Slashdot Mirror


Ranking Soccer Players By Following the Bouncing Ball

sciencehabit excerpts from an interesting report on statistics for soccer, in the stats-obsessed world of sports: "Only a handful of soccer ranking systems exist, most of which rely on limited information: the number of goals scored in a match, the number of goals assisted, and some indices of a match's difficulty and importance. ... So researchers turned to an unlikely source: social networks. Applying the kinds of mathematical techniques used to map Facebook friends and other networks, the team created software that can trace the ball's flow from player to player. As the program follows the ball, it assigns points for precise passing and for passes that ultimately lead to a shot at the goal. Whether the shot succeeds doesn't matter. Only the ball's flow toward the goal and each player's role in getting it there factors into the program's point system, which then calculates a skill index for each team and player."

39 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Um ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Points for not scoring? Isn't that the same as a woman telling you that she just wants to be friends because your friendship means more than a relationship would?

    1. Re:Um ... by oblio_one · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not the same, if player A passes the ball to player B, who then blows an excellent set up, player A still gets credit for providing an excellent set up.

    2. Re:Um ... by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that could be because both teams played AMAZINGLY well.

      Or it could be because one player messed up a lot on each team (the one that actually shot).

      Basically, this is just software that analyzes individual players performance leading up to shots - assists. Their JOB is to get the ball up to the striker. Their job is not necessarily to actually score. The scorers, though, get all the glory. Perhaps this software will help that?

    3. Re:Um ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you get 1st downs, which has nothing comparable in soccer. It also can put you in field goal range, which has no parallel in soccer. In US football, the team with the most offensive yards almost always wins. Does soccer have a similar outcome? And in US football, yards are only counted FORWARD. If the fullback runs 30 yards left, then 30 yards right, then is tackled on the line of scrimmage, he has gained exactly zero yards. Comparing to US football isn't a fruitful exercise, they are just too different.

      NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence. It is a series of calculated moves, not a continuous flow of play. Not better or worse, just not really comparable.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Um ... by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence.

      If NFL football is chess, soccer is go. The difference? It actually requires talent to be good at goh, whereas a supercomputer can beat anyone at chess. Skilled athletes excel at soccer, overweight drug addicts who should have failed out of high school win football games.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    5. Re:Um ... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Points for not scoring? Isn't that the same as a woman telling you that she just wants to be friends because your friendship means more than a relationship would?

      No, it's like giving a guy points for how many numbers he gets and how many hot chicks actually flirt back with him. Then you can see who's better with the ladies even if you're comparing two Slashdotters and the scoreline would typically be a nil-all draw.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:Um ... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, in general the team with the longest possession, most corner shots and most penalties (in an offensive, goal-able position) for them usually wins. There are already a few comparable statistics in place to gauge whole teams, but estimating the "game value" of a certain player is often rather hard. A player may be "valuable" just by being on the field without a single ball contact. There are players who have to be covered tightly so they CANNOT touch the ball and cannot be a sensible place to pass to, because there is ALWAYS an opponent with him. His value lies in the ability to tear apart the defense of the opponent because he has to have a watchdog, often two. He will not be counted as "valuable" in this new scoring system, even though he is probably one of the most valuable players in the team.

      It's like using yards carried for football and considering the offense line useless because they don't really carry the ball anywhere.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Um ... by Viski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any football fan will tell you that when two teams play AMAZINGLY well the result will be more like 5-5 rather than 0-0.

      I strongly disagree. There is much more than offense to consider in a good game of football. If the game results 5-5 it is rather clear that both defenses have failed at their job. Even a game ending 0-0 can be extremely interesting to watch for a football connoisseur. Football is not just about making goals, it's also about not conceding them.

    8. Re:Um ... by Jazzbunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence.

      No, chess boxing is more like blend of chess and raw violence.

    9. Re:Um ... by Eevee · · Score: 3, Funny

      If NFL football is chess, soccer is go.

      I don't recall Go masters diving to the ground and writhing in fake agony every time the opponent's hand gets them.

    10. Re:Um ... by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've obviously never seen an Italian Go master at the top of his game.

