On the Other Hand, Maybe Sports Make Us Happy. This is the title of my latest for Huffington Post Sports. Here is how the column begins:
Harry Truman once asked if he could have only “one-armed economists.” This is because too often economists told President Truman, “on the other hand…”
Although I am sure some economists only have one-arm, I have been blessed with two. And consequently, today’s column is going to somewhat contradict what I said last week.
Last week I noted that there was a problem with the decision in California to suspend environmental laws so that a new NFL stadium could be built in Los Angeles. More than two decades of research have indicated that stadiums don’t create significant economic growth (i.e. income) or jobs. Given this research, it seems likely that California didn’t have a very good reason to circumvent its environmental laws.
Of course, on the other hand… there’s a different perspective on the value of sporting events. For this perspective we turn to Soccernomics: Why England Loses, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey — and Even Iraq — Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World’s Most Popular Sport (by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski; Nation Books). Read the rest at Huffington Post Sports…
As noted, this column is derived from Soccernomics. For many American sports fans, soccer is simply not their favorite sports. Nevertheless, many readers are going to find this book to be their favorite sports book in 2009. This is just an extremely well-written book, filled with numerous stories any sports fan will find interesting.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Wages of Wins Journal 
AOM
November 18, 2009
Dave –
Long time reader, infrequent commenter. I have wondered about stadiums for a long time, especially as it relates to my home town of Omaha, NE (though it isn’t where I live these days). There it is a little unique, since the recent decision to build a stadium was not for a home team, but rather an annual tournament that brings in revenue from the city itself, but also from outside the city (and substantial revenue at that). That tournament is the College World Series.
Without knowing the details it would be impossible to accurately analyze the data, but it seems plausible that the income impact of a partially publicly financed stadium that draws at least somewhat from outside the area would be more economically beneficial than one that draws mainly from the area. I don’t know if it is enough to overcome the costs, but maybe?
Factoring in the “happiness” scale, referenced in the Huffington Post article, it seems to add to the benefit of the stadim. I can say from personal experience myself and the Omaha community in general, there is a lot of pride and happiness that go along with hosting the only NCAA championship event that is hosted in the same city every year. Some of that manifests itself in money spent directly supporting the event (and away from other places in the same city) but some of it is in a general disposition, if you will. Again, not sure if its enough to outrun the cost, but maybe?
If someone was going to put some more rigor into this, how would they do it? The city does their own stuff, but – regardless of accuracy – that is inherently biased in favor of public funds… it would make a great research project for a Ph.D student or researcher (can’t speak to the cooperation of the city, but can hope).
AOM
Someguy
November 18, 2009
This is off-topic, but Bill Simmons takes a pretty serious shot at your approach in an AV Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/articles/bill-simmons,35319/
Have you seen this? I like his work, but I am 100% in the camp that Iverson makes every team he plays on worse. He may make the team more fun to watch (possibly Simmons primary interest), but if memory serves Mutumbo and Ratliff are the reason AI made it to the finals. So my question is, have you ever talked to Bill Simmons directly about your work? I think this is a relevant issue because “The Answer” is looking for a new team.
Chicago Tim
November 19, 2009
Hey, at least Simmons has begun to acknowledge that Wages of Wins exists. But I don’t think he has read the book or this blog, and I don’t think he understands Wages of Wins at all, even at a superficial level. He’s just convinced that AI is a great player, even though he acknowledges that the stats don’t back him up. And, by the way, Simmons was wrong and Berri was right about the effects of trading AI to Denver.
simon
November 19, 2009
Funny thing is, just before that comment, he mentioned how Morey’s statistical approach sees the true value of Battier and slammed other “player-rater type stats” (I’m guessing the PER and the NBA efficiency) because they couldn’t tell Battier’s worth.
So he slammed the PER and the NBA because they couldn’t get Battier right, in his opinion, and he slams the Wages of Wins approach because it gets Iverson wrong, even he’d agree with its general assessement of Battier, and ditto for the PER’s rating on Iverson.
