga for joining us here on Wharton
00:28:54
Moneyball. He's a professor department
00:28:55
of rehabilitation sciences director of
00:28:57
research doctor of physical therapy
00:28:59
program Tus University School of
00:29:01
Medicine. Um it sounds like uh he writes
00:29:04
about these topics in his newsletter. So
00:29:05
Jamie, where can people find Beyond the
00:29:07
Abstract?
00:29:08
>> It's on Substack. So you could just uh
00:29:10
search for beyond theabstract, all one
00:29:14
word. Sububstack.com. You'll find me
00:29:16
there. Or my last name uh which I'll
00:29:19
spell s m o l i ga. If you search for
00:29:21
that in substack, you'll find me because
00:29:22
there's only one smolstack.
00:29:24
>> Well, Jamie, thank you for joining us
00:29:26
here on Wharton Moneyball.
00:29:28
>> Thank you so much. I appreciate you
00:29:29
having me. Welcome back to Wharton
00:29:31
Moneyball. Welcome to the second half of
00:29:34
this week's show. We've got open line
00:29:35
segment coming up for the next 20
00:29:37
minutes or so and then an overtime guest
00:29:40
on Ryder Cup. So, we can talk a little
00:29:42
bit of Ryder Cup and we're gonna have
00:29:44
Joseph Lmana in here in a few minutes to
00:29:46
talk Ryder Cup in the overtime segment.
00:29:48
Guys, baseball kicked off a few hours
00:29:51
ago. The Tigers just knocked off the end
00:29:55
the Guardians in the first first game of
00:29:57
that wild card series. We've got Yankees
00:30:00
Red Sox going off later today. We've got
00:30:02
the other two uh wild card games as
00:30:04
well. I'm assuming that's what's on your
00:30:06
mind and I would love to hear your
00:30:08
thought going into it. Um and then let's
00:30:10
after we collect a little bit of that,
00:30:11
let's go around to me and Shane and see
00:30:13
what's on our mind as well. Let's see if
00:30:15
we can get a a quick round of what
00:30:16
caught your eye. Let's open with Audi
00:30:18
Winer.
00:30:20
>> Well, come on guys. I mean, uh lots of
00:30:22
Yankees in my life right now. Lots of uh
00:30:26
thoughts that the Yankees were not able
00:30:28
to overtake Toronto. And reflectively
00:30:30
thinking back at years past when ties
00:30:32
for the division lead were settled with
00:30:34
a one-game playoff. Can't remember.
00:30:37
Yeah, obviously can remember games in
00:30:39
the past where that happened and I wish
00:30:40
we were doing that again. Um the fact
00:30:42
that the the stakes are monumental um
00:30:45
the difference between having to survive
00:30:46
a a three-game wild card as we know coin
00:30:49
toss Jensen um tells us all is so
00:30:53
>> Wait, but but but in the old days it
00:30:54
would be a oneame
00:30:56
flip instead of a three-game coin flip.
00:30:58
you favor in the old days.
00:31:00
>> Yeah, but the the idea is
00:31:01
>> it was still a playoff. It was just a
00:31:03
shorter one.
00:31:04
>> No, no, but the idea is that that's to
00:31:06
decide who wins the division. It's a tie
00:31:07
and we're going to have an extra game.
00:31:08
>> But the only value to wins in the
00:31:10
division is to get the buy and avoid the
00:31:12
one.
00:31:12
>> Now, now there's only a buy for
00:31:14
>> game playoff, right?
00:31:15
>> Back in the old day, it was you're out,
00:31:16
right? You didn't win that. You don't go
00:31:18
out.
00:31:18
>> You're out.
00:31:19
>> Um, you know, you play 162 games to
00:31:21
decide who wins the division and it goes
00:31:23
in a tie and then they decide it by the
00:31:24
internal record. That sounds very
00:31:26
football. Anyway, that's just my way of
00:31:28
saying it's the the the uh the
00:31:30
techniques of the other sports are are
00:31:32
are leeching into our our history. Um so
00:31:36
that was my obvious thing. And then I I
00:31:37
have to reflect. I think I was probably
00:31:40
feeling a little bit um Cal Rileyish
00:31:43
couple weeks ago in terms of my MVP. Um,
00:31:47
I wasn't settled on that, but I think
00:31:49
five home runs and a 10-point leap in
00:31:51
batting average and a 215 um WRC plus
00:31:55
makes it really hard not to throw my my
00:31:58
uh modest little weight behind Aaron
00:31:59
Judge.
00:32:01
>> Just comment a couple things that you
00:32:03
said, Audi. First, what's interesting
00:32:04
about the Yankees uh Blue Jays situation
00:32:07
is that they're just swap they would
00:32:09
have just swapped places the one on the
00:32:11
four, but they play each other if if
00:32:14
they don't recede in baseball. So, if
00:32:16
the Yankees were to beat the Red Sox,
00:32:18
which I I'll get to that in a second,
00:32:20
they would play the Blue Jays. If they
00:32:21
had been the other way around, if the
00:32:23
Blue Jays had beaten the Red Sox, they
00:32:24
would have played the Yankees. So all
00:32:26
that matters is in some sense the first
00:32:29
round which as we know using the Shane
00:32:32
Jensen rule, it at least doubles the
00:32:34
probability cuz I I don't know how
00:32:35
anyone could argue the Yankees are much
00:32:37
better than 50% to beat the Red Sox
00:32:39
here. There wasn't that much win
00:32:40
percentage difference. They got this guy
00:32:42
uh Crochet pitching tonight. I
00:32:44
understand we have Max Freed. That's a
00:32:46
titanic war. Let me just tell you that's
00:32:49
a coin flip. The whole series is a coin
00:32:51
flip. So the Yankees win probability for
00:32:54
the World Series in my view at best is
00:32:56
cut in half. I was also wondering how
00:32:59
much loss there was for home field. This
00:33:01
was not the simulation I was talking
00:33:02
about off air, but I asked chat GPT5
00:33:06
um after I was very clear in what I
00:33:09
asked it. I asked it after controlling
00:33:14
for the fact that the home team has a
00:33:16
better record,
00:33:18
how much is the home field advantage
00:33:22
in a series worth in baseball? That's
00:33:26
what I asked it cuz remember the home
00:33:28
team should have some advantage cuz they
00:33:30
had the better record of the two. So it
00:33:33
showed me the mathematical model that it
00:33:35
built. It controlled for strength of
00:33:39
team and it gave an answer of 1.25%.
00:33:43
That's the answer it gave. You know, I
00:33:46
could have asked for the empirical
00:33:48
distribution or just
00:33:49
>> you could just ask me and I could have
00:33:50
made up an answer, Eric.
00:33:53
Two 2%.
00:33:55
>> Yeah. Why are we dehumanizing this
00:33:57
process?
00:33:59
No, but I I don't know that, you know, I
00:34:02
think it was, you know, you're not
00:34:04
interested at all, Shane, in its answer
00:34:05
and how it did it. Even if you don't
00:34:07
agree with it, you're not interested in
00:34:09
how it did. So, I'm interested in your
00:34:12
answer or Audi's answer or Kad's answer.
00:34:16
>> Not necessarily, Chad.
00:34:18
>> I mean, I I can tell you that
00:34:19
historically the baseball advantage
00:34:21
hovers around two and a half%. for home
00:34:24
field two two to two and a half
00:34:27
>> for a single game or for a series.
00:34:30
>> No, for that would be a sing that would
00:34:32
be a single game.
00:34:36
>> Yeah. So now I have to think about it.
00:34:37
Well, it's not hard to think about in
00:34:39
the sense that I would say if you want
00:34:40
intuition, think in the limits. If you
00:34:43
played an infinite number of games, then
00:34:45
the advantage would be 2 and a half%.
00:34:47
Right? So the uh longer the number I
00:34:51
have to think about this now maybe I
00:34:52
don't have the good intuition for a
00:34:54
series I have a 2 and a half% advantage
00:34:58
I'm adding stochastic
00:35:00
>> 52 versus 48 a pre noticeably
00:35:04
>> is is that noticeable over a four uh
00:35:06
seven best of three or best of five or
00:35:09
best of seven so it's not it is not
00:35:11
important probabilistically
00:35:14
and uh for the range of series that we
00:35:16
tend to
00:35:17
in baseball.
00:35:19
>> No, I mean it should add if it's a three
00:35:21
or five game series, maybe it adds in
00:35:23
total 10%. Um, but you so you'd have to
00:35:27
So what chat GBT hopefully tried to
00:35:29
adjust for the fact that the home team
00:35:31
is usually a bit better and then tries
00:35:33
to see if there's any residual um
00:35:35
advantage based on that and uh and maybe
00:35:40
maybe it found something. I haven't done
00:35:41
that. U
00:35:44
did it did it do it? I mean what what
00:35:45
did it do?
00:35:47
That's what it did. It controlled it fit
00:35:49
actually it fit a mathematical model for
00:35:53
um you know uh the probability of team A
00:35:57
beating team B as a function it actually
00:36:00
estimated strength parameters for the
00:36:02
two teams. It controlled for those and
00:36:06
then it said given that what residual
00:36:09
variation is there? there. Now, there
00:36:10
could be lots of other factors that it
00:36:12
didn't control for, but it did control
00:36:14
for the differential win loss record.
00:36:16
>> Well,
00:36:18
why don't we why don't we move on? We
00:36:21
that's worthy of a lot of conversation
00:36:23
actually, but at least it's an answer.
00:36:24
It's an empirical answer. Y'all got real
00:36:27
baseball going on right now. So, what
00:36:29
what else besides the Yankees Red Sox
00:36:32
series has most interest for you?
00:36:36
Well, I think Seattle's trajectory,
00:36:38
Seattle has won the division for the
00:36:40
first time since 2001 when I ro was a
00:36:43
rookie. So, I think that is notable. And
00:36:45
so, you know, they're kind of new blood
00:36:47
in the playoffs after um, you know,
00:36:49
having the Astros as kind of the AL
00:36:51
West, you know, representative for so
00:36:54
many years. So, I think that's really
00:36:55
exciting.
00:36:56
>> But, moreover, they've never made the
00:36:57
World Series, right? Aren't they the
00:36:58
only team in Major League Baseball who's
00:37:00
never made the World Series?
