Are Science and Data Ruining Sports?

Haven't watch the video, but I don't think information (i.e. data) can ruin something, as long as it's good information.

If you've seen the movie Moneyball, you can see it's not a bad thing at all. Finding value in less expensive players is a good thing.

in what way can data and statistics ruin a game? i would venture to say it adds a lot of nuance and strategy and allows intelligence to become part of the game just as much as physical talent

I know Jan has commented several times on using data from practice and games in order to help with the decision making process.

r_desihawk said:

in what way can data and statistics ruin a game? i would venture to say it adds a lot of nuance and strategy and allows intelligence to become part of the game just as much as physical talent

Click to expand...

Yup. Personally I like it when smart people do better than dumb people.

Not sure about "ruining the game" in general, but I can see the argument around it ruining small aspects of a game we love.

I'm thinking the use of data for more frequent pitcher changes in the MLB.

I believe it's almost impossible to see a pitcher throw a no-hitter in the MLB now, right?

The data is fine, just quit citing useless data during games or simply listing things off to make the talking head look intelligent

LetsGoHawks83 said:

Not sure about "ruining the game" in general, but I can see the argument around it ruining small aspects of a game we love.

I'm thinking the use of data for more frequent pitcher changes in the MLB.

I believe it's almost impossible to see a pitcher throw a no-hitter in the MLB now, right?

Click to expand...

The point the argument is trying to make is that everything is becoming micromanaged and over-analyzed.......because the "stats and charts and analytics TOLD US TO!!!"

I always got a kick out of sports podcasters having live on-air aneurysms trying to explain how early 2020s Iowa kept winning football games despite having a dogsh** awful offense, because it didn't align with their doctrine belief in how the game of football is suppose to be won and lost (i.e. their "analytics"...............)

And it kept getting funnier and funnier because they got more and more pissed off, to the point where these people who had no attachments or pre-dispositions to hate Iowa, were actively rooting against Iowa simply because they didn't like that we kept finding ways to win.

So f*** the science and data. Just play (or coach) ball. Learn the game by playing and watching the game rather than relying on a f***ing math equation.








P.S. in all seriousness, though, it should serve as a compliment to your sport. Not f***ing drive every single decision you make. Like whether to kick a PAT or go for 2 in a given situation or every time you score... .............

I generally like the nuance it's added to the games, but there are specific things that I don't like: the aforementioned pitching rotations, jacking upso many 3s, etc. I worry most about AI taking decision making out of the hands of humans

Data is your friend and you can bet that the staff us using lots of it to evaluate portal players. Believing that one player is better or more productive simply because they score more points per game is foolish. The real story is provided by the efficiency with which they scored those points, how many minutes they played, and against what level of competition. Would you rather have a player who scores 10 points per game with an EFG% of 60% against good competition or one who scores 14ppg against mediocre competition with an EFG% of 50%?

Looking at assists without considering turnovers and vice versa makes it a relatively useless statistic. Playmakers typically have higher turnover rates than 3 and D players, but are expected to offset those with higher assist rates. ATO ratios are a much better metric than either statistic in a vacuum.