Who Will Win the Big Game?

Quant Facts now 26-16

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:42:00 +0000

The NY Giants defeated the SF 49ers, 20-17 in overtime, dropping our quant fact predictions to 26-16 in published plays. It was a great win for the "big play" Giants -- and conversely, a difficult loss for the 49ers. It will be a long off-season for San Francisco and Kyle Williams, who had two fumbles on punt returns (as he substituted for the 49ers' regular punt returner, injured Ted Ginn, Jr.).

During the regular season, San Francisco played a very clean brand of football (in terms of turnovers), tying an NFL record with just 10 giveaways -- including none on special teams. However, the New York Giants have been playing great "big play" football and are peaking at the right time. The (bad) breaks caught up to the 49ers at a bad time for San Francisco.

The Giants now advance to the Super Bowl, where they will face the Patriots in a rematch of SB XLII four years ago. Stay tuned for more Super Bowl info...

Who Will Win the NFC Championship Game?

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

This year's NFC Championship Game is very interesting. We have a red-hot New York Giant team going up against a solid San Francisco 49ers squad that "quietly" put together a consistently great season.

As sports fans might expect, San Francisco shines in many statistics -- and this is true for the key championship characteristics that we study. In particular, the 49ers run an offense that can control the ball and is very mistake-free. In addition, although Giants fans have been talking up the Giant pass-rush and defense, San Francisco had the NFL's best defense this season.

The Giants have been red-hot, easily handling Atlanta in Round 1 of the playoffs 24-2, and then controlled most of the game against Green Bay, winning 37-20. The Giants ended the regular season on a strong note -- with a difficult schedule -- with wins against the likes of the Jets and Dallas (twice), before storming into the playoffs.

San Francisco got by New Orleans 36-32, and to many, the NFC Championship game pits strength (49ers) against a hot team with good momentum (Giants). We believe that the 49ers also have good momentum -- and for the most part, the championship characteristics point to San Francisco. Interestingly, our research, also says that momentum and a team's recent performance is sometimes overvalued.

As a result, our blog's official prediction is on the San Francisco 49ers. We do not have an official quant fact prediction on the AFC Championship game. New England is a fairly large favorite, but we note that the Patriots put together their regular-season record against a relatively weak schedule. In addition, Baltimore, as usual, boasts a top-notch defense and is battle-hardened because of their divisional rivalry with Pittsburgh.
___________

Carlton Chin, CFA, an MIT-trained "quant" and fund manager and Dr. Jay Granat, a psychotherapist and sports psychologist, wrote "Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological & Mathematical Approach." Chin is a specialist in futures and quantitative trading systems at CARAT / Adamah Capital and Granat is founder of StayInTheZone.com.

Quant Facts now 26-15

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:10:00 +0000

Our "quant fact" predictions, related to our book's research, are now 26-15. Stay tuned for more quant fact predictions as the NFL playoffs heat up.

Thanks to Alabama's air-tight defense in the 2012 BCS Championship, our "Who Will Win the Big Game?" blog predictions improved to 26-15. Our championship factors relating to sports psychology picked Alabama because of their edge in defense, recent big game experience, coaching, and rushing game.

Who Will Win the 2012 BCS Championship?

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:37:00 +0000

Carlton Chin, CFA and Jay Granat, PhD, are authors of the book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" where concepts of sports psychology are quantified. Here, we use this research to take a look at the 2012 BCS Championship Game between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama. Our analysis on other sporting events has been featured in the NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. Jay Granat is a psychotherapist and founder of StayIntheZone.com. Carlton Chin is an MIT-trained quantitative and alternative assets portfolio manager for CARAT/Adamah Capital.

In particular, our research shows that certain key concepts of sports psychology can be used to build winning teams. Measuring factors - such as leadership, coaching, hard work, minimizing errors, and consistency - has proven to be useful in determining champions and winners. Let's take a look at the "quant facts" for this year's BCS Championship Game.

