00:00:00
Welcome, welcome to Wharton Moneyball.
00:00:03
Welcome to a full hour of sports
00:00:05
analytics here on the Wharton podcast
00:00:07
network. This is Kade Massie hosting
00:00:10
today with two of my three regular
00:00:12
colleagues and co-host. Shane Jensen is
00:00:15
in here. Audi Winer is in here. And
00:00:18
quite unusually, we are all three on
00:00:20
campus. Sadly, we're in different parts
00:00:22
of campus, but we are all three on
00:00:24
campus. Eric Bradlos isn't. Eric is away
00:00:26
doing Eric Bradlo things. Steve will be
00:00:28
back. As you guys know, we some
00:00:31
combination of us anyway are here almost
00:00:34
every week of the year. We're talking 48
00:00:36
49 weeks a year and have been for more
00:00:38
than 12 years now going back to when we
00:00:40
started March 2014. We're recording on
00:00:44
Tuesday afternoon as we typically do.
00:00:45
Show will go up Wednesday morning and
00:00:48
we're going to follow our usual format
00:00:50
guests in the first half hour, open
00:00:52
topics, open lines in the second half
00:00:55
hour. We are delighted to welcome onto
00:00:57
the show, first time in a long time.
00:00:59
It's hard to have a bigger gap than Eric
00:01:02
has had appearing on the show, but Eric
00:01:04
Tolski is joining us, head of hockey
00:01:06
operations with the Carolina Hurricanes,
00:01:09
the wildly successful Carolina
00:01:12
Hurricanes, highly thought of executive,
00:01:14
rags to riches story, if you will. We'll
00:01:17
cover that in a moment. Eric was on the
00:01:20
show in May 2014, just before he went to
00:01:22
work for the Hurricanes. one of our
00:01:24
first, I don't know, 20 or 25 guests
00:01:27
ever. It's quite a delight to have you
00:01:29
back, Eric. Thanks for making time for
00:01:31
us.
00:01:31
>> Yeah, of course. We should do this once
00:01:33
every 12 years as a matter of routine.
00:01:37
>> And hopefully we'll get three or four
00:01:39
more in.
00:01:39
>> Yeah, we promise. We promise if it goes
00:01:41
12 years, we'll make sure to get back to
00:01:42
you, Eric. But but we may may come to
00:01:45
you before then. Eric, um give us we
00:01:48
have lots of questions for you, but just
00:01:49
let's make it concrete. You're running a
00:01:52
hockey club right now and the season's
00:01:54
heating up and you guys are as
00:01:55
competitive as you usually are. Give us
00:01:57
some sense of what today has been for
00:01:59
you. Something a couple of things that
00:02:01
you've done or worried about or thinking
00:02:03
about right now.
00:02:04
>> Yeah, so this part of the year we're
00:02:06
through the trade deadline. We're
00:02:08
getting ready for the playoffs. So there
00:02:10
isn't a lot of player movement going on
00:02:12
right now. A lot of it is sort of
00:02:14
day-to-day stuff. you know, we had a
00:02:16
player who was sick during the night and
00:02:18
so can we get someone here in time in
00:02:20
case he can't go. Um, what does the
00:02:23
flight schedules look like? There's a
00:02:24
lot of logistics like that that people
00:02:26
don't think about that end up, you know,
00:02:29
just being stuff you have to organize.
00:02:31
Um, and then we're also, as we, you
00:02:33
know, with a couple months left in the
00:02:35
season, it's time to sort of think about
00:02:37
what we want to do from a staffing
00:02:39
perspective in the coming year. And so
00:02:41
thinking about, you know, getting
00:02:43
contracts extended, thinking about who's
00:02:45
ready for a promotion, thinking about
00:02:46
where we want to reshape things a little
00:02:48
bit. So I've had some of those
00:02:49
conversations today, too.
00:02:52
>> Okay. But it feels like from from this
00:02:54
team's construction perspective, it's
00:02:56
baked. You've done the baking. It's it
00:02:58
is what it's going to be. And does does
00:03:00
that does that what does that say about
00:03:03
where
00:03:04
team dynamics and play and and game
00:03:06
strategy and that kind of lower level
00:03:08
more detailed than roster construction
00:03:11
where that sits in the organization and
00:03:13
where it sits right now this time of
00:03:15
year?
00:03:16
>> I'm sorry I didn't follow. What was the
00:03:18
question?
00:03:18
>> The things like in-game strategy, closer
00:03:22
decisions week to week, anything about
00:03:24
team dynamics and any interpersonal
00:03:26
stuff going on. Does that all just sit
00:03:28
with the coaching staff? And so it's
00:03:29
kind of outside your purview. What's
00:03:31
your role in that stuff?
00:03:32
>> Yep. So the coaches have primary
00:03:34
responsibility for all of that. Um I,
00:03:38
you know, everybody in the world has
00:03:40
opinions about it. Um I have
00:03:43
conversations with them from time to
00:03:44
time about how I see things. Um it's
00:03:47
ultimately like they are the experts,
00:03:50
right? And so in management, we will
00:03:52
have things that we do to sort of
00:03:55
highlight, hey, here's an area where we
00:03:57
might be able to get better. here's
00:03:58
something that looks like a problem. Um,
00:04:02
the coaches are the ones who are going
00:04:03
to be better than anyone at going
00:04:05
through the video and saying, "How do we
00:04:07
fix that problem? What can we do about
00:04:09
it?" Or, "Hey, you know what? If we
00:04:12
tried to fix that, it would create these
00:04:14
two other problems. We don't want to go
00:04:15
down that road. This is just a weakness
00:04:17
we have to learn to live with."
00:04:19
>> Um, that sort of consideration mostly
00:04:22
falls within them. But yeah, you know, I
00:04:24
have conversations with the coaching
00:04:26
staff every day about what we're seeing,
00:04:28
how we're seeing it, you know, what we
00:04:30
think.
00:04:31
>> And when you say what you're seeing, do
00:04:33
you mean what you're seeing with your
00:04:34
eyes or what you're seeing maybe with
00:04:36
the data or both?
00:04:38
>> Both for sure. So you know it's the
00:04:40
daily conversations are mostly about
00:04:43
what I saw with my eyes watching the
00:04:45
game and um you know we will get regular
00:04:49
reports from the data team analyses
00:04:52
where they will say hey you know it
00:04:53
looks like in this area we're giving up
00:04:56
a lot of chances like this that we
00:04:58
didn't used to give up and that's
00:05:00
something that can be hard to pick up by
00:05:02
eye because a lot might mean you know
00:05:06
one or two a game and It's hard to tell
00:05:09
the difference between two per game and
00:05:11
one and a quarter per game, but it can
00:05:13
be a big difference. And so data
00:05:15
sometimes flags stuff like that for us,
00:05:18
but what did I see last night is mostly
00:05:20
eye stuff.
00:05:22
>> Shane,
00:05:23
>> yeah, I guess I mean this is my way of
00:05:25
getting I wanted to ask you about
00:05:26
Brandon Busy. You're the go and
00:05:29
obviously his his story this season,
00:05:31
something that's been on our radar for a
00:05:32
few weeks now. Um, how much of that like
00:05:36
I I I kind of would like to hear a
00:05:37
little bit about how you found
00:05:40
slashdeveloped that talent because he
00:05:43
seemingly came out of nowhere and what
00:05:45
and also I I would like to hear kind of
00:05:48
what we were just talking about like how
00:05:49
much of it was kind of a I test versus a
00:05:52
a data thing uh for and and how much
00:05:56
that how easy it is to evaluate
00:05:57
goalenders using data.
00:05:59
>> Yeah. So, I mean, you know, just for the
00:06:02
viewers who aren't aware or listeners,
00:06:04
um, the Sig goalie who we claimed off of
00:06:08
waiverss at the start of the year, he
00:06:10
had never played an NHL game before. He
00:06:13
got into our lineup and just started
00:06:15
winning. Um, and you know, I wish I
00:06:19
could claim that we had a super clever
00:06:22
formula that told us, you know, our
00:06:24
coaching staff. If we knew he was going
00:06:26
to do this, we would have just signed
00:06:28
him in the summer and planned on having
00:06:29
him in the NHL all along. We wouldn't
00:06:31
have let someone else sign him and hoped
00:06:34
we could get him off waiverss. Um, so,
00:06:37
you know, like obviously we've had some
00:06:39
good fortune here. This is something
00:06:41
that I'm not going to oversell and say
00:06:44
we knew was coming. We did see him as
00:06:47
somebody who deserved a chance, right?