00:37:02
They may be the only team in Major
00:37:04
League Baseball that's never made the
00:37:05
World Series now that I am thinking
00:37:07
about it. Yeah,
00:37:08
>> that's going to lead me to be the one
00:37:10
person on this video who is pulling for
00:37:12
the American League representative to be
00:37:14
the Mariners. Y'all are pulling y'all
00:37:16
have your hometown teams, but I think
00:37:18
that's a good cause in the American
00:37:20
League. Um,
00:37:22
okay. on the
00:37:23
>> and on the National League I think it's
00:37:25
kind of interesting just kind of based
00:37:26
on our previous discussion you don't
00:37:28
need chat GPT to sim that the Dodgers by
00:37:31
again playing in the wildard round
00:37:33
should have half the probability of uh
00:37:36
you know say the for example the
00:37:38
Phillies uh that have got to buy from
00:37:40
the wildard round
00:37:42
>> well then there would also be the
00:37:43
disadvantage to not having the home
00:37:45
field they will not have the home field
00:37:47
in the second round
00:37:47
>> regardless the Dodgers I think are I at
00:37:50
least in the odds that somebody posted a
00:37:51
rundown are like the second highest uh
00:37:54
team to win the World Series.
00:37:55
>> Yeah, I have no other post that wasn't
00:37:57
>> What's that all about? What is that all
00:37:59
about? And we wait, let's just let's not
00:38:01
ask
00:38:02
>> preseason roster. I mean, that's a heck
00:38:05
of a bracket. The Dodgers Phillies
00:38:06
bracket is the strongest bracket on on
00:38:08
the board, right?
00:38:10
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean they they would
00:38:12
play each other because there's no
00:38:13
receding. So, the the Phillies are the
00:38:15
two, the Dodgers are the three.
00:38:16
>> That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm
00:38:17
saying. That's that's the toughest
00:38:19
regional. This is the if this is the
00:38:20
NCAA, we're talking about which regional
00:38:22
is toughest. That's the toughest
00:38:23
regional by far.
00:38:24
>> Now, you're pointing out, Kade, what an
00:38:26
advantage it was. Deservedly so that the
00:38:28
Brewers ended up number one.
00:38:30
>> They avoid the, you know, they have to
00:38:32
play one of, if they make it, they have
00:38:33
to play one of the Phillies and Dodgers.
00:38:35
>> Okay, we talked about
00:38:36
>> they have to go through potentially the
00:38:37
Padres's who, again, by argue, by by
00:38:40
rational them being there, won the
00:38:42
division over the Dodgers. You know,
00:38:44
just to point out, there's extraordinary
00:38:46
parody in in the Major League Baseball,
00:38:48
at least at the top 12 right now. I
00:38:51
mean, there's there is Yeah, the the
00:38:53
Dodgers, Phillies, Brewers are a bit
00:38:56
better, but there's no 112 game winner
00:38:58
this year. There's no even 100 game
00:38:59
winner this year. Yep.
00:39:01
>> First time in 11 seasons.
00:39:02
>> And so, frankly, and and everything kind
00:39:05
of changes in these short series with
00:39:07
the way they use their arms. Um, it is
00:39:10
hard just to to imagine that everybody's
00:39:13
not in it. It's just some
00:39:14
>> Yeah, look how different the the marquee
00:39:17
of the World Series matchup could vary.
00:39:20
I mean, it could be two complete blueb
00:39:22
bloodoods or complete two complete like
00:39:24
nowhere nowhere.
00:39:26
>> Um, I mean, we'd be excited about a
00:39:28
nowhere nowhere'sville Mariners,
00:39:30
Brewers. We'd love that, but most of the
00:39:32
country is not going to show up for
00:39:34
that, right? Or it could be Dodgers,
00:39:35
Yankees. I mean, come on. Mhm.
00:39:37
>> So, it's it is it is going to be
00:39:39
interesting to see play out. Okay,
00:39:41
fellas. Outside, let me let me jump in.
00:39:43
Since y'all have been talking baseball,
00:39:44
let me give you one caught my eye. Let
00:39:46
me give you one caught my eye. College
00:39:47
football. We're rolling into week five.
00:39:50
And I talked last time about um some
00:39:54
Andrew Persal ensembling for power
00:39:57
rankings in college football. And
00:39:59
something that caught my eye, he posted
00:40:01
just I think today his latest he threw
00:40:03
some data visualizations up there. And
00:40:06
let you know remember he he's he's
00:40:09
ensembling power rankings like 11 or 12
00:40:11
systems and he's reporting it he's
00:40:13
reporting power rankings in standard
00:40:14
deviations. What do you think? Here's
00:40:17
something that's amazing. Compare the
00:40:19
SEC versus the the ACC. So the ACC is
00:40:23
still a power four conference and what
00:40:26
he's finding is that the ACC is really
00:40:27
kind of dropping and and the Big 12
00:40:29
actually looks a fair bit stronger than
00:40:31
the ACC which is interesting. But one of
00:40:32
the biggest stories of the year, this is
00:40:34
this is also a way of me giving you kind
00:40:35
of a big story of the year is how flat
00:40:38
the SEC is. Like it is anybody's game
00:40:41
and one and it's interesting contrast to
00:40:44
the ACC. So the ACC has Miami head and
00:40:47
shoulders above everyone else. You can
00:40:49
drop twothirds of a standard deviation
00:40:52
before you get the second best team in
00:40:54
the ACC. Twothirds of a standard
00:40:56
deviation between the best ACC team and
00:40:58
the rest. If you go to the SEC and I I
00:41:02
forget right now who's number one in the
00:41:04
ensemble. Probably Alabama. Alabama or
00:41:06
Georgia.
00:41:06
>> The fact that you forget right now who's
00:41:08
number one is already telling.
00:41:09
>> Exactly. That's already fun. If you drop
00:41:12
twothirds of a standard deviation in the
00:41:13
SEC, what number in the SEC do you think
00:41:16
you land on? What out of 16 teams? What
00:41:19
number do you think you land on?
00:41:20
Remember that got you to number two in
00:41:22
the ACC. It's going to get you to what
00:41:25
in the SEC?
00:41:26
>> Six.
00:41:28
11.
00:41:29
>> It gets you to the 11th. They have they
00:41:32
have whatever that is, nine teams
00:41:35
squeezed in where there exists none.
00:41:38
>> None is more than half the lead. Now,
00:41:41
what's interesting about that, Kate, I
00:41:42
would imagine then that in any sim that
00:41:45
looks at the probability that an SEC
00:41:48
team wins the championship
00:41:50
>> would have to be quite high because you
00:41:53
don't I didn't say which team is going
00:41:55
to win, but it but you know, one of
00:41:57
those teams and it also would suggest
00:42:00
that you know if the committee and I
00:42:02
know you guys Massie Peabody have built
00:42:03
models of the committee at some point
00:42:06
there's going to have to be a large
00:42:08
number of SE teams potentially in there.
00:42:10
Assuming the mean level of those is
00:42:12
high. Um, you know, could there be a
00:42:15
scenario, kid? I don't even know how
00:42:16
many. Could there be six or seven SEC
00:42:18
teams now in there?
00:42:19
>> Yeah, there's like there's not is there
00:42:21
an actual limit on any one conference or
00:42:24
just kind of convention there?
00:42:26
>> There is a limit because
00:42:28
>> there is a limit because each of the
00:42:30
conference champions make it and then
00:42:32
the best of the group of five makes it.
00:42:34
Um, so that's at least five teams, at
00:42:37
least four teams that are not from a
00:42:39
conference. So theoretically be the rest
00:42:41
filling out the field from total. There
00:42:43
could be eight SEC teams. There won't
00:42:45
be, but there could be.
00:42:46
>> That's right. But but Eric, you're
00:42:48
assuming something that you shouldn't
00:42:49
assume. And that's also an interesting
00:42:50
story here that the Big 10 is not
00:42:55
doesn't have teams that are higher. So
00:42:56
just because the SEC is the most
00:42:58
compressed doesn't mean that it has the
00:43:00
highest top end. And in fact, according
00:43:03
according to Persal's ensemble, the Big
00:43:06
10 has a higher top end. and a much
00:43:09
lower bottom end. And that higher top
00:43:11
end has three teams above the best at
00:43:14
the SEC. This is the world is different.
00:43:16
Now, this is me updating you on college
00:43:17
football this year. The top of the Big
00:43:19
10 looks stronger. Ohio State, Oregon.
00:43:23
Oregon, who had a huge win in Happy
00:43:25
Valley this past weekend. And um and I
00:43:28
think Indiana of all things, I think
00:43:30
Indiana's looking up really high, but at
00:43:32
least Ohio State and Penn State, I Ohio
00:43:34
State and Oregon are looking stronger
00:43:36
right now than the SEC. So that's going
00:43:39
to get a little bit in the way of that,
00:43:40
Eric. All right, that's my quick college
00:43:41
football update. Back to you guys,
00:43:43
Shane. You haven't had a time at the
00:43:44
floor here. What's caught your eye?
00:43:47
Oh, I I think uh I I guess since we
00:43:50
haven't discussed any kind of NFL uh
00:43:53
type of thing, the thing that caught my
00:43:55
eye, the Jets.
00:43:57
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, the the Patriots
00:43:58
finally looking dominant in a week kind
00:44:00
of caught my eye, but I I I I did want
00:44:02
to just sort of point out kind of
00:44:03
numerically how interesting that Cowboys
00:44:06
Packers game was. Not only is it it's
00:44:09
the highest scoring tie in NFL history,
00:44:13
and it was also a scorami. I'm sure you
00:44:15
all know what a score origami is. It's
00:44:16
kind of a unique score. I wouldn't have
00:44:18
expected 4040 to be a unique score, but
00:44:21
it was. So, that that was kind of that's
00:44:22
something that certainly caught my eye.
00:44:24
>> I also and sort of something we could
00:44:26
discuss more. Uh maybe you don't want to
00:44:29
talk about Kade, but I I'm so
00:44:30
disappointed in the Ravens. I really I
00:44:34
wanted them to be
00:44:35
>> one of the one of those teams that could
00:44:37
knock off the Chiefs this year, and it
00:44:38
does not look like it's uh
00:44:40
>> in the cards.
