Sports

Archived Posts from this Category

Jul. 11, 2009

Twitter and le Tour

Posted by Peter Boumgarden under Culture, Sports | Tags: |
[8] Comments 

TwitterIt’s summertime, and that can only mean one thing: Le Tour de France is up and running, and along with it, all the drama and intrigue of arguably the most grueling athletic competition in the world.  Adding spice to the race this year is the return of former 7-time Champion, Lance Armstrong. Lance took almost four years off of racing and, according to Rick Reilly, “went through about 17 girlfriends, had a child in June (Max), raised God knows how much hope and money to fight cancer, and then decided, ‘You know what? I’m not done.’”

Lance & Alberto

Lance & Alberto

Consequently, one of the more intriguing subplots of the Tour this year is the battle for leadership of Team Astana. And at the center of the debate, you guessed it, Lance Armstrong. Though it has been 4 years since his last multi-stage race victory on a bike, he is very much still the confident (cocky?) rider that he was when he retired. Look no further than his comments on last year’s Tour, on which he is reported to have said about the leaders… “The Tour was a bit of a joke this year. I’ve got nothing against Sastre … or Christian Vande Velde. Christian’s a nice guy, but finishing fifth in the Tour de France? Come on!” And thought we may not like his attitude, it’s hard to argue with his gusto when he currently sits 3rd at this year’s race, only 8 seconds behind the overall leader.

The problem is that Lance’s new team Astana also includes one of the best young riders in the tour… Alberto Contador… the winner of the 2007 Tour de France, and many experts pick to win this year’s race. And so, at the center of a talent-stacked team, Armstrong and Contador have been battling it out on the bike for leadership of both their team, their teammates, and the tour as a whole… all while hoping to assert themselves for their 8th or 2nd TdF victories, respectively.

So what does this all have to do with Twitter and social media? Twitter has been getting a lot of attention lately, with Steven B Johnson among its supporters, headlining his Time Magazine article with the audacious claim that Twitter, “will change the way we live.” Mega-blogger Andrew Sullivan has also become a big fan as of late, republishing relevant tweets from the Iranian political elections on his blog “The Daily Dish” to publicize individual experiences of the acts of Tehran Rebels.

At it’s best, this influx of chronicled personal experiences supplements the clear thesis-driven approach of the news cycle, adding what technology writer Clive Thompson calls “ambient awareness” to our experience of events halfway around the world. At the end of the day, the use of Twitter may not give you much more relevant content on a story, I think it is fair to say that the depth of what you know is enhanced by the way the technology paints a picture of how those facts are experienced first hand.

My experience with the TdF this year has only buttressed this claim. For example, I have seen George Hincape and his team escape for a Stage 3 victory, then read on his twitter account that night, “Wow!!! What a day. We crushed it. Still 3 weeks to go though…” I wonder what the team dynamics were like on the following day after their disappointing team time trial. Or, yesterday, to see Cadel Evans try and fail to break away from the peleton on a climb lead by the baby blue Astana engine, and then subsequently read his tweet, “another day done. I tried to play a few cards; Astana no’s and headwind made it a bit tough to make a difference.” Is he getting discouraged about the way that Astana has really mobilized the movement in the standings… what is he thinking is his best strategic approach?

But, in line with one of the more interesting battles of the tour– that of Lance and Alberto– I was interested to see how Friday’s Stage 7 was narrated on the twitter account of Lance Armstrong, one of the most prolific tweeters of the group. Specifically, with a few KMs to go in the race on a hos categorie climb to the finish, Astana was leading the charge up the mountain, pulling back a breakaway of non-contendors and working to drop the current yellow jersey, Fabien Cancellara.  Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Contador broke free from the Astana team and motored uphill to the finish line, catapulting himself past Lance in the overall standings by 2 seconds, and perhaps reasserting himself as the rider to beat in the race.

Lances’ response? “St7 done. Long and pretty tough. Final climb was very windy so negated the attacks a bit until the end. AC (Contador) attached in the final k’s and gained some time on the front group. He was going well.” Are those the words of a man accepting the role as the team’s number 2 rider, or someone playing the right political card before his own attack in the coming stages? We will find out over the next few days.

another day done. I tried to play a few cards; Astana no’s and headwind
made it a bit tough to make a difference….
 

Feb. 2, 2009

Federer & Nadal

Posted by Peter Boumgarden under Sports
Leave a Comment 

Great final in the Australian Open yesterday… Nadal over Federer in 5.  Makes me wonder whether Federer will ever beat Nadal again.  He seems to have some type of mental block against the Spaniard.