Hard Work & Defense

Interestingly, across a variety of sports, factors and statistics related to hard work and consistency are more closely related to winning championships than glitzy statistics such as quarterback rating and homeruns. In particular, our work shows that defense does indeed win championships.

Alabama gets the nod in this category, with its top-ranked defense in terms of both points against and yards per game. It is notable that LSU is #2 -- but a distant #2, yielding 252 yards per game vs. Alabama's 191 yards/game.

Consistency Factor: Rushing Yards per Attempt

Another key to winning championships is consistency. It is interesting that the type of "consistency factors" that have proven to be related to winning are "less exciting heroics" than most sports fans would expect. For example, in baseball, our research shows that batting average is more important to winning World Series than home runs.

In football, average yards per rush is a good indicator of consistency and control of the game. Alabama edges LSU in this category (5.6 yards per rush to 5.0 for LSU). Edge to Alabama for the consistency factor.

Minimizing Errors

Performing at a high level - while minimizing mistakes - is crucial to winning the big game. The numbers show that teams that focus on the fundamentals - and athletes who minimize errors - perform better in championships. In football, the team that throws fewer interceptions has won more than their share of championships. This edge goes to LSU, whose QBs threw just 4 INTs versus Alabama's 8.

Big Game Experience & Coaching

Statistics show that experience and coaching can yield a measurable difference in the outcome of championships. Alabama has appeared in a National Title game over the past three years (LSU's most recent appearance was for the 2007 regular season). Both coaches have done well in games with national title implications, with Alabama's Nick Saban going 2-0 in these games, and LSU's Les Miles going 1-0. We'll give the edge to Alabama in this category.

Sports Psychology Factors and the BCS Championship

So who will win this year's college football championship? Based on our "quant facts" of the key concepts of sports psychology, we believe that Alabama will even the score against LSU (LSU beat Alabama 9-6 earlier in the season) -- and come away with the title.

Co-Author of "Who Will Win" interviews Shannon Miller

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:52:00 +0000

One of the authors, Dr. Jay Granat, of "Who Will Win the Big Game?" had a chance to sit down with Olympic Gold Medalist and two-time All-Around World Champion gymnast Shannon Miller to discuss mental toughness, getting into "the zone," and what it takes to be a winner.

Some excerpts:

Q: Shannon, almost every athlete wants to learn how to get into the zone more often. Many of the athletes who come to see me for counseling ask about how they can best do this. How would you describe the zone?
A: The zone is the place you enter where everything else disappears. If there are television cameras or a million people watching you, it does not matter. For some people, entering the zone is innate. For others it is learned. For me, it was a combination of both.
Q: Managing injuries is an issue for many gymnasts and for many athletes. How did you learn to perform when you were not feeling well?
A: No athlete is healthy 100 percent of the time. I learned that working through a sickness or injury, being able to truly focus on the competition at hand was an extremely important skill. At the Olympics in 1996, I was battling a severe wrist injury. Not only was I having to learn how to train and compete with the pain but also understanding the importance of doing "smart" gymnastics.
Q: Were you born mentally tough?
A: I'm not really sure. I know that I was not the strongest, most flexible or most naturally talented athlete. I knew that I had to find another route to success. For me it was hard work. I was a work horse. I also found that being mentally tough; not allowing others to derail you or get into your head made me a fierce competitor."
Q: Do you have three tips for athletes who are trying to excel at their sport?
A: Set long and short term goals. Don't limit what you can accomplish and don't let others limit you in any way. Keep believing in yourself every day.

Read more here:
http://www.northjersey.com/community/family/reflections/136792228_How_does_an_Olympic_champion_stay_mentally_tough_.html?c=y&page=1
Dr. Jay Granat, a psychotherapist and sports psychologist, is co-author of "Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological & Mathematical Approach" with Carlton Chin, CFA, an MIT-trained "quant" and fund manager. Granat is founder of StayInTheZone.com and Chin is chief investment officer of CARAT / Adamah Capital.

Quoted by Bergen Record on the NY Giants' 2011 Season

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:05:00 +0000

"Who Will Win the Big Game?" co-author, Dr. Jay Granat, was recently quoted by the Bergen Record:

The nightmares still haunt the Giants, hiding just beneath the surface.

In Tom Coughlin’s eight seasons, the Giants are 47-17 in the first half. They are just 24-32 in the second.

The Second-Half Collapse of 2008. And 2009. And 2010.

They’re still very much with the team.

“You just try not to think about it,” linebacker Michael Boley said. “The last couple of years we’ve been known to collapse toward the end of the year.”

The Giants are off to another strong start, just as they were in 2008. And 2009. And 2010.

But no matter how big Sunday’s victory over the Patriots was, and no matter how rosy things appear at 6-2 with a two-game lead in the NFC East, the specter of another second-half fade will hang over them until they exorcise those demons.

In Tom Coughlin’s eight seasons, the Giants are 47-17 in the first half. They are just 24-32 in the second.

Jay P. Granat, a River Edge-based sports psychologist and founder of StayInTheZone.com, said the Giants have two tremendous advantages they did not have in previous seasons...

Read more here:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/pro_sports/football/Giants_hoping_to_avoid_another_second-half_meltdown.html

Dr. Jay Granat, a psychotherapist and sports psychologist, is co-author of "Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological & Mathematical Approach" with Carlton Chin, CFA, an MIT-trained "quant" and fund manager. Granat is founder of StayInTheZone.com and Chin is chief investment officer of CARAT / Adamah Capital.

Quant Facts: 25-15

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:31:00 +0000

Our "quant fact" predictions dropped to 25-15, with the Texas Rangers failing to close out the World Series (by yielding leads two times) in Game Six. Congratulations to both teams on a great season and an exciting World Series.

Several people have commented about our analysis and lamented about the lack of hard-core, deep, analysis. While we perform very serious research in other sports and financial work, our analysis for our book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" -- and series of blog posts and articles -- is fairly simple, and is meant to demonstrate the power of sports analytics applied to concepts of sports psychology. Our methods focus on statistics that relate to championship characteristics such as consistency, leadership, experience, and minimizing errors.

While we have developed game simulators that can predict, with more precision, the probabilities of certain events occurring in major sports such as baseball and football -- our more "simple"methods come up with interesting angles and sometimes pick underdogs.

If we want a more complex analysis, we can use our game simulators. Or, we can apply all kinds of modern-day sabermetric-type analysis and try to come up with an edge. But will it really be an edge?

If we use these methods and attempt to use them at sports books in Nevada, we do not believe there will be much of an edge over the casinos. After all, that's their job: they are oddsmakers and the odds they put out are fairly "sharp" -- especially when factoring in how the oddsmakers will "balance" their book of business.

If we use complex analysis -- we will probably come up with similar results of the sports books. This, then, yields no edge, as we will have to pay for the more expensive odds that the favorite would require. On the other hand, our methods sometimes pick underdogs (such as New Orleans over the Colts in Super Bowl XLIV [winner], or Flyers in 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs [loser], and March Madness -- where we have been particularly successful).

In my work with Dr. Jay Granat, we use fairly simple methods to quantify concepts of sports psychology. While some of these methods seem "simple," they demonstrate the power of sports analytics and sports psychology. We believe that this approach can uncover edges in sports.

Pujols: One of the Best (Performances & Batters)

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:57:00 +0000

Albert Pujols has been big news in the 2011 World Series. AND -- we are glad that Game 3's performance will go down in baseball history as one of the great World Series' performances in baseball history. Pujols went with 5-for-6 with 3 HRs.

Here's a quick recap of the highlights:

Only player ever to compile 14 total bases in a World Series game.
6 RBIs tied a World Series single-game record (Bobby Richardson, 1960; Hideki Matsui 2009)
5 hits ties a record of 5 hits in a World Series game with Paul Molitor.
4 runs scored.
3 HRs (tying Babe Ruth & Reggie Jackson's single-game record).
St. Louis goes up 2-1 in the World Series, winning 16-7.