00:06:49
So, he he went to college. She was
00:06:52
undrafted, played a few years in
00:06:54
college, did really well, came out of
00:06:56
college as a free agent. Um, we were
00:06:59
interested in him at the time, but had
00:07:02
kind of a full goalie depth chart. Um,
00:07:05
and he went somewhere where he probably
00:07:08
saw more opportunity for himself. Um,
00:07:11
and then that team had a couple goalies
00:07:13
emerge and didn't end up with
00:07:15
opportunity for him. So, he was in the
00:07:17
minor leagues for them for a couple
00:07:18
years and did really well in the minor
00:07:20
leagues. and um finally got to where he
00:07:23
was an unrestricted free agent and could
00:07:25
sign anywhere. He changed to a new team
00:07:27
that still saw him as the number three
00:07:29
goalie. So you carry two in the NHL.
00:07:32
Your number three is normally a minor
00:07:34
leaguer who you will call up when you
00:07:36
need him.
00:07:37
>> And because of his age and experience,
00:07:39
he had to clear waiverss before he could
00:07:41
be sent down. And we had somebody else
00:07:45
as our number three goalie who we knew
00:07:47
we might be at risk of losing on
00:07:48
waiverss. he needed to clear waiverss,
00:07:50
too. And so we picked up Brandon
00:07:52
basically as an insurance policy to make
00:07:54
sure we had someone. And then the
00:07:57
confluence of events, first we were the
00:07:59
only claim on him, so we got him even
00:08:01
though a good record meant we didn't
00:08:03
have high waiver priority. Second, we
00:08:06
did in fact lose the other goalie on
00:08:07
waivers. So we needed a third goalie.
00:08:11
And third, a goalie who one of our top
00:08:14
two found himself struggling to come
00:08:17
back from an injury that we thought he
00:08:18
would be back from and missed a bunch of
00:08:20
time. And so all of a sudden, the guy
00:08:22
who was sort of brought in as a backup
00:08:25
plan to be an emergency goalie was now
00:08:28
one of our top two goalies. And you
00:08:30
know, the the goalie who was out ended
00:08:33
up missing a lot of time. And it created
00:08:36
opportunity for Brandon to get a bunch
00:08:37
of games. And he fit in the locker room.
00:08:40
He fit on the ice. He's a great kid and
00:08:42
it's, you know, it's been good. And we
00:08:43
signed him to a three-year extension a
00:08:45
couple months ago. Can
00:08:47
>> Let me ask a real follow because this is
00:08:49
almost like um a a meta question about
00:08:52
analytics in general. Like why was it
00:08:54
that his minorly career, his college
00:08:56
career, which all you're saying is all
00:08:58
really good, um didn't lead to um a a
00:09:02
playing job either first or second in a
00:09:04
in a NHL team. Is it because, and this
00:09:07
is my speculation, that goalie is just
00:09:09
really hard to predict. Um, or is it
00:09:13
that you just missed it? I mean, that
00:09:15
those are the two possibilities, I
00:09:16
guess.
00:09:17
>> Yeah. I mean, there I mean, so we looked
00:09:21
at his data and said he was someone who
00:09:22
deserved a chance. Um, that's different
00:09:26
from saying he's someone who I know is
00:09:28
going to be good. And when you're
00:09:30
filling out your top two goalies, you're
00:09:32
looking for people who you have
00:09:34
information on and confidence on. And
00:09:36
there are a lot of people who have done
00:09:38
well at college level and minor league
00:09:40
level and look like they deserve a
00:09:42
chance. And you don't really know how
00:09:44
it's going to go until they get into
00:09:45
games. The misfortune for him was that
00:09:48
he spent three years as a backup as a
00:09:52
sort of minor league emergency goalie
00:09:54
and never happened to get into games.
00:09:56
And most of the time there's an injury
00:09:58
here or there, a trade, whatever, and
00:10:01
you get 10, 20 games, and if they go
00:10:03
well,
00:10:05
now there's a market for you. You just
00:10:07
never got that.
00:10:08
>> So, just to summarize, it sounds very
00:10:10
interesting. The It's very hard to know
00:10:12
coming out of minor leagues and college
00:10:14
who's going to be good. So, what people
00:10:15
do smartly is see the ones who get a
00:10:17
chance, use that information, and that
00:10:19
dominates over a question mark person um
00:10:22
who could be good or maybe not. And so
00:10:24
you you you go with the people who have
00:10:26
experience. And so you basically took a
00:10:28
a chance on someone who could be good.
00:10:30
You didn't know he wasn't good. Um and
00:10:32
you just had a a high question mark.
00:10:35
It's almost like drafting a college
00:10:36
pitcher for baseball. You just don't
00:10:38
really know until they face major league
00:10:40
hitting or a high level minor league
00:10:42
hitting. Um but you know more than say a
00:10:45
high school pitcher. So that's a And and
00:10:46
do you think that's more at the goalie
00:10:48
position than at others or is that uh
00:10:50
pretty typical across hockey? uh it's
00:10:54
probably more a goalie than others
00:10:56
because there's there are you know there
00:10:58
are not as many spots for a goalie on
00:11:00
your roster, right? So if you've got you
00:11:03
know a forward who is in this situation,
00:11:07
you've got 12 forwards in the NHL, one
00:11:09
of them's getting hurt here and there,
00:11:10
there's a lot of opportunities to get
00:11:12
him a call up. It's more possible that a
00:11:15
team could go through a year without any
00:11:17
goalie injuries and never need that call
00:11:19
up,
00:11:19
>> right? If that happens two or three
00:11:21
years in a row now this guy who really
00:11:24
deserved a chance just hasn't gotten it
00:11:26
yet where a forward you would have found
00:11:28
chances somewhere in there.
00:11:31
>> Can we take a moment to update us on the
00:11:33
current wisdom around hockey I mean
00:11:36
goalie performance in the playoffs. My
00:11:38
sense as an outsider is that it matters
00:11:40
a great deal. Um hot goalies tend to
00:11:43
carry teams or at least they give a
00:11:44
great advantage but I've never
00:11:46
remembered the wisdom on is that
00:11:48
predictive or not? or is it only
00:11:50
descriptive after the fact? What's our
00:11:52
best understanding of this right now
00:11:54
just to make me, if nothing else, a more
00:11:56
sophisticated consumer of playoff hockey
00:11:58
this year?
00:11:58
>> Yeah, so I think what you sort of hinted
00:12:01
at is exactly right that a goalie can
00:12:04
very easily single-handedly win a series
00:12:06
or lose a series. And you know,
00:12:10
obviously the better ones are a little
00:12:12
more likely to be the winner than the
00:12:13
loser, but the good ones lose series for
00:12:16
you sometimes and the bad ones win
00:12:18
series for you sometimes. It's just hard
00:12:21
to predict. And what it comes down to
00:12:23
is, you know, if a good goalie is going
00:12:26
to stop 91% of the shots he sees and an
00:12:29
average goalie is going to stop 90%,
00:12:32
we're talking about a difference of one
00:12:33
shot per 100. And you might only face
00:12:36
150 shots in a series. And so just by
00:12:39
random dumb luck, you know, a bad goalie
00:12:42
might be at 93 or 94%, a good goalie
00:12:45
might be at 87%. It just happens, you
00:12:47
know, it's a small sample.
00:12:50
>> Shame.
00:12:51
>> Kind of following up on that, not just
00:12:53
specific to goalies, how random do you
00:12:56
feel like the playoffs in hockey are? In
00:12:59
baseball, I think it's a fairly
00:13:02
well-held belief that the playoffs are
00:13:04
quite random and at least in certain
00:13:07
circles that it's almost not worth
00:13:09
building a a team for the playoffs
00:13:12
because of the randomness. Do you kind
00:13:14
of feel like in hockey there's enough?
00:13:16
Is is is it so random or or can you is
00:13:20
there actually like strategy you can
00:13:23
kind of do to build a team specifically
00:13:25
for the playoffs?
00:13:27
>> Yeah, I mean both things are true. the
00:13:29
the game does change a little bit in the
00:13:31
playoffs when everybody's a little bit
00:13:34
more willing to be physical, playing a
00:13:36
little bit harder. You know, over the
00:13:37
course of 82 games, there are more lulls
00:13:39
in energy than there are in a playoff
00:13:41
series. And so that does change the game
00:13:44
a little bit. You know, there's also
00:13:46
probably a tendency of referees to try
00:13:48
to stay out of the picture a little bit
00:13:50
more and so they let a little bit more
00:13:52
go and that so there is some stuff that
00:13:55
changes. Um, a lot of that is kind of at
00:13:58
the margins. Um, but you know, it's not
00:14:01
zero. You know, to your question about
00:14:04
how much randomness there is. I, you
00:14:06
know, I the thing that is tricky for me
00:14:08
is when people hear someone say there's
00:14:11
a lot of randomness. They think you're
00:14:13
saying, "Well, it's just dumb luck." And
00:14:15
it's not. You know, the guy makes a
00:14:17
great save. That's an actually great
00:14:19
play. He didn't get lucky. He made a
00:14:21
great save. luck is that he happened to
00:14:23
make the save today when he might not
00:14:25
have tomorrow, you know, and it's like
00:14:28
sometimes you do it and sometimes you
00:14:29
don't. That's not luck, but it's random.
