ATH, 03/27/14: Between Two Worlds

Jordan is joined by Gerry and Kevin just after the Women's Worlds and before the start of the Men's World Championships.  They discuss Rachel Homan's surprising loss and the process of World and Olympic qualification in Switzerland and other countries.  They cover some of the changes and challenges in USA Curling. Note: Due to technical difficulties the podcast was cut short and discussion on team rumors and Brier relegation were lost.  The boys hope to be back next week with those topics and more.

Check out this episode!

ATH, 03/27/14: In Between Worlds

Jordan is joined by Gerry and Kevin just after the Women's Worlds and before the start of the Men's World Championships.  They discuss Rachel Homan's surprising loss and the process of World and Olympic qualification in Switzerland and other countries.  They cover some of the changes and challenges in USA Curling. Note: Due to technical difficulties the podcast was cut short and discussion on team rumors and Brier relegation were lost.  The boys hope to be back next week with those topics and more.

Check out this episode!

Ambition and Achievement

I just finished watching the first season of Showtime's "Masters of Sex".  It follows the story of William Masters and Virginia Johnson and their ground breaking research on human sexuality that began in 1956.  It's been renewed for a second season and I highly recommend it to most people over the age of 21.  I just listened to a recent Andy Greenwald podcast from Grantland with show runner Michelle Ashford.  With about 9 minutes remaining, she talks about Virginia Johnson, her motives and a major theme of the show.  From the interview:

"It's about ambition and the notion of a woman being ambitious is horrifying in the 50s and even very uncomfortable today.  The idea of a woman being sort of nakedly ambitious kind of sets everyone's teeth on edge.  In men it can be considered attractive and viral while in women it's kind of considered gross or unbecoming"

Michelle's words immediately hit me. Jennifer Jones.  Not just Jennifer herself but the perception of her by media and fans.  Why is an ambitious women so clearly attacked and scorned while an ambitious man is seen as driven and determined.  Over the years, Jennifer has removed players on her team, including popular third Cathy Overton-Clapham.  These moves have met with outrage, some of which continues today, yet Jeff Stoughton dismisses his long time lead Steve Gould and there is no more than a murmur, which goes quietly away within a short time.  Brad Gushue drops players as often as Bill Belichik, but their goals are the same, to win. A gold medal in Turin with Russ Howard was met with cheers rather than jeers.  Kevin Martin has a few bumps in his legacy (just ask Randy Ferbey).  Personnel issues,  financial dealings and even being booed at the 1991 World's in Winnipeg, all incidents of the past that aren't part of the current conversation.

Jennifer is still disliked by some who think her treatment of Cathy was unfair.  They forget that sport is about winning and the decision was likely harder for Jen than they realize.  I'm not saying I agree with Jennifer's moves or the manner in which she dealt with her decision, but why should I hold it against her more than I would her male counterparts?  That is her business and the effects on her relationships with friends and peers are hers to deal with. But it's clear to me the opinions of Jennifer, and their strength and longevity, are influenced by the fact "she" is not a "he".  

Why can't we be comfortable with a woman who is driven to succeed?  Does society really feel this way about women?

Colleen Jones, announcing the non-Canada semi-final, remarked on Jennifer's change in demenour after having given birth.  Would she or anyone else make the same statement about a man?  The comments were meant to be positive but why do we consider Jen's transition from cold hearted competitor to nuturing mother to be worth discussing?  Does it make us like her more to imagine her as caring rather than driven to succeed on her own terms?  

I see Rachel Homan at an early age coming under similar scrutiny.  Before she entered the media scrum after the Trials semi-final, someone made an off-hand joke about Rachel that was (to be honest, funny), but rude and thoughtless (something about strangling kittens maybe, but I don't recall exactly).   Doubtful anyone would make a similar joke about a man in that situation.

Congratulations Jennifer.  You worked hard for this achievement. You have earned it.  Your effort, determination, and ambition is admired.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a bitter, sad little troll who requires counselling for their inability to deal with their own regrets in life.