00:44:41
>> They're gonna they're gonna have to dig
00:44:42
out of a big hole. Um, it led Lamar's
00:44:45
going to be out for a couple of weeks.
00:44:46
It looks like it led to an interesting
00:44:48
analysis of what that should do to the
00:44:50
point spread. And if you talk to
00:44:52
bookies, they'll say, you know, on
00:44:54
average, the average NFL quarterback, if
00:44:56
he goes out, it's going to cost about
00:44:58
three points. But we know quarterbacks
00:45:00
vary in their ability and in their
00:45:02
backups. And so the biggest gap is much
00:45:04
bigger than seven. And there was a study
00:45:07
done um not a study, a survey done of
00:45:09
bookies before the season and they rated
00:45:12
all 32 teams on the impact on the
00:45:16
average starting line if this team lost
00:45:19
his quarterback. And the very best is
00:45:21
like the Bills being knocked down seven
00:45:23
points or so if Josh Allen goes out. But
00:45:26
the Ravens are right there at the top
00:45:28
number three and I think preseason they
00:45:29
said it's something like six and 6.6 or
00:45:31
something. That's a big hit. That's a
00:45:34
big hit to take with a quarter with him
00:45:35
going out and they're already
00:45:37
>> that's basically that that analysis also
00:45:39
is essentially a prior analysis of the
00:45:42
MVP
00:45:44
>> because it's bookie basically you know
00:45:46
>> because there's no way
00:45:47
>> basically being like you know what is
00:45:48
the most impact you
00:45:50
>> that's
00:45:52
whose loss would lead to the biggest
00:45:54
change in line as proxy for a most
00:45:56
valuable player that's interesting
00:45:57
>> that's how you elicit a prior for the
00:45:58
MVP if you were to do it I think
00:46:00
>> well by the way I'm missing Pat Mcomes
00:46:02
is the one Josh Allen number one Pat
00:46:03
Mahomes right there. I mean, dead even
00:46:05
with Josh really and then Lamar about.3
00:46:08
below them.
00:46:10
>> Eric was going to
00:46:11
>> let me just ask you a question.
00:46:13
I would think that, you know, one of the
00:46:16
things I've been looking at, Kate,
00:46:16
obviously you've built models for power
00:46:18
rankings. On what basis are the Eagles
00:46:21
number one in people's power rankings?
00:46:23
Like it's apparently it's the first time
00:46:25
in history, by the way, just so you
00:46:27
know, that a team is 4-0,
00:46:30
but in terms of total yardage, they're 0
00:46:34
and4.
00:46:36
They haven't beaten one team they've
00:46:38
played in terms of total yards gained.
00:46:40
Not yet.
00:46:41
>> What about the momentum argument, Eric?
00:46:43
When was the last time they lost in a
00:46:45
nonjalen started game? I mean,
00:46:47
>> momentum, but I'm just commenting that
00:46:49
they obviously have scored through.
00:46:51
They've blocked kicks. if you know, etc.
00:46:54
But at some point, like I'm just asking
00:46:57
Cade, what model? Forget the record for
00:47:00
a second. I don't show you the record. I
00:47:02
asked you to build an offensive and
00:47:04
defensive power ranking and now I asked
00:47:07
you to come up with an overall team
00:47:09
strength. It's just hard for me to
00:47:11
believe that the Eagles would come up as
00:47:14
number one using that method. But maybe
00:47:16
I've got it wrong. No, I mean it's it's
00:47:19
reasonable, but it does goes to show you
00:47:20
that that not all yards are equal and
00:47:23
situational football matters a great
00:47:25
deal and yards can be quite cheap
00:47:26
between the 20s, for example. Um, we
00:47:29
also used to have a stat one of we only
00:47:31
had four stats like I mean our original
00:47:33
it got fancier over time but our
00:47:35
original model was really simple just
00:47:36
you know basically passing efficiency
00:47:39
rushing offensive offens efficiency and
00:47:42
um one of the one of the four was what
00:47:46
might be doing some work here which was
00:47:49
points per yard and we picked it up off
00:47:51
of a telecast and we turned out to find
00:47:54
that it was predictive and it c it's
00:47:56
kind of a residual it says something
00:47:58
about special teams. It says something
00:47:59
about turnovers and apparently
00:48:02
apparently the Eagles are doing well in
00:48:03
it this year because to be behind on all
00:48:06
the yards but ahead in the win column in
00:48:08
all games says something about points
00:48:09
per yard.
00:48:10
>> And this is selection bias here though.
00:48:12
I have to be you have to be careful with
00:48:14
this because you watch this. You know,
00:48:16
Eagles will they get a fumble or
00:48:19
interceptionally run it back. You got to
00:48:21
give the ball up after you do that. you
00:48:23
you just you don't have the
00:48:24
opportunities to generate the yards when
00:48:26
you when you score on these special
00:48:27
teams plays. It it takes the it takes
00:48:29
your time and possession away. It's not
00:48:31
saying that they wouldn't have done it.
00:48:32
They they did it right. Oops. So, it's
00:48:35
it's it's not necessarily an indictment
00:48:37
of their play to have got a whole bunch
00:48:39
of special teams scoring. Um and uh you
00:48:43
really have to look at the yards per per
00:48:45
play and some of those measurements um
00:48:49
rather than the fact that they you know
00:48:51
because if you don't have the ball you
00:48:52
can't score yards right so you can't get
00:48:54
yards so I I think it's a little less um
00:48:56
as shocking that statistic Eric then you
00:49:00
immediately comes to mind although it is
00:49:02
>> important this whole discussion is kind
00:49:04
of reminding me about the Chiefs last
00:49:06
year kind of had a similar type season
00:49:08
where it was hard to move them down to
00:49:09
the rankings because they kept winning.
00:49:11
>> Mhm.
00:49:12
>> Like like in sort of at least the
00:49:13
subjective rankings, they kept winning
00:49:15
so it was hard to move them down, but
00:49:17
they weren't looking as imp, you know,
00:49:18
they're kind of winning a lot on
00:49:21
essentially like Mojo or like kind of
00:49:23
like kind of chance of Vance block. They
00:49:25
had a block kick win just like the
00:49:26
Eagles did uh more re this season. And
00:49:29
so, you know, I I think so, you know,
00:49:32
that that's perhaps, you know, uh
00:49:34
something where maybe maybe it will kind
00:49:36
of catch up with the Eagles once or
00:49:38
twice this season. I don't think they're
00:49:39
going to go undefeated, but it is also,
00:49:41
I think, evidence of a strong team that
00:49:43
they keep have at least they're in a
00:49:45
position to win every week.
00:49:47
>> Yeah, it's it's uh we're talking about
00:49:50
asking the question whether there's
00:49:52
something you can put in the model. This
00:49:53
is really the heart of what Eric
00:49:54
originally asked. Is there something you
00:49:56
could put in a model that captures this
00:49:58
mojo that Shane just referred to? Is
00:50:00
there something objective and predictive
00:50:02
that you could put in there? And it's a
00:50:05
it's a very fair question, guys. While
00:50:07
while we're in the NFL real quickly, let
00:50:08
me just let me just stay on this one
00:50:10
just for one more second. I just want to
00:50:11
ask my question that I always frame it
00:50:12
in this way. So, Audi, Shane, Kade, I
00:50:16
give you the stats. I I ask you to
00:50:18
predict who the Eagles are going to be
00:50:20
play next week. Okay. I think they're
00:50:22
playing the uh Broncos, by the way.
00:50:24
>> Yeah.
00:50:24
>> And I think let's say they're favored by
00:50:26
whatever two and a half, three and a
00:50:27
half, whatever the number is. And I
00:50:28
said, "No, no, no. I'm sorry, guys. I
00:50:30
forgot to tell you that they've won 18
00:50:32
straight games or whatever the number
00:50:34
is. How much are you changing your
00:50:36
prediction? I asked this question on I
00:50:38
always love to frame it this way. I now
00:50:40
reveal this other piece of information.
00:50:42
How much are you changing your win
00:50:44
probability? AI, I'm going to start with
00:50:45
you because you always keep it you
00:50:46
always keep it real. Yeah. You mean it's
00:50:48
interesting because I think football 18
00:50:50
straight wins is more meaningful than in
00:50:52
and really in many other sports because
00:50:55
of the well the team kind of component
00:50:58
of it. And and here's the thing that I
00:51:00
would follow up with a question to all
00:51:02
you experts in football, which is how
00:51:04
much does high leverage performance um
00:51:09
disparities between low leverage
00:51:10
performance inform? Like the the classic
00:51:13
baseball line, which is transformed
00:51:15
baseball, is that we don't care about
00:51:17
high leverage versus low leverage
00:51:18
performance. It's all randomness in
00:51:20
football. Is it? And and I would imagine
00:51:23
that it's not. and 18 W wins tells me
00:51:26
quite a bit about high leverage versus
00:51:28
low leverage performance diff
00:51:31
throwing it out.
00:51:32
>> We've been talking about the Eagles and
00:51:34
Eagles Broncos. I I highlighted what
00:51:37
looked to me like the most interesting
00:51:38
games this weekend and other than San
00:51:40
Francisco LA which one has become one of
00:51:42
the great rivalries in the NFL in recent
00:51:44
years. The other four have an
00:51:45
interesting quality guys. Look at the
00:51:47
other four that I have up there. Dallas
00:51:48
at New York Jets, Broncos at Philly,
00:51:51
Tampa Bay at Seattle, and Washington at
00:51:53
Los Los Angeles Chargers. I started
00:51:56
thinking about those as all games we
00:51:58
don't see that very often. How many
00:51:59
times do you think those teams have
00:52:00
played? And in fact, one of them, the
00:52:03
one that most jumped out to me was Tampa
00:52:05
Bay, Seattle, because I know this, this
00:52:07
is like the classic old guy thing to
00:52:09
say, that's an expansion team game,
00:52:11
right? That's an expansion game between
00:52:14
the 1976 Seattle Seahawks and 1976 Tampa
00:52:16
Bay Buccaneers. It's kind of fun to see
00:52:18
those guys going at it. But in fact,
00:52:20
those two teams of these four matchups,
00:52:22
those two teams have played the most.