    11. Re:Um ... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take it no american football game has ever been won by one "score" (no idea how the points works for american football). Giving a "score" more points doesn't make it any less close if there's only one "score" difference.

      I get the impression that it's more like Rugby, though, with different types of "score" giving a different point value. Oh, and with body armour, totally non-fluid gameplay, and game times which rival Test cricket.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Um ... by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Drug addicts? Racist much? I think the NFL does a good job at keeping illicit drugs AND performance enhancing drugs out of the league.

      And not very many NFL athletes "fail out of high school". As a matter of fact, very few NFL players get into the NFL without going to college. Would you like to tell me about the 16-year old English phenoms, how they go right into EPL feeder leagues, and how THEIR education worked out for them after failing A-levels and finishing school at 16?

      I play soccer and not football, but I'm not going to pretend that the reason more people in the world play soccer because it's hard. More people play soccer in the world because it's relatively easy and all you need is a flat space and a round object. Because it is easy (but hard to perfect) is what makes it the beautiful game. NFL football is not subtle but it is not easy. I played in a third-tier professional German soccer league (as an American), but regardless of my skill, I'd never be able to play professional American Football at ANY level.

    13. Re:Um ... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you can prove that the ball isn't being kicked "back and forth" by watching 15 minutes of match analysis. The English shows are very good at this (when Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a pay-per-view monopoly) as are the Germans. I imagine the Spanish and Italians are too. American sports tv? Not so much, and and that's why we don't like soccer because all we see is a ball being kicked back and forth. It's just like my English friends who think US Football is just running into a pile then resting for 30 seconds.

      I challenge you to put a soccer ball on the ground from thirty yards and kick it into an empty net. "Dumb luck"...not so much.

      In other news, NASCAR is nothing but dumb luck and guys endlessly driving in circles.

    14. Re:Um ... by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In American football, we inflate the scores. If you get it across the goal line, you get SIX points. If you can't run/catch it past that line, but decide to kick it in instead, you get THREE points.

      If you break down an American football game typical score like 24-17 into 1 point for running/catching ball past the goal line and half a point for kicking it, that would be something like 3.5-2.5, which is roughly equivalent to a 1-nil victory in soccer.

      I stand alone against my countrymen in this argument. Bigger is not better, my fellow Americans.

      I have to take you on about the long game play though. The reason for the long games (three hours) is television and commercials. That's another reason soccer is not popular in the US, because it would require the TV channels to broadcast two uninterrupted 45 minute halves. Since TV here is dominated by advertisement money, soccer isn't financially viable for the networks because they can't sell commercials during the game.

    15. Re:Um ... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what's great about soccer though. You can dominate all the stats, time-of-possession, corner kicks, chances...but all that matters is goals. It's the ultimate "bottom line" sport, which gives fans lots of time to bitch and complain about "we should have won because...". It's fun.

  2. incomplete metrics by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, this is an incomplete metric for player worth.

    How about off-ball activity that contributes? Moving across a zone or defender to clear space for someone who actually handles the ball? What about the guy who makes a brilliant cut but doesn't get served well by a teammate, so never handles the ball?

    What about defense?

    Never mind the fact that this metric would be biased against Italian league players, where ball control and quality opportunities is more important than number of shots. You could game this system very easily by cranking shots from 30 yards.

    Soccer doesn't lend itself well to statistical analysis of players. That's one of the things that makes it a beautiful sport and fun to discuss, IMO.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:incomplete metrics by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Moving across a zone or defender to clear space for someone who actually handles the ball?

      Handle the ball? Someone like Thierry Henry?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:incomplete metrics by timothyf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Defense seems like it'd be easy to solve, just add a metric that counts number of times a player gains possession of the ball from the other team or otherwise interferes with a pass or goal.

    3. Re:incomplete metrics by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is, the best defense is often one where a player is so well marked no one even tries to pass it to him.

      Also, how do you "interfere with a goal"? It's either a goal or it isn't and if it is then the interference sure didn't do much.

