Monday, June 18, 2007
Cleats
Sweet.
Sweet.
Yes, I got two pair. Yes, I paid the "buy it now" price rather than bid and cross my fingers. When a cleat that's been discontinued for two years shows up in my size, I don't mess around. For me, the perfect cleat is the 3/4 height speed TD. Maybe they will start making them again, and/or I will find another cleat as light, durable, comfotable, supportive, and effective. But I'm not taking any chances. I have four pairs now, which should last me into the next decade.
I just wanted to share my good fortune. Idris has blogged about cleats (more than once) before, and there are recurring rsd threads on the subject, too.
Sweet.
Yes, I got two pair. Yes, I paid the "buy it now" price rather than bid and cross my fingers. When a cleat that's been discontinued for two years shows up in my size, I don't mess around. For me, the perfect cleat is the 3/4 height speed TD. Maybe they will start making them again, and/or I will find another cleat as light, durable, comfotable, supportive, and effective. But I'm not taking any chances. I have four pairs now, which should last me into the next decade.
I just wanted to share my good fortune. Idris has blogged about cleats (more than once) before, and there are recurring rsd threads on the subject, too.
Friday, June 15, 2007
NBA divisions (no ultimate content)
A lot of talk from various sports columnists about how to fix the NBA. When the lottery happened a lot of people wrote about how to improve it (this was my favorite idea although it's too kooky to ever get implemented). Now the in-vogue idea is to re-seed the playoffs 1-16. That way the west/east imbalance (which, amazingly, looks like it is going to get worse before it gets better) is not an issue.
I actually like this idea, however, if you're going to do away with the conferences for seeding, why not trash them altogether? Let's look at it:
current NBA: 6 divisions of 5, 4 games against each team in your division, 3-4 against other teams in your conference (randomly determined), 2 games against the out of conference teams. Division winners are guaranteed to be a top 4 seed in their half of the playoffs.
my proposal: 5 divisions of 6, 6 games against each team in your division, 2 against every other team, except an extra game against the 4 teams that finished the same place last year in their division (so, if you win your division, you play 3 games against the other four division winners next year). 5 division winners are guaranteed a top 8 seed.
Both are 82 games. 6 game sets against your division rivals brings rivalries back to the NBA. Realigning to 5 divisions allows for more geographically reasonable divisions:
Pacific: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, LA, LA
Southwest: Utah, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio
Midwest: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland
Atlantic: Toronto, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philly, Washington
Southeast: Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, New Orleans
Seriously, look at the current map and tell me that setup doesn't make more sense. Minnesota plays Portland and Utah twice as often as they play Chicago and Milwaukee? Dumb.
The only issue there is that the new SW div is insanely stacked (the top six seeds in the western conference playoffs!), but with 1-16 seeding, this can still work out.
I actually like this idea, however, if you're going to do away with the conferences for seeding, why not trash them altogether? Let's look at it:
current NBA: 6 divisions of 5, 4 games against each team in your division, 3-4 against other teams in your conference (randomly determined), 2 games against the out of conference teams. Division winners are guaranteed to be a top 4 seed in their half of the playoffs.
my proposal: 5 divisions of 6, 6 games against each team in your division, 2 against every other team, except an extra game against the 4 teams that finished the same place last year in their division (so, if you win your division, you play 3 games against the other four division winners next year). 5 division winners are guaranteed a top 8 seed.
Both are 82 games. 6 game sets against your division rivals brings rivalries back to the NBA. Realigning to 5 divisions allows for more geographically reasonable divisions:
Pacific: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, LA, LA
Southwest: Utah, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio
Midwest: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland
Atlantic: Toronto, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philly, Washington
Southeast: Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, New Orleans
Seriously, look at the current map and tell me that setup doesn't make more sense. Minnesota plays Portland and Utah twice as often as they play Chicago and Milwaukee? Dumb.
The only issue there is that the new SW div is insanely stacked (the top six seeds in the western conference playoffs!), but with 1-16 seeding, this can still work out.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
"Tournament stratification" sounds like a good title...