00:14:33
Um, and you know, it like that is a real
00:14:36
thing, right? Teams,
00:14:38
one of the things to your point about
00:14:40
how random it is, in almost any given
00:14:43
year, it is more likely that the best
00:14:46
team in hockey will lose in round one
00:14:48
than that they'll win the cup,
00:14:50
>> right? So it's that gives you a sense of
00:14:53
the sort of amount of randomness. That's
00:14:56
definitely not true in basketball,
00:14:58
right? So
00:14:59
>> I I love I really love what you just
00:15:01
said because we talk about that a lot.
00:15:03
What we call as statistitians randomness
00:15:05
isn't randomness.
00:15:06
>> It operates mathematically
00:15:09
as as if it is randomness. And it often
00:15:11
gets in the way of us dealing with with
00:15:13
team because if I were to talk to an NFL
00:15:15
coach about a model that I have for
00:15:18
deciding whether they should be going
00:15:20
going for it on fourth down, they're
00:15:22
going to say, "I don't care about your
00:15:23
model. I'm going to ask the question,
00:15:25
can I run the play that will work right
00:15:26
now?"
00:15:28
>> And for them, that's not a question of
00:15:30
randomness, but for me, it absolutely
00:15:32
is.
00:15:33
>> And it's just almost like a philosophy
00:15:35
among the statistitians versus the
00:15:37
players. And you're you understand the
00:15:39
distinction very clearly um which is
00:15:42
really and that number about the about
00:15:43
the um not making the going past it. But
00:15:46
let me ask you a question specifically.
00:15:48
How much does sort of line diversity
00:15:51
matter at the playoff level uh as
00:15:53
opposed to the season? So these are I'm
00:15:55
I'm starting to learn a lot about
00:15:57
hockey. Shane's are Canadian so he knows
00:15:59
the most. Um I don't even know where
00:16:01
Kate is relative to me but I've always
00:16:02
been pretty low down on the the hockey
00:16:04
knowledge um uh tree. Um, but I started
00:16:07
to learn that about lines and and we
00:16:09
actually went to if you see it. So, how
00:16:11
much does it matter between the between
00:16:13
your top line versus your second and
00:16:14
even how many you have three? Um, and
00:16:16
and does that make a distinction in the
00:16:18
playoffs?
00:16:19
>> Yeah. So, different people will view
00:16:22
this differently and I don't think there
00:16:24
is a clear right answer. Um, some people
00:16:27
will say they want their team to have an
00:16:29
identity where all four lines play the
00:16:32
same way and they're going to wear you
00:16:33
out doing it that way. Um, other people
00:16:37
will say then you run into a team that
00:16:39
can handle that style of play and you
00:16:41
have nothing to fall back on. You know,
00:16:44
I truthfully I think probably how good
00:16:47
your team is matters more than any of
00:16:50
that. You know, again, we're we're sort
00:16:52
of fighting at the margins and um it
00:16:56
does sometimes come down to whether a
00:16:58
team is a good matchup for you or a
00:17:00
tough matchup. That's that can depend on
00:17:02
a lot of things, right? It can be, you
00:17:05
know, your best defensive player happens
00:17:08
to naturally play well against their
00:17:10
best offensive player
00:17:12
>> and then, you know, nothing else really
00:17:13
matters because you already have that
00:17:15
starting advantage for you.
00:17:17
>> So, it it's hard to say really when it
00:17:20
comes to that kind of stylistic thing,
00:17:23
what is right or best. Um, you know, my
00:17:26
personal view is accumulate as much
00:17:28
talent as you can and we'll figure it
00:17:31
out from there. Eric, let's talk about
00:17:33
that a little bit more. I'm curious what
00:17:35
you think your edge is against the NHL.
00:17:39
You guys have been very strong
00:17:40
performers for a number of years now. To
00:17:43
the extent that you can articulate where
00:17:45
that edge comes from, what do you think
00:17:46
it is? What is it that Carolina's doing
00:17:48
differently or better than other clubs
00:17:50
are with that that helps explain your
00:17:52
success?
00:17:54
>> Yeah, so there's a couple things. One is
00:17:57
the way we play. Um so our head coach
00:18:02
has a philosophy of being sort of very
00:18:05
aggressive pressuring all the time. Um
00:18:08
it's hard to do and he is a very detail
00:18:11
oriented coach. Um that he makes sure
00:18:15
that everything behind that pressure is
00:18:18
designed to cover it up. Right? So, if
00:18:21
you took five guys on a pond and said,
00:18:23
"We're going to pressure all over the
00:18:25
ice," they would screw it up from time
00:18:27
to time, cuz that happens. And you
00:18:29
wouldn't have the discipline to cover,
00:18:30
and it would be breakdown after
00:18:32
breakdown, and it would be a mess. Um,
00:18:34
we have a coach who is detail oriented
00:18:37
enough to think through how you minimize
00:18:40
the downside of that pressure. And, you
00:18:43
know, of course, there's always going to
00:18:45
be some downside. You can't avoid that.
00:18:47
That's a trade-off. but his ability to
00:18:50
get everybody playing the right way and
00:18:52
make sure we're covering for each other
00:18:54
makes it so that we can be really
00:18:56
effective playing that way. And it's
00:18:58
exhausting to play against us when
00:19:00
you've got four lines that are playing
00:19:02
really aggressively pressuring you just
00:19:05
kind of never get a break on the other
00:19:07
team.
00:19:07
>> And so that's one part of it. Then what
00:19:10
goes handinhand with that is we have a
00:19:12
very deep roster. So there, I would say
00:19:15
most of the best teams in the league
00:19:18
have a couple of superstars who they
00:19:21
got, you know, at the very top of the
00:19:23
draft when the team stunk and you wait a
00:19:26
few years until those guys hit their
00:19:28
prime and now they just give you a
00:19:30
starting point that makes everything
00:19:32
easier. You've got, you know, those two
00:19:34
guys to build around or three guys or
00:19:36
however many it is
00:19:38
>> and you can sort of be middling through
00:19:41
the rest of the roster and still have a
00:19:42
really good team. We don't really have
00:19:45
that. Most of our best players are guys
00:19:47
who came sort of later in the first
00:19:50
round, second round, free agency,
00:19:52
however it was. And so the way we make
00:19:55
up for not having those guys at the top
00:19:57
end is being really solid all the way
00:19:59
down to the bottom of our lineup.
00:20:02
>> And a that means the bottom of our
00:20:04
lineup, you know, is often better than
00:20:06
the other teams bottom of the lineup and
00:20:08
they can gain ground there for us. But
00:20:11
B, when you couple that with a system
00:20:13
that is high pressure all the time and
00:20:16
you're rolling four lines and three D
00:20:18
pairs that can all do it and are all
00:20:21
putting you under stress all game long,
00:20:23
it's a hard team to play against. And so
00:20:25
that
00:20:26
>> that combination of a roster that is
00:20:30
built so that everyone can do it and a
00:20:32
team that, you know, a coaching system
00:20:35
that has guys playing in a very high
00:20:37
pressure way. It just it makes us tough
00:20:39
to play against.
00:20:42
>> Related somewhat related question and
00:20:44
going back to the playoff hockey
00:20:46
plausibly being different. I'm curious
00:20:49
how you've maintained your philosophy in
00:20:51
the face of a narrative that says you
00:20:54
got to build a roster differently in the
00:20:56
playoffs. And especially given that you
00:20:58
were knocked out two years in a row by
00:20:59
the Panthers who follow that philosophy.
00:21:01
And it's this it's this very general
00:21:04
tension in sports between the narrative
00:21:08
and the process. You guys have a
00:21:11
process. Analytics oriented
00:21:12
organizations like to focus on a
00:21:14
process. Sometimes the narrative really
00:21:18
stresses that process. If everyone's
00:21:20
saying you guys got knocked out by the
00:21:22
Panthers, they've got a team built for
00:21:24
the playoffs. You've had to stand in the
00:21:26
face of that and maintain your process.
00:21:29
And you seem it seems that you have what
00:21:31
has that been like? How is it that
00:21:33
you've been able to maintain your
00:21:35
philosophy and your process in the face
00:21:37
of such a strong narrative?