Other teams and countries still have ambition to claim medals.  What a single game can mean...

Bronze medal for Rui Liu, or even a close contest against Sweden's defending World champions, will show the world the Chinese men's program has reached a different level and this week was not just a fluke.  It may also help spark actual participation in a country with 1.3 billion people but only 5 curling clubs and 300 teams.  

Gold for Canada will silence critics who say the grassroots of Canadian curling is in decline and it's unable to nuture new champions to rival the country's aging stars. It could also mean future curlers will look more like hockey players than school guidance counselors. 

Gold for Great Britain will end the not-so-silent whispers about a sinister backroom program with too much money and power.  It will justify the act of players being chosen and slotted in by coaches and sport managers, the way Tywin Lannister controls his own children.  What if Thomas Ulsrud makes the open hit on his last shot in the 10th end?  Murdoch most likely loses, fails to medal, and the decisions and structure of the Scottish program would be under scrutiny.  Instead, a silver is assured and a gold will silence the critics who believe curlers should establish and develop curling teams.

A bronze for Sweden will be a nice consolation prize.  They may have been the best top to bottom team this week and like the Swedish womens teams who've been in the last 3 Olympic and World finals, they will return.

A few game notes from today:

1. Tied without hammer, Sweden chose not to play a centre guard in the 6th and 7th ends of their game against Canada.  Apparently they were running into clock trouble, but to allow them both to be blanked, even hitting a tight guard late in the 6th, was dumfounding.  Sweden might point to the pick or key misses late as the difference, but strategy didn't help their cause either.

2.  Kaitlyn Lawes first shot in the 9th end received cheers and high fives all around, but it was likely not the best call.  Rather than peel out the Swedish shot stone (green line), Jennifer could have attempted to hit and stay, while doubling off her own stone in the back four foot (blue line).  

Canada is Yellow

After Swedish third Christina Bertrup makes a tap back,  Lawes hits and rolls away, leaving another catcher back four foot, failing to block the draw path or to remove that same catcher.  If Bertrup had made the freeze on her last shot rather than sailing between the yellow stones and through the rings, the end and game could have been very different.

3. Worst line call of the Olympics.  Sweden's double for four in the 5th end was easier than it appeared and actually overcurled, with the sweepers held off until nearly the hog line.  

4. In the 7th end, 1 up without hammer, Switzerland benefits from a miss by Scotland third Anna Sloan (her draw sails through the house). Ott decides to peel the corner guard while sitting one top eight foot.  In fact they double off their own rock by accident.  Not certain I like this decision.  The Swiss are choosing to allow a blank rather than go for a force, but they may not have as good an opportunity later.  In fact they end up in a mess next end and Scotland gets a key deuce on their way to the bronze medal..

Congratulations to all the medal winners and good luck to the men tomorrow (or is it today?).

Curling's Final Eight

It's not really the semi-finals as much as two final fours, played out to determine who gets the top prize (gold) and who gets nothing (loser of the bronze medal game).   The advantage of being 1st place is not much better than the otehr three teams in your bracket.  There is usually little difference between the quality of the third and fourth ranked team and all your hard work has given you hammer, which heps, but doesn;t give you an extra life should you stumble.   

Niklas Edin of Sweden lost just one round robin game only to match-up against a scrappy Scotland Great Britain squad that has more pedigree over the last few years than the third place team from China.  Jennifer Jones of Canada went undefeated and her gift was last rock against Eve Muirhead and her defending World Championship team. 

I think the page system is a more equitable process but you can't knock this for excitement. Who said the Olympics were fair?  I watched Snowboard Cross with my son and every other heat the guy in second or third got knocked out by another rider and last place boarders snuck into the next round.  No recourse for the guy who was caught up in the collision, just a high five hand slap at the finish line, if he makes it there without a stretcher.  (Reminder to self, need to get my son to the curling rink and away from his snowboard).