Below is a great article putting Pujol's performance in perspective, relative to other great World Series single-game batting achievements.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/15798683/youve-had-a-nice-run-babe-reggie-now-its-pujols-time

We are particularly excited about Albert Pujols gaining some recognition because in our book, "Baseball + Numbers = Fun & Games (Math & Ratings for Young Fans)" by Carlton Chin and Julia Chin (see below), my daughter and I rank Pujols amongst the all-time great baseball hitters. Our book introduces baseball and math for young fans -- and includes several lists that may interest fans of all ages (all-time great baseball teams and batters).

We normalized statistics (including, for instance: league averages, peak years, era & level of competition), and ranked Albert Pujols as one of the best hitters in baseball history. Our overall top 3 hitters:

Ted Williams
Albert Pujols
Babe Ruth

Who Will Win the 2011 World Series? (Analysis for the NY Times)

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:08:00 +0000

Here is some analysis we did on the World Series for the NY Times:

... Last year these factors correctly predicted that the San Francisco Giants would beat the Texas Rangers. So how do the Cardinals and Rangers fare in analyzing their championship characteristics?

Pitching Leadership

In baseball, top starting pitchers are a good indicator of success during baseball’s playoff series. In particular, the finalist with the better top of the rotation, measured by total wins by its top two pitchers, has won 70 percent of the World Series over the past 22 years (not including 1994, when there was no postseason).

Hindsight = 20/20: The 2011 Dallas Cowboys

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:56:00 +0000

The 2011 Dallas Cowboys stand at 2-3 -- but remain a team to be reckoned with. The Cowboys have had a tough schedule, playing the likes of the Jets, Patriots & Lions. The Cowboys suffered three very difficult fourth-quarter losses to these teams, by a combined 11 points. Without the three losses, fans and the media wouldn't be hounding Tony Romo & the Cowboys... Let's rewind and take a look at the Cowboys' already-turbulent season (and we have just completed Week 6)!

Tough Loss #1 (NY Jets)

In Week 1, the Cowboys lost a tough game, as reported by the Washington Post, with this blazing headline "Tony Romo turnovers doom Dallas Cowboys in loss to New York Jets" --

After jumping out to an early lead against Rex Ryan and the New York Jets, the Dallas Cowboys failed to hold on to a 14-point fourth quarter advantage, ultimately conceding a Nick Folk 50-yard field goal that secured the Jets’ winning margin.

Wide receiver Plaxico Burress had a touchdown catch as the Jets overcame a 14-point deficit in the fourth quarter to beat the Dallas Cowboys, 27-24

Read more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tony-romo-turnovers-doom-dallas-cowboys-in-loss-to-new-york-jets/2011/09/12/gIQASfYxNK_story.html

Tough Loss #2 (Detroit Lions)

A few weeks later, after beating San Francisco and Washington (also in close games), Dallas lost a heart-breaker to up-and-coming Detroit -- after holding a 27-3 third quarter lead. ESPN reports:

the Lions provided further proof they're a legitimate contender by turning a 24-point, third-quarter deficit into a 34-30 victory over the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.

Detroit's defense started the rally with interceptions returned for touchdowns on consecutive drives, then Stafford and Calvin Johnson took over from there, hooking up for a pair of touchdowns in the final period, including a 2-yarder for the winning points with 1:39 left.

The "interceptions returned for touchdowns" on consecutive drives did not do much for Tony Romo's reputation. Fans complained about the interceptions and play-calling. The bad taste of another bitter loss was particularly bad for the continued hammering of Romo and the Cowboys (in the press and otherwise), with ESPN reporting:

Tony Romo and the Cowboys (2-2) continued to show there's no lead and no deficit too big for them. They blew a 14-point fourth-quarter lead for the first time in franchise history in the opener, and this was their largest lead blown in a loss in franchise history.

Link:
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=311002006

On Tony Romo and Volatility

After the loss to Detroit, fans and writers said that Tony Romo was on the "hot seat" -- and in some cases, wanted him benched. Lest we forget, Romo remains one of the best QBs in NFL history, with the fifth-best career quarterback rating in NFL history.

