Stats - precedence over sport?

[Deleted member 742196]

I really am quite the idiot.

A long time back I actually tried to put up a thread on the subject of tennis scorelines and stats.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/tennis-statistics.585883/

This was the initial proposed layout.

 

[Azure]

I really am quite the idiot.

A long time back I actually tried to put up a thread on the subject of tennis scorelines and stats.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/tennis-statistics.585883/

This was the initial proposed layout.

This is wonderful! Really! It gives so much more insight!

 

[Deleted member 742196]

This is wonderful! Really! It gives so much more insight!

LOL

Forget everything I wrote earlier about pandering to the casual viewer.

Let's go the other way - assault them with information.

But really, standardized detailed stats paired with some intelligently designed infographics would go a very long way towards helping tennis.

 

[Azure]

LOL

Forget everything I wrote earlier about pandering to the casual viewer.

Let's go the other way - assault them with information.

But really, standardized detailed stats paired with some intelligently designed infographics would go a very long way towards helping tennis.

But how is this helping Rafa and Roger chase records?

 

[Deleted member 742196]

P.S.
For those making the point that stats perhaps can lead to soulless and robotic outcomes I hope the fact that Roger Federer still loses to Rafael Nadal in the above scenario is not lost.

The difference is data in how he lost.

At the moment much of what we have is in the realm of conjecture.

It’ll still feel soulless. That’s never going to change when Nadal pounds poor Fed’s BH into fine dust.

 

[Sudacafan]

I wouldn't consider AO a real major in 1972-82 even though it was formally categorised as one in the rankings since 1977, since most top players - almost everyone except Vilas and Tanner - continued to ignore it until 1983, when Lendl and Wilander played.

OK, but anyway, Borg had some kind of projected interest in AO. Remember he won the Channel Slam three consecutive times (1978-1980). So he had first and second legs three years, the only player with chances of GS in decades (after Laver and before Federer). Had he won third leg in the US in any of those years, as I said before, why not going Down Under to cash it? I remember that was in the air in those years.

 

[Sudacafan]

What a pro thread I don't know what to say

Fedr or Murygoat?

 

[Deleted member 742196]

But how is this helping Rafa and Roger chase records?

Stats (at best) are a log of what happened after an event. Chasing records is something that happens before it occurs.

What’s that old expression?

First get your facts together, then rearrange them as much as you want.

...or something like that.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

OK, but anyway, Borg had some kind of projected interest in AO. Remember he won the Channel Slam three consecutive times (1978-1980). So he had first and second legs three years, the only player with chances of GS in decades (after Laver and before Federer). Had he won third leg in the US in any of those years, as I said before, why not going Down Under to cash it? I remember that was in the air in those years.

Weighty question in the context of this thread.

In today’s world where records and fame and money and marketing agencies and multi year endorsement contracts and certain celebrity accountability or pressure exists that has an influence on their decisions, do you think Borg stops playing at the same junction of his career?

 

[Azure]

Stats (at best) are a log of what happened after an event. Chasing records is something that happens before it occurs.

What’s that old expression?

First get your facts together, then rearrange them as much as you want.

...or something like that.

Stats help in analysis but when the stats are used to disparage athletes, it is a venom.

 

[Azure]

Weighty question in the context of this thread.

In today’s world where records and fame and money and marketing agencies and multi year endorsement contracts and certain celebrity accountability or pressure exists that has an influence on their decisions, do you think Borg stops playing at the same junction of his career?

I asked this question to @Ann. She said its hypothetical. I agree. We will never know. Some simply like a quiet life. We can never know. Capriati is a fine example of what power hungry media can do to sheer talent.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Stats help in analysis but when the stats are used to disparage athletes, it is a venom.

Successful athletes are in the public domain nowadays, those of them on Facebook and Twitter anyway. It’s a choice they make.

I’m guessing they would need to have an impersonal approach to their audience.

Whether one can be immensely popular and remain bulletproof to the opinions that come with that popularity is an interesting question itself.

Donald Trump would be a fascinating case study in this area I think.

I asked this question to @Ann. She said its hypothetical. I agree. We will never know. Some simply like a quiet life. We can never know. Capriati is a fine example of what power hungry media can do to sheer talent.

Of course it’s hypothetical silly billy. There’s no certainty one way or the other. I’m fishing for informed opinions - not looking to agree or disagree, just have more information.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

OK, but anyway, Borg had some kind of projected interest in AO. Remember he won the Channel Slam three consecutive times (1978-1980). So he had first and second legs three years, the only player with chances of GS in decades (after Laver and before Federer). Had he won third leg in the US in any of those years, as I said before, why not going Down Under to cash it? I remember that was in the air in those years.

Yes, it was a strange situation where AO was itself not significant, but the Grand Slam continued to be a highly praised achievement, so if anyone could win the first three legs, going for AO was a must, no doubt Borg would have tried, or McEnroe in 1984 had he not lost at RG.

 

[Azure]

Successful athletes are in the public domain nowadays, those of them on Facebook and Twitter anyway. It’s a choice they make.

I’m guessing they would need to have an impersonal approach to their audience.

Whether one can be immensely popular and remain bulletproof to the opinions that come with that popularity is an interesting question itself.

Donald Trump would be a fascinating case study in this area I think.

Of course it’s hypothetical silly billy. There’s no certainty one way or the other. I’m fishing for informed opinions - not looking to agree or disagree, just have more information.

Yes I agree.

Trump revels in the attention he gets. A very boring case study actually.

My bet about Borg? He would leave even today. He was the biggest rockstar the tennis world has ever seen. It did not influence his decision.

 

[Sudacafan]

But why would the viewer even care about some scoreboard if he doesn’t know the rules, and most likely not even the players? Isn’t it enough for him to just watch the game, and if he likes it, he can come back with a knowledge about the score system next time? How can someone who doesn’t know the sport be even engaged in following the scoreboard? If he doesn’t know what a set or a game is, then it’s really irrelevant what the scoreboard looks like.

It’s true that we don’t get the statistics about uncoverted SPs or MPs. But honestly it all depends whether the player failed to convert them on a BP or a GP. So we’re back with BPs again. I think it’s fine as it is. We can just agree to disagree I guess.

Reading all this about tennis scoring systems, I have got a flashback. I remember when I was around eleven years old, just before I started to play tennis, I saw a tennis score of a just finished match displayed on a black and white TV set, and thought to myself, what the ph*ck of numbers code is that?

 

[Azure]

Reading all this about tennis scoring systems, I have got a flashback. I remember when I was around eleven years old, just before I started to play tennis, I saw a tennis score of a just finished match displayed on a black and white TV set, and thought to myself, what the ph*ck of numbers code is that?

yes not easy for a first timer.

 

[Standaa]

Reading all this about tennis scoring systems, I have got a flashback. I remember when I was around eleven years old, just before I started to play tennis, I saw a tennis score of a just finished match displayed on a black and white TV set, and thought to myself, what the ph*ck of numbers code is that?

I thought "Why isn’t it 15, 30 and 45?!"

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

P.S.
For those making the point that stats perhaps can lead to soulless and robotic outcomes I hope the fact that Roger Federer still loses to Rafael Nadal in the above scenario is not lost.

The difference is data in how he lost.

At the moment much of what we have is in the realm of conjecture.

It’ll still feel soulless. That’s never going to change when Nadal pounds poor Fed’s BH into fine dust.

Statistical analysis is amazingly insightful a posteriori when it helps explain and clarify how a match was lost/won; it is a priori analytics I'm worrying about, the kind that would tell players in fine detail what exactly the need to do and how, so they no longer need to think for themselves and use their intuition and adaptation capabilities.

