In Defence of Mary Kate

I am so tired of reading people’s comments in forums and articles about how they hate Mary Kate’s recent outfits. For those of you who don’t keep up-to-date with MK, here is a typical recent outfit of hers: long shirts/ short dresses with leggings and Balenciaga ankle boots.

Yes, she has been wearing shirts and sweaters that very just cover her butt. But guess what? She pulls it off. And before anyone starts complaining how short those tops are, may I point out that no paparazzi photographer has yet to snap a shot of her flashing any underwear or private parts. And we all know the paparazzi are very efficient in shooting such shocking shots.

Mary Kate’s Balenciaga ankle boots (which are rumoured to be around 8 inches tall,) are possibly this season’s more controversial fashion choice. Gossip-mongers in majority seem to hate the boots. Personally I love them. I loved the Balenciaga FW06 show and I loved those boots, although I can understand that those boots are not for the fashion-faint-hearted. MK’s style is often controversial, but very stylish: stylish as in creative and personal, but not preppy or the American immaculate-looking type of stylish.

So yes, feel free to criticise MK's fashion choices. Just remember that at least she stays true to her own style.

Rock-Paper-Scissors, Edgar Allan Poe, and Play Selection

Despite the lofty title, this post focuses on the narrow topic of calling the right play in a football game. Coaches spend an enormous amount of time studying film, determining tendencies, creating gigantic scouting reports for each opponent, and then distributing them to their other coaches and to players who do not read them. Barely sleeping is a badge of honor, particularly at the highest levels, we are sure that more work equals more success.

This is surely true, but how is time best spent? And how should the entire idea of "play-calling" be thought of? Despite all the time spent on preparation, when asked most playcallers, such as Notre Dame's Charlie Weis, say that playcalling is "more art than science." If so much of it is gut feeling and chance during the game, then maybe the better strategy is to get some sleep during the week. I'm kidding, as I put a high premium on preparation, but can active playcalling do more harm than good? And what are the boundaries to knowledge and insight into what the other guy is going to do? Is it ever better to pick your call or choice randomly? Don't we already do that quite often?

Poe's Purloined Letter

In Edgar Allan Poe's the Purloined Letter, a character recounts a story of a young man who excels at game called "odds and evens," more popularly known as "matching pennies." The game is a two-strategy version of rock-paper-scissors: Each player secretly turns their coin to heads or tails and then both reveal their choices simultaneously; if the pennies match (both heads or both tails) then one player gets a dollar, if they do not match then the other player gets the dollar. As told in the story, the young man quickly sizes up his opponents, gains a psychological advantage, and amasses a fortune by outguessing his opponents.

I suppose all playcallers think themselves like the young man, but most are probably more similar to the suckers. But here's the rub: The suckers could nullify the young man's psychological advantage.

How?

By choosing randomly. If the suckers put no thought into whether they chose heads or tails, they would do better than if they tried their best to outthink him. They would break even--a fantastic result against the world's greatest matching pennies player--an unnatural genius who, according to the story, would go through lengthy Sherlock Holmsian deductions to determine if his opponent was going to choose heads or tails.

This is a breath-taking result. But it is also scary--would I be better off picking my plays entirely randomly?

Rock-Paper-Scissors and the Bend-But-Don't-Break-Defense

Playcalling, at least oversimplified, is a lot like matching pennies, or--for a more common game--rock-paper-scissors. If I choose rock and you choose scissors, I get a first down. If I choose rock and you choose rock, I maybe gain a couple yards. If I choose rock and you choose paper--whoops, I just got sacked and maybe fumbled too.

A lot of football games come down to who has the bigger rocks and scissors (more talent), but tough, highly competitive games really do come down to whether you picked paper vs. his rock or vs. his scissors. But how many supposedly great calls were just luck? Probably a lot. We try to make educated guesses, but there's something to be said for going random.

Let me backtrack for a moment. John Wooden, the best basketball coach ever, talked a great deal about focusing on his team. Norm Chow, now offensive coordinator with Tennessee, mentioned how very often he really does not know what the other team is even running right then, and it would be hubris to act like he always knew. When a playcaller says that it is more art than science, he's really just saying that he's out there making (educated) guesses, but guesses nonetheless. Wooden's insight about focusing on his team is that time is best spent byfocusing on what you can control: developing your own talents and self-scouting--to avoid situations where you do become predictible.

