3 ms·
- "In fact, Skinner and Freeman have carried out an extensive statistical analysis of the scores at the last World Cup. They point out that if the outcomes of g
by heyitsnick 17y ago
- "In fact, Skinner and Freeman have carried out an extensive statistical analysis of the scores at the last World Cup. They point out that if the outcomes of games were a true reflection of the teams' abilities, then the situation "Team A beats Team B beats Team C which beats Team A" should never occur. They call this an intransitive triplet."
The outcome of the game is never meant to be a "true reflection" of the teams' abilities, but a reflection of their ability against that side, on that day, in those conditions. A round-robin style tournament is used to have a team playing different opponents, a mix of different styles. Central attacking sides. Defense and counter-attack. Wide open matches. Closed central movement. Teams alter their strategy against specific opponents and try to find holes in their game and exploit an edge.
This seems like a problem with the statistical model, not with the sport, because "A > B > C > A" is possible in a team sport, and not just because of a luck factor. One team may have strengths that exploit certain weaknesses in other teams. That are uncountable examples - Team A lacks fitness and is weaker in the last 20 minutes; but this will only be exploited by a team who have a high fitness level. Team B has as weak left wing, but this will only be exploited by a team with a strong right winger. The list goes on.
- radu_floricica 17y agoWhen talking about a single game, yes. But in larger numbers of games you'd still expect to see a bigger difference between better teams and not so good teams, and the article argues the difference is not so big (17% intransitive tuples vs 25% in random pairs).
- xiaoma 17y agoThat was my thought exactly. Pikemen beat cavalry who beat footmen who beat pikemen.