While it is true that Romo and the Cowboys have suffered more than a few painful losses (including playoff losses), this may be a combination of bad luck and "volatility" (importance of key plays) -- being magnified by a huge fan base (focusing on the negative, and airing out their feelings). A cursory look at Romo's stats does not show systematic under-performance during the fourth quarter.

In the game of backgammon, experts often talk about "volatility," key points in the game, and the use of the doubling cube to exploit the situation. Similarly, in the financial markets, high volatility implies that prices are likely to change considerably. In football, concepts of volatility can be combined with game theory to help maximize in-game results for the team.

Tough Loss #3: New England Patriots

Even with these difficult losses coming into this past weekend, Dallas is considered to be one of the better NFL teams. And they proved their mettle, with a great showing against the Patriots. The Cowboys led the Patriots 16-13 with 3:36 left in the game. This is when controversy arose:

With the lead and just 3:36 left to go, the Cowboys ran the ball three times -- and went three-and-out, with a penalty, as follows:

First and 10 at the Dallas 28 (3:36): run up the middle for -2
Second and 12 at the Dallas 26 (2:52): run right tackle for -1
Timeout #1 by NE at 2:47
Third and 13 at Dallas 25 (2:47): penalty on Dallas (False start)
Third and 18 at Dallas 20 (2:47): run right tackle for 8 yards.

Dallas then had to punt and the rest is history, being repeated. Tom Brady led his Patriots down the field for a winning touchdown.

Some fans think that the Cowboys played things too safe -- and believe the Cowboys should have passed the ball -- and potentially increasing their chances for a first down. Here is one example, by an author we highly respect:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/jerry-jones-was-right-cowboys-should-have-passed/

Summary

Many of us love sports because drama often plays out and controversies often arise. Reading so many articles about Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys over the past few months made us think that, "Hindsight is 20/20..."

Dallas is in the bittersweet position of having a large following. When things go badly, there are many detractors and naysayers. On the other hand, there is the saying, "Any love is better than no love."

Do we think the Cowboys should have passed the ball? Using concepts of game theory and volatility, we do not believe that there is any set right or wrong answer for this specific situation. A simple model of game theory says that the proper strategy is to mix things up.

Based on this model, taking the riskier path MAY have been a decent path. However, based on the difficult losses earlier in the season, the risk/reward could have been devastating for an already wounded Romo psyche. Based on this back-of-the-envelope analysis, we like the decision to run -- and wished, for the Cowboys' sake, that they got a first down -- or that the defense held.

In the end, teams need to execute: in this case, the Dallas offense didn't get the first down with the three rushes -- and the defense couldn't stop Tom Brady's Patriots. In psychology, people often focus on the negative. Fans remember losses -- and especially painful losses -- more deeply.

Outlook

The Cowboys remain in the middle of a tight NFC East race. The division is one of the strongest in the NFL, with the Eagles (formerly the Dream Team!) in the cellar. It is also notable that the current leaders of the division, the NY Giants, have one of the toughest schedules in the league for the remainder of the season. In addition to their strong NFC East divisional rivals, the Giants will face New England, the Jets, New Orleans and Green Bay during the playoff stretch.

Dallas does not have a schedule as difficult as the Giants -- but they will need to execute, be careful of volatility, and use these tough losses as a "stepping stone" rather than as a distraction.

***

Carlton Chin, CFA, a fund manager and MIT graduate, and Jay Granat, PhD, a psychotherapist, study and quantify concepts of sports analytics and sports psychology that can help teams and sports organizations improve results. Our work has been featured in the New York Times and Wall St. Journal. We would like to work with your team or organization -- and welcome research projects related to sports analytics and / or sports psychology. Recent work has involved the development of computer game simulators that can be used to study game situations and strategies in baseball and football.