The message? When you're scouting you're looking for sure things. Times when you know the other team is going to blitz, or is going to run that one screen pass they like or whatnot, and the best thing you can do to win games is make sure that you don't have any of these true "tendencies" that your opponent can act on. The fact that the other team knows you run it 37.4% of the time on 3rd and 4 1/2 on your own 43 is simply not useful information because it doesn't materially narrow their decision-making. If they know you only run it 3.74% of the time, that is material.

To carry the metaphor, you help yourself the most by preventing your opponent from ever knowing that if you lose twice in a row, you always shoot rock. You may still lose three in a row, but you've given him no advantage. Again, this is powerful. Even if you are playing the world's greatest playcaller or rock-paper-scissors champion, you can still break even, and then wait for those rare times when you know they are going to blitz, or come out with scissors, and hopefully carry the day.

So what's that about the bend-but-don't-break? Imagine: You are playing rock-paper-scissors. Whoever wins gets $1, if you shoot the same no one gets anything, but if rock wins over scissors, the winner get $10. What will this do to the game? Anyone with any sense is going to try to play rock more often than anything else and rarely, if ever, play scissors. If you shoot scissors you can win $1, break even, or lose $10. If you shoot rock you can lose $1, break even, or win $10.

This is the theory behind the bend-but-don't-break defense (and to some extent the more wide-open offenses). The idea is that if you play a gambling type defense, you may win more than you lose, but when you guess wrong, you give up a TD or a big play. The bend-but-don't break will concede by giving up many short passes and runs, and hope not to give up the big play. I am not saying this is a superior strategy, and in fact may be a long-run loser, but it's important to understand the theory. The person practicing that defense recognizes that they will probably be wrong more than they are right, but they think it will be worth it in the long-run--the risk is acceptable to them.

Application

This "mixed strategy" thinking is not meant to supplant gameplanning. (Offensive Coordinator: "Sorry Coach, I'm not doing any work this week, Chris's website told me to just go out there and 'wing it.'" Head Coach: "You're fired.") Indeed, much of gameplanning should fit into your estimates of what will and won't be successful, and then you can engage in a bit of the decision to run or pass I detailed in this post.

What it does is it gives you a place to start. You should have a general equilibrium strategy based on your talent and what you emphasize going in week to week. You can hope to be a 50/50 run/pass on 1st and 10 team, with focuses on quick and intermediate passes and power runs. This is your so-called "identity" and your practices will focus there because it is what you do the most. Then you "kink-it," or skew your weekly plan to the things the defense is weakest against. Who do we run against? What coverages will we see the most? Do they blitz a lot?

Another important application is the "intelligent" mixed-strategy. For example, you face a team that runs the gamut of coverages: Cover 1, 2, 3 and 4 and man and zone and every kind of blitz and they also drop 8 guys into coverage sometimes. But you notice that if you line up in a "trips formation" they will only play Cover 1 or 3, then you have significantly improved your chances. You still don't know for sure if they will be in Cover 3 or 1, or if they will or won't blitz, but you r mixed strategy has been narrowed to a better range of possibilities.

Yet, most teams know their own weaknesses. Most defenses match their weakest defenders with their strongest, not content to let half their defense get run over every week. Further, you get into that neverending mental game: I want to throw quick routes because he likes to blitz. But he knows I know he likes to blitz, so maybe I will throw off deeper drops because his defenders will be looking for my quick passes. But then maybe he knows that I know that he knows that I know he likes to blitz, and thus will blitz anyway countering my counter. And so on. Do I have any special proficiency for this? What if the defensive coordinator is straight out of the Purloined Letter? Remember Norm Chow: if you are so certain of what the other team will do or you have a true read on the opposing coach, it's probably just you being arrogant.

Conclusion

Imagine you are a wing-T youth coach, and you have only three plays: the dive, the bucksweep, and the waggle (bootleg). You can win a lot of games simply by selecting those three plays practically at random; each perfectly counters the other. Then, every so often, you'll see that moment when you know that the waggle will be there. The corners are coming up for the run, the receiver has a mismatch, you know the QB will break contain, so you call it--TD.

