zydecochris
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 2,715
I was reading a thread about whether Gronk is more likely to be injured in the future, and Mike the Brit said the Gambler’s fallacy is to ascribe pattern in random events. This initiated a rare event: it got me thinking, so here is my first (and perhaps my only, given my lack of original thoughts) post originated, on the randomness of sports.
IMHO, many analyze football like chess, as entirely deterministic with no random elements. Good chess players write down their moves so they can analyze them later to figure out patterns and respond better next time. Many here analyze past football decisions and characterize them as mistakes (and I love reading these analyses).
On the other hand, backgammon is a game much different than chess, it combines strategy with a random element from dice rolls. The best players use probabilistic based strategies that will result in victory over poorer players when averaging over enough games. Nevertheless, those poor players can win one or two (or even more) games with enough lucky dice rolls over even an expert player.
IMHO, sporting games have this random element, not because of dice rolls, but because there are so many factors (both current and future) that are unknowable to us mere humans. For example, in baseball, for a given at bat, these unknown factors for that particular pitch would be the exact wind profile over ball trajectory, the exact pitcher throwing dynamics, the psychological state of the batter, and many, many, many more unknown factors. Thus the result of a given at bat is not knowable to us. However, one can characterize batting success in the aggregate (partly because some of those unknown factors average out), one knows that for a 300 hitter, the probability of a hit over many at bats is about 30%. Nevertheless, each at bat for that 300 hitter is still a throw of the dice (with a 30% hit probability), with a completely unknown outcome.
IMHO, football has many similar bounces of the ball that can go one way or another (such as a pass attempt) where each individual event can be thought of as a throw of the dice, with a success determined by averaging over many events. The result of any individual game is also a throw of the dice, although the odds are better with the superior team. How can success be measured? I would argue only in the aggregate of averaging over many games.
As an example, I have read many posts bemoaning the Patriot’s lack of Super Bowl success since 2004, and analyzing and/or explaining why that is. Again, these posts can make great reading, but when one considers the randomness of sport, it would seem to me that the best one can do is to get into the playoffs (and ideally the conference finals), and then roll the dice and hope that the ball bounces your way. Let’s look at how the Patriots have done overall since 2001. As far as appearing in the conference championship, in a vacuum each team would have 1/8 chance (12.5%) per year, and since 2001 (13 seasons) an average team would have 13/8 chance of being in the conference championship (averaging about one and a half appearances since 2001). In contrast, the Patriots have appeared in 8 conference championships, or about 5x what one would expect!! I am constantly blown away by what a remarkable feat of sustained football excellence that is. Of those 8 appearances, one would expect about 4/8 victories in a vacuum, in reality it was 5/8. For these five Super Bowl appearances, one would expect 2.5 victories, in reality it was 3, with some lucky bounces of the ball in the first three, and some extraordinarily unlucky bounces of the ball in the last two. In the aggregate, the Patriots have been remarkably successful, with the losses completely understandable when random bounces of the ball are factored in.
Similarly, during the football draft, even with the best scouting there are many unknowable current and future circumstances with each draft candidate (particularly with respect to how much a player will be injured in the future). It seems to me that each draft pick is a (very educated scouting-based) throw of the dice to some extent, and draft success can only really be quantified over many combined draft picks over several years. I’ll leave it to others (like the wonderful OTG) to analyze our draft success; it seems to me that it is difficult to compare Patriot drafts to other teams because the Patriots have been so successful for so long, and presumably it is more difficult for a rookie to make a Super Bowl contender than a weak team. However, it is difficult for me to consider Patriot drafts to be anything other than excellent over the aggregate, because the team has obviously remained very strong for the last 13 years (appearing in a remarkable 8 conference championships and 5 superbowls in that time).
So, I think (Patriot) football is like backgammon, employing strategy in the face of random events. Let’s just hope the ball bounces our way this season. Thoughts?
IMHO, many analyze football like chess, as entirely deterministic with no random elements. Good chess players write down their moves so they can analyze them later to figure out patterns and respond better next time. Many here analyze past football decisions and characterize them as mistakes (and I love reading these analyses).
On the other hand, backgammon is a game much different than chess, it combines strategy with a random element from dice rolls. The best players use probabilistic based strategies that will result in victory over poorer players when averaging over enough games. Nevertheless, those poor players can win one or two (or even more) games with enough lucky dice rolls over even an expert player.
IMHO, sporting games have this random element, not because of dice rolls, but because there are so many factors (both current and future) that are unknowable to us mere humans. For example, in baseball, for a given at bat, these unknown factors for that particular pitch would be the exact wind profile over ball trajectory, the exact pitcher throwing dynamics, the psychological state of the batter, and many, many, many more unknown factors. Thus the result of a given at bat is not knowable to us. However, one can characterize batting success in the aggregate (partly because some of those unknown factors average out), one knows that for a 300 hitter, the probability of a hit over many at bats is about 30%. Nevertheless, each at bat for that 300 hitter is still a throw of the dice (with a 30% hit probability), with a completely unknown outcome.
IMHO, football has many similar bounces of the ball that can go one way or another (such as a pass attempt) where each individual event can be thought of as a throw of the dice, with a success determined by averaging over many events. The result of any individual game is also a throw of the dice, although the odds are better with the superior team. How can success be measured? I would argue only in the aggregate of averaging over many games.
As an example, I have read many posts bemoaning the Patriot’s lack of Super Bowl success since 2004, and analyzing and/or explaining why that is. Again, these posts can make great reading, but when one considers the randomness of sport, it would seem to me that the best one can do is to get into the playoffs (and ideally the conference finals), and then roll the dice and hope that the ball bounces your way. Let’s look at how the Patriots have done overall since 2001. As far as appearing in the conference championship, in a vacuum each team would have 1/8 chance (12.5%) per year, and since 2001 (13 seasons) an average team would have 13/8 chance of being in the conference championship (averaging about one and a half appearances since 2001). In contrast, the Patriots have appeared in 8 conference championships, or about 5x what one would expect!! I am constantly blown away by what a remarkable feat of sustained football excellence that is. Of those 8 appearances, one would expect about 4/8 victories in a vacuum, in reality it was 5/8. For these five Super Bowl appearances, one would expect 2.5 victories, in reality it was 3, with some lucky bounces of the ball in the first three, and some extraordinarily unlucky bounces of the ball in the last two. In the aggregate, the Patriots have been remarkably successful, with the losses completely understandable when random bounces of the ball are factored in.
Similarly, during the football draft, even with the best scouting there are many unknowable current and future circumstances with each draft candidate (particularly with respect to how much a player will be injured in the future). It seems to me that each draft pick is a (very educated scouting-based) throw of the dice to some extent, and draft success can only really be quantified over many combined draft picks over several years. I’ll leave it to others (like the wonderful OTG) to analyze our draft success; it seems to me that it is difficult to compare Patriot drafts to other teams because the Patriots have been so successful for so long, and presumably it is more difficult for a rookie to make a Super Bowl contender than a weak team. However, it is difficult for me to consider Patriot drafts to be anything other than excellent over the aggregate, because the team has obviously remained very strong for the last 13 years (appearing in a remarkable 8 conference championships and 5 superbowls in that time).
So, I think (Patriot) football is like backgammon, employing strategy in the face of random events. Let’s just hope the ball bounces our way this season. Thoughts?
Last edited: