Category: Sportonomics (Page 5 of 10)

Sport and statistics

Breaking point

September 12, 2006 / rob

Stats are one of the beautiful things of sport. Win loss records, goals per game, averages, totals. Then every so often, a statistical measure gets taken up that is misleading to such an extent that I find it amazing it isn’t scrapped. In particular – break point conversions in tennis. 
 
<a href=”http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day20/1701ms.html”>The stats from the Federer-Roddick US Open final</a> show why Roger is so good. He hit 69 winners to only 19 unforced errors – that’s a superb reflection of his quality of play. But why oh why do tennis statisticians include break point conversions? Let’s think about this… 
 
Tennis is all about winning games in the set. It doesn’t matter if you win a game to love, or after 10 deuces. You get the game on the board. That’s why some players lose despite winning more overall points (for example, <a href=”http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day16/1403ms.html”>Marat Safin vs Tommy Haas</a>) 
 
So, if you have a 0-40 on your opponent’s serve, and break on the third go, the missed break points are irrelevant. Why do we count them? Roddick was 2 of 8 in the US Open final, and Roger 6 of 16. But the interesting statistic is when a player has break points and loses the game. If they win the game on their 5th break point, who cares? 
 
If we look into the point-by-point stats of the match, Federer’s 10 missed break points (BPs) were distributed across 6 games, with 4 of those games still won by Federer and 2 that “got away”, (one with 5 missed BPs). So, in reality, although he “missed” 10 BPs, only 6 were opportunities that mattered in only 2 games. 
 
Roddick had 6 missed BPs, which were in 3 games that he eventually lost. So Federer missed fewer game opportunities (2) than Roddick (3). That’s where the match was won and lost. Tennis analysts should scrap the break points, and look at the games that got away.

5-run farce

August 21, 2006 / rob

The <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5270176.stm”>current cricket farce between England and Pakistan</a> about ball tampering has highlighted some rather peculiar rules in the game. 
 
The one that really interested me was that the Pakistan team were “docked” 5 runs at the initial stage when the umpires decided the ball had been tampered with. 5 runs is a hopeless punishment as a deterrent, and the numbers back this up. In 2005, there were 48,637 runs scored in test cricket – and an average innings of just over 291. This means that a 5 run penalty is effectively a 1.7% fine per innings, and therefore only 0.43% of the average match – which is nothing. In the case of the game at the Oval, Pakistan had scored over 500 runs, so it was less than 1% in the context of just their innings. 
 
This seems paltry compared to other sports. In tennis, a warning is followed by a point penalty. A point penalty might sound small, but considering it is 25% of a game, it carries more weight. The recent final between Roddick and Ferrero in Cincinnati had 109 points – so a point penalty would be just under 1% of a typical match, but may be more important given that due to the scoring system, fewer points are required to swing a game to one player. 
 
In football, the penalty is the most typical sanction of foul play, although it can only be awarded in the area around the goal. But it is still a controversial decision to award one, and is not done so lightly (despite the reputation of some referees). 
 
The penalty usually results in a goal. I don’t have the penalty conversion rates, but even if it was as low as 50% (which it won’t be), it is still a much harsher sanction than the penalties in tennis or cricket. In the 2005/6 Premiership season, there were 2.48 goals per game. Assuming a 50% conversion rate (i.e. a penalty is worth 0.5 goals), awarding a penalty is about a 20% match swing to one team. (I won’t look at rugby, as the penalty is given for more technical infringements and accidental mistakes than in cricket, football or tennis, and is an acceptable source of points rather than a punishment.) 
 
So – why does cricket give the five run fine? It is a paltry sum and has zero impact compared to the shame and disgrace that is heaped upon the team or player involved. If the ICC really wanted to make it effective, it would be a 100 run fine. This would actually change a match, like a penalty in football, and give teams cause to think long and hard before tampering with the ball. 
 
Quick aside: in all this fuss, no-one has noticed that <a href=”http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/43650.html”>Mohammed Yousef</a> has scored a remarkable 631 runs in a 4-match series, which is the fifth-best 4-match total ever. 
 