00:52:24
They played 15 times. The the others
00:52:26
have played 12, 13, and 14 times. So
00:52:28
these are not match up. You see these
00:52:30
matchups every three or four years. Like
00:52:31
the Cowboys and Jets, that's kind of
00:52:33
fun. We don't see that many Cowboys at
00:52:35
Jets. That's not that common. Audi,
00:52:37
you're just might have a chance against
00:52:38
that team. But the um God
00:52:41
>> but also you point out you talk about
00:52:43
leverage for the season just like Tampa
00:52:45
Bay and Philly was a high leverage game
00:52:46
because now one has an advantage over
00:52:48
the other both in record and in
00:52:50
tiebreaker.
00:52:52
It's not our it's not impossible to
00:52:53
believe that Tampa Bay and Seattle will
00:52:55
be battling for some sort of tiebreaker
00:52:57
at the playoffs and this is a huge game
00:53:00
therefore in that respect because
00:53:01
they're both three and one at the
00:53:02
moment. Well, that that that's a funny
00:53:05
one. That used to be interconference.
00:53:06
That's not conference anymore.
00:53:08
>> Get all technical, but isn't Tampa of
00:53:09
all teams the most resistance to
00:53:11
tiebreers because it's basically locked
00:53:14
into winning division
00:53:16
>> and like of like of like I understand
00:53:19
it's a playoff team and all playoff
00:53:21
teams should be cognizant of tiebreaking
00:53:23
scenarios and and these games do impact
00:53:25
that, but I feel like like the division
00:53:28
winner that's kind of locked into it is
00:53:29
the most robust to that. Yeah, I I think
00:53:32
the Falcons may still have something to
00:53:34
say about it in the end, but we'll see.
00:53:36
>> I saw some odds on that this week, the
00:53:38
betting markets. I think those are some
00:53:40
of the better odds to win the division.
00:53:42
The Bills are by far the best.
00:53:44
>> Oh, yeah. No, for sure. We can we can we
00:53:47
can pencil that in.
00:53:48
>> The other thing I just want to observe
00:53:50
is the the 0 and3 Giants beating the 3
00:53:52
and 0 Chargers is one of the most NFL
00:53:55
things. I mean, every year this happens,
00:53:56
right? Every year week four, some 0 and3
00:53:58
team beats a 3-0 team. You think could
00:54:00
couldn't win. There's no way this is
00:54:01
going to win. But it's also signs of
00:54:03
life. Jackson Dart, signs of life. I
00:54:05
mean, it's folly to bet too much on a
00:54:08
rookie quarterback, but still signs of
00:54:10
life for the Giants, maybe.
00:54:13
Okay, fellas. Why don't we leave it
00:54:14
there? I know y'all have some baseball
00:54:15
to watch. That has been the first hour
00:54:18
of Wharton Moneyball. Usually one hour
00:54:20
show these days, but every now and then
00:54:22
we do an overtime segment, and we're
00:54:24
going to do one. We're going to talk
00:54:25
Ryder Cup, a topic we didn't hit because
00:54:26
we have Joseph Lammana joining us
00:54:28
shortly to talk RDER Cup, the big
00:54:31
tournament over this past weekend.
00:54:32
Welcome to an overtime segment in this
00:54:34
week's show. Every now and then, we have
00:54:36
too much to cover, too much we want to
00:54:38
cover to limit ourselves to the one-hour
00:54:40
show. And this is one of those weeks we
00:54:42
didn't have a chance to talk Ryder Cup
00:54:44
and we could do a whole show on the
00:54:45
Ryder Cup. Certainly lots of people
00:54:47
doing lots of analysis on the Ryder Cup
00:54:50
just after the US. You know, it would
00:54:53
have been disaster if not for a major
00:54:54
comeback on Sunday. Still, many people
00:54:57
think an embarrassing showing at Beth
00:54:59
Paige. And we thought we'd do a little
00:55:01
conversation on that with Joseph Lmana.
00:55:03
Joseph is first time visitor to this
00:55:06
show. I'm I'm going to tell you, I came
00:55:09
across him in two ways. One, he's done
00:55:11
the show Bet the Process with our
00:55:13
friends Rufus Peabody and Jeff Ma a
00:55:15
couple of times. In fact, I think Rufus
00:55:18
always makes a fuss over how much Jeff
00:55:20
Maul loves Joseph Lammana, one of his
00:55:22
favorite guests, I believe. But then
00:55:23
also, if you start asking around about
00:55:26
an organization called used to be called
00:55:27
the 15th Club, now it's like the 21st
00:55:31
Club. Maybe maybe Joseph can remind us
00:55:33
of this. This is an organization
00:55:34
longtime listeners might remember. This
00:55:36
is an analytics organization that came
00:55:38
out of the UK. They they were first like
00:55:40
the 21st club because they were the 21st
00:55:44
club in the Premier League. providing
00:55:46
soccer analytics and then they started
00:55:48
doing golf and then the European writer
00:55:51
cup team glombmed on to them and started
00:55:54
using analytics and we had conversations
00:55:55
over the years with multiple people in
00:55:57
that organization. Turns out Lmana
00:56:00
part of his gigs over the years was
00:56:03
working for that organization. So Joseph
00:56:04
is a resident here in Austin, Texas. He
00:56:07
is a Longhorn fan which is not the
00:56:09
reason I brought him on I promise. He is
00:56:12
a writer and contributor analyst at the
00:56:14
fried egg which is a fantastic
00:56:15
organization looking at golf from a lot
00:56:17
of different angles. Joseph has his own
00:56:20
practice, his own consulting. He has
00:56:21
caddied for multiple years. He is a bit
00:56:24
of a course kind of a course
00:56:26
afficionado. He can talk designers and
00:56:28
pros and cons. So he is the perfect guy
00:56:31
to talk Rder Cup. Joseph, welcome to
00:56:34
Wharton Moneyball.
00:56:35
>> Well, thanks so much for having me. I am
00:56:36
a listener. I I love the Wharton
00:56:38
podcast, the Wharton Moneyball podcast.
00:56:40
So, uh, it's I'm a longtime listener,
00:56:42
first- time guest, but I really respect
00:56:44
what you guys do, and I think this is
00:56:45
the perfect audience to be talking about
00:56:47
the RDER Cup with. Very analytically
00:56:49
driven audience. So, I'm really excited.
00:56:50
>> Well, that's that's good to hear. And
00:56:52
the only worry is that we we all of us
00:56:54
have to go do something at some point,
00:56:56
otherwise we could stay here for a long
00:56:57
time. Eric is going to have to leave
00:56:58
first. And I know Eric is going to have
00:57:00
some kind of question. Eric, you watched
00:57:02
the tournament. I know you have strong
00:57:03
feelings about the tournament.
00:57:05
Hypothesize a little bit with with
00:57:08
Joseph. Ask Joseph some questions about
00:57:11
whatever you're curious about. I'm
00:57:12
curious where you go, Eric, after having
00:57:14
watched three days of golf.
00:57:16
>> Yeah. So, Joseph, is there a science
00:57:19
like I I can't remember the last time
00:57:22
the US won in four sums? Maybe they have
00:57:28
um four ball. So is there something
00:57:31
analytically that can be said about
00:57:33
pairing people together that kind of you
00:57:36
know you know could explain why or or
00:57:40
another way to frame it is is it obvious
00:57:42
that a mistake was made by the US team
00:57:45
in pairing people together. Real
00:57:46
quickly, you said forsomes and four
00:57:48
ball. Let's take foresomes just as a
00:57:50
sensation.
00:57:51
>> Let's start with forsomes, which the lay
00:57:53
person might know as alternate shot.
00:57:54
>> Alternate shot. And so this, you know,
00:57:56
the US famously loses Friday, the Friday
00:57:59
morning is the first, they always play
00:58:00
forsomes. They got crushed this one. And
00:58:02
so that that's the that's the context
00:58:04
here. Joseph,
00:58:05
>> I feel like there's there are a lot of
00:58:07
different directions to to take that
00:58:09
question, right? There's why does the US
00:58:11
struggle historically in forsomes? there
00:58:14
is what is the strategy in pairing
00:58:16
people in forsomes and there's so many
00:58:18
different threads you could pull on with
00:58:21
that question right I think overarching
00:58:23
there is a truth to Americans struggling
00:58:27
in forsomes and you could do an entire
00:58:29
podcast episode on why that might be I
00:58:32
think there's credence too that that
00:58:34
Europeans play a lot more alternate shot
00:58:36
growing up it's part of the culture
00:58:38
there that's part of the way they play
00:58:40
at clubs in Europe it's part of
00:58:43
competition that elite junior golfers
00:58:45
play. So, I think there is more of a
00:58:47
comfort level for Europeans playing
00:58:49
alternate shot. How much is that worth?
00:58:52
Like, I don't have a great answer for
00:58:53
you on that, but I think there's
00:58:54
something to it. And then in terms of
00:58:56
pairing people together in in alternate
00:58:59
shot, absolutely, there's a lot that
00:59:00
goes into that. You want to pair people
00:59:02
with complimentary skill sets. You want
00:59:05
to be conscious on who should be teeing
00:59:07
off on the odd holes versus the even
00:59:09
holes because that's the way that it
00:59:12
works at the RDER Cup. I mean, true true
00:59:14
alternate shot. Sometimes it's just
00:59:16
whoever finishes the putt, the next
00:59:18
person te's off. But in at the RDER Cup,
00:59:20
it's odds and even. So, there's strategy
00:59:22
involved in that. There's strategy
00:59:24
involved in the golf ball that you play,
00:59:27
right? Because if you're playing with
00:59:28
two totally different makes and models
00:59:30
of golf ball, you're going to have
00:59:32
golfers adjusting on the fly, which they
00:59:34
may not be comfortable with for good
00:59:37
reason. I mean, spin control on your
00:59:38
wedges is a huge part of of professional
00:59:41
golf. So, if you're playing a golf,
00:59:43
>> Joseph, just a clarification, I didn't I
00:59:45
hadn't even thought about asking this.
00:59:46
Because of the rain, they were playing
00:59:48
preferred lie uh for at least for the
00:59:50
first couple days. Does that mean if you
00:59:52
shoot and now I shoot when I lift your
00:59:55
ball, I can't replace it with my ball?