    4. Re:incomplete metrics by HolyCoitus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Defense is much harder than that. If I shut someone down and take their angles and force them to pass the ball backwards, I get 0 points. If I go for a tackle from a terrible angle and get blown by, I get the same. Even if you take away points, it's not able to count marking someone or positional play shutting things down. It just rewards defenders who are hard tacklers or good at poking a ball free.

      --
      That's scary.
  3. offensive, isn't it? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    assigns points for precise passing and for passes that ultimately lead to a shot at the goal
      calculates a skill index for each team and player.

    Wow, that's really going to tell you about a players defensive skills, isn't it.

    Not that those could possibly important in a game where usually only one or two balls make it to the net the whole game. I mean, it's not like defense would play much of a role there.

  4. Bouncing ball? by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If God had meant football to be played in the air he would have put grass in the sky" - Brian Clough

    1. Re:Bouncing ball? by iNaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In rugby, it seems that the grass does indeed spend more time in the air than on the ground.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
  5. Flawed metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't measure defensive contributions and doesn't account for stronger defense against known good players. Someone remind these people that soccer is a team sport.

    1. Re:Flawed metric by gregfortune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is less flawed than the current methods mentioned in the summary. In fact, it does MORE to measure the team effort than a metric like goals scored. This is what we might call an incremental improvement. /facepalm

  6. Re:News for nerds? by supertrinko · · Score: 2, Funny

    The fifa world cup, it infects everything. Especially those bloody vuvuzel-BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    --
    If it rhymes it must be true.
  7. Re:Fantasy Leagues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually football (okay, soccer...) fantasy leagues follow quite simple metrics, it's just about goals, assists, yellow and red cards.
    Some system takes into account only individual stats, others also team stats (eg, a bonus for a defender if his real team doesn't concede goals).
    There may be some more or less convoluted bonus and combo rules (say, all your forwards score goals and all your defenders' teams don't concede...) but that's pretty much it.
    Here's an example:
    http://fantasy.premierleague.com/M/help.mc?category=scoring

    Stats and metrics really don't belong to soccer, it's a game of subjective evaluations.

    In fact, here in Italy (but I guess it's the same in other countries) sports newspapers evaluate players with grades after every match, to give a sense of how any of them performed.
    You get a table with grades given by the journalist, in a scale from 1 to 10 just like in our school system, and our "fantacalcio" games are based on those numbers (plus all the various bonus and malus).

    Pretty subjective, but that's part of the fun of soccer, the discussions about performances and matches are neverending as there aren't objective stats to call in to support your views. =)

  8. Sounds rather slanted by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Under those circumstances, Spain played an amazing game against Switzerland this week: Hundreds of accurate passes that ended in shots. More passes in one half than most teams make in an entire game. And yet, they didn't score, and lost the game against a team that had 25% ball position, but actually managed to score.

    It would also mean that every Italian national team from the last 30 years happens to be terrible, despite their world championship titles.

    1. Re:Sounds rather slanted by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spain *are* a much better team than Switzerland and this system would show that. Have them play a thousand times, and Spain would win the vast majority. So I'm not sure I see your point.

      You do make a good point about Italy. However I'd be interested to see what the system actually says about Italy before condemning it.

  9. The article is just plain wrong by horza · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you've watched any English match in the past decade, you will see there are a slew of stats. When a player is on screen, stats are displayed such as: number of passes, % of passes completed, assists, shots, shots on target, tackles, total km run, and more.

    On the other hand, as we've already had these stats for a decade or two we know how irrelevant they are. There are plenty of players that run around waving for the ball and when they get it simply knock it back or sideways in a manner that contributes little. They have great stats and may touch it in the build up to a goal but are far from being the architects.

    Using the same software to analyse companies and creative team, mentioned in the article, that is a joke. As is the original researcher trying to understand why his team isn't winning when it only has one decent player.

    Phillip.

  10. For the benefit of World Cup viewers by DuranDuran · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the benefit of World Cup viewers, this may seem more familiar:

    "Only a handful ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ exist, most ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ information: the ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ match, the number ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ a match's ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ So researchers ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Applying ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ the ball's ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ultimately ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ball's flow toward the goal ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for each team and player."