Then why doesn’t he slam Morey’s approach when the +/- says Iverson has been middling? Oh yeah that’s right, Morey is his friend and Michael Lewis said he’s a smart GM. I enjoy reading Simmons but that tells you something about his way of “analyzing” basketball.
dberri
November 19, 2009
Bill Simmons also said you cannot rank players in basketball. He then proceeds to rank various players. Not sure what it means if a person like this critiques my approach.
Chicago Tim
November 19, 2009
Simmons is a superfan, a witty writer, and deliberately provocative. He also has an appreciation for NBA history which I share. And he has has done his research, such as it is. I.e., he has read many books, watched many tapes, and interviewed a few players. I enjoyed his book. But I don’t think anyone takes his statistical analysis seriously, including him, which is why, like most sports writers, he cites stats when they support him, and dismisses them when they don’t.
What’s ironic is that in many cases he could cite Wages of Wins to support his arguments for role players like Battier or even for well-rounded stars like Magic Johnson, but does not do so out of sheer ignorance. Instead, he lumps Wages of Wins in with PER, revealing his ignorance. Even in the article cited, he reveals that he doesn’t really know what Wages of Wins is all about, but dismisses it because he loves AI.
But if you look at Simmons’ write-up for AI in his book, he acknowledges that AI’s stats are not great. He likes AI as much for his entertainment value as anything, and arguably AI was an entertaining player, if that’s the standard you’re using. Just like stadiums that cost money and don’t bring jobs might still bring happiness.
ilikeflowers
November 19, 2009
It’d be pretty funny to see a ranking of players based upon their happiness score.
Someguy
November 19, 2009
I think I agree with all of you regarding Simmons’ contradictory opinions and approaches. In TBOB chapter “The Secret” Simmons discusswes how teams with players who ignored statistical superiority (read inefficient scoring) and play defense are generally more successful. I think this is WS can actually explain Simmons’ observation
He looks specifically at the 1988 and 1989 Pistons because of his topless pool with Isiah anecdote. I think Berri’s WS analysis can probably explain why Aguirre was better than Dantley, but maybe it was just the natural improvement in Rodman and Salley, or the decline of the Lakers. Seeing as how Berri is a Pistons fan this seems like it could be interesting to have “The Secret” demystified.
Italian Stallion
November 19, 2009
I live in NYC. I didn’t select NYC. My grandparents selected it when they came from Sicily a long time ago. However, when I think about retirement and my future home in Florida, living near a city like Tampa rates higher than many others because there’s a racetrack and sport team right in the area. I’m simply not going to move to place where I can’t go to the track and a ballgame once in awhile. I’m not sure how that kind of thing can be measured unless you take surveys on why people move to various cities. But if sports matter to me, I’m sure they influence the decisions of others also.
Someguy
November 19, 2009
Also, I apologize for hijacking this thread. I think Stadium building subsidies/tax breaks are generally a huge ripoff for municipal taxpayers. You all should look into the shenanigans behind the MLS soccer team in Portland, OR. That AAA baseball stadium is perfect and was recently redone with public funds/loans. It would be really sad to see it redone for soccer and have to build a new baseball stadium farther from the city center. After reading the huffington post piece, I know my happiness would probably go down, but maybe it would make the city better off.
Italian Stallion
November 19, 2009
I may have to take exception to the idea that AI never made a team better.
If he signs with the Knicks tonight and replaces Duhon in the lineup, that will make the Knicks much better. :)
Seriously, the more I observe the game the more I believe that whenever any player is so good at getting to the basket that he draws double teams or is such a good outside shooter that he helps space the floor, he is contributing in ways that aren’t fully reflected in his own stats. If he’s both, watch out.
Yes, some of drawing double teams and spacing the floor translates into extra assists, but sometimes a player’s mere presence changes the defense even if he doesn’t have the ball. Other times it leads to an easy basket where he didn’t get the assist. I see it all the time
You show me two guys with a TS% of 60% (all else being equal) where one them is just good around the basket and the other can drive to the hoop and draw a double team or bomb away from mid range and 3 point land with high efficiency and space the floor and I’ll take the latter without any thought and know I am stealing.
All that said, IMO, AI (who probably will wind up with the Knicks) has been overrated, but I suspect he’s not as overrated as his own raw stats indicate.
CarkVeishesee
November 24, 2009
Wow, I did not heard about this topic up to now. Cheers.