Also, you're beating the dead fedal horse again, it's been dissected a ton of times and I'll just say Nadal failed to demonstrate peak dominance except on clay and Miami, which is enough.

 

[Azure]

Statistical analysis is amazingly insightful a posteriori when it helps explain and clarify how a match was lost/won; it is a priori analytics I'm worrying about, the kind that would tell players in fine detail what exactly the need to do and how, so they no longer need to think for themselves and use their intuition and adaptation capabilities.

Also, you're beating the dead fedal horse again, it's been dissected a ton of times and I'll just say Nadal failed to demonstrate peak dominance except on clay and Miami, which is enough.

A posteriori analysis becomes a priori for the next match, no? Am I missing something?

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Yes I agree.

Trump revels in the attention he gets. A very boring case study actually.

My bet about Borg? He would leave even today. He was the biggest rockstar the tennis world has ever seen. It did not influence his decision.

Boring?

How fascinating you think that.

I think he must care very much about what people think to be as alert, the real question for me would be how self-aware he is in crafting his public image.

I can’t tell if he’s an absolute fool or a complete genius. There’s every possibility of both, frighteningly.

Re Borg, fame would be one part of it. He was exceedingly famous. So many unknowns and variables. The planet has changed since those days. Celebrities nowadays are quite leveraged in how they are being perceived, the thrust of your thread.

I hope he still retires on his terms in today’s environment.

 

[Azure]

Boring?

How fascinating you think that.

I think he must care very much about what people think to be as alert, the real question for me would be how self-aware he is in crafting his public image.

I can’t tell if he’s an absolute fool or a complete genius. There’s every possibility of both, frighteningly.

Re Borg, fame would be one part of it. He was exceedingly famous. So many unknowns and variables. The planet has changed since those days. Celebrities nowadays are quite leveraged in how they are being perceived, the thrust of your thread.

I hope he still retires on his terms in today’s environment.

Someone who likes the limelight will have no problems in the modern world. someone like Sampras would be interesting

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Statistical analysis is amazingly insightful a posteriori when it helps explain and clarify how a match was lost/won; it is a priori analytics I'm worrying about, the kind that would tell players in fine detail what exactly the need to do and how, so they no longer need to think for themselves and use their intuition and adaptation capabilities.

Also, you're beating the dead fedal horse again, it's been dissected a ton of times and I'll just say Nadal failed to demonstrate peak dominance except on clay and Miami, which is enough.

We’re completely the same page with the first bit, the delicate difference between posteriori and priori.

It’s the second bit that current data is not satisfying enough for me.

All it can lead to discussing is who won and who lost on what surfaces, which you’ve just said.

Who won and who lost is not opinion, its fact.

I want to know these players better. I want to see how they evolved over their careers. I want to learn more about their tactical patterns.

I can watch a match on television or dozens of matches of Federer as is the case, but I’ll never know how many slices compared to topspin shots he’s goes for.

I’ll never really have the data to corroborate many of my opinions. Or arrive at enough new ones.

Somehow this is dissatisfying.

 

[Ann]

I think the most important thing is to just love the sport you're watching, if the stats become more important than the game, you never really loved the game.

 

[Azure]

I think the most important thing is to just love the sport you're watching, if the stats become more important than the game, you never really loved the game.

Would you say that about the players themselves?

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Someone who likes the limelight will have no problems in the modern world. someone like Sampras would be interesting

True enough.

What I would like some insight into is whether someone like Trump is the person he presents himself as or whether he’s got a completely independent view free from the opinions of others he has shaped.

When we say politicians lie and distort and that they’re used to lying/distorting we’re also saying they’re self-aware they’re lying and distorting.

That’s where my interest, well, lies.

From Borg to Trump.

It’s been an interesting Sunday.

Hahahahaha.

 

[Ann]

Would you say that about the players themselves?

That's their careers, apples to oranges discussions don't interest me.

 

[Azure]

True enough.

What I would like some insight into is whether someone like Trump is the person he presents himself as or whether he’s got a completely independent view free from the opinions of others he has shaped.

