Do you have a sports topic that you want researched? Are you interested in my opinion on a particular subject? If so, I'd like to remind you that while I typically have a couple posts that I am either in the process of writing or researching, which can be found on the left side of the webpage in the "Queue" section, I am always open to hearing and writing about any ideas which are suggested to me.
The main purpose of this blog is to provide interesting and in-depth opinions on a variety of sports subjects. There really isn't much of a point in writing something that people aren't going to want to read, which is why I believe it is extremely valuable to have a strong connection with my audience.
In fact, it doesn't necessarily have to be an idea for a post at all. Any advice or ideas, such as a potential sport to write about instead of a specific topic, logo or blog design tips, or just things you would want to see me do more of, such as collaborations or podcasts, are greatly appreciated.
For suggestions of any kind, comment on this post, email me at cgroel64@gmail.com, or tweet @ConnorGroel.
Thanks for your feedback,
Connor
Subscribe To Top Level Sports
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Why Texas Hold'em is NOT a Game of Chance (Poker Misconceptions part 1)
*This is the first part of a three-part series detailing many of the misconceptions the general public has about Texas Hold'em. Much of the information in these articles apply to poker in general. However, I am specifically talking about Texas Hold 'em because it is easily the most well known and most popular variant of poker.
**I realize this is a ridiculously long post, nearing 4,000 words. However, I wouldn't have made it this long if I felt like there were parts not worth reading. I've been working on this for multiple weeks, and I hope you enjoy.
-Connor
In society, Texas Hold 'em generally gets a bad rap. This is probably from a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it is often played in a casino. People have the notion that many participants in games like poker are problem gamblers, or that playing poker leads to addiction, and because of that, many dislike the game. However, there is a lot about hold 'em that people don't even bother to learn. In reality, it's an extremely fun and mentally challenging game that is easy to learn but difficult to master.
The granddaddy of all misconceptions about the game is that Texas Hold'em is straight gambling, and dependent solely, or at least mostly on luck in order to win. While admittedly luck is important and an inherent part of the game, Hold 'em is definitely not a game of chance. There are multiple different strategies, all of which work for differently people and can be used effectively in different situations. This makes poker different from any other game in a casino. It isn't a game where you just hope you get lucky and win such as craps, roulette, or slots. Additionally, it isn't like blackjack where there is essentially a "correct" way to play the game. While different people employ different blackjack strategies, there is an optimal way to play the game. Poker just isn't like that.
The thing that sets poker apart from other casino games is the fact that in poker the casinos do not care who wins. The casino takes rake from the players, but besides that it, is a fair game. In all other games, over the long haul casinos have an advantage over the players, whereas in poker you play against other people, and over a large sample of hands the better player will come out on top.
There are some poker players that make millions of dollars and get to travel the world playing in poker tournaments and cash games. Some make their money playing online on websites such as Pokerstars. The point is, for these people, playing poker is their job. They are professionals. In a game of chance, there would be no professionals because no one could be any better than anyone else. There is no person who can claim to one of the best in the world at roulette because of the nature of the game. The term "crapshoot", referring to an unpredictable event, gets its name from craps, because there is no right way to play the game other than to not play at all. Poker is a game where the best players consistently perform better than the average player. You can only get lucky so many times at a roulette wheel before reality checks back in.
To become a strong Hold 'em player, you have to practice, and try different strategies, and really think about the game. You have to decide what works and what doesn't against different kinds of people and why, and use that information against future opponents. In the end, the secret of success is picking the right hands to play and make strong EV, or expected value decisions. Basically, do what you believe will make you more money in the long run, and then let luck take over. Sure, everyone gets unlucky once in a while, but if you can consistently put yourself in positions where you are more likely to win than lose, eventually the chips will come your way. If you look at it this way, playing poker is far more like investing in stocks than gambling. It's all about making smart choices by minimizing risk while maximizing gains.
There's a lot of ways to figure out what the right decision is, and the right decision might be different for different people, which is what gives the game its tremendous depth and draws many to the game.
Here is a very basic example of what I mean. For this example, let's look at two independent scenarios. In both situations a player is holding an extremely strong hand after the flop and is first to act against one opponent. However, one player is very tight and does not play many hands, whereas the other is a member of almost every pot. Either of these playing strategies can work, as long as the players can each play their technique well.
While other information may influence the player's decision, the tight player should probably check. Since their opponent knows they don't like playing many hands, they are likely to feel a decent size bet will make the tight player fold. By tricking the opponent, the pot becomes greater without the tight player looking aggressive. This strategy is sometimes referred to as the "rope a dope." However, if the tight player raises, the opponent will know they are up against a strong hand, and is likely to fold. These means the tight player loses out on the chips they could have gained from letting their opponent bet.
On the other hand, the loose player's best move would probably be to continue betting. This person seems like the type to take more chances, and naturally someone who plays more will have a strong hand less often. By betting, and playing the hand similarly to many other hands, the opponent may assume the other person is bluffing, and just trying to scare them out of the pot, leading them to call. The sizing of the bet would also play an important role here, as a bet too large might not give the other person the right odds to call. Alternatively, a bet too small means the player won't get as much money from the other person as they could. Depending on just how aggressive this person plays, checking might actually send off the warning flags of the opponent. If they almost never check, and now they are, the opponent could easily feel something must be up.
This is about as simple as example hands go, and entirely abstract since I introduced no actual cards or chips to the scenario, but even so it introduced several important concepts in the game. The biggest one is that disguising your hand is extremely important.
If you always bet the same amount when you have a strong hand, and always check when you have a weak one, it won't take very long for a player with any kind of experience to pick up on your betting patterns. Being predictable is the worst thing a poker player can be. When a player's opponents can read them like a book, they can easily figure out when to fold, meaning the predictable player gets less value out of their strong hands. Additionally, the predictable player can be bullied out of pots, or even tricked into giving away more money than they have to. It would be next to impossible for a player like this to have any major success.
The whole idea here is that a poker player should try not to give away any more information than they have to, while quietly noting patterns in the play of their opponents, whether it be through betting or physical tells, which may be used later to strong decisions.
Two additional large concepts introduced in the sample hand are pot odds and the idea of extracting maximum value. Since oftentimes these go hand in hand (horrible pun), I'll discuss them together. Pot odds are essentially the ratio of what's in the pot to what a player must put in the pot to call a bet. For example, if a pot contains 100 chips, and a player has to decide whether to call a bet of 50 chips, you could say that they are getting 2:1 pot odds on the potential call, since 100/50=2. Yes, this does mean that math is involved. Luckily for those who despise math, this only involves division and ballpark estimates can usually suffice. Anyways, according to pot odds, for this person to make a mathematically correct call (without considering anything but the raw numbers), they should feel that they have the best hand one third of the time. This is because two out of three times they lose 50 chips by making the call, but once every three times they make 100 chips by calling, essentially meaning they break even over the long run. This goes back to the main idea of making +EV decisions. If this player believes their chances of winning are above 33%, then a call (or raise, depending on the situation) should be made. If their odds are lower than 33%, a fold would be mathematically wise.
Back to the hand. Essentially, if the loose player knows he has the best hand, his main goal should be to steal as many chips from his opponent as possible. After all, opportunities are scarce when you know your hand is best. This is where a strong poker player will combine the ideas of pot odds and maximum value to milk as much money as he can out of the hand. Let's say the pot contains 100 chips. What should this player bet? Well, like everything, it varies depending on the specific situation, but generally here's the deal. If they make a very small bet, say 10 chips, the opponent is almost guaranteed to call. That's good, because they want the other player to continue playing against them in the hand so they can make more money. However, a bet this small gives the opponent 11:1 odds, since they must call 10 chips to win a pot of 110. It almost isn't worth the loose player's time to make a bet so small, since they win almost no money. Remember, the goal is to get as many chips as possible.
On the other hand, a bet of 100 chips would also be unwise. Yes, if the opponent calls, the loose player has succeeded in making the pot large. However, the chances that the other player matches your raise are slim. 2:1 odds definitely aren't horrible, but a bet that large definitely shows a lot of confidence, even for someone who likes to throw chips around. The opponent doesn't even need to know what pot odds are to tell that they're against something good. Additionally, if the opposition doesn't have a hand, they will surely fold. Even if they have a decent hand, they probably fold to a bet that large, meaning they won't be able to give away money on the turn or river, either. Usually, when you the other person calls, they have a great hand themselves, which puts the loose player at serious risk for losing a lot of chips. There is the off chance that an opponent calls simply believing that they're up against a bluff (which is awesome), but it's a far less likely scenario.
To conclude, a proper size bet would probably be somewhere within the 30-50 chip range. While the other player probably still folds if they have absolutely nothing, it largely raises the odds that a player with any pair, draw, or even an ace or king high will call. This bet size gives pretty good odds to the opponent, and will often get a call by a worse hand, which is the desired outcome. It also gives the loose player the betting lead, effectively giving them control of the hand. If the turn and river are cards that don't threaten the loose player's hand, then similar betting should be done to continue extracting value. If the bet on the flop ended up being 40 chips, and the opponent called, the pot would then be 180. The idea on the next few two bets is to increase the bet size while giving similar odds. For instance, a bet on the turn could be around 60-80 chips, and a river bet could be somewhere around 100-120 chips. This way the bets increase steadily and hopefully will result in calls from weaker hands.