<table> <tr><td>Runs</td><td>Player</td><td>Series</td><td>Season</td></tr <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>712</td><td>JH Kallis</td><td>South Africa v West Indies</td><td>2003/04</td></tr> <tr><td>706</td><td>RT Ponting</td><td>Australia v India</td><td>2003/04</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>703</td><td>GA Headley</td><td>West Indies v England</td><td>1929/30</td></tr> <tr><td>693</td><td>EH Hendren</td><td>England v West Indies</td><td>1929/30</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>631</td><td>Mohammad Yousuf</td><td>England v Pakistan</td><td>2006</td></tr></table>

Newcombe’s theorem

August 18, 2006 / rob

As the US Open approaches, I thought I would try to look at Federer’s place in the all-time list, and <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/5167450.stm”>came across this article</a> from July where John Newcombe, the Australian tennis “legend”, works out why Federer CAN’T be considered a great. 
 
His theory stems from the fact that Federer “has not been able to win the French Open and Nadal has not only been beating him on clay, he’s beaten him and matched him on hard court. So if you’re going to put Federer there, you’ve got to put Nadal there.” 
 
Ok, I get the idea that Nadal has a good record against Federer, but a quick look at the grand slam list shows that Roger is on the up. He’s won 8 (so far), which pits him with Agassi, Connors and Lendl. Not bad – he’s only 24. 
 
<table><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Player</td><td>Australia</td><td>France</td><td>Wimbledon</td><td>US</td><td>Total</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>1</td><td>Pete Sampras (USA) </td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>14</td></tr> <tr><td>2</td><td>Roy Emerson (AUS) </td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>12</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>3</td><td>Bj�rn Borg (SWE) </td><td>- </td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>- </td><td>11</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Rod Laver (AUS) </td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>11</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>5</td><td>William Tilden (USA) </td><td>- </td><td>- </td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>10</td></tr> <tr><td>6</td><td>Andre Agassi (USA) </td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Jimmy Connors (USA) </td><td>1</td><td>- </td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Roger Federer (SUI) </td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Ivan Lendl (CZE/USA) </td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>- </td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Fred Perry (GBR) </td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Ken Rosewall (AUS) </td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr></table> 
 
 
So who does Newcombe really rate? Not Sampras it seems, despite his unsurpassed record of 14 slams and 6 years in a row as year-end number one. 
 
“Pete Sampras cannot go down in that category because the best he ever did at the French Open in 11 tries was one semi-final,” said Newcombe. 
 
“So there’s no way he can be categorised as one of the best three or four of all time.” 
 
Well, who does that leave? The five who have won the “career slam” are: 
Don Budge, Fred Perry, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi. 
 
Now, if we apply the Newcombe theory, Agassi must be in the top five. But… he had a <a href=”http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=agassi&player2=sampras”>losing record against Sampras</a>: 14-20. This isn’t good at all. Accoring to Newcombe, If you can’t beat your big rival you’re not the best. Agassi is out. 
 
What about Emerson and Laver? Well, their slam record is very close with Emerson on 12 and Laver on 11, but we all know that Emerson’s tally is inflated by the fact that all his rivals turned pro. <a href=”http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Emerson%2C+Roy&player2=Laver%2C+Rod&playernum2=L058″>The head to head says it all</a>. Laver wins 14-1. 
 
What about Budge and Perry? Tennis records get a bit hazy pre-1968, so it’s hard to assess their rivalry. If we take the matches that really count, the slam finals, can we learn anything there? Budge’s slam finals record was played 7, won 6. Perry was played 10, won 8. Hard to separate them on this measure. However, in their only slam final meeting, the 1936 U.S. Championships, Perry won 2-6 6-2 8-6 1-6 10-8. Perry edges it – just. 
 
So Newcombe’s theory leaves Laver and Perry as the top players of all time. And being John Newcombe, we can discount Perry as a pom, leaving a good old Aussie as the best ever. A one-eyed, statistically inept view, but there you go.

Why England dropped Jones

August 4, 2006 / rob

Should England have <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/5228936.stm”>dropped Geraint Jones for Chris Read</a>? It’s caused a lot of <a href=”http://www.cricketworld.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1484&PN=1″>discussion</a>, but the numbers back up the selectors. 
 
If we take the last 10 tests* of the current wicketkeepers of the top eight cricket nations, what do we see? In the runs department, Jones is indeed bottom of the list by quite some way, with 100 less runs than the next man, Adam Gilchrist, and a paltry average of 17.9. Sadly, he leads the way with catches: 43. England are true to their word – the keeper needs runs. 
 
Top of the tree in terms of runs would be Sangakkara after his mammoth 287 against South Africa in the all-time record stand with Jayawardene, but he was selected as a batsman for that match, not keeper. 
 
Chris Read should be aiming for the middle of this table – an average of 31.5 
 
<table border=”1″ bordercolor=”#efefef” cellpadding=”2″ cellspacing=”0″><tr><td>Player</td><td>Country</td><td>Mat</td><td>Runs</td><td>HS</td><td>BatAv</td><td>100</td><td>50</td><td>Ct</td><td>St</td></tr> <tr><td>Kamran Akmal</td><td>Pak</td><td>10</td><td>708</td><td>154</td><td>50.57</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>32</td><td>4</td></tr> <tr><td>KC Sangakkara</td><td>SL</td><td>10</td><td>758</td><td>185</td><td>42.11</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>22</td><td>2</td></tr> <tr><td>BB McCullum</td><td>NZ</td><td>10</td><td>431</td><td>111</td><td>33.15</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>24</td><td>3</td></tr> <tr><td>M Dhoni</td><td>Ind</td><td>10</td><td>453</td><td>148</td><td>30.2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>33</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr><td>M Boucher</td><td>SA</td><td>10</td><td>461</td><td>85</td><td>27.11</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>37</td><td>0</td></tr> <tr><td>D Ramdin</td><td>WI</td><td>10</td><td>370</td><td>71</td><td>26.42</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>22</td><td>0</td></tr> <tr><td>A Gilchrist</td><td>Aus</td><td>10</td><td>352</td><td>144</td><td>25.14</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>31</td><td>5</td></tr> <tr><td>G Jones</td><td>Eng</td><td>10</td><td>251</td><td>55</td><td>17.92</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>43</td><td>2</td></tr></table> 
(source: cricinfo.com) 
*Last 10 tests is the basic weighting used by the world rankings as well.

Blog idea revisited

August 4, 2006 / rob

Right. I’ve been way too slack on this, but I have decided to change the focus of this blog. 
 
Too many people do the amusing / opinionated thing on sport. I love the Fiver and the Spin from the guardian, and they do it way better than everyone else. So have decided to look instead at what the numbers in sport tell us. 
 
Stats in sport are so plentiful, but are rarely used to make good decisions. I’m going to try each week to look at some data, and prove why people are right or wrong. First off – cricket, and why Geraint Jones was dropped.

It’s been a while… bogged down a bit

July 5, 2006 / rob

It’s been ages since my last post, and clearly way too much has happened in the world of sport to mention here. So I won’t. 
 
Instead, I’ll share something else with you. In my job (at the FT) we get tons of PR email. Now and then one just sticks out for it’s sheer D-list beauty. Here’s one. 
 
RBC Capital Markets and Alex Bogdanovic to promote youth tennis 
 
Alex Bogdanovic joined forces with RBC Capital Markets to encourage participation in sport at the grass roots level, and to help address the differences in access to sport across ethnic groups and social classes. The UK fourth-ranked tennis player coached a group of 7- to 11 year-olds from four different schools in the London Borough of Hackney on the mornings of the 5th and 6th July. 
 
Alex is enthusiastic about this project: “I hope this sort of event will encourage more organisations to lend their support to similar initiatives across a wide variety of sports.” 
 
Ahh, nice. And there’s a pic of Alex with all the kids. 
 
But really, couldn’t they have got someone else? Henman? Murray? And, more pertinently, do they know what a journeyman Bogdanovic is? <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/3309829.stm”>He once had his LTA funding withdrawn for being, well, rubbish</a>. Is this a good example with which to motivate the youth of Hackney to become champion tennis players? Although he has supposedly improved, his status as “one of Britain’s brightest prospects” sounds like crap. 
 
<a href=”http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/default2.asp?playersearch=bogdanovic”>A quick look at his career record</a> shows that Bogdanovic (which just sounds like Bogged-down-a-bit to me) is not setting the pace. He’s 22. Murray is 19. Say’s it all, really.

Sorry

December 27, 2005 / rob

I’m not going to blog for a while as I am away from late December to mid-January. I will be enjoying myself in Argentina. Enjoy the cold snap. 
 
Rob

SPOTY

December 12, 2005 / rob

That’s Sports Personality of the Year, to you and me. (Actually, I have no idea if anyone uses that acronym. I doubt it.) 
 
Compelling viewing, year after year. Why? It’s those awful interviews when either Lineker or Barker quizzes someone for about one minute, gaining no insight into their personality or sport, but long enough to make a truly horrendous comment. Tonight’s selection was particularly bad. 
 
