Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Statistical Problem With Soccer
The best soccer team in the world has only a 28 percent chance of winning the World Cup even if it makes it through to the knockout stages, according to a new statistical analysis.
They call it "the beautiful game," but from a statistical point of view,
soccer's beauty is little more than skin deep. At least that's how Gerald
Skinner from the University of Maryland and his mate Guy Freeman see things.
It's hard not to agree when you look at the game from their point of view
Their approach is to think of a soccer game as an experiment to determine
which of two teams is the best. The question then is this: What is the
probability that the outcome of the experiment truly represents the relative
abilities of the two teams? And the answer, unfortunately, is: not very
probable.
They've carried out a statistical analysis of soccer scores in various types
of competition and found them wanting as a way to determine, with a reasonable
degree of certainty, the best team. "For typical scores, the probability
of a misleading result is significant," they say.
One way to increase the statistical significance of a result is to repeat
the experiment. This, say Skinner and Freeman, is essentially what happens in
tournaments that are organized so that the fate of a team does not rest solely
on the result of one match. For example, in the last World Cup, teams were organized
into mini-leagues, which should produce a more reliable result. Unfortunately,
the winning teams then go into a series of knockout rounds, which are
notoriously poor experiments.
In fact, Skinner and Freeman 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.
And yet these paradoxical results occur all the time. In the 2006 World Cup,
there were 355 triplets of which 17 percent were intransitive. That may not
sound like much, but consider this: If the results were entirely random, you'd
expect only 25 percent of the triplets to be intransitive. Is it really
possible that the outcome of the World Cup is little better than random?
The mini-league stage leaves 16 teams battling it out for the trophy in a
knockout stage. Skinner and Freeman calculate that the chance of the best team
winning the World Cup in 2006 was merely 28 percent. "Even on very
optimistic assumptions there is less than one chance in three that it was the
best team that won the cup," they conclude.
That's a shame. But how to fix the situation? Skinner and Freeman suggest
continuing the match with successive periods of extra time until the goal
difference becomes large enough to yield a chosen level of confidence. That
sounds ugly.
So the tradeoff is between a beautiful game and a statistically significant
one. An easy decision if ever there was one.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.4555: Are Soccer Matches Badly Designed experiments?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
The chance of an upset is why lower lever teams play so hard. It's why higher-level teams still have to play their socks off instead of just cruising. It's why the goals that are scored are exciting goals, not just half-assed following of the play book. It's about not just being the best team technically, it's about being able to play at that level consistently. It's about having to work for a cup win.
If those muppets are so enamoured with stats, maybe they should just declare who the best team in the world is now from the stats of their player's league games, and then we can dispense with the world cup altogether and have a more accurate result to boot? No? Sounds ridiculous? <i>Then this entire study is a waste of time</i>.
bugme
09/29/2009
Posts:29
Nonetheless, testing transitivity doesn't prove anything. Something as multifaceted as a soccer team has some stronger and weaker attributes (e.g. goalie, open-field running, penalty kicks, etc) that may be more important against some teams than others. Even rock, paper, scissors is intransitive, but it's not random.
donmon
09/29/2009
Posts:2
ms
09/30/2009
Posts:130
conorl
09/29/2009
Posts:1
Grezi
09/29/2009
Posts:1
frankigia
09/29/2009
Posts:1
Players have off days, if it is a key player this can be crippling. Teams have off days where most players are doing a reasonable job individually, but they are just not connecting well as a team. Coaches change their approach based on perceived differences between competitors.
If all these things stayed constant, I can see how intransitive triplets shouldn't occur. But the huge variation in real life seems to invite intransitive triplets to occur.
It would be interesting to study indepth teams involved in an intransitive triplet to see if their performance is more variable than average, or if a team in the triplet more often play above or below their potential.
colinnwn
09/30/2009
Posts:43
Perhaps the number crunching is sans understanding? Not only do good teams sit on leads (making extra periods useless), but there is a chess game overlayed on top of the soccer in World Cup competitions. The advancing teams are seeded on the basis of wins, losses and goal differentials.
Italy has been a historical master at squeeking through to finals with the barest of margin, while the US routinely gets booted in the 1st knock-out round (if it makes it that far). Hardly a random outcome.
z0rr0
09/30/2009
Posts:54
rafagarc
09/30/2009
Posts:1
Of course, some ratings can be calculated, but such one-dimensional model will not describe the nature of this game.
aanabar
10/01/2009
Posts:1