Source author record

Michael J. Lopez

Michael J. Lopez appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Applications Methodology

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

2topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2020arXiv

Bigger data, better questions, and a return to fourth down behavior: an introduction to a special issue on tracking data in the National football League

Most historical National Football League (NFL) analysis, both mainstream and academic, has relied on public, play-level data to generate team and player comparisons. Given the number of oft omitted variables that impact on-field results, such as play call, game situation, and opponent strength, findings tend to be more anecdotal than actionable. With the release of player tracking data, however, analysts can better ask and answer questions to isolate skill and strategy. In this article, we highlight the limitations of traditional analyses, and use a decades-old punching bag for analysts, fourth-down strategy, as a microcosm for why tracking data is needed. Specifically, we assert that, in absence of using the precise yardage needed for a first down, past findings supporting an aggressive fourth down strategy may have been overstated. Next, we synthesize recent work that comprises this special Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports issue into player tracking data in football. Finally, we conclude with some best practices and limitations regarding usage of this data. The release of player tracking data marks a transition for the league and its' analysts, and we hope this issue helps guide innovation in football analytics for years to come.

preprint2020arXiv

The Estimation of Causal Effects of Multiple Treatments in Observational Studies Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees

There is currently a dearth of appropriate methods to estimate the causal effects of multiple treatments when the outcome is binary. For such settings, we propose the use of nonparametric Bayesian modeling, Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART). We conduct an extensive simulation study to compare BART to several existing, propensity score-based methods and to identify its operating characteristics when estimating average treatment effects on the treated. BART consistently demonstrates low bias and mean-squared errors. We illustrate the use of BART through a comparative effectiveness analysis of a large dataset, drawn from the latest SEER-Medicare linkage, on patients who were operated via robotic-assisted surgery, video-assisted thoratic surgery or open thoracotomy.

preprint2015arXiv

Labor Disputes and Worker Productivity

We implement a propensity score matching technique to present the first evidence on the impact of labor supply decisions during labor disputes on worker productivity in the context of professional sports. In particular, we utilize a unique natural experiment from the 2012-13 National Hockey League (NHL) lockout, during which approximately 200 players decided to play overseas while the rest stayed in North America. We separate the players based on their nationality and investigate the effect of playing abroad on post-lockout player performance. We find limited evidence of enhanced productivity among European players, and no evidence of a benefit or drawback for North American players. The lack of consistent productivity impact is in line with literature in industries with large labor rents, and we propose several additional explanations within the context of professional hockey. Our study contributes to the general understanding of the impact of employer-initiated work stoppage on labor productivity.

preprint2014arXiv

Building an NCAA mens basketball predictive model and quantifying its success

The old adage says that it is better to be lucky than to be good, but when it comes to winning NCAA tournament pools, do you need to be both? This paper attempts to answer this question using data from the 2014 men's basketball tournament and more than 400 predictions of game outcomes submitted to a contest hosted by the website Kaggle. We begin by describing how we built a prediction model for men's basketball tournament outcomes under the binomial log-likelihood loss function. Next, under different sets of true underlying game probabilities, we simulate tournament outcomes and imputed pool standings, in an effort to determine how much of an entry's success can be attributed to luck. While one of our two submissions finished first in the Kaggle contest, we estimate that this winning entry had no more than about a 12% chance of doing so, even under the most optimistic of game probability scenarios.