However, here are a few potential scenarios in which a different betting strategy could be successful. If a player shows poor body language that would suggest they do not like their hand, they will probably fold to an average bet. This may lead to betting smaller. If the opponent is someone who will play any cards and just loves to gamble, then this person should be taken advantage of with larger bets. Remember, the objective is to figure out where the imaginary line in the other person's head lies between calling and folding, and bet just under that line.
Also, if the board suggests that an opponent might be drawing to a hand (for example, if the board contains two or three of a suit and it seems likely that one more of that suit could give the other player a flush), then it might actually be a good idea to make a very large bet and not give the adversary good odds to call, so they never have a chance of making their flush. Lastly, if the loose player has been betting a particular amount consistently, it would do them well to continue the pattern in order to disguise the hand as just another average hand they raise with. Remember, it's always important to be aware of how an opponent perceives you.
Sometimes, knowing what the rest of the table thinks of your style and skill level can definitely play to your advantage. Since we just revisited the loose player, let's change it up and talk about the tight player. Now, we said that a good line to take would be check and hopefully bait the other player to fall victim to the rope-a-dope strategy, basically inducing big bets and growing the pot without taking any aggressive action. However, that's if the tight player is holding a great hand. What if the hand is worthless? If everyone sees this person as only betting with a strong hand, then they have no reason to believe a bet here would be any different. A passive player could easily scare off the competition with a good size bet. They can then take the blinds, antes, and any pre-flop raises without having to hit any cards.
It sounds great, doesn't it? However, there are a few basic rules about doing this. First off, this strategy can't be employed very often. The only reason this works is because the table views the better as tight, and always having a hand when betting. Bet too often, and it becomes impossible to have a hand every time. Gradually, everyone else will become aware of this and the strategy will no longer become valid. Secondly, the bet sizing typically will have to be large. There's no use in trying to get other players to call a bluff, it goes against the entire purpose of bluffing. Instead of a raise of 30-50 into a pot of 100, a bet closer to 100 would be more appropriate. Finally, if the first bet is called, a crucial decision must be made on the turn. There are two options. The former is simply giving up on the hand, checking first and folding if the opponent bets. The latter is continuing the bluff. To do this, one should be confident in their abilities to get a fold, and show lots of strength by betting far more than the previous bet. This is referred to as a multi-street bluff, since a bluff is made multiple different times within a hand. The important thing here though, is to avoid reaching a showdown at all costs. If you have to show your hand after a river bet being called, or you and the opponent checking the river, than two things happen. One, you lose a good amount of chips. Two, everyone else now knows that you are capable of bluffing, making it harder for the technique to work in the future.
So there are several different ways to win hands. You can bet with the best hand, call the bets of others with the best hand, and bluff everyone else out of the hand. However, no matter which way you try to win, you can almost never be 100% sure that you will end up winning. Why? Because of a thing called nuts.
Imagine you've bet the flop, turn, and river in increasing increments, thinking the whole way that the opponent is just easy money. Then they turn it over- the one hand that could beat yours, the nuts. You've been rope-a-doped. How about this: you try playing rope-a-dope and check, then call when the other player raises on all three post-flop opportunities. Just as you start raking in the pot, you come to the agonizing conclusion that you've been taken to value-town. Or this: you've made a convincing multi-street bluff, but for some reason your opponent won't buy it. Why would they? They can't lose!
Eventually, once you calm down from the bad-beat, you'll wonder, "how could I have realized that I was up against that hand?" Well, sometimes it's practically impossible to figure it out if the opponent played well enough, but there are some factors that can help you what kind of a hand you're up against.
A main one is stack size. Naturally, the chip leader will play more hands than a short stack. So, if you're playing a short stack, watch out because the odds are far higher that they have a strong hand. Also, the player's chip stack compared to the blinds in addition to the other players is important. Sure, a stack of 5,000 chips might seem like a lot, but if the blinds are 250/500, then that player only has 10 big blinds, which means they have to be comfortable risking everything if they want to play a hand.
Position is a huge deal as well, for both you and your opponents. If you play a hand from early position, meaning you are one of the first players to act, it shows that you are confident because you are okay with playing even knowing than many other players after you may also call or raise. It also means that post-flop you will be acting first, giving the other player(s) the advantage of knowing what you are doing before they have to make a decision. Players from later position, on the other hand, play more hands because they already know how many people will be in the hand and that they will act later post-flop, meaning they can afford to play more hands.
I know it's a big shocker, but the cards also matter! Just comparing the actions of the other members of a hand to the board can give a pretty good idea of what they have. For instance, if someone bets the flop and turn of a king-high board with no possible straights or flushes, then checks when an ace comes on the river, you could be pretty confident they have a king. They knew their hand was strong with the top pair, so they bet. However, when a card came up that could beat them, they checked to see if anyone else would bet, likely holding an ace. The reason why they are far more likely to have a king than two pair or three of a kind is because if they were holding one of those hands, the ace wouldn't scare them because their hand is stronger than a pair of aces. They would probably have continued betting since they can't be beat by a straight or flush.
As I've said multiple times already, image is everything. A poker player has a strong advantage if they can figure out what kinds of hands their opponents will play, and how they like to play those hands in different situations. Do they usually check or raise with a strong hand? What size do they usually bet? Is it any different when they bluff? Having answers to these questions can really aid a player in deducing the opponent's cards.
Lastly, although they aren't as common as some would like to make them out to be, spotting any tells a player has can easily point towards the nature of one's hand. They won't be obvious to find (no one starts fist-bumping the air when they see good cards come), but finding any subtle, sometimes subconscious actions, can make a player dangerous. Some players might raise their eyebrows, quickly check their cards, or gaze at their chips whenever a community card comes that helps them. Some players will practically throw their chips into the pot when bluffing. Others will take a sip of their drink or start breathing heavily after trying to deceive an opponent. Again, it's very difficult to spot these (and some players don't have strong tells), but picking up on something could become huge when deciding whether to call or fold in a big hand.
Although, beware when picking up on tells that on occasion very strong players might try to act like they are giving away a tell when in reality they are just trying to influence your beliefs on what hand they actually have. For example, in a game with friends I was playing heads up for the win and I was raised all in. After a minute of considering whether or not I should call, my opponent whispered to the guy who was dealing that he wished he could take the bet back. In my mind, this made me feel as if I was against a bluff, leading me to call all-in. My friend then turned over a straight and I took second.
So far I've shown many different strategies and ideas surrounding the game of Texas Hold'em that prove that there is a large amount of skill involved in becoming a strong force at the tables. There's only one problem here. When you play Hold'em, you play against other people. That means many of them will be familiar with these concepts themselves, and will be ready to employ all of these tactics against you, taking the mental aspect of the game to a whole new level. In the end, most hands end up becoming a mental and psychological battle between its participants, with the luck factor appearing in the uncertainty of upcoming cards which can make or break hands and force everyone to modify their strategies.
Poker is a lot of things, but one thing it isn't is a game based on luck. Sure, sometimes people get streaks of strong hands, but streaks don't last forever, and the game is more about how well you can your cards than what the cards actually are. That's something not a lot of outsiders to the game realize.
**I realize this is a ridiculously long post, nearing 4,000 words. However, I wouldn't have made it this long if I felt like there were parts not worth reading. I've been working on this for multiple weeks, and I hope you enjoy.
-Connor
In society, Texas Hold 'em generally gets a bad rap. This is probably from a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it is often played in a casino. People have the notion that many participants in games like poker are problem gamblers, or that playing poker leads to addiction, and because of that, many dislike the game. However, there is a lot about hold 'em that people don't even bother to learn. In reality, it's an extremely fun and mentally challenging game that is easy to learn but difficult to master.
The granddaddy of all misconceptions about the game is that Texas Hold'em is straight gambling, and dependent solely, or at least mostly on luck in order to win. While admittedly luck is important and an inherent part of the game, Hold 'em is definitely not a game of chance. There are multiple different strategies, all of which work for differently people and can be used effectively in different situations. This makes poker different from any other game in a casino. It isn't a game where you just hope you get lucky and win such as craps, roulette, or slots. Additionally, it isn't like blackjack where there is essentially a "correct" way to play the game. While different people employ different blackjack strategies, there is an optimal way to play the game. Poker just isn't like that.
The thing that sets poker apart from other casino games is the fact that in poker the casinos do not care who wins. The casino takes rake from the players, but besides that it, is a fair game. In all other games, over the long haul casinos have an advantage over the players, whereas in poker you play against other people, and over a large sample of hands the better player will come out on top.
There are some poker players that make millions of dollars and get to travel the world playing in poker tournaments and cash games. Some make their money playing online on websites such as Pokerstars. The point is, for these people, playing poker is their job. They are professionals. In a game of chance, there would be no professionals because no one could be any better than anyone else. There is no person who can claim to one of the best in the world at roulette because of the nature of the game. The term "crapshoot", referring to an unpredictable event, gets its name from craps, because there is no right way to play the game other than to not play at all. Poker is a game where the best players consistently perform better than the average player. You can only get lucky so many times at a roulette wheel before reality checks back in.
To become a strong Hold 'em player, you have to practice, and try different strategies, and really think about the game. You have to decide what works and what doesn't against different kinds of people and why, and use that information against future opponents. In the end, the secret of success is picking the right hands to play and make strong EV, or expected value decisions. Basically, do what you believe will make you more money in the long run, and then let luck take over. Sure, everyone gets unlucky once in a while, but if you can consistently put yourself in positions where you are more likely to win than lose, eventually the chips will come your way. If you look at it this way, playing poker is far more like investing in stocks than gambling. It's all about making smart choices by minimizing risk while maximizing gains.