Quant Facts now 25-14

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:37:00 +0000

With the St. Louis Cardinals advancing to the 2011 World Series, the "Quant Facts" from our "book's blog's official" predictions are now 25-14 (64%). These predictions are based on research from our book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" Our quant fact predictions analyze angles related to sport psychology -- and are often overlooked by many sports analysts; the quant facts regularly predict surprises and underdogs to win. Stay tuned for our analysis on the World Series.

Teams, coaches, athletes, and sports organizations may be interested in more in-depth analytical research that range from quantitative analytics of sports statistics and sport psychology -- to sports analytics based on our development and use of game simulators for major sports such as baseball and football. A simple version of our baseball simulator was developed for our book, "Baseball + Numbers." Please contact us for more information.

NL Championship Series

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:19:00 +0000

The St. Louis Cardinals stunned the Philadelphia Phillies and all of their "Phans" -- but on closer inspection of the statistics, the Cardinals are very strong in one of the key sports psychology categories we study: consistency.

In baseball, one measure of consistency is the batting average. A high team batting average means longer rallies -- and indeed, St. Louis led the National League in runs scored this season. The Cardinals will face the Milwaukee Brewers, led by the dynamic duo of Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder (who defeated the Arizona Diamondbacks).

What do the "quant facts" say about the 2011 NL Championship? Here is a quick look at some of the factors related to sports psychology from our book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" (A Psychological and Mathematical Method).

Pitching Leadership: Favors Milwaukee, with aces Gallardo & Greinke.
Focus, Defense & Fielding: Both teams were equally mediocre on the field this year.
Consistency: This factor -- based on "batting average rank" points to the Cardinals in a big way. The Cardinals led the NL with a .273 team batting average. The Brewers were a respectable third in the NL, but a distant third at .261.
Big Game Experience: Neither team reached the World Series over the past three years (so this is neutral based on how we measured this category). We do note, however, that the Cardinals won the World Series in 2006.

Overall, the factors lean to the Cardinals with their big team batting average. This will count for our book's blog's "official" quant fact predictions.

_________________________________

With the baseball playoffs in full force, there has been some interest in my new baseball book. The book is meant to teach math to younger fans, but includes rankings of batters and greatest teams that some may like. Please check it out:

AL Championship Series

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:46:00 +0000

The Detroit Tigers surprised the New York Yankees and will be facing the Texas Rangers (who defeated the Tampa Bay Rays) for the American League Championship. Who do we think will win the 2011 AL Championship?

Let's take a look at some of the quant factors from our book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" (A Psychological and Mathematical Method).

Pitching Leadership: Favors Detroit. Verlander had a huge season and it will be interesting to see how far he can carry the Tigers.
Focus, Defense & Fielding: Also favors Detroit.
Consistency: This factor -- based on "batting average rank" favors Texas. This factor has one of the highest relationships to winning the World Series.
Big Game Experience: Favors Texas because Texas reached the World Series recently.

Overall, the factors are even (so this will not count as an "official" quant fact prediction). However, Detroit has a bigger edge in pitching leadership and focus/fielding -- so the quant facts lean to Detroit slightly.

On Numbers & Stats

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:10:00 +0000

Some interesting thoughts on statistics and some VERY useful quotes:

Use the Numbers, but triangulate your information.

Common sense can't be measured. One glance at Mark McGwire circa 1998 in an MLB uniform and even a child can surmise "This is a guy with some power". No one needed to look at the back of his baseball card to verify that. One buzz of a Nolan Ryan fastball in the dirt circa 1973 followed by one just as noisy up around your chin gives you an idea that it might be hard to get a hit that day. Extreme examples for sure, but you get the point.

Numbers can fool the eye but talent can be recognized VERY quickly by the experienced, trained eye. Ask the first casting director who got a peek at Halle Berry.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Numbers_vs._Reality_-_Round_3,563,372,914,326,537,254.40123_(slightly_re-repeated_materials_enclosed)

Quant Fact Predictions now 24-14

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Just a quick update after the Wimbledon Women's Final quant fact prediction. We had no official play on the Wimbledon Men's Final.