00:59:58
>> It is correct that you're not allowed to
01:00:00
replace the ball on the hole. But and
01:00:03
this part I actually don't like about
01:00:05
the RDER Cup. You can change the golf
01:00:07
ball on each hole. They no longer have
01:00:09
the one ball rule in effect. So you can
01:00:12
change on the T- box. I think you should
01:00:14
you should have to play one ball the
01:00:16
whole time. But to answer your question,
01:00:17
no, you cannot pick up the ball as part
01:00:20
of the preferred lie and then put back
01:00:21
down a different golf ball.
01:00:23
>> Got it.
01:00:23
>> Joseph and Eric, you'll you'll be you'll
01:00:25
be impressed by this and Joseph probably
01:00:27
knows this, but so um Molinari, Edward
01:00:30
Molinari, former player, right? And he's
01:00:32
went big into analytics and he's been
01:00:35
consulting to the right
01:00:36
>> current player. Yes.
01:00:37
>> Current current player. Okay. Current
01:00:39
player. Uh and he's been consulting to
01:00:40
the European team for years now. I just
01:00:43
saw a clip of a longer interview he did.
01:00:45
I haven't seen the whole interview so
01:00:46
and I can't even make a proper
01:00:47
attribution but it's out there. I'm sure
01:00:49
it's getting a lot of attention where he
01:00:50
talked about the analytics they do and
01:00:53
figuring out their forome pairings. And
01:00:56
you'll get a kick out of this Eric. My
01:00:58
what I gathered in this one minute clip
01:01:00
is that they put guys they they they put
01:01:02
guys on simulators. So they're going to
01:01:04
simulate the course and then they run
01:01:07
them through the course as it will be
01:01:10
played and they run them at different
01:01:12
combinations. For example, you know, you
01:01:14
put Fleetwood and and Rory together and
01:01:16
you'd say, "Okay, Rory, you're going to
01:01:17
tee off on the one on the odds and
01:01:19
Fleetwood will take the evens and then
01:01:20
we're going to flip it and we're going
01:01:22
to do enough of those to get some sense
01:01:24
there's an advantage on this course for
01:01:26
the strengths and weaknesses of those
01:01:27
two players." They literally simulate in
01:01:29
that way with the guys to figure out
01:01:32
something about their pairings. And that
01:01:35
my big picture take so far, this is just
01:01:37
Tuesday or whatever and I'm not the most
01:01:39
informed, but I've tried to gather as
01:01:40
much as I can for a couple days. We
01:01:42
probably gave up something the US and
01:01:45
not being as analytically oriented. But
01:01:47
I think the fact that we're not as
01:01:48
analytically oriented shows that we're
01:01:51
just not looking for edges in the way
01:01:53
the Europeans are looking for edges.
01:01:55
It's it's like it's like it's like the
01:01:56
Philadelphia Eagles playing the
01:01:58
Cincinnati Bengals. You know, it's like,
01:01:59
yeah, some some years the Bengals are
01:02:01
going to have enough talent that they're
01:02:02
going to be able to compete with the
01:02:03
Eagles, but year in year out the Eagles
01:02:06
are looking for every last edge
01:02:08
possible. They got a cap guy in there
01:02:10
playing with the cap, running the team
01:02:12
now and figuring out other things.
01:02:13
They've got player development. They're
01:02:14
doing everything possible. The fact that
01:02:16
the US let Scotty and who was he playing
01:02:19
with? They just decided to flip the
01:02:21
order of their
01:02:22
>> Well, they played with the Shambo on one
01:02:24
set. I maybe that was some
01:02:26
>> But Eric, they made a flip on tea off
01:02:28
order on their own Saturday and it just
01:02:30
kind of flippantly did this as opposed
01:02:32
to the way the Europeans have studied
01:02:34
this, practiced it. It just reveals the
01:02:37
the lack of diligence. That's my current
01:02:39
hypothesis. Joseph,
01:02:41
>> look, you're absolutely right. The the
01:02:42
Americans are always behind on this type
01:02:46
of stuff. And I think there are real
01:02:48
questions starting to be asked about how
01:02:50
well the analytics team is performing on
01:02:53
the American side. And because as as you
01:02:56
guys talk about this all the time on on
01:02:59
the podcast, using data doesn't mean
01:03:01
you're using data correctly. And I think
01:03:03
that there's now this like now both
01:03:05
teams are using data. That does not mean
01:03:08
that they're making intell intelligent
01:03:10
decisions. And so I do think that's a
01:03:12
big question that's coming out of this
01:03:14
Ryder Cup. Hey, who was making
01:03:16
decisions? Was Keegan Bradley overriding
01:03:18
some of the advice that he was being
01:03:20
given.
01:03:22
But and I I think one maybe the most
01:03:24
underrated part of the RDER Cup is some
01:03:27
of the
01:03:28
communication. h how important
01:03:31
communication is. I I think the the best
01:03:34
example would be something like to use a
01:03:36
football analogy, John Harbaugh going
01:03:38
for it on fourth and two to have the
01:03:40
model built and then to have the
01:03:42
communication to him in real time to
01:03:45
have the confidence in the model with
01:03:47
John Harbaugh. How strong of a
01:03:49
recommendation is it? All of those
01:03:50
pieces of the process are crucially
01:03:53
important and I think Europe has really
01:03:55
nailed that down. I can't tell you where
01:03:57
the United States is exactly failing on
01:04:00
that, but they are clearly failing on
01:04:02
that repeatedly, whether it's the model
01:04:04
building itself, which I think there's
01:04:05
there are clearly some issues there, but
01:04:07
also getting the appropriate buyin all
01:04:10
the way down to Keegan Bradley so that
01:04:11
he's making good decisions in real time.
01:04:13
I think it's pretty obvious at this
01:04:15
point that it deserves scrutiny from top
01:04:17
to bottom all of that process.
01:04:18
>> Joseph, since I have to run this, let me
01:04:20
ask you two more questions. Um the first
01:04:22
one is let's imagine do you ever see a
01:04:26
world I we all know Scotty Sheffller is
01:04:29
the number one player in the world and
01:04:30
matter of fact he's played like it it's
01:04:32
not even been close I mean he is the
01:04:34
number one player in the world is there
01:04:36
ever a way where let's say he's 0 and3
01:04:41
where you say okay look he's the number
01:04:44
one player in the world but there is
01:04:45
intraday and intraday variation I'm not
01:04:48
going to put a tired Scotty sheffller
01:04:51
out there for the four sums on day two.
01:04:55
He's 0 and3 already. You know what?
01:04:57
Maybe I just sit him for the singles. Is
01:05:00
there any like would that ever enter the
01:05:02
analysis that's I have another question,
01:05:04
but would that ever enter the analysis
01:05:06
that someone would actually sit the
01:05:08
number one player in the world?
01:05:11
>> Would it ever enter the analysis? It
01:05:13
better be in the analysis. You're you're
01:05:15
hitting on two things there. One is how
01:05:18
much do you weigh long-term form versus
01:05:20
short-term form? What level of
01:05:21
information are you getting from what
01:05:23
you see in the first session, the first
01:05:24
three sessions? Like abs, if that's not
01:05:27
baked into what you're doing, then
01:05:28
that's a problem. You're also asking
01:05:30
about energy conservation, which I think
01:05:32
is a very important part of the Rder Cup
01:05:34
that maybe became more obvious this time
01:05:37
around, but the golfers who go all five
01:05:39
sessions had a really hard time in their
01:05:42
singles match. And sometimes we've seen
01:05:43
historically with Europe like the at the
01:05:46
last RDER Cup in 2023, they did sit John
01:05:49
Rom out in the afternoon session with
01:05:51
the knowledge that he was going off
01:05:52
first in the morning on Sunday and
01:05:54
wanted him to be ready for it. Do I
01:05:56
think that generally you're going to run
01:05:57
the number one player five sessions?
01:05:59
Yeah. Is there a world where I would
01:06:00
leave Scotty Sheffller out of a session?
01:06:02
There is, but I think more than likely
01:06:04
you're probably going to need to ride
01:06:06
him for five sessions. But absolutely,
01:06:07
you should be looking at that kind of
01:06:08
stuff. and you're hitting on some of the
01:06:10
intricacies that team Europe handles
01:06:12
much better than the United States does
01:06:14
historically. Right? That's another
01:06:15
clear example where you could be using
01:06:17
data to determine something, but you
01:06:19
might not be using it correctly of how
01:06:21
much that first session actually is in
01:06:23
is predictive of how they're going to
01:06:24
play in the next. I think Ben Griffin is
01:06:27
Ben Griffin's the example there that I
01:06:28
would I would say I think they clearly
01:06:30
yanked him after what they saw from the
01:06:32
first round, but per perhaps that was an
01:06:33
overreaction.
01:06:34
>> I I I that was I had a lot of questions
01:06:36
about Ben Griffin, but let me given my
01:06:38
time. Let me ask one more question.
01:06:41
Forget what actually happened. If I had
01:06:44
I want you to give me a probability of
01:06:45
the following. If I had told you that
01:06:48
the singles matches were over. I'm not
01:06:50
going to tell you anything else,
01:06:52
>> but the only win by the European team is
01:06:55
Louvig Oberg against Patrick Kentlay.
01:06:58
That's the only win.
01:07:00
>> What probability would you have told me
01:07:02
that Europe would win the cup? Zero,
01:07:04
right?
01:07:06
>> Whoa. I can't say zero, right? But uh
01:07:09
yeah I don't know 5% something really
01:07:11
low
01:07:12
>> I think it was%
01:07:14
>> yeah and also if I had told you also
01:07:16
similarly on the beginning of Sunday
01:07:19
that the US would be alive very alive
01:07:23
by the time it got to Shane Lowry
01:07:26
you would have said to me how's that
01:07:28
going to happen in a similar way right
01:07:33
>> yeah and again people could say that if
01:07:35
it weren't a blowout going into Sunday
01:07:37
Sunday might have played out
01:07:38
differently. I I don't know exactly
01:07:40
where I land on that. But I do think one
01:07:42
advantage that the United States clearly
01:07:45
had on Sunday was how worn down the
01:07:47
Europeans were in particular.