I'm doing requests, it seems. I mean really, when he wrote that, he may as well have put it as "Tarr should blog about tournament stratification". I guess he could have been thinking of George or maybe Dusty, but this is right in my wheelhouse. I have 3-4 other topics I've been meaning to blog, but they can wait.
We're talking about tournaments that have "elite" and "lower" devisions. Sometimes these divisions cross into one another; sometimes they do not. Let's lead right out with the main pros and cons of formats with power pools like these:
Pro: teams get more meaningful games, which is the point of playing.
Con: fundamentally not even-handed. Relies more on initial seeding.
That pro is crucial, and is enough to justify power pools a lot of the time. The bottom line on power pools is that the elite club teams are not going to pay airfare to travel to a tournament unless they know they are getting a full slate of games against other elite teams. So having, at least, a power pool (or two or four) on the top is basically a requirement of any top tournament.
The first con, i.e. lack of even-handedness, is not a major concern. You night have a harder path to win the tournament, or only be able to place 9th, but nobody's season is ending as a result. The point of preseason tournaments is to play, and teams should be judged by individual game results as oppose to the number attached to their finish.
The second con, however, is more significant than you might realize. Allow me a meandering, self-indulgent anecdote to demonstrate my point:
My new job has a sand volleyball court outside, and there is a formal lunchtime volleyball league. Rather than attempt to make balanced teams and a full schedule, the league is split into 8-person divisions, and each league game is a different 4v4 matchup within that division. There are 56 players, and consequently 7 divisions. After describing myself as "tall and reasonably athletic, but with very little V-ball experience", I got placed in div 5.
This week, one of my teammates couldn't make the game, so a player from another division subbed in. He was decent; I thought he was about average among the players on the court. I figured he was a good 6 or a bad 4, but when I looked him up on the league spreadsheet later, I was quite surprised to discover that he was div 2.
What was the point of that story that applies to Ultimate? Most people drastically overrate their ability to predict the relative strength of teams/players. In the case of the V-ball league, the idea to have divisions is a very good one. Div 1 has a guy who can two-hand dunk with ease and a former varsity volleyball player at Stanford. But with 7 divisions, the variation within a division is far greater than the variation between divisions. The league would be well served by 3 or 4 divisions. The rest is just noise.
The same is absolutely true in Ultimate. The only arguable exception is the few elite men's teams, which are pretty stable. As I said, you need to have a power pool at the top anyway, to attract the top teams. But even there, the worst "elite" teams usually have very little (if any) edge over the best "open" teams.
In conclusion, some stratification in preseason tournaments is a good thing. But there should be some room for crossover whenever possible, and care should be taken to not overstratify. It's easy to talk yourself into believing that there are several big obvious breaks in team strength, but the results will often defy such expectations.
We're talking about tournaments that have "elite" and "lower" devisions. Sometimes these divisions cross into one another; sometimes they do not. Let's lead right out with the main pros and cons of formats with power pools like these:
Pro: teams get more meaningful games, which is the point of playing.
Con: fundamentally not even-handed. Relies more on initial seeding.
That pro is crucial, and is enough to justify power pools a lot of the time. The bottom line on power pools is that the elite club teams are not going to pay airfare to travel to a tournament unless they know they are getting a full slate of games against other elite teams. So having, at least, a power pool (or two or four) on the top is basically a requirement of any top tournament.
The first con, i.e. lack of even-handedness, is not a major concern. You night have a harder path to win the tournament, or only be able to place 9th, but nobody's season is ending as a result. The point of preseason tournaments is to play, and teams should be judged by individual game results as oppose to the number attached to their finish.
The second con, however, is more significant than you might realize. Allow me a meandering, self-indulgent anecdote to demonstrate my point:
My new job has a sand volleyball court outside, and there is a formal lunchtime volleyball league. Rather than attempt to make balanced teams and a full schedule, the league is split into 8-person divisions, and each league game is a different 4v4 matchup within that division. There are 56 players, and consequently 7 divisions. After describing myself as "tall and reasonably athletic, but with very little V-ball experience", I got placed in div 5.