Our book's blog's record in "quant fact predictions" now stands at 24-14, a solid record that is based on the quantitative analysis of "sports psychology" that can help sports organizations and fans gain an edge. The statistics add several interesting angles to sports analytics -- and regularly picks underdogs.

Dr. Jay Granat, a sports psychologist, and Carlton Chin, a "quant" fund manager and MIT graduate -- study and quantify championship characteristics related to sport psychology. They are particularly interested in qualities that are more readily coached, taught, and practiced.

Wimbledon: Men's Final

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:56:00 +0000

Yesterday, we blogged about our tennis measure of focus and mental toughness: Big Point Performance (BPP). We used a similar approach for the Men's Final at Wimbledon -- which has Nadal facing Djokovic.

Djokovic has had a spectacular year, going 47-1 and has taken the #1 ranking in the world from Nadal -- who held that top spot for 56 weeks. "Djoko" the Joker has the momentum AND the confidence on his side. This should be a great match, with new #1 -- facing Nadal, an all-time great -- who will be gunning for Djokovic.

We were a bit surprised to see Nadal outperform Djokovic during their respective quarterfinal and semifinal matches -- in terms of Big Point Performance (BPP). Thus, our "quant fact" stat will go with Nadal to add to his list of Grand Slam titles -- but other sport psychology factors such as confidence and momentum go to Djoko. As a result there is no "quant fact" prediction for the Men's Final. Enjoy the match!

Wimbledon: Ladies' Final

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:03:00 +0000

The 2011 Wimbledon Ladies' Final pits popular Maria Sharapova against relatively unknown, Petra Kvitova. Sharapova is the #5 seed at Wimbledon while Kvitova is #8. Kvitova has been rising steadily and rapidly in the world rankings. Sharapova is a slight favorite to win the Championship, and our "Big Point Performance" favors Sharapova as well.

In previous tennis blog posts, and in our book, we devised a measure to study a player's recent performance on Big Points. This measure of focus and mental toughness looks at break point conversions -- often the key to winning tennis matches. Our Big Point Performance (BPP), gives the nod to Maria Sharapova to win another Wimbledon title, because she outperformed Kvitova in this stat during their quarterfinal and semifinal matches. (This selection will count as part of our book's blog's "quant fact" prediction.)

Quant Fact Predictions now 24-13

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:16:00 +0000

We're still licking our wounds from the NHL & NBA Finals -- but it goes to show you that the statistics won't be correct all of the time -- but they DO put the "wind at your back."

Vancouver was beaten by a red-hot goalie who was definitely "in the zone" as well as hard-nosed, great playoff hockey by the Bruins.
Miami was defeated by unbelievable teamwork, a quiet leader and star named Dirk Nowitzki -- and huge veteran play by Jason Kidd.
Congrats to both champions, the NBA's Dallas Mavericks & the NHL's Boston Bruins.

Our book's blog's record in "quant fact predictions" now stands at 24-13 (64.9%), still a solid record that is based on quantifying concepts of sports psychology. The statistics add several interesting angles to sports analytics -- and regularly picks underdogs.

NY Times: Which Team has the Right Stuff to Win the Cup?

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:02:00 +0000

Below is an excerpt on our analysis on the NHL Stanley Cup Finals:

Focusing on concepts of sports psychology, we looked at factors such as big-game experience, leadership on the ice and consistency. So important are these concepts to winning championships that they have proven to be common themes across all sports we have studied.
...
During the period of high-powered N.H.L. scoring from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, offensive leaders were more easily able to carry their teams to championships as Wayne Gretzky did with the Edmonton Oilers and Mario Lemieux did with the Pittsburgh Penguins.
...
Over all, championship factors like offensive leadership and defense favor the Vancouver Canucks to win the Stanley Cup. But Thomas may have something to say about that.

Who Will Win the NBA Finals?

