Earlier this week, Tobias J. Moskowitz (a University of Chicago finance professor) and?L. Jon Wertheim (a Sports Illustrated writer) contributed a guest post on black NFL coaches, which was an adaptation of their new book Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won. You may recall this as the book Levitt described as?”[t]he closest thing to Freakonomics I’ve seen since the original,” much to his wife’s chagrin.
Now Moskowitz and Wertheim have agreed to answer your sports questions. So fire away in the comments section below and, as always, we’ll post their answers in due time.
To give you an idea of the ground they cover, here’s the Table of Contents from Scorecasting:
Whistle Swallowing: Why fans and leagues want officials to miss calls
Go For It: Why coaches make decisions that reduce their team’s chances of winning
How Competitive Are Competitive Sports?: Why are the Pittsburgh Steelers so successful and the Pittsburgh Pirates so unsuccessful? [For Steelers fans (like me), here's an unrelated post on the improbability of the Steelers' success.]
Tiger Woods is Human (and Not for the Reason You Think): How Tiger Woods is just like the rest of us, even when it comes to playing golf
Offense Wins Championships, Too: Is defense really more important than offense?
The Value of a Blocked Shot: Why Dwight Howard’s 232 blocked shots are worth less than Tim Duncan’s
Rounding First: Why .299 hitters are so much more rare (and maybe more valuable) than .300 hitters
Thanks, Mr. Rooney: Why black NFL coaches are doing worse than ever — and why this is a good thing
Comforts of Home: How do conventional explanations for the home field advantage stack up?
So, What Is Driving the Home Field Advantage?: Hint: Vocal fans matter, but not the way you might think
There’s No I in Team: But there is an m and an e
Off the Chart: How Mike McCoy came to dominate the NFL draft
How a Coin Toss Trumps All: Why American Idol is a fairer contest than NFL overtime
What Isn’t in the Mitchell Report?: Why Dominican baseball players are more likely to use steroids — and American players are more likely to smoke weed
Do Athletes Really Melt When Iced?: Does calling a time-out before a play actually work?
The Myth of the Hot Hand: Do players and teams ride the wave of momentum? Or are we (and they) fooled into thinking they do?
Damned Statistics: Why “four out of his last five” almost surely means four of six
Are the Chicago Cubs Cursed?: If not, then why are the Cubs so futile?
Update: Moskowitz and Wertheim respond to your questions.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Are MLB Compensation draft picks more valuable than the Type-A or Type B free agent they replace?
It’s no secret that Tiger Wood’s golf game has been off as of late. It’s also no secret that he has one of the most rigorous training regimens in the game. Is it that Woods’ mental and emotional problems are getting in the way of his expertise or do we just want to read it that way?
on the “myth” of the hot hand- sorry i haven’t read ur chapter, but i am a believer in streaky probability- my question involves the ‘zone’, where the claim is an athlete experiences a timeframe of superior performance- so, if you believe in the zone (i do), wouldn’t that verify the hot hand exists?- that is, do you think the ‘myth’ is equivalent to saying that the ‘zone’ is a ‘myth’ and do you think that poses a problem for the argument against streaks? (i’m assuming more people accept the existence of the ‘zone’ over streaky probability)
Do coaches really matter or do the players that win the game?
Will Nancy Lieberman be the first woman NBA coach?
I had a question in regard to the NFL combine. We constantly hear that a given player’s stock has risen / fallen as a result of performance at the combine (faster 40, higher vertical leap, etc.), but has anyone actually been able to tie combine performance to on-field outcomes? Are any of the tests at the combine more predictive than others in determining the value of a player?
How about the cliched “it’s always hard to beat a team 3 times in a year” that you always hear before the 3rd matchup between teams after one of them has gone 2-0 in the series to that point? Is it actually harder to win that 3rd game, or is it the same (or maybe easier) if you’re already 2/3 of the way there? And is there any variation in this data among different sports?
Watching a football game dominated by one team, I frequently hear the announcers in the second half state something like “the (losing team) defense is worn out after being on the field so long”.
Why doesn’t the (winning team) offense get tired?