Let's get to it:

Women:

1. Sweden (Margaretha Sigridfisson) vs Switzerland (Mirjam Ott).

These two teams met in the 2012 World finals with the Swiss winning gold.  It was the third ever win in the event for Switzerland but first in 30 years.  The only word I can use to describe this game is four letters, begins with "U", and comes before Betty  in the title of an ABC dramedy from the late 2000s.
Tied 3-3 in the 7th end.  Sweden has hammer and Ott has to decide what to do with her first sone, sitting one back button:

Sweden is Red

They decide to play a guard (green line).  The come around (blue line) is another option, though it's a difficult shot to not leave a raise double.  The in-turn draw was also an option, for Ott and for Sweden on their next shot.  It was difficult to guard the raise and the draw.  The actual result, the guard over curled and left a draw.  Sweden was able to move the Swiss stone off the button and eventually left with a draw for two, but Prytz was heavy and Sweden only gets a single point

Sweden, down 1 with hammer in the 9th end, looks to be in trouble but Ott misses a double on her last and allows the Swedes to get their deuce.

The final end had some wild swings with several missed shots.  Ott ends up with a possible split to win but she is wide and heavy and actually slides through the hosue and hands Sweden the win.

A sloppy game that didn't give anyone the impression Canada's gold hopes are in jeopardy but anytthing can happen in a single game. Speaking of Ms. Jones...

2. Canada (Jennifer Jones) vs Great Britain (Eve Muirhead)

Jennifer receives an early gift when Eve's open hit attempt picks and Canada takes an opening deuce.  Difficult to overcome, especially with Canada playing so efficiently, stealing a single in the second end to go up 3-0.

After a deuce to bounce back, GB had a chance to possibly steal but Eve opens up shot stone while attempting to come through a port and Canada is able to escape with a single.

Down 5-3 with hammer in the 7th, second for Canada Jill Officer misses and GB decides to try and hit to sit two with their final front end stone (below).  Second Vicki Adams rolls out of play and the end is eventually blanked.

Canada is Red

This is a poor decision.  It is too early to come into the rings, unless they chose to try a freeze, but the best call is likely a corner guard.  Perhaps this decision is driven by a Great Britain coaching influence to have hammer in the 8th and 10th ends (see men's game below).  If so, they are overdoing it and might want to read my ebook for a second opinion (web links available at top of page above).

In the 8th end, they again hit in the rings early on Vicki's first when they could have chosen to place corner guards, a freeze or some other type of draw-tap to keep rocks in play.  They actually get another open hit miss from Jill Officer, and, rather than play out of the rings, tap or freeze, they decide to runback their own with take-out weight.  As announcer Mike Harris says, GB is not being patient and though they sit 3 now, there is plenty of time for Canada to make doubles and escape from danger.  Which they do and the result is a blank.

Again in the 9th end, Muirhead has opportunity, but on third Anna Sloan's first they chose to hit to sit first and third rather than freeze or even guard their own rock.  Canada third Kaitlyn Lawes makes the double and Great Britain is left with attempts to freeze on a single rock and eventually Eve is forced to one.  Up 1 with hammer in the final end, Canada makes no mistake (two tick-shots by lead Dawn McEwen), and Jones remains undefeated, heading to the gold medal game.

Over three ends (7, 8 and 9) while down 2 with hammer, Muirhead was unable to create guards or freezes in order to score two, despite two open misses by their opposition's second. Canada played well but this was a game where poor strategy may have played a part in Great Britain not putting themselves in a position to potentially win.

Men

3. Canada (Brad Jacobs) vs China (Liu Rui)

I wonder how many million people watched this game right and what percentage actually knew what was meant by the "hammer".  First end, China goes in to the top four foot and Canada puts up a corner guard rather than the customary settle-our-nerves-and-hit-out-first-end-for-blank.  Nice.