There's a lot of ways to figure out what the right decision is, and the right decision might be different for different people, which is what gives the game its tremendous depth and draws many to the game.
Here is a very basic example of what I mean. For this example, let's look at two independent scenarios. In both situations a player is holding an extremely strong hand after the flop and is first to act against one opponent. However, one player is very tight and does not play many hands, whereas the other is a member of almost every pot. Either of these playing strategies can work, as long as the players can each play their technique well.
While other information may influence the player's decision, the tight player should probably check. Since their opponent knows they don't like playing many hands, they are likely to feel a decent size bet will make the tight player fold. By tricking the opponent, the pot becomes greater without the tight player looking aggressive. This strategy is sometimes referred to as the "rope a dope." However, if the tight player raises, the opponent will know they are up against a strong hand, and is likely to fold. These means the tight player loses out on the chips they could have gained from letting their opponent bet.
On the other hand, the loose player's best move would probably be to continue betting. This person seems like the type to take more chances, and naturally someone who plays more will have a strong hand less often. By betting, and playing the hand similarly to many other hands, the opponent may assume the other person is bluffing, and just trying to scare them out of the pot, leading them to call. The sizing of the bet would also play an important role here, as a bet too large might not give the other person the right odds to call. Alternatively, a bet too small means the player won't get as much money from the other person as they could. Depending on just how aggressive this person plays, checking might actually send off the warning flags of the opponent. If they almost never check, and now they are, the opponent could easily feel something must be up.
This is about as simple as example hands go, and entirely abstract since I introduced no actual cards or chips to the scenario, but even so it introduced several important concepts in the game. The biggest one is that disguising your hand is extremely important.
If you always bet the same amount when you have a strong hand, and always check when you have a weak one, it won't take very long for a player with any kind of experience to pick up on your betting patterns. Being predictable is the worst thing a poker player can be. When a player's opponents can read them like a book, they can easily figure out when to fold, meaning the predictable player gets less value out of their strong hands. Additionally, the predictable player can be bullied out of pots, or even tricked into giving away more money than they have to. It would be next to impossible for a player like this to have any major success.
The whole idea here is that a poker player should try not to give away any more information than they have to, while quietly noting patterns in the play of their opponents, whether it be through betting or physical tells, which may be used later to strong decisions.
Two additional large concepts introduced in the sample hand are pot odds and the idea of extracting maximum value. Since oftentimes these go hand in hand (horrible pun), I'll discuss them together. Pot odds are essentially the ratio of what's in the pot to what a player must put in the pot to call a bet. For example, if a pot contains 100 chips, and a player has to decide whether to call a bet of 50 chips, you could say that they are getting 2:1 pot odds on the potential call, since 100/50=2. Yes, this does mean that math is involved. Luckily for those who despise math, this only involves division and ballpark estimates can usually suffice. Anyways, according to pot odds, for this person to make a mathematically correct call (without considering anything but the raw numbers), they should feel that they have the best hand one third of the time. This is because two out of three times they lose 50 chips by making the call, but once every three times they make 100 chips by calling, essentially meaning they break even over the long run. This goes back to the main idea of making +EV decisions. If this player believes their chances of winning are above 33%, then a call (or raise, depending on the situation) should be made. If their odds are lower than 33%, a fold would be mathematically wise.
Back to the hand. Essentially, if the loose player knows he has the best hand, his main goal should be to steal as many chips from his opponent as possible. After all, opportunities are scarce when you know your hand is best. This is where a strong poker player will combine the ideas of pot odds and maximum value to milk as much money as he can out of the hand. Let's say the pot contains 100 chips. What should this player bet? Well, like everything, it varies depending on the specific situation, but generally here's the deal. If they make a very small bet, say 10 chips, the opponent is almost guaranteed to call. That's good, because they want the other player to continue playing against them in the hand so they can make more money. However, a bet this small gives the opponent 11:1 odds, since they must call 10 chips to win a pot of 110. It almost isn't worth the loose player's time to make a bet so small, since they win almost no money. Remember, the goal is to get as many chips as possible.
On the other hand, a bet of 100 chips would also be unwise. Yes, if the opponent calls, the loose player has succeeded in making the pot large. However, the chances that the other player matches your raise are slim. 2:1 odds definitely aren't horrible, but a bet that large definitely shows a lot of confidence, even for someone who likes to throw chips around. The opponent doesn't even need to know what pot odds are to tell that they're against something good. Additionally, if the opposition doesn't have a hand, they will surely fold. Even if they have a decent hand, they probably fold to a bet that large, meaning they won't be able to give away money on the turn or river, either. Usually, when you the other person calls, they have a great hand themselves, which puts the loose player at serious risk for losing a lot of chips. There is the off chance that an opponent calls simply believing that they're up against a bluff (which is awesome), but it's a far less likely scenario.
To conclude, a proper size bet would probably be somewhere within the 30-50 chip range. While the other player probably still folds if they have absolutely nothing, it largely raises the odds that a player with any pair, draw, or even an ace or king high will call. This bet size gives pretty good odds to the opponent, and will often get a call by a worse hand, which is the desired outcome. It also gives the loose player the betting lead, effectively giving them control of the hand. If the turn and river are cards that don't threaten the loose player's hand, then similar betting should be done to continue extracting value. If the bet on the flop ended up being 40 chips, and the opponent called, the pot would then be 180. The idea on the next few two bets is to increase the bet size while giving similar odds. For instance, a bet on the turn could be around 60-80 chips, and a river bet could be somewhere around 100-120 chips. This way the bets increase steadily and hopefully will result in calls from weaker hands.
However, here are a few potential scenarios in which a different betting strategy could be successful. If a player shows poor body language that would suggest they do not like their hand, they will probably fold to an average bet. This may lead to betting smaller. If the opponent is someone who will play any cards and just loves to gamble, then this person should be taken advantage of with larger bets. Remember, the objective is to figure out where the imaginary line in the other person's head lies between calling and folding, and bet just under that line.
Also, if the board suggests that an opponent might be drawing to a hand (for example, if the board contains two or three of a suit and it seems likely that one more of that suit could give the other player a flush), then it might actually be a good idea to make a very large bet and not give the adversary good odds to call, so they never have a chance of making their flush. Lastly, if the loose player has been betting a particular amount consistently, it would do them well to continue the pattern in order to disguise the hand as just another average hand they raise with. Remember, it's always important to be aware of how an opponent perceives you.
Sometimes, knowing what the rest of the table thinks of your style and skill level can definitely play to your advantage. Since we just revisited the loose player, let's change it up and talk about the tight player. Now, we said that a good line to take would be check and hopefully bait the other player to fall victim to the rope-a-dope strategy, basically inducing big bets and growing the pot without taking any aggressive action. However, that's if the tight player is holding a great hand. What if the hand is worthless? If everyone sees this person as only betting with a strong hand, then they have no reason to believe a bet here would be any different. A passive player could easily scare off the competition with a good size bet. They can then take the blinds, antes, and any pre-flop raises without having to hit any cards.
It sounds great, doesn't it? However, there are a few basic rules about doing this. First off, this strategy can't be employed very often. The only reason this works is because the table views the better as tight, and always having a hand when betting. Bet too often, and it becomes impossible to have a hand every time. Gradually, everyone else will become aware of this and the strategy will no longer become valid. Secondly, the bet sizing typically will have to be large. There's no use in trying to get other players to call a bluff, it goes against the entire purpose of bluffing. Instead of a raise of 30-50 into a pot of 100, a bet closer to 100 would be more appropriate. Finally, if the first bet is called, a crucial decision must be made on the turn. There are two options. The former is simply giving up on the hand, checking first and folding if the opponent bets. The latter is continuing the bluff. To do this, one should be confident in their abilities to get a fold, and show lots of strength by betting far more than the previous bet. This is referred to as a multi-street bluff, since a bluff is made multiple different times within a hand. The important thing here though, is to avoid reaching a showdown at all costs. If you have to show your hand after a river bet being called, or you and the opponent checking the river, than two things happen. One, you lose a good amount of chips. Two, everyone else now knows that you are capable of bluffing, making it harder for the technique to work in the future.
So there are several different ways to win hands. You can bet with the best hand, call the bets of others with the best hand, and bluff everyone else out of the hand. However, no matter which way you try to win, you can almost never be 100% sure that you will end up winning. Why? Because of a thing called nuts.
Imagine you've bet the flop, turn, and river in increasing increments, thinking the whole way that the opponent is just easy money. Then they turn it over- the one hand that could beat yours, the nuts. You've been rope-a-doped. How about this: you try playing rope-a-dope and check, then call when the other player raises on all three post-flop opportunities. Just as you start raking in the pot, you come to the agonizing conclusion that you've been taken to value-town. Or this: you've made a convincing multi-street bluff, but for some reason your opponent won't buy it. Why would they? They can't lose!
Eventually, once you calm down from the bad-beat, you'll wonder, "how could I have realized that I was up against that hand?" Well, sometimes it's practically impossible to figure it out if the opponent played well enough, but there are some factors that can help you what kind of a hand you're up against.
A main one is stack size. Naturally, the chip leader will play more hands than a short stack. So, if you're playing a short stack, watch out because the odds are far higher that they have a strong hand. Also, the player's chip stack compared to the blinds in addition to the other players is important. Sure, a stack of 5,000 chips might seem like a lot, but if the blinds are 250/500, then that player only has 10 big blinds, which means they have to be comfortable risking everything if they want to play a hand.
