Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/harttic/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/cache.php on line 36

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/harttic/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/harttic/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/theme.php on line 507
Clueless Finn

Individual offense rating - no solution yet

September 21st, 2005

During the weekend I decided to write down the definite answer for individual offensive ratings. After spending way too much time without being able to formulate even one paragraph for that post, I was forced to downgrade my objective. Now I just hope to start some discussion on this topic. Quite lame, I have to admit.
Read the rest of this entry »

Scoring efficiency in the past

September 15th, 2005

After writing about Jam-Kaos game I started thinking of what is the scoring efficiency in high level games in general. I have no recent data on that (except from a few selected games). However some time ago I got from Sholom Simon some RUFUS stats from mid-90s.
Read the rest of this entry »

Nor Cal Open sectionals

September 12th, 2005

Watched the “final” of Norcal sectionals today. Short story: Kaos won 13-11.

A little longer recap. Kaos started well and Jam started a little wobbly. The score was soon 3-0 for Kaos, altough both teams had turned it over; Jam 5 times (few hucks and a drop), Kaos two times. Then Jam answered with 3-0 run of its own. First half in general was shaky on both sides. Kaoes got to the half leading 7-5. At that point the trunover total was Kaos 6, Jam 8.

On the second half both teams played a little better (less turnovers), although in some points there were quite a few calls. I guess the total turnover count was 9-10 to Kaos (resulting in 59% and 52% scoring efficiency).

Some notables. On Kaos Tyler had a great game. Chris McManus made a sweet layout catch (Brandice got at a great photo of that). Both teams had nice pressure defenses, but also a few major mistakes (guy cutting deep was not being covered).

First and second assists

September 7th, 2005

I compiled from-to matrices for all the Team USA goals (who passed to whom) and similar matrices for passes just before goal passes - so called second assists. (I wanted to compare these passes and their correlation to the total number of passes, as there was some time ago short discussion in the ultimate statistics Yahoo group about value of 2nd assists compared to goal passes).

Similar results as yesterday. Goal passes correlated closer to total passes, although the correlation was not high (Pearson correlation only 0.476 compared to 0.381 for second-assist passes). However there was virtually no correlation between 1st and second assists - sort of interesting.

Another interesting tidbit was that the highest number of goal passes in one game from one person to another was 2. In the summary matrix the highest number was 5 (Watson to Ziperstein and Ziperstein to Eastham). And there was no player who passed at least one goal to every other player. It is no surprise that Namkung was closest to reach this milestone (no goal passes to Fontenette though) - as one probably remembers Namkung was the bridge between male and female players.

Goal passes vs passes preceding goal passes

September 6th, 2005

I started studying if goal passes (from person a to person b), or “leading passes” (the pass from player a to player b, which precedes a goal pass, similar to second assist in ice hockey) are correlated to the numbeor of passes between these players. I started with the final game, and used tools in UCINET (Quadratic Assigment Procedure or somthing along the lines). To my surprise the goal passes had stronger correlation to the distribution of all passes than the “leading passes”. In any case the correlation was not especially strong. The sum of goal and leading passes had a little stronger correlation, which was not a big surprise as this way I was comparing bigger chunck of the passes to the all passes of the game. I will post the numbers of this analysis over the whole tournament as soon as I get that done (probably tomorrow).

Average passes between players

September 3rd, 2005

Tarr asked for data showing how many passes one person throws to another on average while they are on the field. Turns out not so many. Here is sample from the Final game Team USA against Australia. The numbers in the cells are calculated dividing the total number of passes between players (directional) with a number describing how many points the players were on the field at the same time and during which points USA had possession. So if the players were on the field during a defence-only point, those points were discarded from the calculations.
Read the rest of this entry »

Network visualizations of passes in ultimate

August 29th, 2005

As I have not proceeded much in the analysis of Team USA ultimate passing networks during the weekend, I will instead show what kinds of visualizations of passes one could work out with network visualization tools. Most of the pictures are created using NetDraw (a complementary visualization package to UCINET social network analysis tool).
Read the rest of this entry »

Do some players throw more to certain players than the team average?

August 26th, 2005

It’s getting a little too late for my brains, but lets hope that I got the pictures named the right way. I decided to study a little if some players (in Team USA ultimate team) throw proportionally more to certain players than the team in general. Or vice versa if some players get the disc more from certain players than the players on average do.
Read the rest of this entry »

Team USA analysis: Are some players more active in tough games?

August 25th, 2005

Continuing the piecemeal analyisis of Team USA passing data (one step a day - I have no time for more). I classified the games being easy, medium or hard based on the result of the game. The game against Japan was the only “easy” game (13-4). In the medium category I placed three games: Canada, Finland, Germany (all 13-7 or 13-8). Both of the Australia games were left in the “hard” category. Of course, having categories with only 1-3 games does not allow to make any conclusions how significant the possible differences are.
Read the rest of this entry »

Ultimate Scorekeeping in HCI International

August 24th, 2005

This is a little outdated, but in late July I presented our (Asmo Soinio, and yours truly) paper on scorekeeping ultimate with smart phones. Not much audience though. This is the same system used in keeping score in World Games 2005 in Germany.