{"id":230,"date":"2020-08-13T12:19:59","date_gmt":"2020-08-13T18:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doubletakeout.com\/blog\/?p=230"},"modified":"2020-09-10T12:24:59","modified_gmt":"2020-09-10T18:24:59","slug":"6-the-transactional-blank-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/doubletakeout.com\/blog\/6-the-transactional-blank-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"6: The transactional blank II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last week<\/a> in this space, we discussed the ritual of Rachel Homan’s opponents throwing their first shot in the rings when they didn’t have hammer in the first end. This puts the end on the road to the transactional blank, where both teams play a series of routine hits to produce a score of zero. It’s the worst part of competitive curling for the viewer and should probably be outlawed. It’s the equivalent of starting a basketball game with five minutes of passing drills or a football game with seven minutes of kneel-downs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I guess there’s no easy way to prohibit it and far be it for me in my sixth blog post to suggest major rules changes to a centuries-old sport. It would be best for everyone if the approach just disappeared due to natural causes. We saw that when playing top teams, blanking the first end gives the team with last rock a slight boost in win probability, so it would seem that cooperating in a blank is counterproductive for the non-hammer team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this strategy – if one can call it that – is still employed a lot and when it is, there are two common reasons given for the non-hammer team’s approach by the Russ Howards and Cheryl Bernards of the world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. The team wants to get comfortable with the ice<\/li>
  2. The team wants to save time on the clock by playing a simple end<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    While these seem like good reasons, I’m skeptical of both. In terms of figuring out the ice, both teams have an equal opportunity to do that, so we need a good reason why one team will get more benefit than its opponent. And the second point faces a similar challenge. Does saving time on the clock benefit you more than your opponent? If so, maybe work on your ability to manage the clock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The real problem is that history indicates that blanking the first end helps the hammer team slightly. And the two variables mentioned are baked in to the historical analysis. So you have to convince yourself that you’ll benefit from either of those two factors by more than the 2-to-3 percent that the blank is typically worth to the hammer team, and<\/em> in a way that past teams using the strategy didn’t benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    With respect to playing Rachel Homan specifically, there’s a theory in poker that if you sit down at the table and can’t figure out who the fish is, it’s probably you. As mentioned last week, no team in the world blanks the first end with hammer more often than Homan. So if you are willing to play along with a strategy that Homan clearly prefers, you should ask yourself why you’re so sure it will put her at a disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That said, there’s another reason the non-hammer team might find the blank appealing, especially as an underdog. As commenter Chris noted in the last piece, there’s a theory that you’re shortening the game. In timed sports like basketball and football, strategies to run the clock ensure there will be fewer chances for the favorite to show its superior skill. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But what shortening the game is really about in those sports is increasing variance and I think the path to doing that is a little more complicated in curling. Clearly, you’d rather play 10 ends against Homan than 16, but based on history, shortening the game only has benefits for the team with hammer. This is a topic that deserves its own post at some point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There is one possible legitimate reason I can think of to throw the first shot in the rings, however. While I call it the “transactional” blank (as distinguished from the strategic blank, which often involves some skilled shot-making), it’s not merely a transaction, even for the best teams. Mistakes are often made, and if the hammer team makes mistakes often enough, then throwing into the rings on the first shot can be the right approach in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Given our win probability analysis, the hammer team gains 2.4% from a blank and loses 4.5% from a force in the first end. If both teams execute their hits up to the final shot and our opponent hits and sticks on their last rock more than 35% of the time, the non-hammer team gains some win probability over the long term. In fact, the threshold could be lower than that since blank and force aren’t the only two possibilities. Our opponent could also flash, producing a steal giving us a 15% boost in win probability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Now the observant reader might say, ‘a player like Homan never flashes in that situation’. Well, I’ve got news for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n