Position is a huge deal as well, for both you and your opponents. If you play a hand from early position, meaning you are one of the first players to act, it shows that you are confident because you are okay with playing even knowing than many other players after you may also call or raise. It also means that post-flop you will be acting first, giving the other player(s) the advantage of knowing what you are doing before they have to make a decision. Players from later position, on the other hand, play more hands because they already know how many people will be in the hand and that they will act later post-flop, meaning they can afford to play more hands.
I know it's a big shocker, but the cards also matter! Just comparing the actions of the other members of a hand to the board can give a pretty good idea of what they have. For instance, if someone bets the flop and turn of a king-high board with no possible straights or flushes, then checks when an ace comes on the river, you could be pretty confident they have a king. They knew their hand was strong with the top pair, so they bet. However, when a card came up that could beat them, they checked to see if anyone else would bet, likely holding an ace. The reason why they are far more likely to have a king than two pair or three of a kind is because if they were holding one of those hands, the ace wouldn't scare them because their hand is stronger than a pair of aces. They would probably have continued betting since they can't be beat by a straight or flush.
As I've said multiple times already, image is everything. A poker player has a strong advantage if they can figure out what kinds of hands their opponents will play, and how they like to play those hands in different situations. Do they usually check or raise with a strong hand? What size do they usually bet? Is it any different when they bluff? Having answers to these questions can really aid a player in deducing the opponent's cards.
Lastly, although they aren't as common as some would like to make them out to be, spotting any tells a player has can easily point towards the nature of one's hand. They won't be obvious to find (no one starts fist-bumping the air when they see good cards come), but finding any subtle, sometimes subconscious actions, can make a player dangerous. Some players might raise their eyebrows, quickly check their cards, or gaze at their chips whenever a community card comes that helps them. Some players will practically throw their chips into the pot when bluffing. Others will take a sip of their drink or start breathing heavily after trying to deceive an opponent. Again, it's very difficult to spot these (and some players don't have strong tells), but picking up on something could become huge when deciding whether to call or fold in a big hand.
Although, beware when picking up on tells that on occasion very strong players might try to act like they are giving away a tell when in reality they are just trying to influence your beliefs on what hand they actually have. For example, in a game with friends I was playing heads up for the win and I was raised all in. After a minute of considering whether or not I should call, my opponent whispered to the guy who was dealing that he wished he could take the bet back. In my mind, this made me feel as if I was against a bluff, leading me to call all-in. My friend then turned over a straight and I took second.
So far I've shown many different strategies and ideas surrounding the game of Texas Hold'em that prove that there is a large amount of skill involved in becoming a strong force at the tables. There's only one problem here. When you play Hold'em, you play against other people. That means many of them will be familiar with these concepts themselves, and will be ready to employ all of these tactics against you, taking the mental aspect of the game to a whole new level. In the end, most hands end up becoming a mental and psychological battle between its participants, with the luck factor appearing in the uncertainty of upcoming cards which can make or break hands and force everyone to modify their strategies.
Poker is a lot of things, but one thing it isn't is a game based on luck. Sure, sometimes people get streaks of strong hands, but streaks don't last forever, and the game is more about how well you can your cards than what the cards actually are. That's something not a lot of outsiders to the game realize.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
MLS Anonymous Player Poll Reactions
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of Major League Soccer, ESPN gave an anonymous poll to 61 current players in the league asking them various questions about the structure and state of the league. Since this is a great chance to understand the players' on many important issues in the game, I thought I'd review some of the bigger questions and analyze what the answers of the players have to say about the league as it reaches its big anniversary. To read the full ESPN article, click here: http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/19/blog/post/2491873/mls-anonymous-player-poll-on-diving-relegation-promotion. Here are six questions asked in the poll, and what the results tell us about the league.
#1- Promotion/Relegation: The first question I'd like to analyze is the first question of the poll, which asks players if they would prefer a promotion and relegation system like those present in many other leagues around the world. 64% responded yes, 34% said no, and 2% had no strong opinion. A promotion and relegation system is one of the many changes I said I'd like to see take place in the MLS in my MLS Problems post back from last July: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html. It forces every team to try hard throughout the season even if they have no chance at finishing high in the table and making the playoffs, essentially serving as a preventer of tanking. It makes every game worth playing and worth watching, adding drama to the league as the season winds down. I assume the way this would work with the conference system is that the bottom one or two teams from each conference would be relegated. However, like some of the people who responded negatively said, there simply isn't enough quality in lower level teams from leagues like the NASL to really be able to compete in the MLS. Additionally, the MLS would have to finalize all of its expansion to be able to have a true promotion/relegation system. Overall, I'm happy nearly two-thirds of players are in favor of the competition introduced should a system be implemented.
#2- Salary Issues: The players were asked if they believed they could make more money in a different job. Apparently, many players play for the love of the game, since surprisingly this question's results were practically split down the middle, at 46% yes, 49% no, and 5% maybe. While some of you might be quick to criticize the athletes of being ungrateful, let's look at the numbers before making judgments. Player salary has long been a problem in the MLS, as the minimum salary is only $36,500, which is far below the median household income in the US, which is around $50,000. While the average player salary is $226,454, that number is significantly boosted by the league's best players, including five which make at least $6 million per year. The median salary in the league is about $92,0000, meaning half the league's players have a salary less than that.
The average player salary pales in comparison to the other major North American sports, with the NBA leading both North America and the world with an average player salary of $4.5 million, nearly 20 times more than the MLS average. The MLB's $3.9 million, NHL's $2.4 million, and NFL's $2.0 million all make the MLS look like a semi-professional league, rather than the quickly growing league it is. However, the MLS has a revenue of roughly 10 times smaller than the lowest "Big 4" league, the NHL, meaning proportionally the player salary is still reasonable. However, these players work just as hard as athletes in other leagues, and deserve to be paid more than they do. This will probably come as the league becomes stronger as a whole, but for now it is a problem which gained more votes than any other when the players were asked to name the league's biggest issue. 72% of those surveyed said they would change teams for money alone.
#3- Concussions: 41% of players responded that they would play in a big match knowing they had a concussion. Concussion are a huge issue in professional sports, and really all sports for that matter. As I wrote in April, http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/concussions-down-in-nfl-but-work-still.html, players are becoming more and more aware of the dangers of concussions, which is a very positive thing. However, still much work still needs to be done to educate all athletes of the short and long-term effects of concussions on the brain. I have no doubt that if this question were posed 10 years ago, a far higher percentage of athletes would say they would knowingly play concussed. I think the 41% number is a good one, but one that reverberates the idea that concussion education and awareness must be a prime point of emphasis for the sports world in the future.
#4- Elite League?: Another interesting question posed by the poll asked players if they believed the MLS could emerge as one of the world's best leagues within 10 years. Interestingly, 54% responded yes, showing a mix of optimism and (unfortunately), realism among players. I'm not really sure what I expected the results of this question to be, but I find it intriguing that the outcome was so even. It's hard to define "one of the world's best." Does that mean a top 5 league? 10? Right now I feel like the MLS is a borderline top 10 league in the world, but one that has showed tremendous growth and potential in its short lifespan. However, it is far from competing with the best leagues the sport has to offer. There are a group of top leagues, which I would say includes the EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, Liga BBVA, Ligue 1, and Primeira Liga which are on a different playing field when compared to the rest of the world. To break into that group will take time, money, and league structure changes. Currently, the only players coming to the MLS from Europe seem to be former great players nearing the end of their careers, such as Thierry Henry, David Beckham, and Kaka. These players come primarily to be ambassadors of the game in the US. However, for the MLS to compete internationally, they have to be able to keep the best North American players, as well as draw in top prospects from other continents. The main item needed to do that is money, which I have already shown that the US is lacking in, at least comparably. The MLS does not have a single name on Forbes' list of the world's 20 most valuable soccer clubs, and that will have to change in order to attract talent.
#5- Playoffs: One of the MLS' unique attributes is that unlike other soccer leagues around the world, it has adopted a playoff system similar to those present in the other "Big 4" sports. This has been the subject of much debate and criticism, and while I advocated the end of this system, and have called it my least favorite playoffs of the major team sports here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/10/ranking-playoff-formats-of-big-5-sports.html, the MLS players seem to disagree with me, as shown by 66% of them approving of the system, while only 29% are opposed. After more thought, I understand that the system must bring more excitement to the players, as while it may be clear just a couple months into the season who the top couple teams are, ten clubs get a chance at winning the title through the playoffs. While other leagues have a similar kind of system through tournaments such as England's FA Cup, the players clearly would like to see the playoffs continue. Despite my personal feelings, I do concede that playoffs are great for advertising and drawing in new fans to the game, which ultimately can play a crucial part in the growth in popularity of the league.
#6- Match Fixing: When I scrolled down to this question, I immediately became nervous. If after I laid out my position on match fixing so strongly in "Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees!" (http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html), the poll came back with any result other than 100% of players not being involved in rigging, I would have been extremely infuriated and ultimately disappointed in the integrity of the game. Luckily, no one responded that they had ever been approached by someone looking to fix a game. While I'm not sure even in the anonymous poll that anyone would admit to having been approached, it is comforting because I believe in the accuracy in all of the other questions, so I feel there is a strong chance this one is accurate as well.
Well, those are around half of the questions posed in the actual survey, so you can read the rest if you wish on ESPN here: http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/19/blog/post/2491873/mls-anonymous-player-poll-on-diving-relegation-promotion. How do you feel about the state of the MLS as it reaches its 20th birthday? Would you be interested in more reaction-type articles like this, where I give my opinions on surveys and studies done in the sports world? As always, comments are both encouraged and appreciated.