In the 3rd end, Rui makes a freeze on his last but a runback is available and Canaada scores a fist pumping, Austin Powers scream worthy "yah-baby" two points.  Canada leads 3-1.

Plenty of poor shots by China but they hang in and are tied without hammer playing the 7th end.  China has a guard attempt come into the rings on third's first rock and eventually it sets up a difficult position on skips first shot:

Canada is Red

Rui decides to draw down to the Canada stone (green line) but as announcer MIke Harris points out, most any location will leave a double.  Rui is 6 inches short and Jacobs makes the double.  Not an obvious decision, but China could have avoided this by trying a split on their own rock and roll into the four foot (blue line).  A very difficult shot but perhaps the only way to avoid a deuce by Canada.  

The original mistake was playing a hit and roll behind with their previous rock.  A shot they high fived.  An example of not seeing the potential danger two shots ahead, though many teams (including top Canadian skips) would have missed this as well.

On Rui's last we get to hear China's coach, Canadian Marcel Rocque, and I like how he doesn't tell them what to do, he helps them decide what decision to make.  He sounds just like a grade school teacher.  I wonder what he did before coaching, or his days of tossing lead stones for the Ferbey Four?  

Unfortunately for China they miss a double attempt to cut Canada down to two.  The result is three and after a deuce by Rui in the 8th end, Jacobs cracks another three in the 9th to seal the victory.

4. Sweden (Niklas Edin) vs Great Britain (David Murdoch)

I really enjoyed the announcers on the BBC feed, broadcast online by CBC/TSN/SportsNet. It's a universal truth that, for those in North America, British accents make something sound more important, perhaps more regal.  That's why historical dramas always work better using British actors, even if they're playing Italians.

The Ray Turnbull role is played by Jackie Lockhart, Women's World Champion skip in 2002, and also inventor of the term "boob weight" (yes, wikipedia has everything!).  Her colleague Steve Cram, a former runner who won silver in the 1984 Olympics, plays the Vic Rauter role.  At one point Steve suggested Edin might actually allow Murdoch to steal and take a 2 point lead in the 7th end, so they could have hammer in the 8th. (What?)  Jackie was very polite and suggested not a pertinent move.  I even heard a couple of Duguidisms from Steve (he's off....he's missed it...no, he's made it! a great shot!).  Cram became more emotional as the game wore on and his national pride could be felt as he gave up being impartial (assuming he ever was) during the broadcast.  I loved it.  I might have to watch the BBC coverage for the finals and record Mike and Joan for later viewing.

In the 8th end, tied 3-3 without hammer, Edin faces this with his first shot:

Edin is Red

Niklas tries to hit his stone directly on the nose and leave his two rocks one on top of the other (green line).  This is a very difficult shot that will leave Murdoch with a double nearly every time.  If made well it could require Murdoch to roll out rather than give him a chance to roll behind the corner guard.  As it was, the right side to miss on was the corner guard side so the roll would have to go to the open.  I prefer trying to roll the shooter and split the rings (blue line).  This is not as simple as it looks however.  If not perfectly placed, you still could leave a chance for GB to hit and roll behind cover and be shot.  Also likely you will leave a double in many cases as well.

A couple of shots later, Murdoch has an open hit that will allow him to blank the end.  After deliberating with his team, they decide instead to hit for a single point and head to the 9th end up 1 without hammer.  Another application of the "Two Hammers to One" theory.  I recently wrote a research paper for the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference which examined this theory and plan to include an excerpt in a future article.  For now, I'll give you the quick summary.

Great Britain made the wrong decision.

I always clarify that statistics are a baseline to begin your analysis.  Other factors and conditions can lead you to make various decisions, some which aren't supported by the numbers.  In this situation, I am 99.99% certain it is the wrong decision.

For historical data, looking at over 20,000 games from all teams, the numbers show taking 1 dropped GB Win Expectancy (WE) from 66.4% (with a blank) to 62.9%.  This data has a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.4%.  That means 95% of the time we expect the results to land within 1.4% of that number.