Simplified, this is where gameplanning, play-calling, and deception all intersect. Although I've focused on play-calling from the sidelines, I recognize that in modern football playcalling differs from rock-paper-scissors in that it is not a static, simultaneous "now show it" game.

In football you call the play, then show a formation--thus narrowing the range of possibilities--then the play begins, and with good recognition both the offense and defense can react to what the defense is doing and put themselves in position to win. Many very good offenses try to "cheat" on good playcalling by calling everything from the line of scrimmage, and the run and shoot and the triple option try to "cheat" even further by putting a premium on "reading the defense" to make themselves right all the time. Many good defenses operate on similar principles. The important thing to remember for now is that deception and duplicity are your best weapons to prevent this kind of targeting, and once you've done that, you tilt the advantage back in your favor, and the "mixed strategy" reemerges as your best course. And again, if you can limit their strategies by formation or design, then you can improve your mixed strategy by being able to choose the things that defeat their known range of possibilities, rather than than having to be totally random.

Winter Sales Above $100

To continue the momentum from the other day, here are a few items from two of my favourite brands to shop at (because of their brilliant style and relatively affordable prices as opposed to say. . . the real Chloe) that are still on the sales rack.
See by Chloe tux vest ($136)and jackets($246) absolutely LOVE these tux styled jackets, because I think it instantly adds class and style to any outfit. For adventurous souls out there try the vest. But for those who go more for the classics, like me, definitely get a tux jacket. I have a similar one and I LOVE LOVE LOVE it.
Next on my list are silk shirts. As you can see, my obsession with silk has carried over from this summer. They just look so feminine pretty and shiny! They are great for work or to just look pretty with jeans. They are just great. These two are from See by Chloe ($261, $174 respectively).re silk shirts, these two are from Marc by Marc Jacobs. The one on the left is similar to those above($136.80), except I think the black tie makes it look fun. And even though the one on the right ($173.60) looks somewhat plain, I think it'll be a neat match for all those dressy winter skirts that you don't know what to wear with.
Another silk dress here from Marc by Marc Jacobs (right: $243.60). I think the two materials used here is just genius and perfect for a night out. And for something more casual, there is this more casual printed dress (left: $196)also from Marc by Marc Jacobs, just the thing for night and day!
I am coming to LOVE cardigans recently, and these two from Marc by Marc Jacobs are just the thing to spice up the usual. Ok, so this brown one here on the left ($248)is not on sale (except for the khaki version of this, but I think brown is SO much better) so it really shouldn't be in this post- but I just couldn't resist because it looks sooo cute! And for something with a bit of a twist, there is this balloon sleeved cardigan for $148.
Another adorable cardigan from Paul and Joe Sister for $62 (I've been eyeing this one since Paris!). And something cute to match from See by Chloe ($96). I love the length and the tailored boxy style of these winter shorts.And to keep you warm and cozy, there is this hat/scarf set and funky hat ($103.60) from Marc by Marc Jacobs. The flower on the gret hat ($68.60)is to-die-for!

(All items featured are available at www.net-a-porter.com, www.shopbop.com)

Mr. Blackwell's 47th annual "Worst Dressed" list

Mr. Blackwell's famous annual worst dress list was released a few days ago, and I only got around looking at it properly. Quite frankly, I don't agree with half the list, and I don't care about the people on the other half of the list. So I'm just going to talk about the people who I notice.

No.1 Britney and Paris -"Two peas in an overexposed pod"
Oh Britney Britney, I thought losing K Fed was going to make you a pretty star again. Unfortunately setting you free on your own was even worse. Stop flashing your private bits and underwear. I also read today that you don't listen to your stylist. It's always best to listen to the pro dear, especially since you obviously have no personal style.

OK, onto Paris. Now I am no fan of Paris' and have always thought she looked just-not-right in most of her outfits, (although her hair was so pretty in Simple Life 3.) But it is SO wrong to place Paris up at No.1 with Britney. I actually think many of Paris' outfits are ok, but it's her who looks odd. I've chosen a few photos here which shows Paris is not-bad outfits, and in a terrible one.

No.3 Lindsay Lohan -"from adorable to deplorable"
Riiight. Why on earth is Lindsay on this list? Apart from the very occasional mistakes (-she is human afterall), Lindsay has been dressing really well. With her limitless wardrobe, she's sometimes casual, sometimes hot, sometimes high-fashion, sometimes in a stylish dress etc. Oh, and let's not forget she has nice taste in bags. Just because Lindsay is an easy target, doesn't mean should be in every negative lists out there. Leave her alone.