Thanks for reading,
Connor
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Gripes with Sports Fans: The Transitive Property of Sports
In math, there is something called the transitive property. Essentially, it means that if a and b have a relationship, and b and c share that relationship, than so will a and c. It sounds complicated, but it's really not. For example, if 3 is greater than 2, and 2 is greater than 1, than by the transitive property, 3 must be greater than 1. Or, if 1/2 equals .5, and .5 equals 50%, than 1/2 equals 50%. Some people think this transfers over to sports. However, it doesn't, and not much makes me angrier than hearing someone try to pass it off as fact.
If you're a sports fan that likes talking and debating about sports with other people, chances are you've heard this before: "My team beat this team, and that team beat your team, so my team's better than yours." Transitive property in full effect. There are two reasons why I believe some people do this. The first would be that the person is narrow-minded or simply negligent. I mean, who could really believe in such a flimsy argument? Right? Unfortunately, those people do exist. The second, and more common reason, which I hate even more, is that people use the transitive property simply to be annoying. That's it. People just want to needle by given an undeniable fact that their team did indeed beat someone who beat your team, and then try to agitate you by assigning some meaning to it. They're fully aware that it makes little actual sense, but who cares? It's an easy way to needle, and needling can be really fun for the needler.
Regardless of why the transitive property is used, I've made it my mission to debunk the myth, if you can even call it that, and crush the notion that the transitive property is an appropriate argument as thoroughly as possible, because there is so much more to determining how good teams are than simply how they played against another team.
Now, if you aren't a sports person, than you might be thinking something like this: "I'm not really sure what Connor's talking about here. It makes sense that Team A is better than Team C if Team A beat Team B which beat Team C. Right?" Well, the main problem with this argument is that as long as the two teams being compared each have wins and losses (obviously the idea can't work with winless and undefeated teams), it's basically possible to say that anybody is better than anybody through use of the transitive property.
Don't believe me? Let me introduce you to the NFL Circle of Parity, or what I like to call the Any Given Sunday Circle. Basically, the idea is that over the course of the NFL season, enough games are played so that a circle can be made of a team who beat a team who beat a team, etc. that includes every team in the league. It's proof that if you try hard enough, any team can be viewed as being better than any other team through use of the transitive property, because in the NFL, anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. If you want a visual representation of this, here's a link to last season's circle: http://i.imgur.com/GRC6lT1.png. Keep in mind when you're looking at the graphic that what is shown is not necessarily the quickest way to connect every team in the league, but simply a way that plays allows for the best and worst teams to fit in. There were only two teams that lost to the Buccaneers, so it kind of forces teams to be in certain positions. Most of the time, that route connecting two teams is very short. For instance, while the circle shows the Dolphins beating the Patriots, the Patriots also beat the Dolphins, so instead of 31 links between the Patriots beating the Dolphins, only one is really necessary. If you're interested, a similar circle has been made for every season since 2010, and I'd imagine one can be made for every season in the 16-game era besides 2007, where the Patriots went 16-0, and 2008, where the Lions went 0-16.
Why is this possible? Just think about it. Take an 8-8 team. If you want to say they're better than another team, it's pretty simple. First off, they've beaten eight teams. Technically it could be fewer if they won two against a division opponent, but let's call it eight. If the team you want them to be better than isn't one of those eight, than you can move onto any team those eight have beaten. This should get to the desired team the vast majority of the time, because if these teams have an average 8-8 record, than it means they've beat a combined 64 teams. That means on average every team should be beaten twice on average by the eight in question, and only 23 other teams remain, since it's a 32-team league and your team and the eight they beat don't count. If you still haven't gotten there, than go to the teams these 64 have beaten. That should be about 512 wins, and the numbers just keep getting higher. I don't even think it's possible to not be able to use the transitive property if the teams in question aren't undefeated or winless. It gets slightly more difficult if a team has fewer wins, but still very much possible.
It's not just football either. I would say this is easily possible with every major team sport. For college sports fans, there is a website appropriately called http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/, where you can compare any two college football, men's basketball, or women's basketball teams and see the shortest path connecting the two via the transitive property. Then for extra fun you can "flip it", and show how the inferior team is actually better using its own chain of matchups. Using the website, ere's proof that arguably the worst FBS football team, 1-11 Georgia State, is actually better than the National Champions, Ohio State: http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/default.asp?sport=CFB&winner=Georgia+St&loser=Ohio+St&year=2014&method=2#.VX-4ZFVViko.
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the transitive property works for just about anyone, and that the larger the season and more wins a team has, the easier it is to use the transitive property. But why exactly do some teams beat strong opponents and lose to weak ones? There's tons of reasons.
Remember the card game war? If you don't, here's the basic premise. A standard deck of cards is divided evenly amongst the game's players. Then each player flips over the top card in their deck, and the player who flips over the highest card takes everyone's cards and places them at the bottom of their deck. This keeps happening until someone gains all 52 cards. It's that simple. In this game, a king will always beat a queen, and a nine always trumps a four. We can think of sports teams like cards in the deck. In the NBA, we could call the Warriors an ace, the highest card, and the Lakers a three. However, the difference is that the ace doesn't always beat the three. Sure, the ace is a heavy favorite, and more likely to win against the three than a jack, for instance, but it isn't a predetermined outcome.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but sports teams don't perform on the same level in every game they play. Sometimes a basketball team gets really hot, and seemingly can't miss a three-pointer, while in other games they're cold as ice, and can't buy a bucket. It happens to everyone. The best shooter on the planet, Stephen Curry, had one of his worst shooting performances in game 2 of the NBA Finals recently, but then played incredible games later on in the series. One game really can't say anything about how good or bad a team is. A larger sample size is needed.
For instance, what if a team's star player is injured for a game. Surely that has a large impact on the performance of the team. If someone who is not knowledgeable about sports saw a great team without their best player, they could easily think the team is bad. Additionally, some teams simply match up well against others. A poor team whose biggest strength happens to be a great team's weakness has a much better chance of pulling an upset than if they didn't have any discernible advantage.
Home field advantage often plays a large role in who wins games as well. The home court, fans, and possibly even referee bias can provide a significant advantage, making home teams win 58% of NFL games since 1990, for example. Some teams, such as the Seattle Seahawks, are almost unbeatable on their own turf. For the NFL, Vegas typically gives three spread points to whoever is home, meaning that if a team would be a three-point favorite in a matchup at a neutral site, the game is a virtual coin flip if they're on the road.
Speaking of on the road, sometimes in the NBA and NHL, teams will play games on back-to-back days, and then three games in four days or four in five. By the end of these stretches, fatigue is significant and visible on the court.
Sometimes, even luck plays a role in who wins a game. Referees will sometimes unknowingly make an incorrect call, and sometimes these end up being large, game-changing events. In soccer, penalty kicks are largely luck as well. Sure, some players are more accurate and can drill the ball into a corner better than others, but the goalie diving the right direction? It's just a guess.
The big idea I'm trying to get across is that the winner of a game doesn't necessarily have to be the best team. It is, however, the team that performed the best on that given day. When the Giants upset the 18-0 Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, it wasn't because they were the better team. The Patriots, overall, were far superior to any NFL team that year. Record-wise, there were five teams in the NFC alone better than the Giants. It's because it all came together at the right time, and they had a magical performance when it mattered most.
There's a reason the NBA, MLB, and NHL play seven-game playoff series. It's because they want the best teams to advance, and to prove they are the best teams. Anyone can win one game, but it takes a lot more to take down four of seven. Teams that have one or two-game flukes aren't rewarded by advancing. Instead, they have an advantage, but still have to prove that over the course of a long series, home and away, they can overcome pressure and fatigue to rise as the rightful victor.
So stop utilizing the transitive property to explain how your team is really better than your buddy's. It's just plain annoying, and about as weak an argument as there is. Even if your team beats your friend's it doesn't necessarily make them better, especially if we're talking about baseball, where even the worst teams still win about one game out of every three. If you bring up how your team beat team X by 24 and your friend's team only beat them by 10, that's even worse. A win is a win. But just one doesn't make you better than anybody else.
Regardless of why the transitive property is used, I've made it my mission to debunk the myth, if you can even call it that, and crush the notion that the transitive property is an appropriate argument as thoroughly as possible, because there is so much more to determining how good teams are than simply how they played against another team.
Now, if you aren't a sports person, than you might be thinking something like this: "I'm not really sure what Connor's talking about here. It makes sense that Team A is better than Team C if Team A beat Team B which beat Team C. Right?" Well, the main problem with this argument is that as long as the two teams being compared each have wins and losses (obviously the idea can't work with winless and undefeated teams), it's basically possible to say that anybody is better than anybody through use of the transitive property.
Don't believe me? Let me introduce you to the NFL Circle of Parity, or what I like to call the Any Given Sunday Circle. Basically, the idea is that over the course of the NFL season, enough games are played so that a circle can be made of a team who beat a team who beat a team, etc. that includes every team in the league. It's proof that if you try hard enough, any team can be viewed as being better than any other team through use of the transitive property, because in the NFL, anyone can beat anyone on any given sunday. If you want a visual representation of this, here's a link to last season's circle: http://i.imgur.com/GRC6lT1.png. Keep in mind when you're looking at the graphic that what is shown is not necessarily the quickest way to connect every team in the league, but simply a way that plays allows for the best and worst teams to fit in. There were only two teams that lost to the Buccaneers, so it kind of forces teams to be in certain positions. Most of the time, that route connecting two teams is very short. For instance, while the circle shows the Dolphins beating the Patriots, the Patriots also beat the Dolphins, so instead of 31 links between the Patriots beating the Dolphins, only one is really necessary. If you're interested, a similar circle has been made for every season since 2010, and I'd imagine one can be made for every season in the 16-game era besides 2007, where the Patriots went 16-0, and 2008, where the Lions went 0-16.