00:21:38
>> Yeah. I mean, so partly part of the
00:21:41
answer is I think a lot of the narrative
00:21:43
stuff is just, you know, not terribly
00:21:46
grounded in reality, right? So, forget
00:21:49
about our team or Florida's team and
00:21:50
just ask someone what playoff hockey
00:21:53
looks like. And they're going to say,
00:21:55
you know, you can't rely on your power
00:21:57
play being great because there aren't as
00:21:59
many power there aren't as many
00:22:00
penalties in the playoffs. They're going
00:22:02
to say you can't rely on, you know,
00:22:04
fancy rush offense because a lot of that
00:22:07
tightens up when everybody's defending
00:22:09
hard. You have to be willing to just put
00:22:12
in deep and go forch check and create
00:22:14
turnovers and get some chaos and you
00:22:17
know things will work for you.
00:22:20
That's exactly how we play.
00:22:22
>> It's also exactly how Florida plays.
00:22:24
Like
00:22:24
>> they copied the way we were playing
00:22:26
before they got good. And so it's, you
00:22:29
know, like
00:22:30
>> the difference is they have um they have
00:22:35
some players who probably play a little
00:22:36
bit more on the physical edge than our
00:22:38
team does.
00:22:40
And you know that creates a sense about
00:22:43
the way they play that people don't have
00:22:46
about us. But in terms of the style of
00:22:48
play, we're doing exactly the same thing
00:22:50
in terms of keeping the puck in their
00:22:52
end, putting the pressure on, not
00:22:54
relying on, you know, high octane
00:22:58
superstars making plays through the
00:22:59
neutral zone, not relying on getting
00:23:02
power plays as our only way to score.
00:23:05
Yeah, it is a very similar thing. And
00:23:07
the other thing is the first time we
00:23:09
played them, we out chanced them by a
00:23:11
million
00:23:12
>> and we got really good goalending at our
00:23:14
end and they got goalending stopping 97%
00:23:17
of the shots at their end and we lost
00:23:20
four games by one goal. You know
00:23:22
>> with I think two were in overtime and a
00:23:25
third one the goal was with 30 seconds
00:23:27
left in regulate.
00:23:28
>> You know it was a very very close series
00:23:30
where again you know that guy makes two
00:23:33
fewer saves and we win the series.
00:23:37
Okay. Excellent. But it just reminds me
00:23:39
that Shane and I have a perennial like
00:23:41
fantasy an analytics question from
00:23:44
hockey that you might be able to answer
00:23:45
off the top of your head. Shane, you
00:23:46
might help me here. We have a sense that
00:23:50
players step it up espec hockey. We It's
00:23:54
like it's like we start texting each
00:23:56
other when that happens because it's
00:23:57
like mustwatch TV because everything
00:23:58
just goes up. We have so much motion
00:24:01
tracking data now that should be an
00:24:02
observable difference. Is that true? If
00:24:05
we had the motion tracking from a
00:24:06
regular season hockey game and a
00:24:08
overtime playoff hockey game, would we
00:24:10
see differences in how much exertion
00:24:11
there is on the ice?
00:24:13
>> Yeah. And if you want to make even more
00:24:14
tangible, you could talk about like say
00:24:16
the for check or something like that or
00:24:18
or or or back check, what whatever.
00:24:21
>> Yeah. So, I would say um the challenging
00:24:25
thing about that is when you get to
00:24:26
overtime, players start to get tired,
00:24:29
right? So, third period of a tie game,
00:24:31
the energy is way up there. By midway
00:24:34
through the first overtime, it's falling
00:24:36
off. And so when I tell you we out
00:24:38
chanced Florida by a million in that
00:24:40
series, it actually at the end of the
00:24:42
series, it was only a thousand because
00:24:44
we had one game that went into three or
00:24:47
four overtimes and our guys just got
00:24:50
worn out
00:24:51
>> and we out chanced them through
00:24:52
regulation of that game
00:24:54
>> and first overtime, second overtime,
00:24:57
third overtime. It was like, you know,
00:24:59
we're playing this dump and chase game
00:25:01
where they're dumping it in and then
00:25:02
going for a line change because they
00:25:04
don't have the energy to forch check.
00:25:06
And if every time you dump, you get the
00:25:08
puck, you dump it in and go for a line
00:25:09
change, it's hard to ever create
00:25:11
offense. And so that one game wiped out
00:25:14
a lot of our advantage for the series in
00:25:16
terms of the scoring chances just
00:25:19
because our guys, you know, couldn't
00:25:20
keep the pressure up for seven periods
00:25:22
in a row and, you know, hopefully they
00:25:24
never have to,
00:25:26
>> right? Okay. Okay. Very interesting.
00:25:27
That's good. That's a good rejoiner to
00:25:29
the fantasy that we have. All right. I'
00:25:31
I've got one I I consider it maybe the
00:25:33
most important question for some of our
00:25:34
audience. Um and it goes to your
00:25:37
background, Eric. FA famously, you have
00:25:41
a PhD in chemistry. Famously, you have
00:25:43
27 patents. Famously, you worked in
00:25:45
industry for 10 years before jumping
00:25:47
over. And you started as a blogger and
00:25:49
then as a part-time as a consultant. And
00:25:51
you've really worked your way up step by
00:25:53
step through the organization to your
00:25:55
current position.
00:25:57
We work with a lot of analysts. We have
00:25:59
students that come through here as
00:26:01
analysts. And a lot of analysts have
00:26:04
trouble building credibility in a sports
00:26:06
organization because they didn't grow up
00:26:08
playing the game and they're they're
00:26:09
they're they have a different
00:26:11
background. They talk differently. They
00:26:12
look different.
00:26:14
>> I know this is hard to reflect on given
00:26:16
that it's you you're talking about you.
00:26:17
But what do you think you've done over
00:26:20
your 10 years, over your 12 years, over
00:26:22
your 12 years with the Hurricanes to
00:26:24
build the credibility where you could
00:26:26
come in as such an outsider and and and
00:26:29
then get responsibility after
00:26:30
responsibility until now you run the
00:26:32
organization and the head coach is a
00:26:34
Hall of Fame player and plausibly a Hall
00:26:37
of Fame coach eventually. It's like
00:26:39
you've you've got very strong folks in
00:26:41
that building. What advice would you
00:26:43
give to others as they try to follow
00:26:45
that kind of path?
00:26:47
Yeah. So, I mean, in some real sense, I
00:26:50
was lucky. So, in 2014, there were five
00:26:54
or six hockey teams that hired people
00:26:57
out of the blogosphere to be sort of the
00:26:59
first analyst in the league. Um, and
00:27:03
some of those teams, it was kind of
00:27:05
owner driven. Um, somebody reading stuff
00:27:08
and saying, "Why aren't we doing this?
00:27:09
Go hire someone." And the GM said,
00:27:12
"Fine, I'll hire someone." and gave the
00:27:14
person a cubicle and ignored their
00:27:16
reports and went on their merry day.
00:27:19
>> Um, I was lucky that the team that
00:27:22
reached out to me was a team where it
00:27:24
was GM driven. It was, you know, a
00:27:27
management group saying, I don't really
00:27:29
know if there's anything to this, but I
00:27:31
don't want to miss the chance to get
00:27:33
better. So, let's bring someone in and
00:27:35
see what we think. And so, you know, I
00:27:37
still, like you say, you have to build
00:27:39
up credibility, but I had every
00:27:41
opportunity to do that, right? So from
00:27:43
the outset, they were asking what I
00:27:45
thought. They might not weigh it very
00:27:48
heavily initially because I'm an
00:27:50
outsider. What do I know? But they at
00:27:52
least asked, they paid attention. They
00:27:54
remembered. And you know, each time what
00:27:57
you say sort of pans out, you build up a
00:28:00
little bit more credibility if
00:28:01
somebody's paying attention to it.
00:28:03
>> And they were. And gradually, you know,
00:28:05
they brought me in because they wanted
00:28:07
to see if there were ways I could help.
00:28:10
And over time, they came to believe
00:28:11
there were.
00:28:14
You're speaking about an organizational
00:28:15
culture that was open, not maybe more
00:28:18
than open, interested in an outside
00:28:19
perspective. Are there other examples of
00:28:22
what the organization was doing at that
00:28:24
time that showed that kind of openness?
00:28:26
Were they were they looking for edges in
00:28:27
other ways as well? Were they unorthodox
00:28:29
in other ways as well?
00:28:31
>> Yeah. So, I mean, the that time was a
00:28:34
little complicated for the team. Our
00:28:36
spending was near the bottom of the
00:28:38
league and the team was in a deep
00:28:40
rebuild. Um, and so a lot of, you know,
00:28:44
looking for an edge meant trying to
00:28:47
accumulate future assets, not trying to
00:28:49
find ways to be better today.
00:28:51
>> Okay.