01:07:49
I don't know how much people are, you
01:07:51
know, the fan abuse that was a big
01:07:53
storyline coming out of it. I was with
01:07:56
the group where all that was mainly
01:07:57
happening. I cannot believe Shane Lowry
01:08:00
was able to to play as well as he did on
01:08:02
Sunday after what some of the stuff that
01:08:04
he and Rory endured. So, I do think a
01:08:07
big part of the Sunday performance by
01:08:08
the Americans was they caught some tired
01:08:10
golfers. Rory had very little in the
01:08:13
tank. And if you saw what he was
01:08:14
subjected to out there, I think it is
01:08:16
completely understandable that he was
01:08:18
spent going into Sunday.
01:08:20
>> Wow. Wow. Wow. I did not realize until
01:08:23
just then that you were out there. So,
01:08:25
you were in New York for the tournament.
01:08:28
>> Yes, I was there. Yep. On on site. So, a
01:08:31
little different experience that
01:08:33
sometimes you don't always have the best
01:08:35
feel for everything that's going on. So,
01:08:36
you'll have to pardon me if I can't get
01:08:38
into the specifics of every shot in
01:08:40
every match, but at least for the ones I
01:08:41
was with should have some insight.
01:08:43
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, start with what you
01:08:44
just said, which was the crowd, which
01:08:46
received so much attention. And I've
01:08:49
heard I had one buddy who was there who
01:08:51
who talked about what a how much fun it
01:08:53
was, what a great crowd, how interesting
01:08:55
it was. And, you know, that's very
01:08:57
different from a lot of the reports you
01:08:58
get. And then you have the commissioner,
01:09:00
whoever it was that came out say, I
01:09:01
didn't see anything untored and that
01:09:04
doesn't seem to fit with what you're
01:09:06
reporting. Like what what would you say
01:09:08
about what you saw from the crowd there?
01:09:12
>> You know, I I feel like when people when
01:09:15
golf media is reporting about how ugly
01:09:17
it is, there's sort of this backlash
01:09:19
that that thinks people are pearl
01:09:21
clutching and being uptight. I am a
01:09:23
massive sports fan. I go to UFC fights,
01:09:26
NFL games, like I have a very high
01:09:29
tolerance for what should be acceptable
01:09:31
at a sporting event. The RDER Cup was
01:09:34
completely out of line, completely over
01:09:37
the top. You're talking about personal
01:09:40
insults about people's marriages, about
01:09:42
their physiques, about what their wives
01:09:44
look like. And it's happening, you know,
01:09:47
not because it's all loud and rockous.
01:09:49
It was loud and rockous, but then it
01:09:51
would quiet down and Rory Mroy'd be
01:09:53
standing over the ball and somebody from
01:09:55
10 rows deep was yelling something about
01:09:58
his marriage that forced him to step
01:10:00
back off of the ball while his family is
01:10:02
inside the ropes hearing the entire
01:10:04
thing. It is not People are not going
01:10:07
overboard talking about how gross the
01:10:09
crowd was. To be clear, these are bad
01:10:11
actors. It's not like the crowd in mass
01:10:13
was chanting things that were
01:10:15
inappropriate, but what was being yelled
01:10:17
was completely inappropriate. Calling
01:10:20
golfers fat, you know, again, going
01:10:22
after their wives appearances, rumors.
01:10:24
It was really, really ugly. And it it's
01:10:27
appropriate to characterize it that way
01:10:29
without, you know, pearl clutching.
01:10:30
>> Okay, that's helpful to hear from you
01:10:32
and helpful context that you're
01:10:34
accustomed to some pretty rough sporting
01:10:35
environments. What do you think? We we
01:10:37
this isn't why we brought you on here,
01:10:39
but but it does make you wonder. Do you
01:10:41
think it's an do you think it's
01:10:42
policable? Do you think it's in do you
01:10:44
think better standards are enforcable in
01:10:46
the future if an organization wanted
01:10:50
you know it's really difficult where my
01:10:52
head goes immediately is um most of
01:10:56
those comments came from areas where
01:10:58
there are collection points on the golf
01:11:00
course where somebody's 10 rows deep and
01:11:02
doesn't have the courage to yell it from
01:11:04
the front row. So I think that is
01:11:05
something you could think about how you
01:11:08
uh you know control where there are a
01:11:10
bunch of crowds organized and think
01:11:12
about grandstands and there's clearly
01:11:15
something there. I've seen some people
01:11:17
talk about hard liquor, right? You know,
01:11:19
if a beer crowd's different than a hard
01:11:21
liquor crowd there. There's a lot of
01:11:22
different ways you can go. It's very
01:11:24
difficult to enforce, but I do think the
01:11:27
PJ of America is getting a lot of
01:11:29
backlash and needs to consider what the
01:11:30
next event would look like. Again,
01:11:33
people aren't aren't being over the top
01:11:34
here saying it was ugly. It was
01:11:36
absolutely ugly. Something should be
01:11:39
done about it, but I I don't think this
01:11:40
is just a problem in golf. We've seen
01:11:42
bad fan encounters in a number of ways.
01:11:44
I think gambling is involved here,
01:11:46
right? I think that has kind of
01:11:48
heightened people's propensity to to go
01:11:51
after athletes when they're mad and they
01:11:52
just spent $1,000 on a ticket. They've
01:11:54
been sitting there all day. Team USA is
01:11:56
losing. They could have a couple
01:11:57
thousand dollars on the Americans to win
01:11:58
the RDER Cup. So, a lot there. It's
01:12:00
difficult to solve, but it does need to
01:12:02
be solved.
01:12:02
>> Okay, coming back to the golf, um I've
01:12:06
seen a range of responses, you know, Dan
01:12:09
Rapapore is someone who's been on the
01:12:10
show a number of years, and we always
01:12:12
enjoy Dan and he right on the heels of
01:12:14
the tournament, he went to the mat
01:12:15
saying, you know, it's not Keegan's
01:12:17
fault. Coaches don't hit the ball. I'd
01:12:20
rather him be a player than a coach.
01:12:22
It's all on the players. It's on the
01:12:23
players on the players.
01:12:25
Okay. Um true to it some extent. Of
01:12:29
course, the players have to play. Okay.
01:12:30
But then we have some people are blaming
01:12:33
managerial decisions and we can talk
01:12:35
about analytics and you know we can get
01:12:38
worked up about you know this there's
01:12:39
all this stuff about data golf said that
01:12:41
Morocawa's pairing on Friday and
01:12:43
Saturday was 132nd out of 132 possible
01:12:46
pairings. That's so bad. And people are
01:12:48
like you know don't take the analytics
01:12:50
too far. There's uncertainty on those
01:12:51
things and the differences are small and
01:12:53
let's not make too big a fuss out of it.
01:12:56
And I am curious your perspective. I
01:12:57
mean you I think you you see the golf
01:12:59
you've played golf at high levels you've
01:13:01
caddy golf at high levels you analyze
01:13:02
golf so you kind of see it from all
01:13:04
these perspectives what is the relative
01:13:06
importance of all of these analytics
01:13:09
that we're talking about the edges
01:13:10
because you know usually analytics make
01:13:13
a difference but they're not huge
01:13:14
differences we're talking about getting
01:13:16
every little edge you can but they're
01:13:18
not huge differences relative to you
01:13:20
know chefer playing well or poorly.
01:13:21
Yeah, and that's the million-dollar
01:13:23
question, right? And I think there are
01:13:25
so many different pieces of what you're
01:13:27
talking about. All of it matters and all
01:13:30
of it stacks up. And you hear Luke
01:13:32
Donald talk about his level of
01:13:33
preparation on the European side down to
01:13:35
changing the betting because he wanted
01:13:37
the players to get better sleep. And you
01:13:39
know, if you look at his pairings at the
01:13:41
BMW PGA Championship a couple weeks ago,
01:13:44
Europe gets to have input on on who gets
01:13:47
paired together. and a lot of the
01:13:48
golfers that were grouped together ended
01:13:50
up being partners in the RDER Cup.
01:13:53
That's not a coincidence. They are
01:13:54
actively preparing. To Keegan's credit,
01:13:57
he did the same thing. And at the
01:13:58
Procore Championship in Napa, those
01:14:01
golfers were playing practice rounds
01:14:02
with each other, got grouped together.
01:14:04
And so, I think we have to take a step
01:14:07
back when evaluating Keegan Bradley's
01:14:09
captaincy and not only focus on the fact
01:14:12
that Colin Morawa and Harris English
01:14:14
were paired together twice in Forsomes,
01:14:16
which was a bad pairing. I do I do not
01:14:18
want to defend that pairing. But to your
01:14:20
point,
01:14:21
>> I think Rory and Tommy were priced I
01:14:25
want to say minus 200 minus 210 in that
01:14:27
matchup when they got paired with Harris
01:14:30
English and Colin Morawa. So call it a
01:14:32
65% chance that
01:14:34
>> Rory and Fleetwood were going to win. if
01:14:35
you tossed a better pairing out at them
01:14:37
like you know maybe it goes to to 60%ish
01:14:41
>> and I do not mean to downplay a 5%
01:14:45
>> difference on a match but
01:14:47
>> no
01:14:47
>> I think it's important to keep in in
01:14:49
check the totality of all of the
01:14:51
decisions Keegan made were 2018 the
01:14:54
Americans used to do the dumbest most
01:14:57
thoughtless stuff I still don't like
01:14:59
some of the decisions that Keegan made
01:15:00
but they've come a long way so I think
01:15:02
he was getting kind of butchered you
01:15:05
know, crucified for for some of the
01:15:07
decisions he made that was maybe a
01:15:08
little out of scale. I I didn't think he
01:15:10
was a great captain, but I also think
01:15:12
some of the comments are way overboard
01:15:14
and people had started writing those
01:15:15
when the US was way down early versus
01:15:17
waiting to watch things play all the way
01:15:18
up.
