spatialnotions.blogspot.com

if you've become accusomted to spatial sports - well, it was time for a change.  i've have more interests than sports, and i wanted a place to look at spatial relationships in other mediums.  this is the place.  i will continue to look at how spatial theory intersects with sports, but also with entertainment and every day life.  i will also provide tips on all things spatial - everything from the best location on a grill to how travelling from the west to east coast effects a football team.

head on over to spatialnotions.blogspot.com for more...

grapefruit or cactus?

there may be no two better words in the english dictionary: spring training.  it just does not get any better than that.  i was thinking, though...does the location of your spring training facility have anything to do with your performance throughout the year?  spring training is split between florida and arizona (or grapefruit and cactus). here is the breakdown of who jogs where (legend: east, central, west - league neutral)

• grapefruit: braves, red sox, orioles, tigers, marlins, astros, twins, mets, yankees, phillies, pirates, cardinals, rays, jays, nationals
• cactus: diamondbacks, cubs, white sox, reds, indians, rockies, royals, angels, dodgers, brewers, athletics, padres, giants, mariners, rangers

on the surface, one major point appears obvious: east coast teams go to florida and west coast teams go to arizona. what about central teams?  it is a 6-5 split, with the majority headed to arizona. without diving in too deep on this tangent...it is hard to see any geographic reason as to why a team would pick florida or arizona.  almost all teams are closer to florida, and there is no split geographically among the 11 teams (the western central go to arizona, eastern central go to florida theory does not hold water, thanks to the astros - western most central team - going to florida and cleveland - second-most eastern central team - going to arizona).

so, back to the main thought: is there an advantage to florida or arizona?  When it comes to regular season wins - there is literally no advantage at all. starting in 1995, the average regular season wins for cactus league teams is 80.5, while grapefruit is 80.4.  when it comes to world series since 1995, 12 WS champions and 10 runner ups have come from the grapefruit league - but of those 22, only 4 came from a central division team (winning one - cardinals in '06). in the cactus league - three teams from a central division made it to the world series (also with one winning team - white sox in '05).  so does it have to do with being in florida, or just being an east coast team?  of those 22 grapefruit world series teams, 18 were from the east, meaning that in every world series since 1995, one team has been from the east (on average).

so - it looks like another geographic mystery.  next posting - why it sucks to be the toronto blue jays...

recap: nfl final four

i could not have been more wrong with my prediction. but that's why we have anomalies...right?

stay tuned for super bowl posts coming up this week and next.

the great north?

as the games were winding down this weekend, i could not help but notice how the final four are all "northern" teams (green bay, chicago, new york and pittsburgh). it got me thinking -- is this the most northern final four in nfl history? let's run the numbers:

1. my gut feeling was right. this is the most northern final four in nfl history, with an average latitude of 41.895° (roughly the same as chicago). the next closest groups were in 2000-01 (baltimore, oakland, new york and minnesota) and 2007-08 (new england, san diego, new york, and green bay).
2. there has been a northern trend the past few years. as the graph shows...there has been a ~4° trend north in the past 40 years or so.
3. this year also features the northern-most "southern" team in pittsburgh, but ranks third in northern-most "northern" team (green bay) behind seattle and minnesota.
4. the difference between "southern" and "northern" (a mere 4.06°) is the 4th smallest, behind cleveland-east rutherford (2.65°), pittsburgh-st. louis (3.35°) and orchard park-washington dc (3.95°).
5. the pittsburgh-chicago tandem of host cities ranks 5th in average lat behind denver-seattle ('06), new england-green bay ('97 & '08), denver-minneapolis ('99), oakland-minneapolis ('75 & '77).

so who has the advantage in these games?

