Super Bowl Indicator of Performance

Performance measures are often proxy variables. That is, they are not necessarily themselves of any great interest but they can tell us a lot about a particular thing or outcome. To varying degrees, performance measures are such proxies -- removed and highly simplified version of the outcome of interest.

We use proxy measures in order to make it possible to measure things easily, routinely and at a reasonable cost. The value of a proxy measure is that it is expected to correlate with the desired outcome. Not perfectly, but good enough.

In other words, while some performance indicators may or may not jibe with our common understanding or mental images of the concept or construct under consideration, they indicate its meaning. Cholesterol level is not health. Tree ring widths and ice core layering are not temperature records. Case clearance is not exactly court productivity or efficiency. Recidivism is not community well being.

And – here it goes -- a win by the Patriots over the Giants in the Super Bowl tomorrow is not a downturn in the stock market.

Some effective indicators are so far removed from our understanding of the thing itself, so lacking in face validity, that it’s quirky. That’s how last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal referred to one of the most accurate indicators of the future direction of the Dow Jones Industrial Average – just plain “quirky.”

William Powers, who wrote the piece in the WSJ, along with Robert Stoval of WSJ Research (who I can only assume is one of the “stat guys” so beloved by us sports fans), remind us that its time for the Super Bowl Predictor of stocks this year. This indicator has called the right direction of the Dow Industrial average following the Super Bowl an astonishing 81% of the time -- 33 out of a total 41 years.

Nitpicks aside – few measures are ever immune to nitpicking – the Super Bowl Predictor says the market rises when an “original” NFL team like the Giants wins, and declines with a win by one of the AFL teams like the New England Patriots. Sorry New England Patriot fans, we like you, we really do, but we simply can’t afford to have the Pats win over the Giants this Sunday. Money is money after all.

So, while you’re watching the Super Bowl tomorrow, think about what it all means. I know it will be hard for us to wrap our minds around the lesson of this post, but remember it’s not just a Game, it’s a proxy for good or bad times ahead.


For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2008. All rights reserved

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro...
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1...
Read more

Taming “Wild Problems”: Measure Everything That Matters

Every problem is not solvable, but every problem is measurable. This assertion is the key to tackling problems in public services including courts, business, and life in general. Surprising to me is that even astute scholars take exception to this, among them  is Russ Roberts, the John and Jean De Nault Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the president of Shalem College in Jerusalem, and host of the award-winning podcast EconTalk: Conversation for the Curious. The belief that certain things, dubbed “wild problems” by Professor Roberts, cannot be measured does a disservice to courts and other public and private organizations. There are many benefits to measuring everything that matters. It allows organizations to   focus on and to operationalize the most important problems and issues facing them,   to track progress over time and identify areas of improvement,   to compare their performance to that of other organizations and learn from the d...
Read more