Wolfram Alpha Number-Crunches the Super Bowl

Nerval's Lobster writes "Whatever your actual feelings about football and this weekend's Super Bowl, you have to admire Wolfram Alpha's willingness to crunch any dataset and see what it can find. The self-billed 'computational knowledge engine' has analyzed the historical data for both teams involved in this Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII. Its conclusion? The San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens are 'annoyingly similar' when it comes to numbers, although some players stand out as potential game changers — if the math plays out right."

Comments

Why?

[Skiron]

Why do you yanks have to analyse everything? Just get on and play the bloody game.

Re:Why?

[mutified]

I calculated you would say that.

I use a different method

[Dyinobal]

I personally use Chef Johns analysis of throwing chicken wing bones. It's never failed.

Re:Who cares?

[Lumpy]

"FUCK THEM ALL. Not watching.. not even the fucking commercials."

Wait What? Fucking Commercials? has the FCC lifted the ban on copulation in commercials? I am SO watching the superbowl now!

Re:contradiction of analysis

[egcagrac0]

Unless it's a sealed homogeneous environment, yes. Pretty sure they've got some ventilation, which means moving air.

Algorithm requires a specific hook

[cellocgw]

did they remember to include the "any given Sunday" function in their algorithm? :-)

BTW, What you *should* be watching today is http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/puppy-bowl

Re:Rugby for doped sissies

[DiamondGeezer]

Have you actually seen rugby? Its like American football minus all the interruptions, advertising and Tebowing. And when you get tackled you don't bounce off the shoulder pads.

Seriously I know that American TV is paid for by advertising, but its seriously unwatchable. After 30 minutes my brain was so addled by constant interruptions that I watched QTV and actually wanted to buy something, anything.

No wonder America has a drug and violence problem - its caused by constant TV interruptions that eventually cause your brain to .... hey, a squirrel!

Re:Rugby for doped sissies

[peragrin]

No America' ADHD problem is caused by TV that stops every 5 minutes to show 2 minutes of hey a squirrel driving a car.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies

[Alomex]

I remember the old days when soccer was a slow and boring sport. Actually it still is, but now thanks to commercials and timeouts and all manner of other interruptions American Football, Baseball and Basketball are even more boring.

Presently the only fast action team sport available on TV is hockey.

I'm not a member of the hive on this one

[justthinkit]

I don't like football. I love it.

Played it for just shy of 50 years...so far. Coached it, sideline ref'd it. Took up punting as a solo/zen hobby. You name it, I love it.

I played soccer when young (English parents), but it is not one-tenth of the game football is.

I played more tennis, from age 6 to 16, than any other sport and than anyone I knew. I got good at it and am still good at it. I've take time off work to watch the majors. And it is not one-fifth of the game football is.

I suck at golf so nuff said.

It is funny to hear people praising rugby instead of football. Talk about whistle-prone. Rugby has its moments, as does Aussie rules football. But they are not one-third of the game football is.

World cup soccer only comes once every four years. Same for the Olympics. Pity, or they might come close to American football

But there can be only one. Long live football. American football.

...a former Canuck who always hated the Canadian version -- the 3 downs forcing the game to be unbalanced toward passing, the ultra wide field that made the game hard to appreciate up close and the imperfect football -- try throwing one of each country's footballs and you'll see what I mean.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one

[Frankie70]

World cup soccer only comes once every four years

What about the World Cup of American Football - once in how many years is it held?

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one

[Ogive17]

I enjoy watching American football, it's big at all levels where I live. However, one of your comments just doesn't make any sense.

It is funny to hear people praising rugby instead of football. Talk about whistle-prone. Rugby has its moments, as does Aussie rules football. But they are not one-third of the game football is

A typical American football play lasts 3-4 seconds followed by 30-40 seconds of nothing. While Rugby also has some downtime, you don't see frequent substitutions and the players play offense and defense. Even if the typically play goes on for only 3-4 seconds, the following down time usually is just another 3-4 seconds.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one

[phantomfive]

How about, instead of listing a bunch of sports and saying football is better, you talk about football and say why it's so great? Without giving reasons you just sound like a fanboy, but if you'd listed some good things about football, that would have been a great post.

Re:I'm not a member of the hive on this one

[justthinkit]

What doesn't make sense is the average rugby whistle. It is perhaps the most unintuitive sport there is. The average sports person has no idea what a "knock on" is, yet these stop the play far too frequently.

Brutality: The scrum is pretty savage, yet little is ever said about it. Such a rough game puts it out of reach for most. Football can be as well, but personally I only played tackle with my friends -- college intramurals were flag football, and I "coached" some K5ers in 2-hand touch.

Rugby has a lot of potential for greatness. Very exciting to see the "end" trying to break free. But there is the problem as well. You see the same basic things happening over and over -- kicks, scrums & tackles that look damaging, and attempted runs. Few passes, little strategy, and bandaged ears.

"Mommy, why do they bandage their ears?"
"Because they are not smart enough to use helmets, son."

Returning to whistles...

Each sport has a rhythm. Someone took a stopwatch to baseball and measured 9 minutes of true action in an entire 9-inning game. Basketball and hockey can have a minute or two of intense action. Soccer can have steady "action" with at least one or two players running, but I think lack of substantial action (by most players) is its biggest downfall. Football is "unique" when it comes to action -- lengthy delays between plays, for sure.

But what are you getting for your delay? You are getting one team reading the other team's defense, finding a weakness and exploiting it. You are getting maximum effort, thanks to the rest they just had. Soccer lacks this, so you get cheap stuff like players throwing the ball the wrong way, or holding on to it, so they can recover. And of course lining up 5 yards away on free kicks...only to be moved to 8 yards away.

I would be surprised if anyone on /. purely watches sports without doing something else at the same time. Delays in sports, or shows, are pretty meaningless to me...in fact I like predictable commercial breaks -- mute TV, get up and do 5 things, return to work.

One other huge plus of delays between plays -- instant replays and analysis. There was a time, 40 years ago anyway, when replays were few and far between -- we used to beg the TV to show them to us. Now we get 3 or 4 views of a play, slow motion, highlighting, and expert analysis.

What sport comes close to this level of analysis and coverage? The Olympics (and maybe golf). Yet the amount of effort to win a given Olympic sports varies hugely. Team sports like olympic hockey, for example, see them playing round robin with every other team -- maybe 20 hours of brutal play. In another sport you jump in the water ten times. Try googling "easiest olympic sport" -- all kinds of pages talking about this alone.

Re:Betting lines

[Rockoon]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) betting lines arent set based on the games likely outcome but instead are set based on public perception of the games likely outcome. The goal of the the betting line is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each team, and if successful the bookie walks away with 10% of the action because the winning wagers only get paid $10 on their $11 wager.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies

[phik]

I am reposting this as a non-AC:
I have seen Rugby. I went to the University of Stellenbosch for a semester. The US Maties won the national Championship in South Africa. I also went to Texas Tech University in Lubbock Texas. The TTU RedRaiders never were good enough to win the national title, but they were good at the time.
Not a SINGLE rugby player on the Maties could have made the squad at Texas Tech. The Red Raiders had a tight end that was 260 pounds that was faster than ANYONE (even the speedy wings) on the rugby team.
The physical talent in terms of speed & strength is a million times better in American football, obviously not in endurance though.

Re:Rugby for doped sissies

[Vaphell]

reposting as well

but that's the point - you have to sacrifice *a lot* for endurance and versatility on the field. If all you do is sprint for 5 seconds every 3 minutes your training is tailored for that specific goal but you wont be as good at running and tackling and running and tackling for 5 minutes straight like in rugby, where there are very few interruptions. Assuming 1-10 stats, it's desirable to have a bunch of 8s and 9s in rugby, while at the same time in football it's better to have one or two 10s.