But this is data for all teams and Edin and Murdoch are elite level teams, much better than average. 

The recent study showed that elite teams (using Martin, Stoughton, Howard, McEwen and Koe) resulted in a difference of 6% (.76 vs .7).  This was a fairly large sample size. But that is against all competition.
For head-to-head between these 5 teams, it is actually a difference of 8.3%! (.643 vs .560).  This is still too small a sample size to believe the specific results, but it appears clear that Murdoch made a mistake.

It's important to note the mistake is still small and Edin's mistake in missing the shot for 3 in the 6th end shifted the game much more significantly.  If Edin takes 1, his WE becomes 60% instead of 40% and if he scores 2 or 3 it goes to 80% or 91%.

Interestingly, if this same scenario occured in a women's game, the decision to take 1 is defendable and in fact may be correct.! Historical results in women's show a 1% advantage (.625 vs. .615) for a team up 1 without in the second last end. 

If you want to see the charts of this data, they are available in my new ebook.  Simply click on one of the links at the top of the page to buy a copy.

In the 10th end, Niklas attempts a run back (green line) rather than following Murdoch down with a draw (blue line).

Edin is Red

I don't disagree with Niklas call.  This shot is his strength and he likely makes it greater thn 85% from that distance.  The advantage of the draw, however, is you may leave a more difficult shot for one and win the game right there, rather than going to the extra end.  It's a delicate draw and it can go terribly wrong, but some skips may have chosen it over the runback.

Good luck to all countries during their medal round games and for those two teams who lose the bronze game, we feel the most sympathy for you.  To make it that far and go home without a medal...stinks.

Late Night Olympics

Sochi 2014 will possibly generate more petabytes of recorded Olympics than any in history.  I'm not a morning person and generally function better as a night owl, but from 2 AM - 7 AM I still need to sleep, as do most people without insomnia.  Turin was in 2006 and though Tivo had strong market penetration, the PVR was still in its early days.  Come to think of it, I might have just been laying my VHS to rest about that time.

I hope that curling is taking up a good size chunk of recording space on American devices.  It's been a struggle for the US teams, a 3-15 record is not going to generate much buzz south of the 49th parallel. Just imagine the numbers for ratings if the US was winning. Curling has an opportunity every 4 years to gain exposure and hopefully one of these Winter Olympiads a US team will have make a run and curling will get an even bigger boost than Vernon Davis can provide.  The United States men won 3 world championships during the 1970's, but haven't reached a final since 1981 (but did pick up a bronze medal at the Turin Olympics). USA Women appeared in 6 finals from 1992 to 2006, winning once, but have failed to medal at an Olympics.  With Olympic funding and a history of the game across most Northern states (and some Southern), it's surprising that the US appears to be falling behind the rest of the world.  They better hurry hard up (sorry) and improve their game because the country that owns most of their currency appears to be sweeping ahead (sorry, again).

The China women's team won a bronze medal in Vancouver four years ago and their mens team impressed in Sochi with a 7-2 record and are poised to add to that collection.  After a great start (4-2) the women's team dropped 3 in a row to fall to a 4-5 record, just one win out of a tie-breaker playoff game.  Bingyu Wang did win a World Championship in 2009 after making China's first finals appearance in 2008.  The 2009 finals drew 54 million viewers in China.  If Rui Liu wins his semi-final against Canada, that record will likely be not just broken, but annihilated during the gold medal game.  

On second thought, maybe the PVRs of the world get a greater workout when the Olympics are held in North America and the Chinese are sleeping.  

The Sochi curling fans don't appear as rowdy as those in Vancouver.  I'm not certain if this is due to the distance between the seats and the ice, the organizers asking for more decorum and having security toss unruly fans out of the building, or the fact vodka is not being served at the venue.  The home town squads didn't qualify for the medal round, both teams finishing 3-6, but coverage of the Russian women's team should encourage tremendous growth in the Russian junior men's programs.