    --
    "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:For the benefit of World Cup viewers by iB1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think he's referring to the incessant drone of the vuvuzelas, rather than the match being boring! They do sound like a swarm of bees!

  11. Re:Call it right by Changa_MC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I call that other game "American Rugby," since that's what it is.

    --
    Changa hates change.
  12. Re:Call it right by pmontra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is only a handful of countries that need to distinguish between different football games. Most of the world has only one such a game, the one played in the World Cup right now, so calling it football is right in almost every country.

  13. Prozone by maharg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The top UK teams (and others around the world I guess..) all use Prozone - http://www.prozonesports.com/

    From what I have seen at the International Broadcasting Convention http://www.ibc.org/ some TV production companies do a fair bit of of markup on their footage too

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
  14. On the other hand... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It might also be a completely useless study of a pointless topic.

    Also, completely WRONG as the very first commenter to TFA puts it:

    ponckk
    a team... can play as never before, and still loose, if they don't score.
    A team that plays very poorly, can score, and win.....

    look at the world cup history, and the majority of soccer matches.

    Look at the debut of spain in the world cup...

    your software is really nice and the algorithm has to be great. but it doesn't apply in real life.
    thats why there arn't many stats in soccer, that is why is simple...GET THE BALL IN, thats what counts.
    And your algorithm is leaving that out immediatly
    Today, 02:27:4

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  15. Quantitative Analysis not Possible by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trying to measure a qualitative activity with quantitative tools is meaningless.

  16. Re:I dunno... by Cederic · · Score: 4, Informative

    I should read down the rest of this page to see if you're just trolling.

    I tried to watch it...and just got a bit bored. The low scoring, and letting people tie just doesn't seem right to me for a competitive game.

    What has the rate of scoring got to do with competitiveness? I'm kind of confused. Even baseball doesn't have humungously high scores.

    Perhaps you'd prefer cricket, where a side can score several hundred points (known as 'runs') and take up to twenty wickets in a match.

    As for ties. Only America thinks a draw is unacceptable in sport. The rest of the world copes quite easily with the concept.

    Sometimes, just possibly, neither team is sufficiently better than the other to win the match. Why not allow the final score the reflect this?

    Obviously this is the World Cup and so there'll be a knock-out cup format (instead of the league format, which is the current stage). As you can't knock someone out in the event of a draw (sorry, a 'tie') the rules permit the use of a couple of mechanisms to avoid this. First is a 30 minute period of extra time (erm, 'overtime'?) then there are penalties.

    I don't understand that....I mean, I thought the world cup was analogous to to the Super Bowl in the US, something played every year to determine the champion.

    Superbowl:
    - Annual
    - Play-off following league competition
    - Only involves American teams
    - Competed by professional sports clubs

    World Cup:
    - Every four years
    - 2 year qualification involving regional qualifiers (in Europe taking the form of mini-leagues)
    - Involves the entire world
    - Competed by National teams

    So no, not analogous to the Superbowl at all.

    Is there not a soccer champion every year?

    No. There are thousands.

    E.g. the equivalent in Football terms to a Superbowl winner is whoever wins the MLS play-offs.

    However, there are equivalents in the English Premier League, the Scottish Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, the J League and.. well, every country has its own league competition, producing a champion.

    Of course, there are also cup competitions. In England there's the League Cup, the FA Cup, the Johnson's Paint Trophy, the Community Shield and a number of lesser trophies competed for annually. There are also the Europe wide competitions such as the Intertoto Cup, the Europa League (which despite the name is a cup competition) and the Champions League (which despite the name is both a cup competition, and also involves non-champions).

    Other continents have their own equivalents.

    Each year there's also a World Club tournament, the winner of which are the World Club Champions.

    Then there's the African Cup of Nations, which is a competition for national teams, which takes place at the start of each year.

    Every four years (bisecting the world cup) there are the European Championships, in which the European national teams compete.

    I'll stop now, but hopefully you at least have an inkling of just how much bigger this whole football thing is than something as inconsequential as the Superbowl in the US.