{"id":1179,"date":"2007-02-28T09:42:24","date_gmt":"2007-02-28T09:42:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2007\/02\/28\/put-down-the-slide-rule\/"},"modified":"2007-02-28T09:42:24","modified_gmt":"2007-02-28T09:42:24","slug":"put-down-the-slide-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2007\/02\/28\/put-down-the-slide-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Put Down the Slide Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One of the under-reported effects of cheap and widely available personal computers is the increasing dorkification of sports.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m talking here about the rise in obsessive stat-geekery across the board, with the accompanying increase in &#8220;fantasy&#8221; sports. Those phenomena have hardly been ignored, but not many commentators put the blame where it belongs: on the computer industry.<\/p>\n<p>Back in the day, stat-wanking was mostly confined to baseball, which is so ridiculously boring that calculus seems like a fun way to spice things up. As computers have become more common, though, it&#8217;s become easier for sports geeks to crunch numbers, and the statistics mania has started to creep into football and even basketball. At this time of year, pseudo-objective college basketball ratings are as common as ill-advised jump shots. Dave has been tracking <a href=\"http:\/\/www.davesez.com\/archives\/001261.php\">Tournament seeding projections<\/a> for a while now, and now offers some stats that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.davesez.com\/archives\/001265.php\">purport to predict tournament outcomes<\/a>. But if you really want basketball stat-geekery, <a href=\"http:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/\">Ken Pomeroy is your man<\/a>, tracking and promoting a dizzying array of statistics.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ll admit that I&#8217;m somewhat torn about this. I am, after all, a professional nerd, and enjoy working with numbers, so I can see the appeal of quantitative data. And a lot of the regular statistics used in absketball are pretty crude measures, so I can understand trying to develop better statistics.<\/p>\n<p>As a player and fan, though, I tend to think that a lot of this stuff is just crap. I&#8217;m more than a little dubious about the possibility of testing these measures&#8211; the &#8220;log5&#8221; method claims that UNC has a 51% chance of winning the ACC tournament, but given that they only play the tournament once, it doesn&#8217;t seem like you&#8217;ve got a way to assess the validity of the prediction. After all, either they win it or they don&#8217;t, and one measurement doesn&#8217;t tell you anything about the overall distribution. You can aggregate historical data to see if the method gives you consistent results, but that&#8217;s not terribly convincing, given that the teams change over time.<\/p>\n<p>Most of my problem with this, though, is that it seems so bloodless. I&#8217;m a fan of college basketball because I enjoy <strong>playing<\/strong> basketball, and reducing it to just manipulation of numbers sucks all the interest out of it. I&#8217;m not into the game to predict the outcomes, I&#8217;m into it for the joy and pain of the <strong>playing<\/strong> of the game, and while the final score matters, what really matters is what happens on the way to the final score.<\/p>\n<p>And besides, it&#8217;s a short step from excessive statisticulation to &#8220;fantasy&#8221; leagues, and those are an absolute blight on the national landscape. If you want to find an example of the widespread availability of powerful computers exerting a detrimental influence on the American character, forget about Internet pornography&#8211; fantasy sports leagues are the real threat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One of the under-reported effects of cheap and widely available personal computers is the increasing dorkification of sports. I&#8217;m talking here about the rise in obsessive stat-geekery across the board, with the accompanying increase in &#8220;fantasy&#8221; sports. Those phenomena have hardly been ignored, but not many commentators put the blame where it belongs: on the&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2007\/02\/28\/put-down-the-slide-rule\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Put Down the Slide Rule<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-basketball","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}