Malcolm Gladwell vs. Bill Simmons

[wide_awake]

I feel the same way about the attitude of professional football teams toward the no-huddle offense. Right now, great teams (such as the Colts and Patriots) use the no-huddle selectively, as a way to maximize their dominance. But why don't bad teams use it? If you were the Lions, why not run the no-huddle this season? Why not put together a lighter, better-conditioned offensive line and a radically simplified playbook and see what happens? It's not as if you are risking a Super Bowl if it backfires. Your offensive line is lousy anyway, so there's no harm in tearing it down, and your fans aren't going to turn on you if you get killed while you work out the kinks. Last I checked, your fans have already turned on you. On the plus side, maybe the no-huddle exhausts the other team's defense so much you slow down their pass rush in the second half. And maybe giving your quarterback a bit more autonomy helps develop his knowledge of the game, and his leadership skills.

The consistent failure of underdogs in professional sports to even try something new suggests, to me, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the incentive structure of the leagues. I think, for example, that the idea of ranking draft picks in reverse order of finish -- as much as it sounds "fair" -- does untold damage to the game. You simply cannot have a system that rewards anyone, ever, for losing. Economists worry about this all the time, when they talk about "moral hazard." Moral hazard is the idea that if you insure someone against risk, you will make risky behavior more likely. So if you always bail out the banks when they take absurd risks and do stupid things, they are going to keep on taking absurd risks and doing stupid things. Bailouts create moral hazard. Moral hazard is also why your health insurance has a co-pay. If your insurer paid for everything, the theory goes, it would encourage you to go to the doctor when you really don't need to. No economist in his right mind would ever endorse the football and basketball drafts the way they are structured now. They are a moral hazard in spades. If you give me a lottery pick for being an atrocious GM, where's my incentive not to be an atrocious GM?

I think the only way around the problem is to put every team in the lottery. Every team's name gets put in a hat, and you get assigned your draft position by chance. Does that, theoretically, make it harder for weaker teams to improve their chances against stronger teams? I don't think so. First of all, the principal engine of parity in the modern era is the salary cap, not the draft. And in any case, if the reverse-order draft is such a great leveler, then why are the same teams at the bottom of both the NFL and NBA year after year? The current system perpetuates the myth that access to top picks is the primary determinant of competitiveness in pro sports, and that's simply not true. Success is a function of the quality of the organization.

Another more radical idea is that you do a full lottery only every second year, or three out of four years, and in the off year make draft position in order of finish. Best teams pick first. How fun would that be? Every meaningless end-of-season game now becomes instantly meaningful. If you were the Minnesota Timberwolves, you would realize that unless you did something really drastic -- like hire some random sports writer as your GM, or bring in Pitino to design a special-press squad -- you would never climb out of the cellar again. And in a year with a can't-miss No. 1 pick, having the best record in the regular season becomes hugely important. What do you think?

Full article here... A lot of this is why I am so frustrated that teams like the 'Skins get punished compared to teams like the Raiders, Panthers, etc when it comes to the draft.

[justinskins]

That is a pretty unpersuasive application of the idea of moral hazard. NFL teams have plenty of incentives to succeed (ticket sales, advertising, pride, etc.); a higher draft pick does not come close to making up for the problems brought about by losing. For every top draft pick that "makes" a team (Payton Manning), there are many others that fail. Draft position does a little to help bad teams get better, but high draft position can't make bad front offices make good decisions (nor can low draft position bring down good organizations). Since teams know (or should know) they can't count on a high draft pick to bail them out, there's no moral hazard.

[wide_awake]

Originally Posted by justinskins

That is a pretty unpersuasive application of the idea of moral hazard. NFL teams have plenty of incentives to succeed (ticket sales, advertising, pride, etc.); a higher draft pick does not come close to making up for the problems brought about by losing. For every top draft pick that "makes" a team (Payton Manning), there are many others that fail. Draft position does a little to help bad teams get better, but high draft position can't make bad front offices make good decisions (nor can low draft position bring down good organizations). Since teams know (or should know) they can't count on a high draft pick to bail them out, there's no moral hazard.

It causes the swing-for-the-fences mentality of so many GMs. It's why the Panthers took Cam Newton #1 overall. Moral hazard just means a conflict of interest. If a team takes a huge gamble and loses they get a pretty damn good consolation prize, that's incentive to take big risks.

