4 ms·
The article manages to be factually correct while still missing the point entirely, because he conflates uncertainty (randomness) with pointlessness, and the ab
by lukev 12y ago
The article manages to be factually correct while still missing the point entirely, because he conflates uncertainty (randomness) with pointlessness, and the ability to describe something probabilistically with reducibility to mere randomness.
When two chess grand-masters meet, the odds of the outcome may be sufficiently close to 50/50 that you could obtain a similar statistical distribution of wins/losses with a coin flip. But I think almost everyone would agree that the content of a chess match is profoundly more interesting than a coin toss.
Soccer, although I'm not a fan personally, is exactly the same. Sure, you can say "there's a X% chance that a goal shot will go in", and that's true as far as it goes. But for each particular shot, for each particular block, it was interesting because of specific human interactions. The stats were never intended to tell the whole story.
Similarly, regarding his conclusion - Sure, I think almost any fan would agree that the proxy of "winning a game" is a poor indicator for the overall skill level of a team, particularly in close matches. But that's not what matters - what matters to players and to fans is who played better, who was 2 inches more accurate on that day, at that time.
- programmernews 12y agoA lot of people don't care about the content of games, just their result.
- lukev 12y agoOh, people are infinitely varied, but I'd invite you to try taking away the average footballer's television, then consoling them that you'll tell them the score when it's over :)
- programmernews 12y agoI meant for example people who may not even know all the rules of the sport but care somewhat about how the home teams do, not the hardcore fans.
- Amezarak 12y agoThe way I understood the author is that we don't really see who played better, or what the story is, in anything but very lop-sided games because the low-scoring nature of soccer means that we are constructing fictitious narratives to fit the events of the game, which are often better explained by chance. I agree that who played better and the whole story are much more interesting, and I think the author agrees too. I believe his argument is that it's difficult to really see who played better. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though.
- lukev 12y agoIt's easy enough to see who played better if you actually watch the game. There is absolutely no reason to build a "ficticious narrative" when the real narrative being streamed to every corner of the globe in realtime. I used to find soccer unutterably boring, until I had a roomate one time who was really into it. He showed me the proper way to watch a game... you're not sitting around waiting for goals, you're watching how they pass, how they handle the ball, the skill and athleticism. I still find it boring, but at least I appreciate it now.
- autokad 12y agoi dont know if any league has achieved it (it seems to me none have), but leagues such as the NFL seek to have the teams completely equal. maybe thats not their goal in the strictest sense, but i hear fans telling me they want all teams to have the same exact talent so their team has a chance to win. if that is true in the truest sense, I do not see such a value in watching that sport. you're essentially watching coin tosses. yay the coin from my home city won, great!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]