No.5 Mariah Carey -"the queen of catastrophic kitsch"
Totally. Actually, Mariah should be bumped up to no.2.

No.9 Sandra Oh
Sandra Oh doesn't seem to have mastered the art of picking the perfect outfit yet, but they're not all too bad. She wore too many necklaces with that blue Vera Wang dress, but the black dress on the right (the picture taken only a few days ago,) acutally looks quite nice on her. I love her as an actress so much but alas, I can't defend her because her everyday clothes which I've seen from the very few paparazzi photos have been seriously ugly.

As for Blackwell's 10 "fabulous fashion independents" list, most of these so-called independents don't get photographed much and don't make particularly exciting or influential fashion choices. Oh, and what kind of best dressed list is it that doesn't have Kate Moss on it?

Winter Sale Under $100

Forgive me for being overly excited, but after spending 3 months in Paris and having yet to see a decent sale, I am very excited to be back in the US where everything is fabulously on sale. Given that it IS towards the end of the sales there are still some basics that one can pick up- at below $100 too!
So my first purchase since coming back to the States (that is not household related) is the Lacoste Polo (right: www.nordstrom.com) in a deep shade of purple (since I already have a RL polo in light purple). And I am VERY happy, because I've been waiting for them to go on sale (it is now $52 something as opposed to $72) since forever. And just as a note, the Ralph Lauren Skinny polos (left: www.polo.com) are also currently on sale now at $44.99. They are also fabulous.Sales are also the time to grab classic quality basics, like these simple C&C tees (www.shopbop.com). I have not personally tried them, but I have it on good authority that they are superior to regular tees and if you are a fan (or you just want to try one) this is a good time to with prices as low as $32.
If you just LOVE the feel of cashmere (who doesn't?), this is also a good time to stock up on the cashmere. These classic cuts from Abercrombie (www.abercrombie.com) are $99.90.
A girl cannot have enough black dresses right? Here is one for the day and one for night. These two are from my favourite brands: Velvet (left: www.shopbop.com) and BCBG (www.nordstrom.com)!
And then there are the denims. What would we DO without them? These two are from Notify (left: www.shopbop.com) for $69.30 and Sevens (right: www.nordstrom.com) for $78.90 (can you believe it??).
Also from Abercrombie (www.abercrombie.com) there are these classic black cuduroys for $29.90 and these wide legged trouser denims for $59.90, which I think are adorable.
And everyone needs a pair a decent denim mini's right? I still haven't quite found my perfect one yet. The color, the cut and the length are so important! Potential candidates are these two from American Eagle (www.ae.com) for $11.95 and $14.95. I like the look of both. One is neat and dark. And the other one has just the right run down look to it. Now if only I can FIND an AE store in the area to try them on!
Not exactly classic, but I just LOVE neat tailored winter shorts like these. They are so fun with black tights and ankle boots. These two are from Vince (left) and Alice + Olivia (right) for $58.50 and $59.40 respectively(www.shopbop.com).

So these are my finds under $100 (unfortunately not all are in my size- not that I can afford all of them if they were, but still, its fun to look!). Care to share your bargain finds this sales season?

Beauty Trend: Dark Nails

It's no secret that dark nails are all the rage this FW season. Who hasn't asked the Chanel beauty counters, or at least heard about the out-of-stock Chanel Black Satin nail polish? (And if you haven't heard about the craze, please go brush up your fashion current knowledge!) Dark nails look so cool with this season's clothes. When I say 'dark', it basically refers to shades such as brown, black and dark purplish-maroon. Personally, I favour black. Dark nails are good for casual and formal outfits:

Mischa Barton wearing semi-casual, lux, halfway-gothic/punkish clothes.

Lindsay Lohan shows that dark nails are great for formal occasions too. Of course, that lovely huge ring of hers helps too.

One very important thing to remember about this season's dark nails is that your nails must be cut short, and preferably a neat, professional-looking shape. And it's always a good idea to add on a transparent layer on top just to get that extra shine, (very much like this season's patent leather accessories!) If dark colours just isn't your thing, red is the other pretty and fashionable choice.