• in games played where the host team had a lat greater than 40°, the AFC is 10-7 (pittsburgh is 5-5) and the NFC is 7-3 (chicago is 2-1).
• in matchups of two 40°+ teams, the away team is 3-1 (ne twice over pitt, ny over gb). the giants are the only home team to win (against the vikings in 2001). looked at through a different lens, the northern team won in the afc, while the southern team won in the nfc.

based on this info...the spatial prediction for the super bowl is chicago and new york jets.

mlb realignment

...and we're back, after that time off. now that the summer is here, i'm back into the blogging mood. the next series i'm going to touch on is realignment - whether through relocation, expansion, or just shifting the divisions around. the first sport to get the treatment is baseball. the last time mlb expanded was 1998 when the devil rays and diamondbacks entered the league. let's assume that the league looks to reach new markets through relocation in 8 years (unlikely, but more realistic than next year). expansion right now in MLB does not make sense -- while teams aren't losing too much cash and attendance is going up, the need for 32 teams is not there and the market may not be able to sustain 2 more (fledgling) franchises.

first off, let's take a look at the current location of baseball teams:

now we will add three "buffers" around each baseball city: 50, 100 and 150 miles (red, orange and yellow).

now when we look at potential cities, we will be able to take into account their proximity to another club. anything in the "red zone" will be eliminated - 100 miles is just too close. anything within 150 miles will also be considered as a poor candidate as well, unless that team needs to establish a regional rivalry.

now for the potential cities and the requirements we are using to be considered:

1. population of at least 250,000 people
2. recent population growth
3. interest/ability to support a major league team
4. transportation is not an issue (easy to get there, not too far from a current MLB city)
5. it is an urban area (as are the majority of the other mlb cities)
6. it is not las vegas (professional sports will get there eventually, but baseball won't be first)
7. it is a us city -- while there is talk of international expansion, basketball will most likely make the first move. (especially with the world baseball classic)

using those requirements and the greater than 100 mile threshold, we are left with (in no particular order): Indianapolis, Memphis, Portland (OR), Oklahoma City, Nashville, Omaha, San, Antonio, Charlotte, and Louisville.

if we add the requirements that the city should have at least one other sport to prove a fan base (omaha, louisville) and have a AAA franchise for baseball interest (san antonio).

of the remaining six, portland gets through due to its location (8 teams in west, rival for seattle). that leaves indianapolis, oklahoma city, nashville, memphis and charlotte.

• indianapolis provides a interesting choice. the city is home to many franchises (colts, pacers, fever) and is in a baseball-friendly midwestern location. the city, though, is located in an area surrounded by baseball teams (within 150 miles of reds, cubs, white sox and not too much further from cleveland).
• oklahoma city is another unique choice, as it has welcomed the sonics thunder and the city and team have both benefited. the situation is new, though, and it is yet to be seen how the city will do once the excitement wears off
• nashville and memphis both provide a baseball option to those in tennessee. but...do they want one?
• charlotte is an obvious choice (even though it may not be a good financial decision with the number of sports options in the city). it is the only city that does not have a neighboring state with a team, and many locals can not identify with the braves, which is the closest team

that leaves a choice between indianapolis and charlotte. based on the fact that there are not many other options for the locals, i give the nod to charlotte.

now - which teams get the boot? florida is the first choice. the marlins have been talking relocation for years and now it finally happens. a new stadium takes too long and the city tries to call the marlins bluff. they head to portland. the other team? a tough choice. i narrowed it down to those with low fan support, including toronto, kansas city, oakland, and pittsburgh. i had to go with toronto on this one as i think the fans there would care the least if the team left. the blue jays head to charlotte.

how would the new-look mlb be laid out? (changes in italics, expansion teams using AAA names)

• al east: baltimore orioles, boston red sox, charlotte knights, ny yankees, tb rays
• al central: chicago white sox, cleveland indians, detroit tigers, kc royals, minnesota twins, texas rangers
• al west: anaheim angels, oakland a's, portland beavers, seattle mariners
• nl east: atlanta braves, philadelphia phillies, pittsburgh pirates, ny mets, washington nationals
• nl central: chicago cubs, cincinnati reds, colorado rockies, houston astros, milwaukee brewers, st. louis cardinals
• nl west: arizona diamondbacks, los angeles dodgers, san diego padres, san francisco giants

the texas rangers shift to the central makes more sense geographically and the rockies are in the middle of "west" and "central", so there is no loss or gain there. the winners in this? the marlins are now in a less-competitive al west and the rangers/rockies move into a division where there always seems to be a new division leader each week. loser? the pirates, which now move from a weaker division to one of the strongest (does that make the nationals a winner?)