Maybe the play-offs will bring a little more noise than we've heard up till now.

I'm going to try and provide analysis for all the play-off games, including the one tie-breaker, Tom Brewster David Murdoch of Scotland Great Britain versus Thomas Ulsrud of Norway.

Both teams had a chance to avoid this match-up.  Heading into the final draw, a win by either team would have secured a play-off spot and only by both winning (or losing) was the tie-breaker required.  GB had a tough loss to China, with David coming light on a critical draw in the 8th end.  Norway lost to rival Denmark (yes, they're rivals, who knew?) in a low scoring affair.  

The tie-breaker was a hard fought (if somewhat sloppy) battle with Murdoch making a spectacular shot on his last to score 2 points.  

Murdoch is Yellow.

Rather than draw for one and head to the extra end (blue line), David chooses a runback double for the win (green line).  Some would consider the call risky, but it's riskier to head to an extra end without hammer and only a 20% chance to win. If David figures to make the runback double more than once in 5 tries, it's the right call.  Some other interesting decisions:

3rd End.  Tied 1-1 and Norway with Hammer.

Murdoch decides to try a more difficult shot to generate nearly the same result.  Rather than pick out the shot stone (green line), they decide to play a thin hit on the high red stone (blue line).  

Murdoch is Yellow

Great Britain were perhaps hoping the yellow stone top four foot would sit top button but it instead spins out to the wings and leaves Ulsrud an easier draw than he would have had with the other call.

Murdoch is Yellow

The only reason they may consider this shot rather than the pick (green line) is possibly jamming the shot stone on their yellow at the back twelve foot (5 o'clock) and the fear of Norway then playing a long raise double on the GB centre guard for a possible four points.  It would be an extremely risky double with a miss resulting in a steal and I can't imagine Ulsrud attempting it.  A more difficult shot to garner the same likely result, one point for Norway.   

5th End: 2-2. Norway with Hammer.

On third's last, Murdoch chooses to draw around the centre rather than making a play on the Norway stone.

Murdoch is Yellow

If you were watching the CBC/TSN/SportsNet coverage, you heard commentator Mike Harris discuss the risk of this call. In most positions, GB will leave a chance for Norway to sit two.  GB comes to the tee line and Norway does make the nose hit double and sits two.  Murdoch fails to make a double on his next and the result is a deuce and 2 point lead for Norway at the break.

8th End: 4-2 Norway.  GB with Hammer.

Sitting one in the rings, rather than draw to the open side, GB decides to put up a corner guard. Norway considers their options on third's final stone, facing this:

Murdoch is Yellow

At first they consider picking out shot stone (green line) but reconsider and decide to peel the guard (blue line).  They could have also tried to hit and stay (black line, could also have been attempted with other turn).  This example shows just how dangerous a corner guard can be.  Murdoch has a good chance at scoring two and, after a missed double attempt by Ulsrud on his final shot, succeeds in tieing up the game at 4-4.  You can make a case for each of these calls but I might have preferred taking a chance to create a force.If they hit and stick, GB will ignore the rock and try to come around.  Any mistake and Norway can hit and possibly sit two.  Even if made perfectly, Norway can corner freeze and either create a force or  surrender a deuce.  It seemed unlikely GB could score three points given the situation, the only thing Norway should consider a problem.

Ulsrud has two key misses on his final shots in the 9th and 10th ends.  In 9, he misses a double that could have resulted in a blank (assuming a GB nibbler near the back rings was not in the house).  In the 10th, as great as David's winning shot was, if Ulsrud hits and sticks rather than roll out on his last, Murdoch's shot isn't there and David instead would have a difficult shot just to tie the game aand send it to an extra end.