Sue Barker interviewing Mike Ruddock, rugby coach of Wales. “So, how can you make next season a success? If you can keep Henson out of church…” 
 
Gary Lineker interviewing Paula Radcliffe: “Perhaps next year you could bring a portaloo.” 
 
Lineker again, with Zara Philips “now here’s some other posh totty…” 
 
This is terrible stuff. Yet they intersperse it with touching features about top cyclists battling cancer and raising funds for charity, without realising how viciously the programme lurches from being uplifting to cringe-making. 
 
The other thing is the lack of editorial judgement. Throwing Amir Kahn and Andy Murray together worked – just. They both seem like savvy kids, and their conversation seemed relatively natural. But the interview with Kevin Pietersen in front of the rest of the England cricket team was so awkward, I didn’t know who to feel sorry for. And in the tennis review of the year, they forgot to mention that Marat Safin won the Australian Open. Just a minor point there. 
 
Oh, Freddie won the overall award. About time. Now if they could just give him a rest so he can play some cricket…

A few things have happened

December 10, 2005 / rob

…since I last wrote this blog. In no particluar order: 
 
– George Best passed away 
– Paskistan stuffed England at cricket 
– Martina Hingis announced her comeback 
– England are 2nd seeds at the World Cup 
– Peter Crouch has scored 
– Keane has been kicked out of ManU, and ManU flopped at the group stage of Europe 
 
All of these things are big. That’s sport for you. Turn your back and it just keeps on throwing up the surprises. 
 
Manchester United are, according to the press, a club in crisis. But examine a few facts, and it’s more obvious that the current situation is part of a trend. 
 
Ferguson has not won the premiership or gone past the 1/4 finals of Europe since he announced and then retracted his resignation 3 years ago. 
 
Roy Keane was always a destabilising influence, but it was ok if he was playing at the top of his powers. He is the biggest hypocrite in sport. He slags off other players for being overpaid, when he smashed the wage ceiling at ManU by demanding 52k pw. He complains of the lack of discipline and passion, but gets drunk beyond recognition and commits fouls that should have merited police action. He claimed to be the leader, but let his side down time and time again with needless red cards. He walked out of his country’s world cup because he couldn’t control his temper. ManU have done well to get rid of him now. 
 
Ferguson has spent poorly compaired to Wenger and Mourinho. Veron, Forlan, Kleberson – these are not astute signings. Plus look at the players he has missed: Ballack, Robben, Ronaldinho. He has lost his touch in the transfer market. 
 
The England cricket team I’ll save for another day. There’s a bigger picture there.

The fiver

December 1, 2005 / rob

A ha! I have made it into the Fiver. This, if you don’t know, is the Guardian’s popular daily email about Football. So… 
 
The fiver mentioned a <a href=”http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1641810,00.html”>piece by Jon Brodkin on Rooney and Owen</a>. A good article, to be sure, but he mentioned early on that 
 
“For the most part England’s two strikers look little more of a partnership than Sid Vicious and Ludwig van Beethoven in terms of operating on the same wavelength.” 
 
So <a href=”http://football.guardian.co.uk/Fiver/0,4022,1643257,00.html”>I casually wrote in</a> to the Fiver that… 
 
“Jon Brodkin (yesterday’s theguardian) might think that comparing Sid Vicious and Ludwig van Beethoven to Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney is a clever analogy. He might also ponder that both were played by Gary Oldman on film, so they can’t be that dissimilar” – Rob Minto. 
 
Now, the Fiver’s letters are usually irreverent stuff. Off-the-cuff. Not exactly intellectual debate. Yet, what do I see <a href=”http://football.guardian.co.uk/Fiver/0,4022,1643962,00.html”>in the next issue</a>? 
 
“The fact that both Sid Vicious and Ludwig van Beethoven have been played by Gary Oldman does not mean that they are in any way similar, despite what Rob Minto said in yesterday’s letters. As one of this country’s finest character actors, Oldman is very capable of playing entirely different people in different films. It’s what actors do” – Andy Cadman. 
 
Ok, Cadman. What’s your point? So Oldman is a good actor, and actors are able to transform themselves into diverse characters? My argument is still valid. If you are going to use a metaphor of two musicians on opposite sides of the spectrum, doesn’t it weaken your point if both have been played by the same actor? 
 
Anyway. Thanks Cadman. Well done. It’s a lighthearted forum. Don’t piss on my parade.