In honor of their great rivaly, I’ve linked to a profile of Federer and Nadal’s 2006 Wimbledon final written by the late David Foster Wallace, best known for his 1996 novel “Infinite Jest.” The article is only secondarily about the match, and primarily about the ‘spiritual experience’ of watching Federer command a tennis court.  Kind of brings you back…  

Here he is on Roger:

A top athlete’s beauty is next to impossible to describe directly. Or to evoke. Federer’s forehand is a great liquid whip, his backhand a one-hander that he can drive flat, load with topspin, or slice — the slice with such snap that the ball turns shapes in the air and skids on the grass to maybe ankle height. His serve has world-class pace and a degree of placement and variety no one else comes close to; the service motion is lithe and uneccentric, distinctive (on TV) only in a certain eel-like all-body snap at the moment of impact. His anticipation and court sense are otherworldly, and his footwork is the best in the game — as a child, he was also a soccer prodigy. All this is true, and yet none of it really explains anything or evokes the experience of watching this man play. Of witnessing, firsthand, the beauty and genius of his game. You more have to come at the aesthetic stuff obliquely, to talk around it, or — as Aquinas did with his own ineffable subject — to try to define it in terms of what it is not. 

The whole article is fantastic, and well worth the read!

 

Jan. 29, 2009

Institutional and Individualistic… Sandberg and Favre

Posted by Peter Boumgarden under Culture, Sports
[2] Comments 

In the NY Times this past Tuesday, David Brooks outlines the differences between an individualistic and institutional approach to life. It is worth a read.  Citing Ryne Sandberg’s induction speech into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Brooks argues the former Cub shows a logic born of respect for the institution he represents:

“I was in awe every time I walked onto the field. That’s respect. I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponents or your teammates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. You make a great play, act like you’ve done it before; get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases.”- R.S.

Brooks goes on to suggest that institutional commitment is in decline, and with it a powerful source of collective meaning and purpose.  He implies that a movement towards individualism without institutions is misguided, even with all the problems institutional thinking propounds at its worst.

picture-21

Brett Favre

While I agree with Brooks’ take on the importance of institutions for creating meaning, I disagree with his categorization of the alternative approach as necessarily individualistic. I would argue instead that we are not necessarily more individualistic than previous generations, but that we often stand between conflicting institutions without knowing how to resolve these tensions. I am not a man on an island… I am a man trying to land footing on too many islands and thus falling in the sea.

picture-15

Ryne Sandberg

Take the arguably skitzophrenic behavior of Brett Favre in his false retirement/ retirement/ unretirement moves of last few years. At first we hear that Favre wanted to spend more time with his family.  Then it was that team needed him.  Then it was that he had to retire because he could not win the Super Bowl, the only real reason why he should ever stay.  Finally, it was that he loved the game and had to play again, though not with a team that showed him disrespect.

While it is easy (and perhaps fair) to characterize Favre as individualistic and self-centered, might we not also read his actions as reflecting a person who fails to consistently manage a multitude of institutions and their corresponding demands?  His family asks for time because it takes engagement to be a good father.  His team requires committment because leadership requires devotion to teammates.  His culture suggests that winning and respect are crucial for personal success. Even though he is a part of all these positions, he, like us, cannot play them all. The myth of the Renaissance man is dead! Thus, in cafeteria style, he picks the logic that best suits his current needs. 

And so, while Brooks makes some good points on the role of institutions in creating meaning, I think he misses out on the more interesting question on how we manage the conflicting meanings of the multiple institutions we represent.  What happens when we have a job, invest in a social life, live with a family, attend a church, support a political party, play for a sports team…. each with their own ‘institutional’ logic of how to behave? To butcher an already bad joke… a Jew, a lawyer, a father, and a republican walk into the bar… and they are all the same person. How do we best think institutionally when one does not have the “luxury” of being involved in a singular logic? Is the only way to resolve this tension by devoting ourselves singularly to one approach (Sandberg style), or opportunistically cherry pick the logic that best fit with our current needs (a la Favre)?