So the final 8 are settled.  Unlike the Brier, Scotties, Worlds (and many other major events) the Olympics continue to be a one game knock-out rather than a Page system.  In the Page, the team in first or second is rewarded with a second chance should they lose their first playoff game.  In the Olympics, a loss means  you have to hold back the tears and disappintment then compete in a winner-takes-bronze-loser-gets-zilch medal game.  The semi-final is perhaps equal to the intensity of a gold medal game as a win ensures a medal while a loss and you could leave empty handed.

For those in the Western Hemisphere, you can stay up all night and watch back-to-back-to-back curling.  For me, I will have my PVRs and Tivo working overtime and enjoy the games with my breakfast.

EBOOK NOW AVAILABLE! End Game: An Olympic Viewer's Guide to Curling

It's finally here. End Game: An Olympic Viewer's Guide to Curling

You can find it for Kindle at Amazon.ca, Amazon.com or Amazon.(insert country code here)

You can find epub version at Smashwords.com 

It will soon be available at other online retailers like Barnes&Noble, Sony, Kobo, Apple, and others.  If you get it and enjoy it (or at least don't hate it), please post a review at the web site where you purchased.  

Description:

The essential guide for watching curling. From the basics and a brief history lesson to detailed explanation of strategy so you can watch from home as the ultimate couch skip. 

Curling meets Moneyball with advanced statistics applied to the popular Olympic sport. Includes diagrams, charts and over 30 analyzed situations to make you more prepared than the players on the ice. All lightly coated with the same humour found in the author's award winning articles for The Curling News.

And, from the Introduction:

This book is an attempt to do several things. One thing it won't do is teach you how to curl.

This book will be of interest to curlers, but my primary goal is to educate the television viewer on curling and its strategy. This book is for someone who lives in Florida, Texas, Brazil or South Africa, and may have never seen snow much less a curling club.  Curling has a need for physical skill, but the real fan interest lies with how the play develops into a multitude of options, presenting many strategic decisions that can be analyzed and dissected from your couch. 

You could watch or curl in thousands of games and the very next contest will present situations that you have never seen before. This variety and constant challenge to work out a solution is what makes curling interesting to anyone; player, fan or occasional observer.  If you are a casual viewer, this book will help you understand the game well enough to question the decisions you see on the ice. If you are a fan, you will enjoy the brief history lesson, written with limited knowledge, even less research and a dash of humour to help it go down smoother. If you're a player, a serious fan, or enjoy analytics in sports, the charts and analysis, some of which have never been seen before, will drag you into the book, the same way you're pulled into a game, to challenge my judgement and claim that I am wrong.

I await your challenge.

Howard Dethroned and Virtue Deposed

What a weekend.  Seattle took care of business, while Peyton Manning was left with a story to kibitz with his boss about (Elway and the Broncos were trounced 55-10 by the '49ers in 1990 and 42-10 by the Redskins in 1988).  What were the odds they were going to show that Montana highlight yesterday?.

Howard Streak Ends at 8!

Glenn Howard was shockingly upset in the Ontario provincial final, ending a run of 8 in a row.  The previous streak was 4 by Glenn's brother Russ between 1991 to 1994 (which included Glenn at third, of course).  Prior to the 1990s you have to go back to the 40s to find a team that won more than 2 years in a row (Percy Hall, '44-46).

Without spending an inordinate amount of time finding the correct data, (ok, I spent more time than I should have considering I'm about to release an ebook this Thursday!), I thought I'd try to estimate the odds of 8 OCA Tankard wins in a row.

I did a probability calculation estimating Glenn beats 7 teams in the field 90% of the time and 3 teams 75%.

Assumed 7 wins gets in playoff and 6 does 2/3 the time, but no tie-breakers (not time for that).

I realize they only had 10 teams in the field for 2006, '07 and '09, but I'm not adjusting for that.

Assumed the other 3 teams in a playoff all will be the harder competion (so Glenn is only 75% against them).

Added a hammer factor in the page playoff (not RR), where team with hammer has added 5% and without subtracts 5%.