When we say politicians lie and distort and that they’re used to lying/distorting we’re also saying they’re self-aware they’re lying and distorting.

That’s where my interest, well, lies.

From Borg to Trump.

It’s been an interesting Sunday.

Hahahahaha.

No derailing this thread

 

[Azure]

That's their careers, apples to oranges discussions don't interest me.

But I don't like seeing them all frustrated it's a dichotomous situation.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

We’re completely the same page with the first bit, the delicate difference between posteriori and priori.

It’s the second bit that current data is not satisfying enough for me.

All it can lead to discussing is who won and who lost on what surfaces, which you’ve just said.

Who won and who lost is not opinion, its fact.

I want to know these players better. I want to see how they evolved over their careers. I want to learn more about their tactical patterns.

I can watch a match on television or dozens of matches of Federer as is the case, but I’ll never know how many slices compared to topspin shots he’s goes for.

I’ll never really have the data to corroborate many of my opinions. Or arrive at enough new ones.

Somehow this is dissatisfying.

That data is definitely collected, but kept private, unfortunately.

I'd love a more detailed analysis, sure. Was just worrying that if the driving forces of tennis unite to produce an analytical model, which what you wished for, it will be *too* detailed, with every minute facet of the game exploited so all boils down to "if you do X in Y conditions, there is Z chance of success" and the best players will dominate by folllowing computer suggestions holistically, with no creativity.

 

[Azure]

That data is definitely collected, but kept private, unfortunately.

I'd love a more detailed analysis, sure. Was just worrying that if the driving forces of tennis unite to produce an analytical model, which what you wished for, it will be *too* detailed, with every minute facet of the game exploited so all boils down to "if you do X in Y conditions, there is Z chance of success" and the best players will dominate by folllowing computer suggestions holistically, with no creativity.

In theory, theory and practice are same. In practice they aren't

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

A posteriori analysis becomes a priori for the next match, no? Am I missing something?

Matches are different; the patterns that worked for the previous match often won't work the same way for the next, so you can't rely on that data to tell you what to do, still gotta strategise and tactify.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

In theory, theory and practice are same. In practice they aren't

With ever-growing computer power, one day they may well be able to account for everything in the algorithms.

I'm a fan of stats and have done some myself; would love to see more detailed stats made public; only remarking on reasonable limits in case someone like Hydro dreams of having every single detail recorded and dissected, that would confuse the players if it came to pass.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

With ever-growing computer power, one day they may well be able to account for everything in the algorithms.

I'm a fan of stats and have done some myself; would love to see more detailed stats made public; only remarking on reasonable limits in case someone like Hydro dreams of having every single detail recorded and dissected, that would confuse the players if it came to pass.

That data is definitely collected, but kept private, unfortunately.

I'd love a more detailed analysis, sure. Was just worrying that if the driving forces of tennis unite to produce an analytical model, which what you wished for, it will be *too* detailed, with every minute facet of the game exploited so all boils down to "if you do X in Y conditions, there is Z chance of success" and the best players will dominate by folllowing computer suggestions holistically, with no creativity.

It’s a really good point you’re making.

I am absolutely sure were such data made available in the public sphere and it was neatly compiled there is every chance it will lead to some loss of creativity.

I was only thinking of my own perspective as a fan here.

Stats are there to be used, they will be used in the pursuit of results.

Why bother having them in the first place?

Great point.

Thanks for walking me through it.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

No derailing this thread

Wasn’t derailing!

Understanding Trump is the key to knowing whether Borg would choose to retire early today!

Hypothetical questions need hypothetical answers!

 

[Azure]

Wasn’t derailing!

Understanding Trump is the key to knowing whether Borg would choose to retire early today!

Hypothetical questions need hypothetical answers!

Trump likes Rafa. That's the rumor and that's the only connection between the potus and tennis.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Trump likes Rafa. That's the rumor and that's the only connection between the potus and tennis.

He’s not my potus, I can fish around for all sorts of connections. If ongoing investigations are any indication he’s connected to quite a number of things.

 

[Azure]

He’s not my potus, I can fish around for all sorts of connections. If ongoing investigations are any indication he’s connected to quite a number of things.

Innocent until proven guilty. You are spreading FAKE news

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It’s a really good point you’re making.

I am absolutely sure were such data made available in the public sphere and it was neatly compiled there is every chance it will lead to some loss of creativity.

I was only thinking of my own perspective as a fan here.

Stats are there to be used, they will be used in the pursuit of results.

Why bother having them in the first place?

Great point.

Thanks for walking me through it.

I like stats as codified human observations - something that players and coaches could do even a century ago, except they had to write it down on paper and calculate for themselves whereas we can type it into an electronic device and get an automatic calculation in the end, but in the end, it's nothing people couldn't do earlier if at a slower pace, and such stats can help establish guidelines and overviews rather then detailed directives, since they are not precise enough for that. Electronic measurements such as shot speeds and spin rates are fun tidbits, but using them for advanced analysis may overcomplicate it, I think.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Innocent until proven guilty. You are spreading FAKE news

This is a new era of guilt before innocence, it came with your internet browser.

Please update your morals.

 

[Azure]

This is a new era of guilt before innocence, it came with your internet browser.

Please update your morals.

Ah you are asking me to change my world

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Ah you are asking me to change my world

I’m always asking people to change their world, how is this a surprise?

Really it’s not that difficult - all you need to do is shuffle three feet to the left or right for a whole new world.

 

[Azure]

I’m always asking people to change their world, how is this a surprise?

Really it’s not that difficult - all you need to do is shuffle three feet to the left or right for a whole new world.

You are asking questions again

 

[Deleted member 742196]

You are asking questions again

I think we’ve arrived at a brand new conundrum:

Encouragement leads to questions.

 

[Azure]

I think we’ve arrived at a brand new conundrum:

Encouragement leads to questions.

!! I asked the questions this time around. You prod. Subtle difference

 

[Deleted member 742196]

!! I asked the questions this time around. You prod. Subtle difference

Sorry! Forgot the rules of engagement!

This is why I hate answers, they’re such pesky things. You never know where you end up.

Back to topic now.

Uh, so statistics.

What’s the verdict after pages and pages of this?

Are they any good?

Should we do a mass delete and just award all these men and women shiny gold stars for slams?

 

[Azure]

Sorry! Forgot the rules of engagement!

This is why I hate answers, they’re such pesky things. You never know where you end up.

Back to topic now.

Uh, so statistics.

What’s the verdict after pages and pages of this?

Are they any good?

Should we do a mass delete and just award all these men and women shiny gold stars for slams?

Thank you for laying the tracks again but I guess the wise have spoken and someone already has bid me good night. I wish many more would participate in threads not named after Serena but that's the hot stuff. Ok I am digressing but you get the jist...

 

[Northern]

The only stats that really matter are 23-15 and 9-3.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Thank you for laying the tracks again but I guess the wise have spoken and someone already has bid me good night. I wish many more would participate in threads not named after Serena but that's the hot stuff. Ok I am digressing but you get the jist...

They do.

I’m guessing it’s only us few people that don’t much care for Goat conversations that can have elaborate ones about statistics.

Good thread!

 

[Deleted member 742196]

The only stats that really matter are 23-15 and 9-3.

It’s hard to disagree with any existing stats really, that’s part of the problem here.

Every stat we have ultimately boils down to who won and lost, which we already know.

Few stats yield any interesting information on why and how they won/lost.

You’re right.

It’s just not much fun talking about truisms.

 

[Azure]

They do.

I’m guessing it’s only us few people that don’t much care for Goat conversations that can have elaborate ones about statistics.

Good thread!

Thank you but threads on looks and boobs get more hits