There's been plenty of discussion
recently on whether the WCF should shorten all events from 10 ends down to 8. But
there is another consideration that's floating in the curling ether that could perhaps more
dramatically alter the sport. This rule was used in the now defunct Elite 10
match play format for all ends and some people pondered its use in
"regular" curling as a change for possibly all ends or maybe just the
final end (or extra end). The Champions Cup adopted this version of the rule
for last year and would have used it again this spring if not for the COVID-19
pandemic.
The rule allows for a lead rock
placed on the centre line to not only be in the free guard zone, but to be
considered frozen in place on that line and unable to be moved by the opponent
until the 6th rock of the end. Rather than play a tick shot and move the centre
guard away from play, a team tied with hammer would now be forced to another
strategy, invariably putting more rocks in play during the end. The reason this
rule is being discussed stems from the increasing proficiency with which teams
can execute the tick shot. With continued improvement in skill the shot will
become so routine a team without hammer will never be able to put pressure on
the opposition and a tied game in the final end will become an anti-climactic
victory for the team with hammer. The fear is dramatic final ends will increasingly
become routine, too repetitive and lower competitive balance.
The reasons for tweaking curling
rules over the past 25 plus years has been to balance a fair test of
competition with an entertaining contest that keeps fans interested in the
outcome. When ice conditions, push brooms and skill level surpassed the point
at which traditional rules were entertaining, the sport had to shift to a new
rule (Free Guard Zone) in order to keep its appeal and continue to grow
globally. I sometimes ponder if ice conditions had not improved and mixing
broom use was allowed during a game (as seen in the 1980s and early 90s)
everyone might have held off on these new rules (though probably not) and the
game could have remained entertaining to fans, if partly due to the odd fight
between teams over an alleged 7-up dipped corn broom.
But here we are. Three rock (in
Canada) went to 4 rock and now 5 rock and it appears we have a great game that
is enjoyed by many and growing around the globe. So, the first question to be
asked is why change? Firstly, I don't want to disparage the consideration.
It is good practice to continuously consider how change can improve a sport. The
three-point line, changes to the hand-check rules in the NBA and various NFL
rules starting from the mid-70s in order to increase passing, have changed
these sports for the better and improved their entertainment value. Any debate
on the dreaded neutral zone trap in the NHL has hopefully disappeared. Sometimes
mistakes are made (see late 90s NBA shorter three-point line), but in general I
applaud sports attempting to improve as its athletes, fans and conditions
change. In the case for curling, the part of my brain that yells at kids to “get
off my lawn” thinks the sport has experienced so much change in the last 30
years that we've become addicted to thinking it constantly needs altering for
the sake of change rather than just enjoying it for what it is. If people spent
more time on growing the sport by getting more people to "play it",
rather than focus ad nauseum on changes to make to it, in their perspective,
"better", the sport would be further ahead. Instead of arguing for
further on ice changes, could we possibly improve the arena and live viewing
experience and get more butts in seats?
Perhaps part of this behaviour is
simply because curling has changed so much over the past few decades that we
all feel a need to constantly tweak and alter its form out of habit. We live in
a sports world where the audience doesn’t simply watch games but derive
pleasure in becoming an agent, general manager or owner while tweeting from their
couch. In a culture of daily fantasy sports, fans are programmed to analyze who
should be traded and what contract a superstar should receive in order to meet
complex salary cap rules, most of which they understand. Perhaps talk of rule
changes can garner attention in a crowded sports and entertainment landscape,
but part of me wants some of this debate on what's wrong with curling to take a
backseat for a while.
I heard someone ran a bonspiel in
Switzerland in which blanking meant losing hammer the following end. This is
one of a few concepts thrown around over the years to reduce zeroes on the
board and generate more scoring. This nonsense needs to stop. If you want
to create a different version of the sport (a la Mixed Doubles), fine, but you
cannot remove blank ends without fundamentally altering the standard format of
the game. The very nature of a blank end is what provides a subtle but very
significant strategic attribute to curling not seen in other sports. Curling
has never been a game where scoring the most matters or provides the greatest
entertainment. Curling is a game of point differential. Each contest is a drama
that unfolds over several ends, with every story looking very different than
the last. Sure, an end in which a team puts their first rock into the rings and
both adversaries decide to hit through to a blank is not entertaining. But find
me a game in the past decade where two teams have done this for 3 ends, much
less 8 or 10. The blank ends I've witnessed in the free guard zone era involve
intricate shot decisions and execution throughout, often including a double
take-out, sometimes on the final shot. At each stage of these ends, a team
needs to contemplate whether to focus on offense with aggressive shot selection
in an attempt to score two or more (risking a force or steal) or shift to a
defensive strategy despite their opponent trying to create the opposite result.