This week, one of my teammates couldn't make the game, so a player from another division subbed in. He was decent; I thought he was about average among the players on the court. I figured he was a good 6 or a bad 4, but when I looked him up on the league spreadsheet later, I was quite surprised to discover that he was div 2.
What was the point of that story that applies to Ultimate? Most people drastically overrate their ability to predict the relative strength of teams/players. In the case of the V-ball league, the idea to have divisions is a very good one. Div 1 has a guy who can two-hand dunk with ease and a former varsity volleyball player at Stanford. But with 7 divisions, the variation within a division is far greater than the variation between divisions. The league would be well served by 3 or 4 divisions. The rest is just noise.
The same is absolutely true in Ultimate. The only arguable exception is the few elite men's teams, which are pretty stable. As I said, you need to have a power pool at the top anyway, to attract the top teams. But even there, the worst "elite" teams usually have very little (if any) edge over the best "open" teams.
In conclusion, some stratification in preseason tournaments is a good thing. But there should be some room for crossover whenever possible, and care should be taken to not overstratify. It's easy to talk yourself into believing that there are several big obvious breaks in team strength, but the results will often defy such expectations.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Getting the hang of this league thing (4 for 21)
Not too long ago, I posted jubilantly about winning the second league championship of my career, and the first in 17 tries. Now my personal winning percentage since the end of last fall is a neat 75%, as I captured the championship in two of the three spring leagues I played in.
Two of these leagues were fairly novel experiences for me. The first of those two was the first men's league I have ever played in. This was offered as a supplemental league to the mixed leagues by the local organization. The games were played on Sunday morning, before the mixed games started, so it was possible to double dip. This league was notable for a pretty high level of play. Every team was capable of putting out a full line of players with club experience, although a lot of these were masters players. In fact, one team, our finals opponents, were entirely masters eligible.
The finals game was a seesaw affair. The old guys jumped out to an early lead. They were running very efficient offense - using the "Boston" 4-man play, staying patient, and using any mismatches they had. On defense, they generated some key turns with their zone - ironically, most of our turns came from our oldest and most experienced players. We adjusted and started beating their zone with regularity, and got a few big D's ourselves, and managed to pull close at halftime. We came out in the second half with a lot more energy, and we got a lot smarter about matchups. We pulled ahead late in the second half, and then both teams got tired and we had some very costly and unnecessary turns. I was pretty sure the cap was going to deny us a comeback, but we managed a four goal run to close the game out and win by two.
The game was a nice contrast of styles, with the old guys running a mix of zone and man, and a straight stack offense, while we ran almost exclusively force backhand man defense and a horizontal stack offense. Personally, I had a pretty good game - two turns, including one of my three hucks, but a couple D's, a lot more touches than my man, and several goals, including a 60 yard backhand that tied the game in the final run.
I thought the experience of a men's league was a lot of fun. I don't think the spirit level was any worse than the mixed leagues, and the level of play was really high. I hope that (as I mentioned a while back) the league goes to a "overflow men play men's league" model, which will both increase the size of the men's league and improve the gender ratio of the mixed league.
The other "novel" league I played in was a clique league. I've played in a corporate league before, but it's been a long time, and other corporate leagues I've played in always required some ostensible link other than "we want to play together". This league was entirely open registration, and it showed in the talent spread. My team, which had several of my club teammates as well as some other strong pickups, probably had an average margin of victory in the 2:1 range. There was exactly one team that gave us trouble - another club-heavy team that had a couple of my teammates as well. In the regular season matchup (where we were missing all our tall guys except me), they beat us by 1. In the finals, we returned the favor.
We struggled in finals since our women had to play savage. Normally Yelena and Emily are a huge part of our success, but Yelena was worn out by halftime and Emily wasn't there. Still, we managed to gut out the win despite a pretty ugly final few points. I'm obviously biased, but I thought they made two very bad calls in the last three points, including a RIDICULOUS speed-up stall call on a goal. The game left a bad taste in my mouth despite the win, and it would have left a much worse taste had we lost.