00:28:52
>> Um, and, you know, so it was a lot of it
00:28:55
was sort of making sure we were thinking
00:28:58
about the draft the right way, making
00:29:00
sure we were not missing chances to
00:29:03
collect uh, future assets that could
00:29:07
help the team when we were ready to
00:29:09
compete. um the management group at that
00:29:11
time. I would say this may be different
00:29:14
from at least some teams is there was a
00:29:17
strong ethos that you know again hall of
00:29:21
fame GM um believed he didn't get into
00:29:26
this to try to squeak into the playoffs
00:29:28
as an eight seed. He got into this to
00:29:30
win championships and so he was not
00:29:33
interested in taking shortcuts at a
00:29:36
veteran free agent who might put us in
00:29:38
contention for that bottom playoff spot.
00:29:40
He wanted to build it the right way and
00:29:42
put together a core that could really
00:29:44
contend.
00:29:45
>> Um so there was an ownership group that
00:29:48
was prepared for that as long as
00:29:51
spending was kept low during that time
00:29:53
and a management group that really
00:29:55
thought about it that way. Um, and that
00:29:57
was probably freeing compared to some
00:30:00
markets where you would feel like we
00:30:02
can't do that. We have to compete. You
00:30:04
know, whatever you do, you need to get
00:30:06
three wins better than you were last
00:30:08
year.
00:30:08
>> Right. Right. Right. Okay. We're we're
00:30:11
going to have to let you go, but Audi
00:30:12
wants to jump in. Audi usually has great
00:30:13
last questions.
00:30:15
>> Think of it as a last question. It
00:30:16
partly is from my lack of knowledge. Um
00:30:19
so in every sport we always ask the
00:30:21
question what is the biggest way that's
00:30:24
analytics data analysis uh statistics
00:30:27
has impacted the way the game is either
00:30:30
played strategically or player
00:30:32
acquisition. And so the of course with B
00:30:34
with Moneyball with baseball the player
00:30:36
acquisition is a big deal where you look
00:30:39
for under undervalued uh asset
00:30:41
particularly on base and the way the
00:30:43
game is played you don't worry so much
00:30:45
about strikeouts you bunt less you steal
00:30:48
you know home runs that kind of thing
00:30:49
and every sport kind of has that um and
00:30:52
in fact you can early on you could
00:30:53
identify that the teams that were doing
00:30:55
well were doing those things as opposed
00:30:57
to the other things. So my question is
00:30:59
hockey um what are those if I were to
00:31:01
say what are the you know the the
00:31:03
analytic contribution either
00:31:05
strategically or or in asset evaluation
00:31:08
that has changed the way we think of
00:31:11
hockey what would be like I would say on
00:31:14
the strategy side a lot of it is either
00:31:17
behind the scenes where people aren't
00:31:19
really seeing it or sort of minor stuff
00:31:21
at the margins like how early do you
00:31:24
pull the goalie you know stuff like that
00:31:26
there's a little bit of that um
00:31:30
on the roster side, I think the biggest
00:31:33
shift, and it's one that's still in
00:31:35
progress, comes back to that point about
00:31:37
there not being very many goals per year
00:31:39
and there being room for fluctuation.
00:31:42
Um
00:31:44
10 years ago, 15 years ago, there were a
00:31:47
lot of contracts handed out because
00:31:50
somebody's shooting percentage was
00:31:52
higher than it had been in the previous
00:31:53
five years.
00:31:54
>> And hey, it looks like he's figured it
00:31:56
out. He's a 25 goalc scorer now. And if
00:32:00
he took kind of the same number of shots
00:32:02
and kind of the same caliber shots, the
00:32:04
odds that he had figured out something
00:32:06
new and was going to make them keep
00:32:08
going in were not as high as people
00:32:10
thought.
00:32:11
>> Um there's still always going to be a
00:32:13
little bit of that pull, right? Because
00:32:15
>> when when they are successful, you know,
00:32:18
it impacts the way you perceive each
00:32:20
shot. It impacts the way you perceive
00:32:23
the way he's playing. like there's
00:32:25
always going to be some influence and
00:32:26
maybe rightly so, but I think the sort
00:32:30
of catastrophic mistake from 10 or 15
00:32:33
years ago has mostly been eliminated
00:32:35
from the game today where, you know,
00:32:37
people recognize, yeah, he had a great
00:32:40
year. I'm not ready to assume that's
00:32:43
what he is forever now.
00:32:46
>> Progression to the mean. They discovered
00:32:48
it.
00:32:50
>> All right, we should let you go, Eric.
00:32:52
Uh, thank you much for taking time. Uh,
00:32:55
great to talk with you and good luck
00:32:57
with the rest of the regular season and
00:32:58
the playoffs. We'll be pulling for you
00:33:00
and pulling for the Hurricanes.
00:33:01
>> Yeah, thanks. It was fun. I'll talk to
00:33:03
you in 2038.
00:33:06
>> That was We knew that was coming. Thank
00:33:07
you, Eric. It was great.
00:33:09
>> Thank you.
00:33:10
>> All right, that's been the first half of
00:33:11
Wharton Moneyball. Come back and join us
00:33:13
after the break.
00:33:15
Welcome back. Welcome back to Wharton
00:33:18
Moneyball. Welcome to the second half of
00:33:20
this week's show. the second half of a
00:33:22
full hour on sports analytics here on
00:33:25
the Wharton podcast network. Hey Massie
00:33:27
hosting this week with my buddies Shane
00:33:29
Jensen and Audi Winer. Brad Low is away.
00:33:32
Bradlo will be back just off the horn
00:33:35
with Eric Tolski
00:33:37
uh general manager of the Carolina
00:33:38
Hurricanes, the high-flying
00:33:41
top performing Carolina Hurricanes. Made
00:33:44
the
00:33:46
conference finals the last two years and
00:33:48
they're playing well again this year.
00:33:50
Shane's been enamored of their um free
00:33:52
agent offseason signing in the in goal
00:33:56
who is setting all kinds of records. So
00:33:58
good fun. Good fun. Any reactions to the
00:34:00
Tulski conversation?
00:34:02
>> Well, I loved it. Um I don't know that
00:34:04
much of hockey, but he gave me an answer
00:34:05
to a question that I really appreciate
00:34:08
which is something that I think is true
00:34:09
is that I think the observation of
00:34:12
analytics to the naked eye when you
00:34:14
watch the the sport is less than in the
00:34:17
other sports. Like basketball looks very
00:34:19
different and you can point to analytics
00:34:21
as causing the the the the collapsing of
00:34:24
the sport down to post ups and
00:34:26
three-pointers. Football looks
00:34:28
different, way more aggressive. U
00:34:30
baseball of course is different. People
00:34:31
would say it's worse, but we can argue
00:34:34
that. Um
00:34:35
>> yeah, I was going to say like it's it
00:34:36
hasn't gotten around to ruining hockey
00:34:38
yet is what you're getting at.
00:34:39
>> But you don't really notice it like I
00:34:40
mean if you watch hockey I don't people
00:34:42
haven't said it it's a different game
00:34:43
now because analytics have changed it.
00:34:46
And that's kind of what he said. We we
00:34:47
do muck around a little bit on the
00:34:49
edges, but nothing in a not nothing in a
00:34:51
really game-changing way. Although I
00:34:53
thought he might get there because one
00:34:55
of the things that that in golf um that
00:34:57
Mark Brody has taught us about analytics
00:34:59
is you just you just put you it's risk
00:35:02
you just hit it as hard as you can. Um
00:35:04
instead of trying to be precise, it
00:35:06
turns out that value is that aggression
00:35:08
is worth it. And in soccer, the
00:35:09
aggression pressuring is worth it. And
00:35:12
then he said that his team they they're
00:35:14
aggressive. They pressure. But he didn't
00:35:16
say that's the way to do it. He said
00:35:17
that's the way that they do it. And
00:35:19
that's a little bit different. Um
00:35:22
to be clear, he credited Brenda uh at
00:35:24
least. But I think he did a lot of
00:35:26
crediting other people in this whole
00:35:28
interview. He credited the organization.
00:35:29
He credited management. He credited his
00:35:30
coach. He was very humble in that way.
00:35:33
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I feel like it always
00:35:34
like I mean let's say like basketball
00:35:37
and hockey are you know the analog is
00:35:39
they're both kind of continuous movement
00:35:41
uh kind of you you'd think that they
00:35:44
Alex would hit them equally hard but you
00:35:46
know hockey has a way smaller sample
00:35:49
size on kind of the outcome like in
00:35:51
basketball you've got a process you want
00:35:53
to refine a move you've got like 50
00:35:56
times a game to try it out or something
00:35:58
like that and and you get to see the
00:36:00
results because you actually have a high
00:36:03
success rate on each one, right? Whereas
00:36:06
hockey, I think a lot of the analytics
00:36:08
is towards kind of creating
00:36:09
opportunities or kind of like
00:36:10
essentially latent aspects of the game
00:36:13
that you know again justify the kind of
00:36:15
process or whatever. I'm sure I'm sure
00:36:17
there's kind of internal data that
00:36:19
companies are that sorry that uh teams
00:36:22
are using to justify their process kind
00:36:24
of decisions but I mean if you just look
00:36:26
at you know from the public's point of
00:36:28
view where it's just like goals and wins
00:36:30
and stuff like that I think it's just
00:36:32
there's less kind of uh outcome to um to
00:36:35
see that. So I I do think it's like less
00:36:38
apparent kind of I guess like you know
00:36:41
it's harder to kind of see it's more
00:36:42
subtle to see the the changes in process
00:36:45
perhaps that come from analyt any
00:36:47
analytics applied to hockey.