[44 goes 50 gut]

To address the first point:

Teams don't run the no huddle for several very good reasons:
*Technical sophistication, it takes a very well studied and consistent team that knows the playbook inside and out, everyone must be on the same page.
*Leadership, it takes a strong leader with command of the field, and coaches that are willing to put the play calling in there hands... Very few QB's are qualified to call plays in the NFL these days. Many of them are not even allowed to adjust or audible to a different play.
* Probably the single most important: A team that goes three and out in the no-huddle has given their Defense approximately 60 seconds plus a punt return, to catch their breath and get coached up. Defense being on their heels is often a mixture of their offense not sustaining anything, and the coaches not having enough time to get adjustments sorted out to what the opposing offense is doing... Even a traditional full huddle 3 and out is crushing to defensive players who only get roughly 3 to 4 minutes to rest... now slim that rest time down to 20 seconds per play on a 3 and out. They haven't even stopped gasping for air.

On the second point, it's a very poorly thought out argument... The main incentive to do well in the NFL is to avoid getting fired for sucking.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by wide_awake

It causes the swing-for-the-fences mentality of so many GMs. It's why the Panthers took Cam Newton #1 overall. Moral hazard just means a conflict of interest. If a team takes a huge gamble and loses they get a pretty damn good consolation prize, that's incentive to take big risks.

This would still be an absurd argument if GM's DIDN'T tend to get fired, and tend to not want to sully their track record with bad draft picks. Ask Matt Milen how the "suck until you have a team filled with early round draft picks" strategy is workin for him. Even in his case... why chalk up to malice what can be better explained by incompetence?

I can assure you there's not a GM in the league that isn't deathly scared of drafting a Jamarcus Russel, or Ryan Leaf. And No one at the Panthers FO is thinking "what the heck if Newton is Russel #2 we can always just draft another LA DEE Freaking DA!".

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

A team that goes three and out in the no-huddle has given their Defense approximately 60 seconds plus a punt return, to catch their breath and get coached up.

+1.

It *could* work on a team that had extra defensive subs(and practiced running them in and out quickly), but you would need an offense that you knew could score 28+ points a game and could score late.

I think that the overall theory that teams need to study tactics more and implement new tactics is a sound one. The NFL is a copycat league and due to that the league is really about luck, injuries and execution. But I think that the tactical changes have to be focused on maximizing a team's talent based on the primary weather/field conditions that the team will be playing during a given season. For example, if a team plays in a dome(and will play a couple extra games on artificial turf), they should focus on a speed team that would give them a real advantage.

[wide_awake]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

To address the first point:

Teams don't run the no huddle for several very good reasons:
*Technical sophistication, it takes a very well studied and consistent team that knows the playbook inside and out, everyone must be on the same page.
*Leadership, it takes a strong leader with command of the field, and coaches that are willing to put the play calling in there hands... Very few QB's are qualified to call plays in the NFL these days. Many of them are not even allowed to adjust or audible to a different play.
* Probably the single most important: A team that goes three and out in the no-huddle has given their Defense approximately 60 seconds plus a punt return, to catch their breath and get coached up. Defense being on their heels is often a mixture of their offense not sustaining anything, and the coaches not having enough time to get adjustments sorted out to what the opposing offense is doing... Even a traditional full huddle 3 and out is crushing to defensive players who only get roughly 3 to 4 minutes to rest... now slim that rest time down to 20 seconds per play on a 3 and out. They haven't even stopped gasping for air.

On the second point, it's a very poorly thought out argument... The main incentive to do well in the NFL is to avoid getting fired for sucking.

The point is that if you are a sucky team why not try something outside the norm? Why keep trying what doesn't seem to work? And the no-huddle would be accompanied by a stripped down simpler playbook. And if a team was focused on it they would have spent significantly more time in practice on it. If you are the Bills, sitting at 1-8, why not try something outside the box?



Also, to your second point: Of course the main point is to win, but that's not what moral hazard means. If you have a 95% interest in winning but there is a 5% (different) interest influencing your decision to NOT win at all cost, THAT is a moral hazard. In pro sports crazy things happen all the time. Look no further than the Redskins for that-trading semi premium draft picks for an aging QB on a team paper thin at depth?

Why don't we hold GMs accountable for these stupid decisions? And when you say "they get fired", do they really? Shanny was fired from Denver, lays low for a while and returns as a PREMIUM coach who commands huge money, collecting salary from multiple teams. How is that not a conflict of interest? If the McNabb trade works he is a genius, if it doesn't? Well he's just another GM making GM-type difficult decisions I suppose. Not a lot of long-term accountability. Even Matt Millen held his job for way too long.