Why is this possible? Just think about it. Take an 8-8 team. If you want to say they're better than another team, it's pretty simple. First off, they've beaten eight teams. Technically it could be fewer if they won two against a division opponent, but let's call it eight. If the team you want them to be better than isn't one of those eight, than you can move onto any team those eight have beaten. This should get to the desired team the vast majority of the time, because if these teams have an average 8-8 record, than it means they've beat a combined 64 teams. That means on average every team should be beaten twice on average by the eight in question, and only 23 other teams remain, since it's a 32-team league and your team and the eight they beat don't count. If you still haven't gotten there, than go to the teams these 64 have beaten. That should be about 512 wins, and the numbers just keep getting higher. I don't even think it's possible to not be able to use the transitive property if the teams in question aren't undefeated or winless. It gets slightly more difficult if a team has fewer wins, but still very much possible.
It's not just football either. I would say this is easily possible with every major team sport. For college sports fans, there is a website appropriately called http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/, where you can compare any two college football, men's basketball, or women's basketball teams and see the shortest path connecting the two via the transitive property. Then for extra fun you can "flip it", and show how the inferior team is actually better using its own chain of matchups. Using the website, ere's proof that arguably the worst FBS football team, 1-11 Georgia State, is actually better than the National Champions, Ohio State: http://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/default.asp?sport=CFB&winner=Georgia+St&loser=Ohio+St&year=2014&method=2#.VX-4ZFVViko.
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the transitive property works for just about anyone, and that the larger the season and more wins a team has, the easier it is to use the transitive property. But why exactly do some teams beat strong opponents and lose to weak ones? There's tons of reasons.
Remember the card game war? If you don't, here's the basic premise. A standard deck of cards is divided evenly amongst the game's players. Then each player flips over the top card in their deck, and the player who flips over the highest card takes everyone's cards and places them at the bottom of their deck. This keeps happening until someone gains all 52 cards. It's that simple. In this game, a king will always beat a queen, and a nine always trumps a four. We can think of sports teams like cards in the deck. In the NBA, we could call the Warriors an ace, the highest card, and the Lakers a three. However, the difference is that the ace doesn't always beat the three. Sure, the ace is a heavy favorite, and more likely to win against the three than a jack, for instance, but it isn't a predetermined outcome.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but sports teams don't perform on the same level in every game they play. Sometimes a basketball team gets really hot, and seemingly can't miss a three-pointer, while in other games they're cold as ice, and can't buy a bucket. It happens to everyone. The best shooter on the planet, Stephen Curry, had one of his worst shooting performances in game 2 of the NBA Finals recently, but then played incredible games later on in the series. One game really can't say anything about how good or bad a team is. A larger sample size is needed.
For instance, what if a team's star player is injured for a game. Surely that has a large impact on the performance of the team. If someone who is not knowledgeable about sports saw a great team without their best player, they could easily think the team is bad. Additionally, some teams simply match up well against others. A poor team whose biggest strength happens to be a great team's weakness has a much better chance of pulling an upset than if they didn't have any discernible advantage.
Home field advantage often plays a large role in who wins games as well. The home court, fans, and possibly even referee bias can provide a significant advantage, making home teams win 58% of NFL games since 1990, for example. Some teams, such as the Seattle Seahawks, are almost unbeatable on their own turf. For the NFL, Vegas typically gives three spread points to whoever is home, meaning that if a team would be a three-point favorite in a matchup at a neutral site, the game is a virtual coin flip if they're on the road.
Speaking of on the road, sometimes in the NBA and NHL, teams will play games on back-to-back days, and then three games in four days or four in five. By the end of these stretches, fatigue is significant and visible on the court.
Sometimes, even luck plays a role in who wins a game. Referees will sometimes unknowingly make an incorrect call, and sometimes these end up being large, game-changing events. In soccer, penalty kicks are largely luck as well. Sure, some players are more accurate and can drill the ball into a corner better than others, but the goalie diving the right direction? It's just a guess.
The big idea I'm trying to get across is that the winner of a game doesn't necessarily have to be the best team. It is, however, the team that performed the best on that given day. When the Giants upset the 18-0 Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, it wasn't because they were the better team. The Patriots, overall, were far superior to any NFL team that year. Record-wise, there were five teams in the NFC alone better than the Giants. It's because it all came together at the right time, and they had a magical performance when it mattered most.
There's a reason the NBA, MLB, and NHL play seven-game playoff series. It's because they want the best teams to advance, and to prove they are the best teams. Anyone can win one game, but it takes a lot more to take down four of seven. Teams that have one or two-game flukes aren't rewarded by advancing. Instead, they have an advantage, but still have to prove that over the course of a long series, home and away, they can overcome pressure and fatigue to rise as the rightful victor.
So stop utilizing the transitive property to explain how your team is really better than your buddy's. It's just plain annoying, and about as weak an argument as there is. Even if your team beats your friend's it doesn't necessarily make them better, especially if we're talking about baseball, where even the worst teams still win about one game out of every three. If you bring up how your team beat team X by 24 and your friend's team only beat them by 10, that's even worse. A win is a win. But just one doesn't make you better than anybody else.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
1 Year Anniversary! My Top 10 Favorite Posts
One year ago today, I finally decided to take to the blogosphere to share my insight and beliefs on the world of sports. It was a big change in the sense that for the first time ever anyone who wanted to could look at my take on sports events and issues, but really, it's no different than what I've done throughout my life. Over the last 16 years, I've been consumed by sports and have been willing to share my thoughts with anyone and everyone at any given opportunity. The difference now is that I am able to broadcast my thoughts to a much wider audience, which I am thankful for.
It's been a fun and interesting year with many ups and downs. I received a lot of positive feedback immediately with my World Cup posts, some of which remain the most viewed posts to date. Since then, it's been up and down in terms of how much I've been writing, and how much feedback things have gotten. But in the end, I'm just happy to have this creative outlet.
The first year has definitely been about experimenting. I've done previews, predictions, reviews, recaps, columns, podcasts, and have even tried out a couple series of posts. Additionally, I've written about over a dozen different sports, and over 100 posts overall. I've learned to be flexible in the different things I can write, and have also been developing my own personal writing style.
Year two promises to be even better than year one. The goals for year two are to continue writing like I did the first year, but on a more scheduled basis (three posts in four days and then nothing for two weeks and repeat isn't a great strategy for building an audience), do more podcasts and Youtube videos, and finally to do a better job of spreading the word and getting interaction on the website and social media.
To celebrate the one-year anniversary, I've decided to create a list of ten of my favorite and best posts and share them, so newer people to the blog can have a look at the posts that I've enjoyed writing most, and I believe are the most relevant and strongest overall. In chronological order, here's the best of year one.
#1- Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees! Original post date: 6/12/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html
This was just my third ever post, and tomorrow will mark its one-year anniversary. Written in response to allegations that Brazil's opening game of the World Cup was rigged in favor of Brazil, I talk about how referees are humans which sometimes make mistakes, how I believe that there is still some integrity left in professional sports, and defend a profession which far too often faces criticism.
#2- The 6 Biggest Problems with the MLS Original post date: 7/22/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html
Sure, the MLS is a quickly growing league in terms of both player quality and popularity, but it still has its fair share of issues. Here I breakdown the changes, mostly structural, which I would like to see be made to the MLS, the majority of which would be conforming to the norms of top European soccer leagues, the most successful leagues in the world.
#3- Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go Original post date: 8/14/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-one-and-done-rule-needs-to-go.html
I've long had a problem with the "one and done" rule, because of how it weakens the college game by loading up the same few teams every year just to have all the best players immediately leave for the NBA, and how it rushes players into the league before they are mature enough. I expand upon those arguments and list other reasons for opposing the rule in this post.
#4- Women's Professional Sports Popularity Issues Original post date: 9/10/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/09/womens-professional-sports-popularity.html
The reception to this post genuinely amazed me. Excluding podcasts, this post has been read more times than any other I've ever written. It's not close either. This one almost doubles second place, which is also on this list. I talk about the reasons why women's sports aren't as popular as men's and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
#5- Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame! Original post date: 11/7/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html
Here's the second most read post the blog has seen through one year. Here I remind readers of Pete Rose's career statistics and accomplishments, as well as give an overview of the gambling scandal that caused him to be given a lifetime ban from professional baseball. I then argue why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and why sports betting shouldn't be illegal anyways.
#6- The Issue With Hockey's Scoring System Original post date: 1/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-issue-with-hockeys-scoring-system.html
When I first created the blog, this was one of my first ideas for things I wanted to write about. I explain why the hockey scoring system incentivizes teams to play for overtime rather than actually winning games. By awarding an extra point for the team who wins in overtime, more points are available to be won by simply going to OT.
#7- Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport Original post date: 2/4/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-college-basketball-is-my-favorite.html
This post is pretty self-explanatory. I explain all of the reasons why college basketball is my favorite sport, including how there's always a game on, all the cinderella stories, and of course, March Madness.