00:36:49
>> Yeah.
00:36:50
>> Shane you uh we're you've given us a few
00:36:53
hockey notes. What what do you think's
00:36:54
most notable here as we hit kind of the
00:36:56
stretch run of the regular season? What
00:36:58
should we be thinking about? What are
00:37:00
you paying attention to?
00:37:01
Well, I I just I I guess it's uh um I
00:37:06
mean, we already talked a little bit in
00:37:07
the first half about the the Brandon
00:37:09
Busy uh situation with that. So, I I
00:37:11
think honestly it is mostly about I I
00:37:14
mean, we talked about this a little last
00:37:15
week, what the Savers have been doing
00:37:17
this season going out of nowhere
00:37:20
>> is is pretty uh pretty interesting. I
00:37:23
feel like the East has really kind of
00:37:25
other than I guess Carolina is a main
00:37:27
state, but I feel like the East at least
00:37:28
in hockey has kind of been all over the
00:37:31
place. Like Florida's not even Florida's
00:37:33
tank. They're this defending Stanley Cup
00:37:35
tank champions and they're basically
00:37:37
tanking now for a top 10 pick. Um, yeah.
00:37:42
I just so essent
00:37:46
you you know I guess the playoff we
00:37:48
talked a little bit with Eric about how
00:37:49
random the playoffs are and I've kind of
00:37:51
I baked that into my expectations. The
00:37:53
regular season has looked a little bit
00:37:54
more random to me this year at least in
00:37:57
the East.
00:37:59
>> Yeah, the East looks a little weaker,
00:38:01
right? And so a team like Carolina that
00:38:03
is strong and has been strong has a
00:38:05
little easier path to the finals coming
00:38:08
out.
00:38:08
>> True. Yes, that's right. I think
00:38:09
Carolina is the only team in the east I
00:38:11
would put with any of the say top two or
00:38:14
three teams in the west. I mean the
00:38:15
stars and the avalanche are really kind
00:38:17
of head and shoulders above above uh
00:38:20
everybody except for I think Carolina.
00:38:22
>> So you know let me ask a question
00:38:24
because I didn't really understand the
00:38:25
role of stars in hockey. Um and he
00:38:28
described specifically that the the
00:38:29
Hurricanes do not have it's not a star
00:38:31
driven team.
00:38:32
>> Yeah.
00:38:32
>> Right. And they're just de and balance.
00:38:36
Um how common is that? I mean is that
00:38:38
>> well I mean
00:38:39
>> highly unusual or I mean how much of
00:38:41
like in basketball you think if you
00:38:42
don't have a star or two or at least one
00:38:45
where you going and
00:38:46
>> well you're not Yeah that's why there's
00:38:48
five teams in basketball actually going
00:38:50
for it at any given year you know right
00:38:52
uh in hockey the stars I think are
00:38:55
spread around a little bit more but I
00:38:56
mean some of the big like like I mean
00:38:58
Edmonton is obviously the case of of
00:39:00
what I think Eric was describing of you
00:39:02
know they've got a couple good player
00:39:05
like superstars But it's not a depth
00:39:08
team and it's, you know, it's not it's
00:39:11
kind of it's it's a very uneven team in
00:39:14
terms of like, you know, line diversity,
00:39:16
I guess, as we talked about. And so
00:39:18
that's anam, you know, that's kind of an
00:39:19
example in the other direction. I and I
00:39:21
I think again Eric talked about as a
00:39:24
team building thing. The way the the way
00:39:26
that has to happen, the way an Edmonton
00:39:28
can happen is you need to be terrible
00:39:30
for several seasons to get like a few
00:39:33
number one picks. and and that's that's
00:39:35
essentially what Edmonton was terrible
00:39:36
for like a decade and accumulated the
00:39:40
kind of like superstar talent, but in
00:39:42
hockey most teams don't want to be
00:39:43
terrible for that long and it's even
00:39:46
chancey then to get that superstar
00:39:47
talent. So I think most teams try and do
00:39:51
more what Carolina does. I mean to again
00:39:55
as Eric described I think what Carolina
00:39:57
can make their specific combination work
00:39:59
because of kind of the gravitas and
00:40:02
process of their coach and and and
00:40:04
various other elements that I think are
00:40:06
unique to them.
00:40:07
>> Right. I think it is a it's a it's a it
00:40:10
I don't think there are many teams that
00:40:11
are as philosophically depth oriented as
00:40:14
Carolina is and partly because it does
00:40:17
match so well with the preferred
00:40:19
strategy of the coach. Um, but I mean,
00:40:22
you know, you usually hear teams, at
00:40:23
least fan bases. I know less about the
00:40:25
front offices, but the fan bases lament
00:40:27
not having the stars and when are they
00:40:29
going to get the stars and what's the
00:40:30
strategy for getting the stars?
00:40:31
>> If I was a Hurricanes fan, a really deep
00:40:33
hurricanes star, I'd be like, "Fine,
00:40:35
build the deep tea. Just add a star on
00:40:37
top of it if you got a chance. Why not?"
00:40:39
>> And that's one of the critiques of these
00:40:40
guys and they and it was one of the
00:40:42
critiques of the of the of the deadline
00:40:43
this year. They were quiet at the
00:40:45
deadline. They didn't make a push for
00:40:46
that extra that extra star. Um, so we'll
00:40:49
see. We'll see how it plays out. All
00:40:51
right. Um before OD's going to leave
00:40:53
here just momentarily. Odd. Anything on
00:40:55
baseball? You guys are kicking off the
00:40:57
season. Your season starts tomorrow.
00:40:59
>> The day this show goes up.
00:41:01
>> It does. Not every team is playing
00:41:03
tomorrow. Um
00:41:03
>> No, it's Yeah, I mean it's the Yankees
00:41:05
and Giants are playing tomorrow and then
00:41:07
the mo most teams start it off on
00:41:09
Thursday, I guess.
00:41:10
>> Well, there's my night. There you go. Or
00:41:11
is it the They're playing in the
00:41:12
afternoon. So, um
00:41:13
>> Oh, they're playing each other. They're
00:41:14
doing inner division on on day one.
00:41:18
>> Yeah. really inner league play on day
00:41:20
one. That's
00:41:21
>> Yeah, it's all over the schedule now. I
00:41:23
I think that I think the Red Sox are
00:41:24
starting out against the Reds. So, I
00:41:26
think uh yeah,
00:41:27
>> I guess that's a way of that's fun. If
00:41:29
you're going to give one game, you'd
00:41:30
give a game to both leagues, I suppose.
00:41:32
Huh.
00:41:32
>> I don't have don't have much to say
00:41:34
about it. Could wait till the game get
00:41:35
season gets started. Looks like the
00:41:36
Yankees don't have a major catastrophe
00:41:38
in spring training, so that's good. Um
00:41:41
we'll we'll we'll wait till the season
00:41:42
rolls out. But next week, just a plug,
00:41:44
we have a baseball historian coming to
00:41:47
talk on our show, a professor of history
00:41:49
who specializes in modern urban history,
00:41:52
has written a new book on baseball, so
00:41:54
we can and he's got a chapter on
00:41:56
analytics, but we can ask it in general
00:41:58
any of our any questions. Um, so that's
00:42:01
next week. Professor D,
00:42:02
>> bring your bring your uh tweed jackets
00:42:04
and your pipes, fellow.
00:42:06
>> Yes, absolutely. And although I have to
00:42:09
say uh I didn't realize it but but he's
00:42:11
maybe we'll talk about it next week.
00:42:13
He's a crazy fan. Usually professors to
00:42:15
have a a standoffish attitude towards
00:42:18
this the subject that they're actually
00:42:19
researching but he's a nut crazy fan.
00:42:21
>> Wow. I try and maintain my impartiality.
00:42:24
Yeah. But I mean everybody's got their
00:42:25
own thing.
00:42:26
>> Yeah. And Eric and I really do that with
00:42:28
the Yankees every time.
00:42:29
>> Oh yeah. No, I mean unbiased. Unbiased.
00:42:32
Cover all cover all parts of the country
00:42:34
equally. How how do the forecast for
00:42:37
let's just pick the most obvious team
00:42:39
Dodgers compare to historical top teams?