[wide_awake]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

I think that the overall theory that teams need to study tactics more and implement new tactics is a sound one. The NFL is a copycat league and due to that the league is really about luck, injuries and execution. But I think that the tactical changes have to be focused on maximizing a team's talent based on the primary weather/field conditions that the team will be playing during a given season. For example, if a team plays in a dome(and will play a couple extra games on artificial turf), they should focus on a speed team that would give them a real advantage.

+1

And the teams that have nothing to lose in trying new tactics are the ones that dwell on the bottom year after year.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by wide_awake

If you have a 95% interest in winning but there is a 5% (different) interest influencing your decision to NOT win at all cost, THAT is a moral hazard.

Not every potential conflict of interest is a moral hazard.

*EDIT* In fact, I'd say conflict of interest and moral hazard are two pretty distinct concepts.

[redskin_rich]

Fun and Gun, anyone? lol

There needs to be a plan, based on the principles Akh stated and it needs to be a long term plan, to achieve consistent results. Coaches and players can change but the direction needs to be consistent.

Unfortunately, this league is losing the owners that understand this and gaining younger (new) wealth that don't have patience.

Gladwell might as well write about how unicorns would change society for the better.

[wide_awake]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Not every potential conflict of interest is a moral hazard.

*EDIT* In fact, I'd say conflict of interest and moral hazard are two pretty distinct concepts.

"Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk"

You are arguing against a definition of a word dude. It means what it means.

[SkinsKY]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

To address the first point:

Teams don't run the no huddle for several very good reasons:
*Technical sophistication, it takes a very well studied and consistent team that knows the playbook inside and out, everyone must be on the same page.
*Leadership, it takes a strong leader with command of the field, and coaches that are willing to put the play calling in there hands... Very few QB's are qualified to call plays in the NFL these days. Many of them are not even allowed to adjust or audible to a different play.
* Probably the single most important: A team that goes three and out in the no-huddle has given their Defense approximately 60 seconds plus a punt return, to catch their breath and get coached up. Defense being on their heels is often a mixture of their offense not sustaining anything, and the coaches not having enough time to get adjustments sorted out to what the opposing offense is doing... Even a traditional full huddle 3 and out is crushing to defensive players who only get roughly 3 to 4 minutes to rest... now slim that rest time down to 20 seconds per play on a 3 and out. They haven't even stopped gasping for air.

On the second point, it's a very poorly thought out argument... The main incentive to do well in the NFL is to avoid getting fired for sucking.

The no huddle is an example. I think the bigger point is that bad teams keep failing but don't try and switch their approach. How many games in the last couple years followed the same script: up something like 17-10, and then try and sit on the ball for the last half hour? How many of those did we lose? It happened a lot and the whole time the coaches never changed their approach. It's the same type of thing. We were in a situation that never seemed to pan out, but we didn't adjust. Week after week, I watched 2nd halves knowing we were going to give another game away.

Not every team can run the no huddle, but if we had, could our season have been much worse? That's the point I think they're trying to make. If you suck, try something new. It'd be tough to suck worse than you do now.

I understand the point about draft although I don't think teams in the NFL tank on purpose like some have done in the NBA.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by SkinsKY

The no huddle is an example. I think the bigger point is that bad teams keep failing but don't try and switch their approach. How many games in the last couple years followed the same script: up something like 17-10, and then try and sit on the ball for the last half hour? How many of those did we lose? It happened a lot and the whole time the coaches never changed their approach. It's the same type of thing. We were in a situation that never seemed to pan out, but we didn't adjust. Week after week, I watched 2nd halves knowing we were going to give another game away.

Not every team can run the no huddle, but if we had, could our season have been much worse? That's the point I think they're trying to make. If you suck, try something new. It'd be tough to suck worse than you do now.

I understand the point about draft although I don't think teams in the NFL tank on purpose like some have done in the NBA.

I agree here that the larger point, illustrated in his example, is that the innovation rarely seems to originate from the bottom feeders, where you'd think they'd be more open to trying something different. IMO, this speaks to the larger points that 1) coaches aren't nearly as smart about the game as they would have you believe and 2) by sticking to 'core football' and not taking chances they buffer themselves from criticism. If the Lions, for example, went no huddle this year and fell flat then Schwartz would get the lion's share of the blame, whereas if they run their same offense and stumble through another year, the primary criticisms will be levied on talent deficiencies. The latter situtation will ultimately land the coach on the outs anyway, but it allows him to cash a few more years' worth of checks.