If 10-0, Glenn has hammer in 1-2 game

If 9-1, Glenn has hammer 2/3 of the time in the 1-2 game

If 8-2, Glenn has hammer in 1-2 game 1/3, no hammer 2/3 (we assume he always make the 1-2 game at 8-2.  Yes, this is flawed.)

If 7-3, Glenn makes 1-2 game (without hammer) 1/3, has hammer in 3-4 1/3 and no hammer in 3-4 game 1/3.

If 6-4 Glenn makes 3-4 with hammer 1/3 and without 1/3 and misses play-offs 1/3.

The calculation results in Glenn making the playoffs 98.1% and winning a single event 69.4% and probability to win 8 straight is 5.4%

If I adjust the win probability against harder teams to 80%, it still only goes up to 13.3%

An impressive feat that may never be duplicated and Glenn, Richard, Brent, Craig and Wayne should be extremely proud.

Saskatchewan gets Spicey!

Brock Virtue was ejected from the Saskatchewan Provincial final game.  In the 8th end, Brock expressed some frustration, by doing what many past players have done, scolding their broom.  Unfortunately, Brock decided to do this in front of the official, apparently while looking at them and smiling (ok, I might have added that part).

Recall, this same team had a player (Chris Schille) removed from a playoff game last provincials.

I wasn't there so I prefer not to judge the specific situation or the actions of either side.

However, curling needs more colour, more character, and more life.  If you are going to cheer on Brad Jacobs fist pumping the crowd (and possibly disrupting another sheet, yes I saw his Justin Leonard at Brookline display at the Trials), then you also need to allow the negative emotion to burst out.  It is sports people, not lawn bowling (oh wait, is that a sport?).

I'm not condoning Brock's actions, as I said, I wasn't there to judge.  From what it sounds like, it was likely not a pertinent action.  But wasn't curling always a sport policed by the players?  If Brock did not disrupt the opponent or put anyone in harm, what is the issue?  Decorum?  Please.

In defence of the official, if Brock did actually perform this broom mutilating act while looking into the whites of their eyes, I suppose I also would have tossed him (or put him across my knee for a spanking), but perhaps it should never have gotten to that.

I would suspect (again, not in Saskatchewan and haven't talked to the team so I don't know the whole story) Team Virtue is starting to feel the spotlight is on them, rightly or wrongly.  The problem with a spotlight is that sometimes those who want to perform will put on their best show.

Manitoba Eludes McEwen Again

This might have been the year that the majority of Manitobans were rooting for Mike McEwen.  Jeff is a great winner and the team is dearly appreciated by everyone, but you'd have to think the empathy for Mike is starting to tip tthe scales in his favour.  I haven't watched the 1-2 game yet (it's sitting on my Tivo), but it looked like a great game.  Yesterdays final however must have left the fans feeling more saddness than joy.  At some point even Jeff must start to feel even a little sympathy for his provincial opponent in 3 of his last 4 finals. But he's also whispering, "your time will come lads, but not just yet".

As impressive as Glenn's results have been, Jeff's must be considered nearly equal.  Or more impressive if your a Manitoba supporter who claims the Safeway Select is harder than the OCA Tankard round robin format.  I don't know if the Manitoba modified double-double knockout (should be sponsored by Tim Hortons maybe) is harder to win than Ontario, but it is harder to understand.

Since the end of the boycott in 2003, Stoughton has won 7 of 11 Buffaloes.  Sorry, no time for the math on that but as someone who grew up in Manitoba and never thought 7 in a career was impossible, Jeff has done it in half a career. 

Congratulations to all provincial winners and good luck next year to those who fell short, including the Lobel brothers in Ontario.  My good friend Steve Lobel (third) and brother Rob (skip) had a terrible start at the Ontario Tankard but managed to defeat Epping and Rumfeldt (keeping both out of a tie-breaker), they lost in an extra-end to eventual winner Bice/Balsdon and even stole in 10 and 11 for a nailbiting win against  Team Canada, Rachel Homan Mark Homan.