The third league, the only one I didn't win, was the draft mixed B league. I played the B league in order to play with my wife. Considering how many goals I threw to her this spring, though, I think she's ready to play in the A league. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to play in the playoffs of this league, as the first round of B league playoffs was scheduled across from the men's finals (the rest of the men's league playoffs had been played over the previous week). I was the only player in the finals of men's league who was in B league, so I was the only person screwed by this setup. While I'm very confident my B league team would have won their opening game with my help (they lost by three), I seriously doubt we would have won the league, so I will count this as a loss.
Still, 4/21 sounds a lot better than 1/17, which is where I sat last fall.
I'm not playing any summer leagues - partly because my new job is really far from the fields, and I can get a good workout with lunchtime basketball in stead of fighting rush hour to play mediocre ultimate. I might join up late to a league somewhere though. We'll see.
Two of these leagues were fairly novel experiences for me. The first of those two was the first men's league I have ever played in. This was offered as a supplemental league to the mixed leagues by the local organization. The games were played on Sunday morning, before the mixed games started, so it was possible to double dip. This league was notable for a pretty high level of play. Every team was capable of putting out a full line of players with club experience, although a lot of these were masters players. In fact, one team, our finals opponents, were entirely masters eligible.
The finals game was a seesaw affair. The old guys jumped out to an early lead. They were running very efficient offense - using the "Boston" 4-man play, staying patient, and using any mismatches they had. On defense, they generated some key turns with their zone - ironically, most of our turns came from our oldest and most experienced players. We adjusted and started beating their zone with regularity, and got a few big D's ourselves, and managed to pull close at halftime. We came out in the second half with a lot more energy, and we got a lot smarter about matchups. We pulled ahead late in the second half, and then both teams got tired and we had some very costly and unnecessary turns. I was pretty sure the cap was going to deny us a comeback, but we managed a four goal run to close the game out and win by two.
The game was a nice contrast of styles, with the old guys running a mix of zone and man, and a straight stack offense, while we ran almost exclusively force backhand man defense and a horizontal stack offense. Personally, I had a pretty good game - two turns, including one of my three hucks, but a couple D's, a lot more touches than my man, and several goals, including a 60 yard backhand that tied the game in the final run.
I thought the experience of a men's league was a lot of fun. I don't think the spirit level was any worse than the mixed leagues, and the level of play was really high. I hope that (as I mentioned a while back) the league goes to a "overflow men play men's league" model, which will both increase the size of the men's league and improve the gender ratio of the mixed league.
The other "novel" league I played in was a clique league. I've played in a corporate league before, but it's been a long time, and other corporate leagues I've played in always required some ostensible link other than "we want to play together". This league was entirely open registration, and it showed in the talent spread. My team, which had several of my club teammates as well as some other strong pickups, probably had an average margin of victory in the 2:1 range. There was exactly one team that gave us trouble - another club-heavy team that had a couple of my teammates as well. In the regular season matchup (where we were missing all our tall guys except me), they beat us by 1. In the finals, we returned the favor.
We struggled in finals since our women had to play savage. Normally Yelena and Emily are a huge part of our success, but Yelena was worn out by halftime and Emily wasn't there. Still, we managed to gut out the win despite a pretty ugly final few points. I'm obviously biased, but I thought they made two very bad calls in the last three points, including a RIDICULOUS speed-up stall call on a goal. The game left a bad taste in my mouth despite the win, and it would have left a much worse taste had we lost.
The third league, the only one I didn't win, was the draft mixed B league. I played the B league in order to play with my wife. Considering how many goals I threw to her this spring, though, I think she's ready to play in the A league. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to play in the playoffs of this league, as the first round of B league playoffs was scheduled across from the men's finals (the rest of the men's league playoffs had been played over the previous week). I was the only player in the finals of men's league who was in B league, so I was the only person screwed by this setup. While I'm very confident my B league team would have won their opening game with my help (they lost by three), I seriously doubt we would have won the league, so I will count this as a loss.
Still, 4/21 sounds a lot better than 1/17, which is where I sat last fall.
I'm not playing any summer leagues - partly because my new job is really far from the fields, and I can get a good workout with lunchtime basketball in stead of fighting rush hour to play mediocre ultimate. I might join up late to a league somewhere though. We'll see.