college football playoffs

as the college football season winds down, let's revisit the idea of a college football playoff. granted, i understand the pageantry of the bowl games and the money it brings to universities (the real reason we will never get a playoff). an idea, though, to tie in the spatial aspect, is to divvy up the top 10 bcs teams (those which would make the bcs anyway) and create a regional playoff system. those other 34 teams which go to bowls still could - this would be on top of that. i'll update again after conference championships before the actual bowls begin.

the big six conferences get a team automatically entered (sec, big 10, big 12, big east, acc and pac 10). the other sixspots are based on the bcs rankings. if a conference champ is outside the top 12 in the bcs, the lowest ranked, non-champion team does not make it. top four teams get a bye. (think nfl playoff system) that simple.
games - regionals played at home sites for higher ranked team

Southeast Regional: (7) georgia tech v. (12) oklahoma state
Western Regional: (6) boise state v. (8) oregon
Northeast Regional: (9) pittsburgh v. (10) ohio state
Central States Regional: (5) cincinnati v. (11) iowa

West Finals: (4) tcu vs. western regional winner (played at rose bowl)
Southeast Finals: (1) florida vs. southeast winner (played at orange bowl)
Northeast Finals: (2) alabama vs. northeast winner (played at sugar bowl)
Central States Finals: (3) texas v. central states winner (played at fiesta bowl)

National Semifinal #1: lowest remaining ranked team vs. highest ranked team
National Semifinal #2: second lowest remaining ranked team vs. second highest ranked team
(these games could be played at rotating sites, as the national championship game - but not at the four major bowls. sites could include indoor cold weather sites or nfl stadiums)

National Final: remaining two teams (played at national championship site)

how would i see this shaking out? aside from the influx of funds for more teams and greater opportunities for students and fans to see a true national champion?

• Southeast Regional: (7) georgia tech v. (12) oklahoma state
• Western Regional: (6) boise state v. (8) oregon
• Northeast Regional: (9) pittsburgh v. (10) ohio state
• Central States Regional: (5) cincinnati v. (11) iowa
• West Finals: (4) tcu vs. (8) oregon
• Southeast Finals: (1) florida vs. (7) georgia tech
• Northeast Finals: (2) alabama vs. pittsburgh
• Central States Finals: (3) texas v. cincinnati
• National Semifinal #1: (8) oregon v. (1) florida
  
• National Semifinal #2: (3) texas v. (2) alabama
• National Final: oregon v. alabama

ok - so maybe oregon makes it through because i wanted an upset. still - it could work.

spatial series #2: the space between

not counting the 16 times the world series has featured two teams from the same city (including the match ups between the brooklyn dodgers and new york yankees and the oakland a's/san francisco giants match up), the distance between the two teams in the world series has fluctuated from 100 miles to over 2,000 (see chart to left). quick analysis...

1. it is again obvious to note where teams moved west with the spike right after 1960
2. it is an anomaly for teams to be so far apart...and this does not mean that teams have to be in the northeast (where there traditionally is a higher concentration of teams). for example: oakland/san francisco, anaheim/san francisco, kansas city/st. louis, etc.

so where does this series match up? this series between new york and philadelphia ties for the second shortest distance (not including same-city matchups) with 109 miles (tied with the 1905, 1911, 1913, and 1950 matchups between these two cities). the only series closer? when baltimore won the 1983 world series against the philadelphia phillies. the two cities are only 102 miles apart. the top ten closest city matchups...

1. baltimore v. philadelphia
2. new york city v. philadelphia
3. baltimore v. new york city
4. boston v. new york city
5. washington dc v. new york city
6. cincinnati v. detriot
7. cincinnati v. chicago
8. pittsburgh v. baltimore
9. pittsburgh v. washington dc
10. kansas city v. st. louis

the furtherest distances teams have traveled? the series that went near/over 2,500 miles...

• new york v. san francisco/oakland (2,944 miles)
• new york v. san diego (2,836 miles)
• los angeles v. new york (2,824 miles)
• baltimore v. los angeles (2,681 miles)
• phoenix v. new york (2,482 miles)

...and for the record, east coast teams won 5 out of 9 - so it seems that there is no real advantage there...or just needs some more analysis...