 

Jan. 1, 2009

The D-town Lions and the quest for histO(-16)ry

Posted by Peter Boumgarden under Sports | Tags: , |
[4] Comments 

 

By Morry Gash- Associated Press

By Morry Gash- Associated Press

Below you will find my response to OrgTheory.net ‘final exam‘ question on the theory behind why the Detroit Lions finished 0-16:

Probabilistically, if two teams are evenly matched the chance of that team winning a game is .5, and the chance of losing the first 8 is .5^8, or .004… If the chance of winning is slightly lower, let’s say .25 (a semi-regular occurance for a football team to go 4-12), then we are in the range of .10 for an 0-8 start. If the Lions are objectively even worse than this at a talent level (say they are a 2-14 team… chance of winning a game at .125), then the chance of this 0-8 start is at .34. In all three cases, the chance of losing all 16 games is still quite low (the highest being .12, all the way to <.00001).

Now it is all fun and games to assume stable probabilities, but it may not be a fair assumption if we consider the inertia of losing, and the way this plays out at the psychological level for the team’s players. For example, a team who wins the first two games (at .5^2… a relatively high probability) may start to think they are a better team than a 8-8 record would indicate. It is then the role of a coach to harness those psychological dynamics so that the team continues to play to a level above that of their ‘objective talent level’, and avoids various processes that undermine their ability (practicing less as they feel they don’t need it, playing scared to avoid losing and being found out as worse then that of their record, etc. etc.).

In the case of the Lions, I think two factors were at work. First off, their poor draft picks over the last few years severely undermined their talent as a team. Assuming that the WR pick is exceptionally crucial to performance, they used 3 of their top picks in the 2000-2008 drafts on wide receivers. Only one of their top picks was on a QB, and he turned out to be a flop with the team (Harrington). Poor personal decisions by management thus lowered the teams objective talent level, failing to evenly distribute talent across the team in apt levels (for example, making them objectively closer to a 4-12 team).

But even with these decisions, the chance of going 0-16 would still be relatively low. This is when the psychological dynamics came into play. First off, the team started off 4-0 in the preseason, which though it means little in terms of actual talent of the team (most teams barely play their starters), can still build psychological momentum for the team and make players feel that they are better than they are. While some teams use this momentum positively (in large part a function of the coach and other leaders), it is possible for a poorly coached team to become overconfident resulting in players devoting less effort towards the fundamental ability of the team, and thus being less ‘objectively talented’ as a unit.

Now, let’s assume that a team gets to the 0-8 mark, there is also inertia displayed psychologically in the team, a process that begins to inform the ‘motivated reasoning’ of the players (Kunda 1990).  A team that plays poorly then begins to look at ways which align with their belief that they are a losing team.  A missed field goal begins to ‘confirm’ their belief in the team’s poor ability.  An incomplete pass looms larger in the minds of a losing team than a winning team.

In addition to just ‘thinking they are going to lose,’ I would argue that this plays into the way in which individual players go through the motions of their specific learned actions. Looking at the last 8 games of the Lions, several of them were winnable games in which they had leads down the stretch.  It is these situations where the psychological dynamics become so important.  For example, research in sports psychology has suggested that golfers play better when thinking of more holistic motions like ‘flow’ rather than the specific mechanics of the swing (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008, for review, see here). It would be my hypothesis that poorly managed inertia of a team results in players (over)thinking through the basics of their sports as the logic turns to (for example) ,”all i have to do is make this pass…. see the receivers.. and we we can break out of this slump” Rather than a team that captivates on this momentum of winning to think holistically (with a certain type of confidence), a team like the Lions may have begun to think about their individual actions more mechanistically, and thus at a lower level down the stretch then even their low ability would indicate.

So, for the Lions, two things are at work. First poor draft choices begin to undermine the talent level making a 50-50 winning chance to something more like 25-75, or 12.5-87.5. While this may explain a poor record, there is still a low chance of this team going 0-16.  To understand their final record then, we cannot rely on stable probabilities, and must explain how a team’s ‘chance of winning’ adjusts over in time as a result of the psychological dynamics at work in the team’s playing.  In other words, if not managed properly (a process requiring explanation in itself), losing can build momentum for a team towards more losing, even if their ‘objective talent’ level does not change. Mechanistically, this shows itself in the players looking for things which confirm their assumptions about themselves (motivated reasoning), and playing with a focus on the technical aspects of play rather than the holistic parts, lowering their individual level of play.  I would argue that these latter factors make a team like the Lions more likely to fail down the stretch in games in which, for most teams, would result in a win (i.e. being ‘up’ late in the game).

What do you think?  Is this even a valid explanation?  Am I missing something important?  I know we have some Lions fans out there…