#8- Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq? Original post date: 4/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/eliminate-hack-shaq.html
After watching the series between the Rockets and Clippers, and seeing all the hate Hack-a-Shaq was getting, when in reality it is a viable strategy, I decided to do a full analysis of the technique hated by so many for slowing down the game. I even used my calculator and AP Statistics to help construct a probability chart for this one. It's probably the post which took me the longest to write, and definitely a personal favorite.
#9- NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid Original post date: 5/23/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/nba-coaches-are-going-to-get-paid.html
When news broke of Billy Donovan's five year, $30 million contract with the Thunder despite no prior NBA coaching experience, I realized something. New coaches in the league for the first time such as Brad Stevens and Steve Kerr are shaking up the league, and it could lead to a serious salary boost for the league's best coaches.
#10- Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries Original post date: 5/31/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/gripes-with-sports-fans-wishing-for.html
This is the first entry in my new series, Gripes with Sports Fans, detailing the things that annoy me the most about other fans. Here I take a strong stance against wishing for players to get injured and being happy when they do, on moral grounds that it just isn't right, or even human, to be happy seeing another person in serious pain.
Hopefully I'll be able to write more posts like these in the coming year. But until then, Happy Birthday, Toplevelsports! My baby has turned 1!
Connor
It's been a fun and interesting year with many ups and downs. I received a lot of positive feedback immediately with my World Cup posts, some of which remain the most viewed posts to date. Since then, it's been up and down in terms of how much I've been writing, and how much feedback things have gotten. But in the end, I'm just happy to have this creative outlet.
The first year has definitely been about experimenting. I've done previews, predictions, reviews, recaps, columns, podcasts, and have even tried out a couple series of posts. Additionally, I've written about over a dozen different sports, and over 100 posts overall. I've learned to be flexible in the different things I can write, and have also been developing my own personal writing style.
Year two promises to be even better than year one. The goals for year two are to continue writing like I did the first year, but on a more scheduled basis (three posts in four days and then nothing for two weeks and repeat isn't a great strategy for building an audience), do more podcasts and Youtube videos, and finally to do a better job of spreading the word and getting interaction on the website and social media.
To celebrate the one-year anniversary, I've decided to create a list of ten of my favorite and best posts and share them, so newer people to the blog can have a look at the posts that I've enjoyed writing most, and I believe are the most relevant and strongest overall. In chronological order, here's the best of year one.
#1- Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees! Original post date: 6/12/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html
This was just my third ever post, and tomorrow will mark its one-year anniversary. Written in response to allegations that Brazil's opening game of the World Cup was rigged in favor of Brazil, I talk about how referees are humans which sometimes make mistakes, how I believe that there is still some integrity left in professional sports, and defend a profession which far too often faces criticism.
#2- The 6 Biggest Problems with the MLS Original post date: 7/22/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html
Sure, the MLS is a quickly growing league in terms of both player quality and popularity, but it still has its fair share of issues. Here I breakdown the changes, mostly structural, which I would like to see be made to the MLS, the majority of which would be conforming to the norms of top European soccer leagues, the most successful leagues in the world.
#3- Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go Original post date: 8/14/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-one-and-done-rule-needs-to-go.html
I've long had a problem with the "one and done" rule, because of how it weakens the college game by loading up the same few teams every year just to have all the best players immediately leave for the NBA, and how it rushes players into the league before they are mature enough. I expand upon those arguments and list other reasons for opposing the rule in this post.
#4- Women's Professional Sports Popularity Issues Original post date: 9/10/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/09/womens-professional-sports-popularity.html
The reception to this post genuinely amazed me. Excluding podcasts, this post has been read more times than any other I've ever written. It's not close either. This one almost doubles second place, which is also on this list. I talk about the reasons why women's sports aren't as popular as men's and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
#5- Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame! Original post date: 11/7/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html
Here's the second most read post the blog has seen through one year. Here I remind readers of Pete Rose's career statistics and accomplishments, as well as give an overview of the gambling scandal that caused him to be given a lifetime ban from professional baseball. I then argue why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and why sports betting shouldn't be illegal anyways.
#6- The Issue With Hockey's Scoring System Original post date: 1/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-issue-with-hockeys-scoring-system.html
When I first created the blog, this was one of my first ideas for things I wanted to write about. I explain why the hockey scoring system incentivizes teams to play for overtime rather than actually winning games. By awarding an extra point for the team who wins in overtime, more points are available to be won by simply going to OT.
#7- Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport Original post date: 2/4/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-college-basketball-is-my-favorite.html
This post is pretty self-explanatory. I explain all of the reasons why college basketball is my favorite sport, including how there's always a game on, all the cinderella stories, and of course, March Madness.
#8- Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq? Original post date: 4/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/eliminate-hack-shaq.html
After watching the series between the Rockets and Clippers, and seeing all the hate Hack-a-Shaq was getting, when in reality it is a viable strategy, I decided to do a full analysis of the technique hated by so many for slowing down the game. I even used my calculator and AP Statistics to help construct a probability chart for this one. It's probably the post which took me the longest to write, and definitely a personal favorite.
#9- NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid Original post date: 5/23/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/nba-coaches-are-going-to-get-paid.html
When news broke of Billy Donovan's five year, $30 million contract with the Thunder despite no prior NBA coaching experience, I realized something. New coaches in the league for the first time such as Brad Stevens and Steve Kerr are shaking up the league, and it could lead to a serious salary boost for the league's best coaches.
#10- Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries Original post date: 5/31/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/gripes-with-sports-fans-wishing-for.html
This is the first entry in my new series, Gripes with Sports Fans, detailing the things that annoy me the most about other fans. Here I take a strong stance against wishing for players to get injured and being happy when they do, on moral grounds that it just isn't right, or even human, to be happy seeing another person in serious pain.
Hopefully I'll be able to write more posts like these in the coming year. But until then, Happy Birthday, Toplevelsports! My baby has turned 1!
Connor
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
I Hate Tanking in Sports
If I had to pick one idea in sports that I hate above all others, it very well might be tanking. For the uninformed, tanking is when a sports team intentionally loses games, usually in an effort to receive a higher pick in the upcoming draft, but also on occasion to set up more favorable playoff matchups. It's an epidemic that has spread across the sports world, already poisoning all four major North American sports leagues, but perhaps being most notable in the NFL and especially NBA.
The reasons for the employment of the practice are pretty clear, and make a decent amount of sense. If a team with very little chance of making the playoffs simply decides to lose all the games they play, then they can draft the next superstar and hopefully be a great team in a few years. Many of sports' all time greats have been drafted early in the first round of their drafts, so why not take a chance to snag one? Because it's not a morally right thing to do.
I don't understand how any person could feel okay with tanking. When losing becomes the objective of games instead of winning, then some purity is definitely taken out of the game. I want sports where teams and players play with integrity, and actually have pride in themselves. As a fan, I would be infuriated if my team decided to lose intentionally. If my team is going to be horrible, I at least want them to try their hardest. Any team that considers tanking in the first place is going to receive a high draft pick anyway. Intentionally losing is giving up on a season. It's quitting. Any player that believes that's okay doesn't deserve to be playing sports professionally. Where's the competitive spirit?
It also completely ruins the fan experience for an entire year. What's the point of watching your hometown team on TV, or getting tickets to see games live if you know that the team isn't actually planning on winning the game anyway? They'd rather be the laughing stock of the league than actually playing their hearts out and giving a decent effort during the games. Just the idea of that makes a game practically unwatchable. It's cheating the fans and cheating the league. It's boring, and it's poor sportsmanship. It's almost sickening to think that a whole team could come together and just decide to give up. But teams do it all the time.
In the NBA, the draft order is dependent on the lottery system, where even the worst team in the league only has a 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick. Why lose dozens of games just to earn a few percentage points? In the long run the odds aren't substantially different. And even if a team manages to get the #1 pick, the chances of that person becoming a star are definitely not 100%. Just in the 21st century, there have been several busts from the #1 spot. 2007's top pick Greg Oden has had a notoriously horrible, injury-ridden career which has seen him play in only 114 career games, not even one and a half full seasons, and only average eight points per game. Anthony Bennett, the Cavaliers' surprise top draft selection in 2013, has done just about nothing in his two league seasons, suffering from many problems including asthma, sleep apnea, and fitness issues. He's been nothing more than a sub-par role player through two seasons. Other #1 picks such as Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi have also been nothing short of underwhelming.
The NFL especially suffers from one particular consequence of tanking. In the NFL, the season is very short by the standards of other leagues, with each team playing just 16 games. A tanking team is basically giving every other team in their division a free two wins, which can easily make all the difference between a team making and missing the playoffs. If a mediocre team gets two free victories, they can easily go from being a 8-6 team in the middle of the wild card race to a 10-6 team which will likely make the playoffs. The unfortunate fact is that their opponents in the wild card race don't get this two win advantage, and might not even play the tanking team once. Giving away free victories could easily ruin the system, turning making the playoffs into a game of schedule luck instead of actually playing skill.
There is a strategy that calls for making trades in order to accumulate draft picks, and I'm okay with that. If you want to move a few pieces around to have more picks come Draft Day and more cap space in free agency, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Just make sure you actually still give a decent effort to win. The New York Knicks forgot about that last part this season. By trading away nearly every decent player on the team besides Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks put up a blatant display of tanking. Undrafted rookie Langston Galloway was signed to a 10-day contract in the middle of the season and within a week became a starter on the team, and held the position for over 40 games. A straight-up walk on instantly became one of the best players on the Knicks. This is how bad they were. Undrafted rookie Travis Wear got solid minutes after being signed to a 10-day contract, and Lance Thomas also became a starter out of nowhere. I'm convinced I would've had a decent chance at making the Knicks roster.