00:42:42
How how high is this projection these
00:42:45
for this team? Dodgers so high up there.
00:42:48
>> I haven't done it analytically, but the
00:42:50
projections seem whack like like really
00:42:52
out of out of out of handle. I mean I
00:42:55
guess it's been a while since we've had
00:42:56
like a repeat champion. Maybe people's I
00:42:59
I don't know. It's people are going
00:43:00
crazy over but like you know I think I
00:43:03
had them Pakakota had them at like you
00:43:05
know something like 105 like we again
00:43:07
projections above 100 wins.
00:43:09
>> Well that's crazy fan graphs which is
00:43:11
generally as smart as you get when it
00:43:13
comes to simulating and regressing to
00:43:16
the mean.
00:43:18
>> They have them at at it's got to be
00:43:19
historically high 96.
00:43:21
>> That's rid Yeah.
00:43:22
>> 96 is historically high. What do you
00:43:24
think the
00:43:25
>> I've seen probabil like basically
00:43:27
probabilities
00:43:28
of like almost guaranteeing playoffs for
00:43:31
them?
00:43:32
>> Yeah, so playoff percentage is
00:43:34
undoubtedly extremely high. I mean, look
00:43:36
at the playoff odds graph. Um I'm sure
00:43:39
it's, you know, ridiculous, but um um
00:43:41
>> I mean I again I think we I'm though I
00:43:44
actually kind of do like the you know
00:43:45
obviously some of the team players
00:43:47
specific players on the Dodgers are some
00:43:49
of my play favorite players in baseball.
00:43:51
I kind of feel like I I I I feel like we
00:43:53
I'm I'm I'm cheering against him this
00:43:55
year because I I do think like if the
00:43:57
Dodgers win it all again this year,
00:44:00
it's almost guaranteed like the drum
00:44:01
beats for kind of a lockout and like all
00:44:03
this kind of stuff. I I I think, you
00:44:05
know, we've got a collective bargaining
00:44:07
uh negotiation coming up next off
00:44:09
season. I feel like just for for my own
00:44:13
kind of optimism for how that ne salary
00:44:16
negotiation goes,
00:44:19
the best case scenario is not the
00:44:20
Dodgers winning it all again. Right.
00:44:22
>> Okay. So, hold on. Let me make sure
00:44:24
>> because this is the big issue is going
00:44:26
to be a salary cap and the the owners
00:44:30
and the teams are going to resist it and
00:44:32
you're saying
00:44:32
>> players are going to resist it. Major
00:44:34
>> That's right. Owners are pushing,
00:44:35
players are going to resist. If the
00:44:37
Dodgers win, it's going to be more fuel
00:44:39
for the salary cap side because they've
00:44:42
been so outspending everybody. And and
00:44:44
Shane, you're revealing a bias against a
00:44:46
salary cap because you don't want that.
00:44:48
You're saying you don't want the Dodgers
00:44:49
to win because it would increase the
00:44:50
chance. It would increase the ammunition
00:44:52
for the salary cap people. Now, normally
00:44:54
I'm for the players, but in this case, I
00:44:57
don't know, man. I mean,
00:44:59
>> well, I I'll give you a little little
00:45:01
fact. So, Bruce
00:45:03
Oh, yeah. Okay. He sat next to me.
00:45:06
Well, I'll just to finish this simple
00:45:08
point and before I actually head out to
00:45:09
my class, um he before he was the head
00:45:12
of the union, he said, "If I'm
00:45:14
representing the union, they'll be a
00:45:16
salary crap over my dead body." So, you
00:45:19
know that they're going to fight this
00:45:21
tooth and nail. It's what And it's it's
00:45:24
in some sense an odd um thing for the
00:45:27
players to support because it's great
00:45:29
for the top, but pretty bad for the
00:45:31
median.
00:45:32
>> Yeah. Why don't why don't why don't they
00:45:34
say why would they would trade the cap
00:45:37
for a higher share would they not like
00:45:39
you
00:45:39
>> maybe they would and we'll see how that
00:45:40
plays out because you got to get teams
00:45:42
that have who are not spending spending
00:45:45
and that's
00:45:45
>> yeah that's that was what I was going to
00:45:47
say is the problem is not the cat like
00:45:49
the problem with baseball is not the
00:45:52
five or so teams that are really trying
00:45:53
to win it all it's the 10 or so teams
00:45:56
that aren't trying at all to win
00:45:57
>> ever
00:45:58
>> and just kind of taking in revenue
00:46:01
sharing so it's like, you know, it's
00:46:03
more about the floor than it is about
00:46:05
the ceiling. I mean, the Dodgers are
00:46:07
maybe testing that by I mean, they're
00:46:09
being kind of uh ostentatious, I guess,
00:46:11
for lack of a better term right now.
00:46:13
But, you know, no more I don't think any
00:46:16
more relatively ostentatious than what
00:46:19
the Yankees were doing in the early
00:46:20
2000s when baseball was at its peak, by
00:46:23
the way. Um, at least in my my mind.
00:46:26
>> Shane, Shane, why are you against the
00:46:28
salary cap? because you're Red Sox fan
00:46:30
and they spend pretty freely or or what
00:46:32
is there?
00:46:33
>> No, no, no, no. It's I think it's more
00:46:35
off I think it's a distraction. I I mean
00:46:37
I think it's very obvious. Um, you know,
00:46:41
there it's it's again it's penalizing
00:46:44
the teams that are trying to win
00:46:48
to the to to to the benefit of teams
00:46:51
under the opaces of fairness, but really
00:46:54
to benefit to to essentially continue to
00:46:56
carry all these teams that are not doing
00:46:59
anything,
00:46:59
>> right?
00:47:00
>> Because they pay this enormous luxury
00:47:01
tax. Dodgers are at, you know, whatever
00:47:04
hundreds of millions of dollars they're
00:47:05
paying. huge num amount of money goes to
00:47:08
the other team because of the ledger
00:47:09
tax. So the pirates can just sort of
00:47:11
rake in money with revenue sharing and
00:47:13
whatever deals they have, not spend it
00:47:16
on anyone and and just never compete and
00:47:18
never lose.
00:47:19
>> It feels but it feels like you you can't
00:47:21
you can't say you can say you're anti-
00:47:22
salary cap, but really that doesn't mean
00:47:25
you're pro the current structure. You
00:47:27
want some structural changes. We
00:47:29
probably going to have to
00:47:31
>> take this head on and move multiple
00:47:32
levers in order to get a deal done. It
00:47:34
feels like restructuring is better than
00:47:36
what we have right now.
00:47:38
>> Yes, I would argue. And but I it come
00:47:41
hell or high water, I want to make sure
00:47:42
there's no strike. That is just the
00:47:44
worst.
00:47:44
>> Oh, that's going to happen. What I'm
00:47:45
hearing is that's going to happen
00:47:46
because both sides feel so strong.
00:47:48
>> Lockout. It'll lead to a more creative
00:47:51
>> for the sport.
00:47:53
>> Yeah.
00:47:53
>> Yeah. No, I mean I I and again I I
00:47:57
>> I think a returning to our original
00:47:58
thing, I think a lockout um I think a a
00:48:02
lockout is more likely
00:48:04
um if uh if the Dodgers win it all
00:48:08
again.
00:48:09
>> Yeah, I I agree. But I I I don't play
00:48:13
stoppages are terrible, but I don't see
00:48:15
a way out of this. I think we need to
00:48:17
restructure and you're not going to
00:48:19
restructure without a stoppage. And so
00:48:22
if we need a little more ammunition to
00:48:23
get the stop edge, so be it. I hate to
00:48:26
pull for the favorites this year. Um, I
00:48:29
can't quite get there. What if another
00:48:30
high salary cap team, a high spending
00:48:33
team did it? Would that be helpful?
00:48:35
Maybe it wouldn't be as helpful as the
00:48:36
Dodgers, but the
00:48:38
>> Again, I think like it's a weird Yeah, I
00:48:40
mean, no, it wouldn't be because at
00:48:41
least there'd be variety or something. I
00:48:43
I don't I don't know. But again, it's
00:48:45
like the teams that spend more should
00:48:49
win. I I mean I I don't think it's like,
00:48:51
you know, it's
00:48:52
>> But again, I I don't I don't question
00:48:54
that. I
00:48:56
>> is a sympathetic party in this the the
00:48:58
the poor owners of like, you know, the
00:49:01
the the impoverished owners of the
00:49:03
Cincinnati Reds that just can't compete
00:49:05
aren't aren't aren't enough of the
00:49:07
billionaire level that they can't
00:49:08
compete with the billionaires in New
00:49:10
York.