As a little New Years treat, my friend and I went to get manicures. I was so excited I finally got to get my nails black (-yes, I get excited over very little things.) The nails were seriously cool and went with all my outfits. Plus it have me a much-needed polished-edgy feel. Even though Chanel's nail polish was the one in spotlight this season, BG tells me that OPI (which was used in my manicure,) makes better nail polishes than Chanel. Who knows? I guess just buy nail polish from the brand you like or which is at the price range you feel is right. Has anyone else been having fun with dark nails?

TTech's 31-point Comeback and the Hot Hand Theory

As most of you know, Texas Tech came back from 31 down with 7 minutes to go in the third quarter to beat Minnesota. What was amazing to me, as I watched the game, was that despite the short time frame, the entire thing happened almost sleepily. The "comeback" appeared like some odd mixture of luck and manifest destiny. Minnesota did not really lose the game like most teams who give up huge comebacks do. Indeed, Minnesota should be a team designed to control second half leads: they have an impressive running game and a methodical passing game to complement it. Minnesota did not turn the ball over in the second half, and got a number of first downs. Tech did not get particularly good field position, either. The most frantic moment of the entire game was Tech's 90+ yard drive to kick a 52-year field goal, and even that still seemed surprisingly serene.

So what was the deal? What does a 31 point comeback look like? Was Tech a better team that shot itself in the foot in the first half? Did Minnesota collapse? Did the players give up? Did the coaches get "conservative" as many commentators like to say? How does a team score 7 points in one half and 31 points in a quarter and a half, and then another TD in overtime?

Football Offense and the "Hot-Hand" Theory

The entirely "rational" me wants to say that the simple answer is statistical variance: What appears as "streakiness" or a "hot-streak" is no more than random events happening to occur in a bunched pattern rather than spread out--an entirely expected result. Flip a coin fifty times. The coin probably will not land on heads neatly two times followed by two tails followed by a heads, followed by a tails, followed by three heads, followed by another two tails and then two heads in a fairly even pattern. No, instead you'll see "oddities" like fifteen heads in a row followed by twelve tails.

There actually is an entire field of study dedicated to this idea regarding sports, investing, and other facets of life and it is called the "hot hand fallacy." (See also here, and here.) Surely we've all experienced and witnessed the "hot streak" or the "cold streak" in basketball where a shooter has a poor half and then literally can't miss in the second. We see the swing in momentum, the crowd cheering or silenced, the shooter's swagger, his confidence, his teammates feeding him the ball, and his confidence to shoot it from anywhere on the court with a hand in his face.

Except that is an illusion. At least according to researchers Gillovich, Vallone, and Tversky: If you're a 40% field goal shooter for the season, you're pretty much a 40% shooter all the time, even if in one game you shot 20-22 and another 1-15. It evens out over time. The difference is just chance.

This same logic applies to football, and to no offense in football more than Texas Tech's. Clearly, over the last several years Tech's offense has been one of the most productive in football. It's been well documented that Leach's offense often sputters for a quarter or two before exploding to score points at an almost ridiculous pace. So maybe the comeback wasn't such an aberration. 44 points is not so abnormal for them--what's the difference if they had scored those touchdowns on every other drive over the course of the entire game, rather than scoring them all in the second half?

This is an attractive answer to me (though probably repulsive to many) and I think sheds a lot of light on Tech's so-called "streaky" offense. This is an empowering thought, and in many ways the fact that the coaches and players believe that at core the offense will "come around" and "play like normal" helps them stay relaxed and able to excute. I think it is also a lesson to playcallers, coaches, and players to stay patient, understand the plan, and to think about the big picture. It also puts individual quarters, plays, and games in perspective. A very good QB can have a very bad half or quarter that is little more than "bad luck" in a very real and scientific sense. It exposes media and opposing coaches as nearsighted and uninformed when they watch Tech have a bad series or half and deride Leach's "gimmick" offense, ignoring the years of incredible productivity.

They shouldn't be surprised at this kind of result. Leach's offense is designed to take on the big-boys and win shootouts, not to protect leads. Even if your completion percentage is 65% and you average six yards per rush, it's not hard to string 6 or 9 poor or mediocre plays together. That's three series' and on some days that's an entire half of football.