Personally, I don't like the lottery system of a draft primarily because it has the potential to limit/punish a struggling team over a consistent length of time (see Minnesota in the NBA). It does put more importance on the abilities of the GM, but the myriad possibilities for any player to fail beyond the control of any one person kind of undercuts the point. Particularly in the NFL, luck is a vastly underrated factor in success and that simply cannot be accounted for, predicted, nor counted on.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by wide_awake

Also, to your second point: Of course the main point is to win, but that's not what moral hazard means. If you have a 95% interest in winning but there is a 5% (different) interest influencing your decision to NOT win at all cost, THAT is a moral hazard. In pro sports crazy things happen all the time. Look no further than the Redskins for that-trading semi premium draft picks for an aging QB on a team paper thin at depth?

Why don't we hold GMs accountable for these stupid decisions? And when you say "they get fired", do they really? Shanny was fired from Denver, lays low for a while and returns as a PREMIUM coach who commands huge money, collecting salary from multiple teams. How is that not a conflict of interest? If the McNabb trade works he is a genius, if it doesn't? Well he's just another GM making GM-type difficult decisions I suppose. Not a lot of long-term accountability. Even Matt Millen held his job for way too long.

I can't believe you're even trying to carry the argument further... Seriously your one plausible motivating factor is paper thin, and all the other typical factors fly in the face of it:

1. Dignity/Respect/Pride: most humans will not tank because they want those.
2. Success and advancement: doing a bad job on purpose will tend to keep that from happening.
3. self preservation: most of us WANT to keep our jobs.
4. "come back to haunt you" Any GM thinking he can just tank habitually to build a team of low 1st rounders, has to know he might be running a different team (if he manages to stay employed) that will have to contend with the stocked up team in the future... Why do something so risky of everything, including getting fired, when it's entirely possible your "sacrifices" will become good players for a different staff when they fire you?
5. "legacy" every man on the face of the earth with an ounce of self respect wants to be known as good/successful/powerful/competent/great/legendary at what he does... It is one of the most basic human motivating factors. It is just short of pure survival and getting laid on the "Men's big scale of really freaking important s***"

The idea that all those are in any way trumped by a minor reward for losing like a higher draft pick is totally comical.

It also suggests the writer doesn't understand very much about the NFL draft... The fact is there's very little statistical variation within the round, however the first couple picks are A) much much more expensive B) actually have a higher incidence of "busting" than later 1st round picks, because those players are often the most extreme examples of "boom or bust" players with super star HOF "upside" but also high risk. They wont get the patient development due to their contract size, and lower expectations that a mid round pick will benefit from. It is oft repeated that top round picks are hard to trade because of the combo of risk/money. Surely you're familiar with that... So this begs the question: why would any sane individual throw all the above REAL factors out, and fall for the "hazard" of being rewarded for failure, when even that reward carries serious risks?

So not only is the moral hazard concept (Edit: as applied here) pure theory crafting, it's not even based on a sound motivation.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by wide_awake

"Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk"

You are arguing against a definition of a word dude. It means what it means.

There is nothing about conflict of interest in that definition. The essence of moral hazard is that some or all of the risk stemming from one person's behavior is displaced onto another party. That actor then has less of an incentive to avoid certain risky behavior. The classic example is that of fire insurance. It is a bad idea to smoke in bed, since you can easily set fire to your mattress and burn your house down. If you had to pay the rebuilding costs yourself, you would probably avoid smoking in bed. However, if you are fully insured against fire, you may smoke in bed anyway, knowing that the insurer will bear the costs of any fire and that you will not suffer financial loss. There is no conflict between competing interests, simply a diminishing of the normal incentives to protect one's own property.

Conflict of interest occurs when an individual has an interest that might entice her to act contrary to some competing responsibility. Such a conflict would occur when a federal judge owns stock in a corporation who has come before her bench. In that example, there is no moral hazard; the judge's responsibility to act impartially may be compromised, but no party has insulated the judge from the risk stemming from her actions.

There are some occasions in which the two concepts overlap. The example of draft order is not one of them. You could potentially claim a conflict between a team's interest in winning and the desire to have a higher draft pick. There is no moral hazard, however, because getting a higher draft pick does nothing to displace the risks of losing onto another party. Or to use the definition you prefer, nothing insulates the team or its owners, coaches, and players from that risk. (And even as a conflict of interest, it is a pretty weak one.)

The lesson here is that sportswriters and economic concepts are like children and matches. If they must be put together it should be with the greatest caution, although it would be better if they didn't mix at all.