01:15:19
>> Right. I I think it's important for
01:15:21
those of us who do practice analytics
01:15:22
and um advocate analytics that we keep
01:15:25
analytics in perspective and they do
01:15:27
provide edges, but they're relatively
01:15:29
small edges typically and the trick is
01:15:31
to stack a bunch of these edges and to
01:15:33
practice them consistently. Not that any
01:15:35
one thing is gonna make that big a
01:15:37
difference, but also they do reveal a
01:15:38
little bit. You know, we um Kevin Cole
01:15:41
is an analyst that we have on the show
01:15:42
sometimes focuses on football and he
01:15:44
does great um like front office
01:15:46
evaluations and we don't know everything
01:15:49
that happens in front offices, but the
01:15:51
decisions we do get to see are revealing
01:15:54
of a broader philosophy. And I think
01:15:56
that's something analogous here with the
01:15:58
writer cup. like some of the decisions
01:16:00
they make reveal on the European side a
01:16:03
care for all this detail and analysis
01:16:05
and maybe not as much care on the US
01:16:07
side. Um
01:16:09
I have two other general questions to
01:16:11
ask you. One of them is the course he's
01:16:14
the the US side. I'm not sure who makes
01:16:15
that decision whether it's strictly
01:16:17
Keegan or not, but you know a lot about
01:16:19
courses and course setups and how course
01:16:21
setups interact with players. Apparently
01:16:24
they took the bite out of Beth Bates.
01:16:26
They they took the rough down. That's
01:16:27
not the way the course usually plays and
01:16:29
there's a lot of criticism for the
01:16:32
people who made that decision. What's
01:16:33
your position on the role the course
01:16:35
played?
01:16:35
>> The teams coming in, their skill sets
01:16:37
were relatively balanced, at least
01:16:39
compared to historical RDER cups. Like
01:16:41
in 2021 at Whistling Straits, Team USA
01:16:44
had a massive distance advantage and
01:16:46
they were on a big golf course and you
01:16:48
want to set it up as distance friendly
01:16:50
as possible. Europe's playing from way
01:16:52
behind. That was not the case coming
01:16:54
into this Ryder Cup. the skill sets were
01:16:56
much more balanced. Depends how you want
01:16:58
to look at that just the rosters top to
01:17:00
bottom or if you want to start to weight
01:17:01
it. And I think where Team USA
01:17:05
potentially regrets some of the setup
01:17:07
decisions is that you think about
01:17:09
waiting it, you know, Scotty Sheffller
01:17:11
is going to go four to five matches,
01:17:13
probably five matches. And I do believe
01:17:15
that setting up the golf course the way
01:17:16
they did, chopping the rough down
01:17:19
entirely, muted one of their best
01:17:21
players strength in Scotty Sheffller. is
01:17:24
a very accurate driver of the golf ball.
01:17:26
Bryson de Shambo isn't. So if you're you
01:17:29
know if you it's not like chopping down
01:17:31
the rough changed the the win
01:17:33
probability of this thing by 10%. Like I
01:17:36
I think people are going a little
01:17:37
overboard on the core setup stuff in
01:17:39
this particular case. This is not Paris.
01:17:41
This is not Whistling Straits where the
01:17:43
skill sets were radically different.
01:17:44
They also range which you can't control.
01:17:46
So that was part of it. But yes, if I
01:17:48
were to set the golf course up,
01:17:50
especially with the benefit of
01:17:51
hindsight, I think some thicker rough
01:17:53
would have benefit the US team,
01:17:54
especially given that, you know, Scotty
01:17:56
Sheffler, Russell Henley, JJ Spawn. They
01:17:59
had some very accurate drivers of the
01:18:01
golf ball. But again, people aren't
01:18:02
talking about Cameron Young. Cameron
01:18:04
Young bowled out for the United States,
01:18:06
played a lot from the rough.
01:18:07
>> Yeah,
01:18:08
>> the setup benefit him. So, it's it is
01:18:10
important to keep some of that in
01:18:11
perspective.
01:18:11
>> Okay, that's great. That's great. The
01:18:13
the last thing that I've heard from a
01:18:15
few places that I I find compelling is
01:18:18
that the owner of the Ryder Cup, the PG
01:18:21
of America, the the decision makers
01:18:23
bigger than the manager have to have
01:18:27
some questions answered. Like it's not
01:18:29
just on the players and the manager.
01:18:30
It's like this institutional question.
01:18:32
And the fact that the Europeans have so
01:18:34
much more continuity and
01:18:36
institutionalization and training
01:18:37
programs for their coaches and all these
01:18:39
kinds of things, they're practicing the
01:18:41
same
01:18:43
things year over year or cycle over
01:18:46
cycle and the US doesn't. The US started
01:18:49
this back in the 2010s and then it seems
01:18:52
to been kind of abandoned.
01:18:54
What do you have and this is maybe a
01:18:56
little far from your expertise but I'm
01:18:58
curious I mean this is I think it's a
01:19:00
great way to push the dialogue. It's
01:19:01
like let's go beyond the obvious things.
01:19:03
Yeah, they petted poorly and yeah, maybe
01:19:05
Keegan had a few questions he some
01:19:07
decisions he missed, but what's behind
01:19:09
the scenes year over year, like years
01:19:11
long in the making that what in what way
01:19:14
does the US suffer by by that
01:19:16
comparison?
01:19:18
>> Well, yeah, I think you're getting at is
01:19:19
there's not a lot of stability and
01:19:21
consistency year-over-year with the RDER
01:19:24
Cup, who the captain, how they get
01:19:27
chosen, their relationship with
01:19:29
whoever's consulting them, getting
01:19:31
information. And there's not a lot of
01:19:32
consistency there. Versus on the
01:19:34
European side, they kind of have this
01:19:36
thing down and there are consistent
01:19:37
voices in the room.
01:19:39
>> The most you this past RDER Cup had 11
01:19:41
of the same 12 players in the same
01:19:43
captain.
01:19:43
>> It's incredible.
01:19:44
>> Some of the overlap in the vice cast
01:19:46
like you can't have more continuity than
01:19:49
they just had. So you almost took it to
01:19:51
an extreme and I think that's absolutely
01:19:53
beneficial. A lot of the listeners of
01:19:55
this podcast will understand that better
01:19:57
than I will with, for example, like
01:19:59
changes in offensive coordinators and
01:20:00
defensive coordinators in the NFL and
01:20:02
some of the uncertainty that that that
01:20:05
can, you know, create. So, I absolutely
01:20:08
think there is something to the US
01:20:09
needing to have some more continuity. I
01:20:11
don't know who on the American side
01:20:14
knows golf well enough, honestly, to be
01:20:16
that voice. And I think that's what
01:20:18
they're struggling with. And the other
01:20:21
fascinating point I've heard kind of
01:20:22
brought up for the first time over the
01:20:24
last couple days that I never really
01:20:25
thought about is that the President's
01:20:26
Cup, you know, that's the United States
01:20:28
versus the international team, which
01:20:30
happens every other year, whichever year
01:20:33
the Ryder Cup isn't, might be hurting
01:20:35
the United States in in the way that
01:20:38
they prepare for the Ryder Cup. And that
01:20:41
they do this thing every year. It takes
01:20:44
a little bit of the, you know, it's h
01:20:45
this thing again, this thing again
01:20:47
versus, you know, a little more scarcity
01:20:49
and really getting themselves prepared
01:20:51
for it, really taking a lot of pride in
01:20:53
it. Okay, the record since the
01:20:54
President's Cup started, the United
01:20:56
States isn't very good. I don't I don't
01:20:58
know exactly how much credence there
01:21:00
could be to that, but it's an
01:21:01
interesting angle to explore that team
01:21:02
Europe just takes this thing a little
01:21:04
more seriously.
01:21:04
>> Okay. Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple
01:21:07
of cheaper, you know, superficial
01:21:09
questions, just fun questions. You can
01:21:10
just riff, do as little or as much as
01:21:12
you want of this. Um, one is as as long
01:21:14
as we're talking about ownership and
01:21:16
captainship,
01:21:17
the name everyone's kicking around now
01:21:20
is Tiger Woods and and he he apparently
01:21:22
passed on this time, but like how do you
01:21:24
from you from your being around golf and
01:21:26
from your having been around some RDER
01:21:27
Cups, how do you think Tiger would do as
01:21:30
a captain? Now, that's only one factor,
01:21:32
but it's an important factor. How do you
01:21:33
think Tiger would do as a
01:21:35
>> Yeah, if I had to guess, Tiger
01:21:38
understands how there how there are much
01:21:40
fewer responsibilities when you're an
01:21:42
away captain, so he probably did not
01:21:43
want to be the home captain, but I I
01:21:45
don't know that for sure. Uh I I'm
01:21:47
skeptical of a Tiger Woods captaincy. I
01:21:50
think if you believe a ton in the
01:21:52
emotional side and guys getting up for
01:21:55
their captain, then that is a very
01:21:57
strong reason that you pick Tiger Woods.
01:21:59
Who wouldn't want to play for Tiger
01:22:01
Woods? and who wouldn't be differential
01:22:03
to him and trust him on decision. So
01:22:05
that's the the pros of picking Tiger. I
01:22:08
think there are a lot of cons of picking
01:22:09
Tiger. One, he never cared about the
01:22:11
RDER Cup. He didn't play well in the
01:22:13
Ryder Cup. He was pretty vocal about it
01:22:15
not being everything to him. So, you
01:22:18
know, is he going to put his heart and
01:22:19
soul into it the way that we'd watched
01:22:20
Luke Donald do it and tap every edge
01:22:22
and, you know, give everything he has to
01:22:23
it? I don't know. Does Tiger Woods
01:22:27
will will he have put out optimal
01:22:29
pairings or will he go a little bit more
01:22:30
with like you know what I trust Jordan
01:22:32
Speed in this situation and look at his
01:22:34
record from eight years ago? Like I I am
01:22:36
very skeptical of any Rder Cup captain
01:22:39
until we actually see the decisions that
01:22:40
they make. So sure could Tiger be good?
01:22:43
He could be. But I kind of like this
01:22:46
angle of Luke Donald. Like the player,
01:22:48
they were talking about it on our pod
01:22:50
today. Like the player who got
01:22:51
everything out of their game and was
01:22:53
very analytical about their game could
01:22:55
be the type of captain you want that,
01:22:57
you know, is just a little bit more
01:22:58
intelligent about the sport.
01:23:00
>> Okay. When you think about that next
01:23:01
generation of players moving into the
01:23:04
age where they might become a captain,
01:23:05
Keegan got there pretty early,
01:23:06
obviously. Who might fit that profile
01:23:09
that you just described?