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Tue, 31 May 2011 14:03:00 +0000

Here is an excerpt from our analysis on the NBA Finals, published in the NY Times:

Keeping Score: Championship Characteristics in the N.B.A. Finals
By CARLTON J. CHIN and JAY P. GRANAT
After analyzing the championship games or series of the N.F.L., N.B.A., Major League Baseball and N.H.L., and the major finals in golf and tennis, we identified 50 championships characteristics in our book, “Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological and Mathematical Method.”
Based on this research, we focused on several championship characteristics that might help predict the winner of the N.B.A. finals, which start Tuesday night in Miami.
Last year’s analysis highlighted leadership factors and correctly predicted that the Lakers would win the championship.

Indy 500 & Sports Psychology

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Mon, 30 May 2011 11:27:00 +0000

We discuss, research, and quantify concepts of sports psychology that often determine the outcome of sporting events. Yesterday's Indy 500 is a sad reminder of how important these factors can be:

Experience
Mental errors
Focus & concentration
Consistency

Here's a quote and article about the Indy 500:

INDIANAPOLIS – One turn. One stinkin’ turn.

JR Hildebrand made it through 799 of ’em without any trouble. As the young Californian approached that final left, all he had to do was keep his car off the wall, speed down the main straightaway and collect a win in the Indianapolis 500 on his very first try.

Instead, Hildebrand made the sort of colossal blunder that will forever link him to the Jean Van de Veldes of the sporting world.
...
Hildebrand was faced with a choice when he came up on another rookie, Charlie Kimball, going much slower as they approached the fourth turn.

The prudent thing would’ve been to back off and tuck in behind Kimball until they were on the main straightaway. Then Hildebrand could’ve gone on by to take the checkered flag.

Instead, showing his inexperience, Hildebrand decided to stay on the gas and go around on the outside. That put him into “the marbles,” the tiny particles of rubber that gather near the wall, making that part of the track especially slick.

He never had a chance.

“Is it a move that I would do again?” Hildebrand said. “No.”

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110530/SPORTS07/110539992

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZc_u2lfOeo

Quant Facts: Predictions now 24-11

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Fri, 27 May 2011 22:35:00 +0000

With Miami defeating Chicago in the NBA semifinals, our blog's record is now 24-11 in quant fact predictions.

We will analyze the NBA Finals and NHL Finals within a few days. Please visit our blog -- and/or sign-up to receive notice when we update our blog or twitter (z-trader).

Kyle Singler's Trick Shots at Duke

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Tue, 24 May 2011 03:19:00 +0000

Check this out; fun video...

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/29509895

NBA: Eastern Conference Finals

noreply@blogger.com (c) — Sun, 15 May 2011 18:30:00 +0000

There is a lot of interest in the NBA Conference Finals between the Miami Heat and the Chicago Bulls. Based on an analysis of factors related to the NBA factors we have researched in our book, "Who Will Win the Big Game?" -- and applied for the NY Times for last year's NBA Finals, we favor the Miami Heat over the Chicago Bulls. Here are several of the key factors (2 factors for Miami; 1 for Chicago):

Leadership -- and star power. LeBron James has his fans -- and his detractors... In either case, he is an NBA "great" who can control the game and help "will" his team to victory.
Consistency -- field-goal percentage points to Miami over Chicago.
Defense -- points to Chicago.

This prediction will count for our blog's "official" quant fact results.

Quant Fact: Long-Shot & Favorite Bias

noreply@blogger.com (cc) — Sat, 07 May 2011 16:00:00 +0000

Just a quick blog post on a "quant fact" related to some big sporting events today. In addition to the Kentucky Derby -- there is a big-name boxing match-up between Shane Mosley and Manny Pacquiao.

We think it is interesting that historically, there is a "long-shot-favorite bias" whereby the public overvalues long-shots and undervalues favorites.

In both horse racing and boxing, there are often mismatches. And due to these mismatches, there are long-shots that are more interesting for the general public on which to place a small wager. After all, it is more exciting to take an underdog and win $50 on a $10 bet -- than to win $2 on a $10 bet. This creates value for some -- who follow the stats and numbers.

Here is a paper on this bias:

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Favorite_Longshot_Bias.pdf