I've seen top teams in a Grand Slam call a timeout and discuss whether to peel
or add another guard, and then watch their opponent do the exact opposite of
what they had expected on the very next shot. If a team cannot blank, all of
this disappears and we are left with a modified scoring version of skins
curling, except the team without hammer has no incentive to force a single
point from their opponent. Now the team without hammer will play defensive and
instead of zeroes on the board we'll see a row of ones. The score might be higher,
but the entertainment value will not. The very nature of curling is a
battle for the hammer and if that aspect disappears, the game is no longer the
same. Luckily, as I understand, most involved in this Swiss bonspiel did not
find the new rule to be of interest. The next time someone complains about too
many zeroes on the score sheet, ask them if they watched the game. I'm certain
there were rocks in play, great shots to admire and enough tension to keep them
from changing channels.
Back to our original debate on
outlawing the tick shot in the final end. Rather than remain a cranky old
codger, I'll keep an open mind and examine the data. Looking at major league baseball results since 1957, the home team wins a tied game
starting the 9th inning 52.07% of the time. In curling, a tie score in the
final end is simply not close to a "tied" likely outcome. Curling is closer
to a tied ballgame in the final inning when a team is behind by one point with
the hammer. The general rule of thumb is the team ahead one point without
hammer is 60% likely to win (58.7% for men and 57.1% for women over the last 4
seasons). This is actually very close to baseball odds for the home team to win
with one out and no runners on base at the top of the 9th inning (57.9%).
Looking at the last 4 seasons of world
ranking events, men’s teams win 75.2% of the time starting with hammer in the
final frame of a tied game while women’s teams win 70.5% of their contests. At
the higher levels (Grand Slam and Canada Cup data specifically, excluding Tier
2 and the 2019 Champions Cup), over that time frame the results are 84.4% and
73.2% respectively.
Back to our baseball analogy; if we
begin the 9th inning with the visiting team ahead 1 run, odds for victory for
the home team are only 15%. This appears worse than that of a team tied without
hammer. No one is suggesting that the team that's one run down should be given
a free runner on first base to start an inning, so why provide an advantage to
the team that's behind at this point? One argument is that a team which
starts the game tied without hammer has not lost any position on the scoreboard
but is now at a greater disadvantage. That is true, but as stated before,
curling is a battle for hammer. This is specifically why teams now compete to
determine hammer in the first end rather than have it decided by a coin flip. However,
major league baseball results are consistent from 1957 to 2018. You can choose
any 5, 10 or 30 year stretch over that span and it's roughly within one percent.
Curling teams keep getting better and the hammer advantage appears to be
increasing in this tied-at-the-end situation, at least for the top teams in the
world.
One further consideration that
cannot be measured in math (yet), is the fan aesthetic. A baseball team
starting the last inning one down can lose many ways. A runner could reach
first and steal second, a bunt, maybe a double play, anything is possible. Even striking out the side against the top of
the batting order can be thrilling. In curling, the broadcaster may come back
from a TV commercial, both tick shots have already been made, and any further dramatic
tension has been taken from the contest, like the air from a balloon. A baseball
team down a run in the 9th inning may lose more often than the team starting
the final end without hammer, but the potential for entertainment value is significantly
higher.
Under the 5-rock free guard zone,
when top teams have an option, some are now choosing to be 2 down with hammer
in the final end rather than tied without. At first this appears to be an error
as the odds to win have only improved slightly since the end of the 4-rock rule
(about 11 to 13% for men and 14 to 16% for women). These results still appear
to be worse than a 25% or 30% chance to win when tied. The real scrutiny comes
for the very top teams. Looking at more recent data, in the toughest events, men’s
teams have gone 73-7 (91.3%) since the start of the 2018-19 season when tied
with hammer in final or extra end.
Given recent results, it's no wonder
Kevin Koe prefers to be 2 down with hammer rather than tied without at the end
of a game. Grand Slam women teams in 2018-19 tied at the end with hammer reached
a record of 46-5 (90.2%). However, this past season teams were 34-15 (69.4%) which is
in line with the broader series of world ranking events and historical results.
Always the danger of small sample sizes, we see women were 91.3% in the 2014-15
season, but this came in a mere 23 situations. Women’s teams should nearly
always prefer to be tied without rather than down 2 with hammer in the final end,
but for how much longer?
It's fair to say these recent
numbers are a concern and something to keep a collective eye on. To be clear, I
hate the idea of changing a basic rule at the end of a game. I'm at a loss finding
a comparison from elsewhere in the sports world, other than perhaps regular
season NHL overtime. Everyone has an opinion on the various changes this
century (shoot-out, 3-on-3, 4-on-4) but most would concur that when the
play-offs arrive, when it really matters, these tweaks are thrown aside, and
the game is played on. Though recent results could be an indicator of an
undesirable future, concerns appear to be only with the very top men’s teams
over a short period. I'd not suggest we change a rule for all because of
results from one small group, but the data should be tracked and as teams
improve, further scrutiny given to the results. But for now, when the games
matter the most, curling should just play on.
Posts