It wasn't just the Knicks, however. The year seemed like a huge losing contest between the Knicks, 76ers, Timberwolves, and Lakers, with the T-Wolves taking the crown at the end. It was an absolute joke to see any of those teams play. And they call themselves professionals? Their whole mindset as teams were to be contestants in the Karl-Anthony Towns and Jahlil Okafor sweepstakes.
That's a huge problem with tanking. When star talents are being hyped so strongly, the emphasis of the entire sport can sometimes shift away from the actual good teams and onto the fight for last. I remember the entire 2011 NFL season was referred to as the "Race for Luck". Sometimes it seemed to take precedence over all other news in the sport. It was interesting in a pathetic way to see who wanted to suck more. Hey! The Colts lost again! Oh, but the Redskins really got crushed! Don't count out the Browns! They're on their third-string quarterback! It's unbelievable.
Tanking has even begun to plague non-professional sports, such as high school basketball. Earlier this year a story came out about how two girls basketball teams were both eliminated from the playoffs after intentionally trying to lose to avoid playing the defending state champs. The game included blatantly missed free throws, backcourt violations, and even players asking to be called for three seconds in the paint. Now typically tanking teams at least make it look like their playing to win, and putting up a decent fight. This was just taken to a whole new level. A line is crossed when a team attempts to score in the other team's basket.
How much of it is strategy? In this situation, the actions kind of make sense. I mean, in my fantasy football league there were talks about intentionally benching entire lineups just to get to play a team perceived as weaker. It never actually happened, but you bet it was considered. In the end, I think it's just unprofessional. Coaches shouldn't advocate the strategy. At the end of the season, their jobs are at stake. Players should listen to the famous words of Herm Edwards when he said, "You play to win the game!" It's shows a lack of heart and integrity to not try, and especially for people being paid to play, it's sickening, and fundamentally wrong. I know no other way of describing it than just saying that it makes of mockery of the game.
I think the worst example of all at showing how the idea of tanking is harming sports comes from a game between the Lakers and 76ers, two of the league's worst teams, from earlier this season. The Lakers won the game in overtime off a last-second shot from one of the team's few bright spots, Jordan Clarkson. And then the fans booed. The situation had become so horrible that defeating a pathetic team was viewed as a missed opportunity to close the gap between fourth and third-worst team in the league. The fans' actions, while understandable, are nothing short of sad. The team won, and yet they couldn't please the fans too caught up with visions of the future to remember the actual purpose of playing and watching sports: competition and winning.
So yes, while there is a decent argument that can be made for tanking to exist, I really hope we can find a way to prevent it. Take soccer leagues like the Barclays Premier League, for example. In the BPL, the three worst teams at the end of the season are relegated from the league, and are replaced by the three best teams from the league under it. While a system like that in the NBA, for example, where D-League teams replace NBA teams is unrealistic, a change should be found in the future, for the love of the game. After all, it shouldn't be this difficult to get teams to want to win.
The reasons for the employment of the practice are pretty clear, and make a decent amount of sense. If a team with very little chance of making the playoffs simply decides to lose all the games they play, then they can draft the next superstar and hopefully be a great team in a few years. Many of sports' all time greats have been drafted early in the first round of their drafts, so why not take a chance to snag one? Because it's not a morally right thing to do.
I don't understand how any person could feel okay with tanking. When losing becomes the objective of games instead of winning, then some purity is definitely taken out of the game. I want sports where teams and players play with integrity, and actually have pride in themselves. As a fan, I would be infuriated if my team decided to lose intentionally. If my team is going to be horrible, I at least want them to try their hardest. Any team that considers tanking in the first place is going to receive a high draft pick anyway. Intentionally losing is giving up on a season. It's quitting. Any player that believes that's okay doesn't deserve to be playing sports professionally. Where's the competitive spirit?
It also completely ruins the fan experience for an entire year. What's the point of watching your hometown team on TV, or getting tickets to see games live if you know that the team isn't actually planning on winning the game anyway? They'd rather be the laughing stock of the league than actually playing their hearts out and giving a decent effort during the games. Just the idea of that makes a game practically unwatchable. It's cheating the fans and cheating the league. It's boring, and it's poor sportsmanship. It's almost sickening to think that a whole team could come together and just decide to give up. But teams do it all the time.
In the NBA, the draft order is dependent on the lottery system, where even the worst team in the league only has a 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick. Why lose dozens of games just to earn a few percentage points? In the long run the odds aren't substantially different. And even if a team manages to get the #1 pick, the chances of that person becoming a star are definitely not 100%. Just in the 21st century, there have been several busts from the #1 spot. 2007's top pick Greg Oden has had a notoriously horrible, injury-ridden career which has seen him play in only 114 career games, not even one and a half full seasons, and only average eight points per game. Anthony Bennett, the Cavaliers' surprise top draft selection in 2013, has done just about nothing in his two league seasons, suffering from many problems including asthma, sleep apnea, and fitness issues. He's been nothing more than a sub-par role player through two seasons. Other #1 picks such as Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi have also been nothing short of underwhelming.
The NFL especially suffers from one particular consequence of tanking. In the NFL, the season is very short by the standards of other leagues, with each team playing just 16 games. A tanking team is basically giving every other team in their division a free two wins, which can easily make all the difference between a team making and missing the playoffs. If a mediocre team gets two free victories, they can easily go from being a 8-6 team in the middle of the wild card race to a 10-6 team which will likely make the playoffs. The unfortunate fact is that their opponents in the wild card race don't get this two win advantage, and might not even play the tanking team once. Giving away free victories could easily ruin the system, turning making the playoffs into a game of schedule luck instead of actually playing skill.
There is a strategy that calls for making trades in order to accumulate draft picks, and I'm okay with that. If you want to move a few pieces around to have more picks come Draft Day and more cap space in free agency, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Just make sure you actually still give a decent effort to win. The New York Knicks forgot about that last part this season. By trading away nearly every decent player on the team besides Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks put up a blatant display of tanking. Undrafted rookie Langston Galloway was signed to a 10-day contract in the middle of the season and within a week became a starter on the team, and held the position for over 40 games. A straight-up walk on instantly became one of the best players on the Knicks. This is how bad they were. Undrafted rookie Travis Wear got solid minutes after being signed to a 10-day contract, and Lance Thomas also became a starter out of nowhere. I'm convinced I would've had a decent chance at making the Knicks roster.
It wasn't just the Knicks, however. The year seemed like a huge losing contest between the Knicks, 76ers, Timberwolves, and Lakers, with the T-Wolves taking the crown at the end. It was an absolute joke to see any of those teams play. And they call themselves professionals? Their whole mindset as teams were to be contestants in the Karl-Anthony Towns and Jahlil Okafor sweepstakes.
That's a huge problem with tanking. When star talents are being hyped so strongly, the emphasis of the entire sport can sometimes shift away from the actual good teams and onto the fight for last. I remember the entire 2011 NFL season was referred to as the "Race for Luck". Sometimes it seemed to take precedence over all other news in the sport. It was interesting in a pathetic way to see who wanted to suck more. Hey! The Colts lost again! Oh, but the Redskins really got crushed! Don't count out the Browns! They're on their third-string quarterback! It's unbelievable.
Tanking has even begun to plague non-professional sports, such as high school basketball. Earlier this year a story came out about how two girls basketball teams were both eliminated from the playoffs after intentionally trying to lose to avoid playing the defending state champs. The game included blatantly missed free throws, backcourt violations, and even players asking to be called for three seconds in the paint. Now typically tanking teams at least make it look like their playing to win, and putting up a decent fight. This was just taken to a whole new level. A line is crossed when a team attempts to score in the other team's basket.
How much of it is strategy? In this situation, the actions kind of make sense. I mean, in my fantasy football league there were talks about intentionally benching entire lineups just to get to play a team perceived as weaker. It never actually happened, but you bet it was considered. In the end, I think it's just unprofessional. Coaches shouldn't advocate the strategy. At the end of the season, their jobs are at stake. Players should listen to the famous words of Herm Edwards when he said, "You play to win the game!" It's shows a lack of heart and integrity to not try, and especially for people being paid to play, it's sickening, and fundamentally wrong. I know no other way of describing it than just saying that it makes of mockery of the game.
I think the worst example of all at showing how the idea of tanking is harming sports comes from a game between the Lakers and 76ers, two of the league's worst teams, from earlier this season. The Lakers won the game in overtime off a last-second shot from one of the team's few bright spots, Jordan Clarkson. And then the fans booed. The situation had become so horrible that defeating a pathetic team was viewed as a missed opportunity to close the gap between fourth and third-worst team in the league. The fans' actions, while understandable, are nothing short of sad. The team won, and yet they couldn't please the fans too caught up with visions of the future to remember the actual purpose of playing and watching sports: competition and winning.
So yes, while there is a decent argument that can be made for tanking to exist, I really hope we can find a way to prevent it. Take soccer leagues like the Barclays Premier League, for example. In the BPL, the three worst teams at the end of the season are relegated from the league, and are replaced by the three best teams from the league under it. While a system like that in the NBA, for example, where D-League teams replace NBA teams is unrealistic, a change should be found in the future, for the love of the game. After all, it shouldn't be this difficult to get teams to want to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)