01:23:12
It's a great question. In thinking about
01:23:15
it, I could see somebody like Web
01:23:19
Simpson who, you know, he never hit the
01:23:21
ball particularly far. He was pretty
01:23:22
good RDER cut player, got a lot out of
01:23:25
his game, probably pretty intelligent
01:23:26
about the game, but I don't know that
01:23:27
for sure, right? You'd love to interview
01:23:29
them and actually get a feel for their
01:23:31
relationship with data, how much they
01:23:33
understand this stuff, you know, how
01:23:34
open-minded they are. I think those are
01:23:36
important questions to ask. Webb Simpson
01:23:38
comes to mind. I think Xander Schoffley
01:23:40
is actually really intelligent about the
01:23:41
sport in in a way that I don't know how
01:23:44
well he could command a locker room and
01:23:46
some of that, but I I think he could
01:23:48
potentially down the line be an
01:23:49
interesting captain. So, I don't know
01:23:51
that I have great some people have some
01:23:53
confidence in Bran Snedker. I'd be eager
01:23:55
to see how he talks about it, but uh
01:23:58
those are a couple names. Xander is a
01:24:00
random one, but I think Sneder and Web
01:24:02
Simpson you will see in the rotation in
01:24:04
some capacity. So, I guess I'm somewhat
01:24:06
optimistic about what they would do, but
01:24:08
again, I want to caution that we haven't
01:24:09
actually heard from them.
01:24:10
>> Yeah. Right. Well, you said the same
01:24:12
thing. You said what's their
01:24:13
relationship to data, how open-minded
01:24:15
they are. I would like to emphasize the
01:24:17
latter. Of course, you know, being data
01:24:19
friendly or data literate would be a
01:24:21
plus. But the most important thing is
01:24:24
that people are open-minded and they're
01:24:25
interested in edges from anywhere. This
01:24:27
is the best organizations, the best
01:24:29
leaders are open to edges from anywhere
01:24:32
because they realize what we're doing is
01:24:33
tough here. It's going to be a close
01:24:36
thing. We need to find any edge we can
01:24:38
take and that means listening to some
01:24:39
people that might be coming at it from
01:24:40
an orthodox perspective. So, I love what
01:24:42
you said. Open-mindedness. It seems it
01:24:45
seems important in lots of other sports.
01:24:46
All right, last question. This could go
01:24:49
a little technical. We'll try not to go
01:24:50
too technical, especially without Audi
01:24:51
because it's an Audi question, but I
01:24:53
want I do want to hear your take on
01:24:54
putting.
01:24:57
I I haven't seen the exact breakdown on
01:24:59
the first two days, but I and or even
01:25:01
into Sunday, but I I gather that the
01:25:04
Europe the Europeans certainly seem to
01:25:06
putt better than the Americans. So, if
01:25:08
the stats bore that out, what would you
01:25:11
need to see to believe that that was
01:25:16
more than just chance? And I guess it
01:25:18
comes down to your beliefs about
01:25:19
putting. You know, it's it's one of
01:25:21
these events, just stochcastic events in
01:25:24
sports that we know make a big
01:25:26
difference in the outcome, but we have a
01:25:29
hard time
01:25:31
seeing persistence over time. So,
01:25:32
they're not super predictive of like
01:25:33
next period. And when those kinds of
01:25:35
that's like fumbles recovered, fumbles
01:25:37
recovered greatly determined football
01:25:38
games, but they they are pretty much
01:25:41
chance. So, there's some thinking. I
01:25:43
mean, the the nihilists among us will
01:25:46
say, you know, these guys all are pretty
01:25:48
similar putters um except maybe at the
01:25:50
edges and some are going to drop some
01:25:52
bombs and some are going to miss and
01:25:54
that's just chance and that's just what
01:25:55
happened. So, I'm curious your take as a
01:25:58
as a someone who's been around the
01:25:59
sport. Where are you on the nihilistic
01:26:01
scale when it comes to putting that how
01:26:03
persistent or luck based is it at that
01:26:06
level on days like
01:26:07
>> Much less nihilistic?
01:26:08
>> You are okay.
01:26:10
>> I'd say much less nihilistic than I used
01:26:12
to be. Uh I think there's it is a very
01:26:18
unpredictable stat. It is not completely
01:26:20
unpredictable. It is not you know
01:26:23
blindfold and and throw a dart like it
01:26:25
is there. You can a I'm also a huge
01:26:29
believer in pressure. Putting under
01:26:31
pressure and playing under pressure is a
01:26:32
different sport than you know what your
01:26:35
make percentage from 5 to 10 feet when
01:26:37
you know you're 10 shots out of the lead
01:26:39
at the Sanderson Farms Championship. No
01:26:41
disrespect to the Sanderson, but you you
01:26:44
know Justin Rose is an excellent putter.
01:26:47
He putt out of his mind again at Beth
01:26:49
Page. Is that predicted? Can could we
01:26:52
have predicted that? Like not
01:26:53
necessarily, but I I don't think it's
01:26:55
just completely random. I will also say
01:26:58
that those greens at Beth Page were
01:27:00
extremely easy to putt on and dead flat.
01:27:04
Not a lot of break in them. The
01:27:05
conditions were easy. Like if you were
01:27:07
missing a lot of putts, you're probably
01:27:09
not a great putter. I I know Sam Burns
01:27:11
didn't have his best putting week and
01:27:12
he's a great putter. So, sure, there
01:27:14
it's still a noisy statistic, but no, I
01:27:16
would not say that this championship
01:27:19
just came down to putting, therefore,
01:27:20
the outcome was random. I'm not on that.
01:27:23
>> Okay.
01:27:23
>> On that, too.
01:27:24
>> Okay. Um, you said this thing about
01:27:26
pressure, which I think we now people
01:27:29
like yourself who do golf analytics have
01:27:32
established this, and I've heard Rufus
01:27:33
talk about like guys do perform worse
01:27:35
with the lead. That's the single best I
01:27:38
think example of pressure in golf. like
01:27:39
we know this now. To what extent is
01:27:42
there heterog heterogeneity and to what
01:27:44
extent in these teams these US and
01:27:47
European teams do you think there is
01:27:49
heterogeneity in ability to perform
01:27:51
under pressure or have they already gone
01:27:53
out and got kind of the cream of the
01:27:54
crop on guys who can perform under
01:27:56
pressure or is it conversely the
01:27:59
Europeans are so much more experienced
01:28:00
bringing back the same guys and we had
01:28:02
some newcomers that experience alone
01:28:04
might have been a differentiator in
01:28:05
terms of per
01:28:09
Yeah, my very unsatisfying answer is
01:28:12
that I think performance under pressure
01:28:14
is absolutely a real thing, but it is
01:28:16
also not necessarily predictive. And we
01:28:20
see a lot of golfers who were once
01:28:24
thought to not be able to play under
01:28:25
pressure who then go on to win a major
01:28:27
championship and then the entire
01:28:28
narrative changes about them over two
01:28:31
putting strokes. Right. Alexander
01:28:33
Schoffley, that was kind of
01:28:35
>> a pervasive narrative around him. We've
01:28:37
seen it with other golfers, too. I mean,
01:28:39
Cameron Young to a lesser extent. So, do
01:28:42
I think there are certain golfers who
01:28:43
cannot perform under pressure? Yes.
01:28:47
Can they figure it out? Maybe. But like
01:28:49
team Europe believes that rookies
01:28:50
perform poorly on the road and that that
01:28:53
that is significantly due to playing in
01:28:57
a more high pressure, high intensity
01:28:59
environment. So,
01:29:00
>> interesting. I think there's there's
01:29:02
absolutely something to that. And they
01:29:03
took a bunch of veterans to play on the
01:29:05
road. It'd be an interesting thing to
01:29:06
look at. The data is kind of hard. It's
01:29:08
small sample size and you want to look
01:29:09
at strokes gain. You don't want to
01:29:11
necessarily look at records. And that
01:29:12
makes looking at RDER Cup, you know,
01:29:14
historical data very difficult, but um I
01:29:17
think it's really hard to nail down
01:29:19
who's good under pressure and who isn't.
01:29:20
And I wouldn't hold it against somebody
01:29:22
too much if they haven't been good under
01:29:23
pressure historically. But again, these
01:29:27
these captains have insight we don't
01:29:28
have. They're talking to these people.
01:29:30
Sometimes guys are a little timid about
01:29:32
some of this stuff. And I know some
01:29:34
names of of golfers who people don't
01:29:35
don't really believe that they believe
01:29:37
in themselves. And I think there is
01:29:38
something to it.
01:29:39
>> Interesting. Okay. Great. All right.
01:29:42
Great fun. Joseph, thanks for jumping on
01:29:44
here with us for the first time. Thanks
01:29:46
for slipping away from the tournament
01:29:47
you're covering there in Dallas. Thank
01:29:49
you for um making time for us on a
01:29:52
relatively short notice to talk about a
01:29:53
topic that is on everybody's mind right
01:29:55
now in the sports world. Joseph, tell us
01:29:57
where people can find your work before
01:29:59
you go.
01:30:02
Yeah, I appreciate you having me. I do
01:30:04
really enjoy the show. You can read the
01:30:06
Friday golf newsletter uh or all Friday
01:30:10
golf channels. Like that's the main
01:30:12
place to find us. So, I think that's the
01:30:14
only thing that I have to plug and hook
01:30:15
them.
01:30:16
>> Hook them. All right. Big game back to
01:30:18
SEC play this weekend. Let's let's get
01:30:20
it going. Joseph,
01:30:21
>> thanks for having us and thank you
01:30:22
listeners for being with us through this
01:30:24
overtime segment. Many thanks for the
01:30:26
whole team here. Eric Bradlo especially
01:30:28
for jumping in and running point in that
01:30:29
first half. Audi Winer, Shane Jensen,
01:30:31
the whole crew here for the whole time.
01:30:33
Dion Simpkins making things happen. Deep
01:30:36
Patel and Marissa Raina, the full team.
01:30:38
Many thanks to you guys and thanks to
01:30:39
you listeners. Come back and join us
01:30:41
next time. Between now and then, enjoy
01:30:44
your sports.
01:30:46
[Music]