00:49:10
>> I don't know. I it's it's
00:49:12
>> I don't I I don't care because of poor
00:49:15
owners, but I do care about poor fan
00:49:17
bases and the lack of competition, the
00:49:19
lack of interest, and how much of the
00:49:20
league is kind of irrelevant from day
00:49:22
one. Look at the number of teams whose
00:49:25
playoff probabilities are like 2% or
00:49:27
less. It's it's like half. It's
00:49:29
literally half of the league. That
00:49:31
doesn't feel healthy. And I'm not saying
00:49:34
>> is it really? I mean, again, back that's
00:49:37
not that can't be right.
00:49:39
It's it is very close to right. We
00:49:41
looked at this a couple of weeks ago.
00:49:42
It's very close to right that there are
00:49:44
>> half the teams have no chance or like
00:49:46
less than 5%
00:49:46
>> more than what are we 30.
00:49:47
>> Well, but that was using those
00:49:48
probabilities that gave like like 40%
00:49:51
odds the Dodgers. I mean those are whack
00:49:53
probabilities. But I I I I'll concede
00:49:56
your more general point that that that
00:49:58
there is structural issue to the the
00:50:00
league. um a a disparity
00:50:03
um of a disparity of talent between
00:50:06
teams that is partly driven by a
00:50:08
disparity um in spending and and that
00:50:12
that you know some aspect needs to be
00:50:14
corrected. I just think the salary cap
00:50:16
unless it you know if they instituted I
00:50:18
would be not in favor of a salary cap
00:50:21
instituted without a commiserate salary
00:50:23
floor.
00:50:25
>> Yeah. No, this is I I I'm not saying
00:50:27
let's just cap it and be done. I'm
00:50:29
saying reorganize or restructure it al
00:50:31
together.
00:50:32
>> Shane, real quickly before we go away,
00:50:35
can we just have any words on March
00:50:38
Madness? We're we're through the opening
00:50:41
weekend. Um, so 16 teams get to play,
00:50:45
get to It's always fun when you're
00:50:46
pulling for a team when you get that
00:50:48
second weekend. It's It's great to make
00:50:49
the tournament, but it makes a big
00:50:50
difference just to get another week,
00:50:52
another four or five days of enjoying
00:50:53
it, kind of reing in the experience. Um,
00:50:55
and so 16 teams are getting that. It is
00:50:58
jockey jockey chalk jock. We were
00:51:00
worried about this last year. Now we
00:51:01
have two seasons in a year.
00:51:03
>> So it's NIL and transfers. NIL and
00:51:06
transfers have really changed the game.
00:51:08
This is I forget by what measure, but in
00:51:11
97 years of the tournament, there had
00:51:14
been two in which it's something like in
00:51:16
the NF in the in football it would be
00:51:18
the group of five in which no group of
00:51:20
five teams had made the Sweet 16. Two
00:51:23
years out of 97 and those are the last
00:51:25
two years. like no no no Cinderellas
00:51:29
progress essentially the Longhorns are
00:51:31
ran as a 11 seed but they're hardly
00:51:34
qualifying as a Cinderella SEC middle of
00:51:36
the pack SEC team. Um, so something
00:51:40
>> and I mean I guess it's sort of like I
00:51:42
mean I I think obviously what you're
00:51:44
talking about is some of the structural
00:51:45
changes in the sport that has maybe led
00:51:47
to are we seeing I I guess more of a
00:51:49
disparity between teams now or more of a
00:51:52
predictive thing because it could also
00:51:55
be that we're getting better at seating
00:51:56
team like just the acts of seating
00:51:58
teams. the concentration of talent. All
00:52:01
all
00:52:01
>> it's really all it's all about the
00:52:02
concentration.
00:52:03
>> All the mid- major talent that used to
00:52:04
be there and now moves, they migrate up.
00:52:07
They get identified and migrated up. And
00:52:09
so the top hundred, you know, mid- major
00:52:11
players,
00:52:13
they would have almost all still been
00:52:15
with their mid- major teams in the past
00:52:17
and that and you know, a guy one guy on
00:52:19
a basketball team can make a big
00:52:20
difference. Maybe 80 of those guys have
00:52:22
been migrated up um above that level.
00:52:24
Now, would that then make the later
00:52:26
rounds more R because I mean obviously
00:52:29
that means like if you're if if the
00:52:31
talent's kind of moving up the
00:52:32
hierarchy.
00:52:33
>> Yeah.
00:52:34
>> You'd see then it would be certainly the
00:52:36
the the result would be chalk in these
00:52:38
early rounds like a you know a one a one
00:52:41
versus a 16 is like even more uh of a
00:52:44
mismatch than it used to be. But then
00:52:47
that does probably mean the ones that
00:52:48
certain unless unless it really is like
00:52:50
an exponential like increase in up the
00:52:53
hierarchy like you'd presumably they
00:52:56
would we we'd now be now that we're kind
00:52:58
of down to like whatever the level is
00:53:01
>> whether it's a sweet 16 or elite eight
00:53:03
then it's there's no chalk to it after
00:53:05
that point. I don't I don't know. I
00:53:08
don't
00:53:09
>> It's a It's a It's an empirical
00:53:11
question, but you're right. It's not
00:53:12
obvious. If it's just that
00:53:15
>> all the talent from the mid- majors
00:53:17
popped up above that level and got
00:53:19
randomly distributed, then we'd expect
00:53:22
more competition, more uncertainty in
00:53:25
the second half of the tournament. But
00:53:27
if it's just the case that everybody
00:53:28
kind of moved up the escalator so that
00:53:30
even the very top teams, the elite teams
00:53:34
got gained additional separation as
00:53:36
well, then we might not see that
00:53:39
increased uncertainty and leveling out
00:53:40
you're talking about. Um, what would be
00:53:43
your hypothesis? Do you think it's got a
00:53:46
compressed, right? That that what's left
00:53:49
in the tournament has to be more
00:53:50
compressed than what was left in the
00:53:52
average historical term. No, I mean
00:53:53
honestly it's it's making me think like
00:53:54
what it's I mean if if you kind of cast
00:53:57
the entire 64 team tournament is like
00:54:00
okay there's not 64 teams of real like
00:54:03
like like that's that's our sample size
00:54:05
for determining this this like this kind
00:54:09
of concentration and now you know the
00:54:12
point the round at which it becomes
00:54:13
basically random is the number of teams
00:54:16
worth of worth of talent you have in the
00:54:19
system
00:54:20
>> essentially right
00:54:21
>> that's right that's Um, that's right.
00:54:23
That's right. And that would suggest and
00:54:25
we we we know we know it's more it's
00:54:27
it's more than 64 teams or less than 64
00:54:30
teams. We know it's probably less than
00:54:32
16, but now who knows how many it kind
00:54:36
of concentrates around. And you know,
00:54:38
you probably have the same technical
00:54:40
dynamic in football, but of course they
00:54:41
don't do nearly the broad enough playoff
00:54:43
structure where you'd be able to
00:54:46
explore.
00:54:46
>> Also the talent individual players can't
00:54:49
change.
00:54:49
>> Yeah, I guess. Right. That's right. It's
00:54:51
also the team how much any one player
00:54:54
influences a team outcome is different
00:54:55
too. But the we here's a simple version
00:54:58
of the question like at the top here's a
00:55:00
simple version of the question at the
00:55:01
very top among the top two three teams
00:55:04
are they any more separated from the
00:55:07
next six or eight than they were
00:55:09
historically is that is that separation
00:55:11
you just take the take the elite eight
00:55:13
>> is that separation more or less than it
00:55:15
has been historically and I think that's
00:55:16
an open question it's not obvious this
00:55:19
next round the round of 16 has to be
00:55:21
more competitive than it was
00:55:23
historically and that's the way if you
00:55:25
remember the the typical tournament
00:55:26
dynamics with, you know, crazy first
00:55:27
weekend and then boring second weekend.
00:55:29
>> Yeah, that's right. That's right. All
00:55:30
all our Cinderella's like uh the shoe
00:55:33
falls off the Cinderellas usually when
00:55:34
once again.
00:55:35
>> That's right. Too much disparity. Too
00:55:36
much disparity.
00:55:37
>> Um All right. Well, good fun. We've got
00:55:40
uh we've got games again Thursday and
00:55:42
Friday. Good fun. Um why don't we let it
00:55:44
go there, Shane? for the whole crew, for
00:55:47
St. Jensen here through the full show,
00:55:49
for Audi Winer who just had to slip away
00:55:51
and run to the classroom, for Eric
00:55:53
Bradlo in absentia, for Dion Simpkins
00:55:55
who makes this whole thing go, for Mir
00:55:58
Serena, our producer, for Deep Patel,
00:56:00
the boss lady. Appreciate you guys
00:56:02
listening. Come back and join us next
00:56:03
time. Between now and then, enjoy your
00:56:06
sports.