But is this really the answer? After the game, Mike Leach was in tears. Glen Mason was fired. The players talked about heart, commitment, believing, etc. Which is it?

Performing Under Pressure

The answer is probably a bit of both. Some later studies have claimed that the hot-hand theory is real when you focus on less experienced athletes. Tiger Woods has shot so many golf balls in so many pressure and non-pressure situations that his chance of making a putt is the same whether it is a putt to par after shooting five poor shots to win the Masters or if it is the same putt for practice on the putting green--even if he himself thinks otherwise. But for Bill Woods, local insurance agent, the hot hand is probably real.

High School kids and college kids, including Tech's sophomore quarterback, are probably going to rise and fall and experience the psychological effects in a very real sense. They're too pronounced to ignore, and the young or inexperienced athletes don't have Tiger Woods's countless repetitions. I think few would argue that Tech's sophomore quarterback would have been able to recover to perform as he did in the second half had this game occured in the middle of the season, and this win will likely further his and the whole team's ability to just keep playing and treat it like any other situation.

One thing that is unique to Tech is something Dick Vermeil mentioned while announcing the game: If ever there was a team designed to come back from 31 down, it is Tech. They literally had to change nothing in their offense. They are always trying to score, get first downs, be patient and methodical, and put pressure on the defense. Were the tables turned, Minnesota is not designed to do the same. So this affects the percentages. Even if the percentages of throwing completions down 31 are the same as they are up 31, they are probably different for Minnesota because they would be facing entirely different defenses than they are used to and executing plays thay do not use or practice as much.

The upshot of all this is simply that, particularly from an offensive standpoint, you practice to remove emotion and to remove the hot hand effect. You want to be Michael Jordan looking at the game winning free throw like it is just the 156th free throw after a routine practice. I think what made Leach come to tears after the game is that everyone on the team--coaches, player, fans--went about their business as usual. Tech didn't come back by launching hail marys, running trick plays (not to take anything away from Boise--who outplayed and outcoached OU for the entire game), grabbing turnovers or even really getting lucky breaks. Everyone bought into the system and the program, did their job, played smart football, and performed.

I think what brought Leach to tears is the realization that, for young kids in the hyperbolic football world, sometimes it's brave and valiant simply to do your job.



Addendum:

This game was aired on the NFL Network, which most people do not get. The NFL has however put the entire game online in streaming real video here. I wish more networks would do this. (ESPN anyone? I have to download their video every time I go to their site whether I want to or not but I've never seen them put a game online in its entirety like this.)

The OC Is Really Ending

Hey people, we're back! We had a wonderful, relaxing holiday and fun New Years Eve. (We can't believe our four-week holiday is already finished. We're ready for another four!) We were so touched by the readers, who some nicely, some not-so-politely, asked us to come back.

In the past week, I've had family and friends, who usually are not so on top of entertainment news, call/ email me to confirm that the OC really is over. (It really is amazing how many people knew about this so quickly.) Yes, sadly, the OC really is over.

The OC was such an amazing, fascinating show in its first season. Season 1 was fresh, beautiful, glamorous and oh-so-addictive. Sadly, Season 2 and Season 3 kind of went downhill. One of the main reasons why I continued to watch was for those to-die-for clothes worn by Marissa and Summer.

Now that Marissa is gone and Taylor is the other young female star of the show, Season 4 started off rocky. But for some reason, I really feel that The OC has started going uphill again in the last four or five episodes. Sure, there is no more effortless chic (a la Marissa), nor the fabulously spirited (a la Summer pre-environmentally-friendly days.)

But Taylor, who is always so direct, practical and motivated, has slowly grown on me. Summer is thankfully growing out of her save-the-earth-with-not-so-stunning-clothes phase. And there are the usual: Julie is up to something sneaky, Kirsten Cohen is clueless, Sandy Cohen is saving people with his legal power, Ryan has finished brooding and is back with the Cohens, and Seth is well... doing nothing as usual. Oh, and of course there is Kaitlin Cooper, who Willa Holland is quite great as -you can totally see her related to Marissa. Why oh why does Fox have to cancel the show when it is just getting better again?

Alas, Fox has confirmed that the final episode will air on 22 Feb 2007. Well, I suppose now the producers never have to figure out how the OC kids have to seperate to different colleges. What do you feel about the OC really ending? I for one will really miss it.