Goal scoring problems?

[Snowball]

Cheers, Dave.I'm 99.99% certain I have that book
and I'm 100% certain I haven't yet read it.

The Nisbett & Ross book = Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). "Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment." Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


is really good (and still valid)


People make HUGE mistakes because of "salience and relevance"


Best example is this one: A student wants a First-Class degree and there are two universities
that offer his subject. University A is stingy as hell and has only awarded one "first" in the
last ten years. University B has awarded 3-4-5 "firsts" every year.

Ask people which Uni should he go to and virtually 100% say University B. (Common-Sense)

But now if the respondent is told they KNOW THE PERSON who went to University A
and got a first, the choice changes to 50-50.

Simply because they know that one guy, they totally ignore the statistics!

[Snowball]

We do the same with corners.

We remember GOALS scored from corners, and get excited when we win a corner.

That's because the excitement of a goal, the association with "the corner" makes us
believe that corners are valuable things to win. But they are not.

In fact it's almost certain that if a club like Reading last season,
scoring just 1 goal every 77 corners, instead of accepting the corner
tried to keep the ball alive they'd get more goals.

Why? Well do we think we'd get a goal, say 1 in 50 times we get into the opponents penalty area?
1 in 40? 1 in 30? we average 1.4 goals per game, the vast majority coming from inside the area
or right on the edge/just outside the area. (11 inside, 3 on the edge this year)

We've had ten league goals this season NOT from corners. Keeping the ball alive or winning
a penalty in, or free-kick on the edge of, the box has resulted in ten goals, or 1 per game.
Now those (each separate one) didn't come from 77 separate attacks, 70+ times getting into
the box or into a very dangerous area. That would mean 77 attacks PER GAME. I don't think so!

Clearly keeping the ball alive is a LOT better than winning a corner. YET WINNING CORNERS RAISES THE TEMPERATURE!!


The trouble is that when we DO score a goal from a corner, it's "intermittent reinforcement"
and like rare wins for a gambler, the hardest behaviour to break away from.

[Hoop Blah]

Without wanting to go off on too much of a tangent...

That sounds like the stats guy is ignoring the relevance of knowing the benchmark of the person who attained the 1st and having an idea of whether they're as able as them to get a first. The recipients of the 3-4-5 1st's are unknown and so the prospective student can't compare as sensible.

Sounds like stats for stats sake!

[Hoop Blah]

We do the same with corners.

We remember GOALS scored from corners, and get excited when we win a corner.

That's because the excitement of a goal, the association with "the corner" makes us
believe that corners are valuable things to win. But they are not.

You might. Everybody I know gets excited about corners then turns round and says something along the lines of, we never score from corners so don't know why we're getting excited.

I think you're using a bit of excitement and chance to create some atmosphere as an incorrect measure for expectation.

[Stranded]

We do the same with corners.

We remember GOALS scored from corners, and get excited when we win a corner.

That's because the excitement of a goal, the association with "the corner" makes us
believe that corners are valuable things to win. But they are not.

You might. Everybody I know gets excited about corners then turns round and says something along the lines of, we never score from corners so don't know why we're getting excited.

I think you're using a bit of excitement and chance to create some atmosphere as an incorrect measure for expectation.

Same as, most people round where I sit expect very little from corners from bitter experience. It's always a pleasant surprise when we score from one.

[Snowball]

Without wanting to go off on too much of a tangent...

That sounds like the stats guy is ignoring the relevance of knowing the benchmark of the person who attained the 1st and having an idea of whether they're as able as them to get a first. The recipients of the 3-4-5 1st's are unknown and so the prospective student can't compare as sensible. Sounds like stats for stats sake!

You're wrong, Hoop Blah. Simple as that.

There are other examples in the book and the effect is well-known by psychologists.


What you are saying is that "I know the guy who got a first X years ago. I reckon I can match him,
so I should IGNORE the fact that University B has awarded FORTY TIMES AS MANY "FIRSTS" (10 x 4)

You can't see the illogicality of that?

You're ARGUMENT itself is a perfect example of the known and proven inference-failure.

It is almost completely irrelevant whether we know the person who got the first at University A.


Think this.

"I'm picking University B because they've awarded 43 Firsts in the last ten years
and University A only awarded 1."

"Very sensible, Maguire. That John Swot was a very lucky/hard-working student."

"John Swot? Oh, I KNOW John Swot. I'm going to go to University A, then..."

"Yes, Swot did well considering he only had one arm."

"John Swot has both arms. I saw him three weeks ago."

"Must be a different John Swot, then, Maguire."

"Oh, in that case, I'm going to University B."


The knowing the guy is IRRELEVANT. It's a FALSE "salience and relevance" issue.

[Snowball]

We do the same with corners.

We remember GOALS scored from corners, and get excited when we win a corner.

That's because the excitement of a goal, the association with "the corner" makes us
believe that corners are valuable things to win. But they are not.

You might. Everybody I know gets excited about corners then turns round and says something along the lines of, we never score from corners so don't know why we're getting excited.

I think you're using a bit of excitement and chance to create some atmosphere as an incorrect measure for expectation.

so.... WHY DO WE STILL GET EXCITED WHEN WE KNOW CORNERS ARE A VIRTUAL WASTE OF TIME?

Our emotions are over-riding the facts!

[Snowball]

Same as, most people round where I sit expect very little from corners from bitter experience. It's always a pleasant surprise when we score from one.[/quote]


Do they say, "Dammit, a corner. Waste of time."?

[Hoop Blah]

so.... WHY DO WE STILL GET EXCITED WHEN WE KNOW CORNERS ARE A VIRTUAL WASTE OF TIME?

Our emotions are over-riding the facts!

We generally go to football to get excited and to join in some tribal antics....dare I say to enjoy oursleves!

You may as well ask why do we sing 'by far the greatest team' or 'shoot the b*stard, shoot the b*stard' or 'we're gunna win 5-4' when we go 4-0 down.

[Hoop Blah]

Without wanting to go off on too much of a tangent...

That sounds like the stats guy is ignoring the relevance of knowing the benchmark of the person who attained the 1st and having an idea of whether they're as able as them to get a first. The recipients of the 3-4-5 1st's are unknown and so the prospective student can't compare as sensible. Sounds like stats for stats sake!

You're wrong, Hoop Blah. Simple as that.

There are other examples in the book and the effect is well-known by psychologists.


What you are saying is that "I know the guy who got a first X years ago. I reckon I can match him,
so I should IGNORE the fact that University B has awarded FORTY TIMES AS MANY "FIRSTS" (10 x 4)

You can't see the illogicality of that?

You're ARGUMENT itself is a perfect example of the known and proven inference-failure.

It is almost completely irrelevant whether we know the person who got the first at University A.


Think this.

"I'm picking University B because they've awarded 43 Firsts in the last ten years
and University A only awarded 1."

"Very sensible, Maguire. That John Swot was a very lucky/hard-working student."

"John Swot? Oh, I KNOW John Swot. I'm going to go to University A, then..."

"Yes, Swot did well considering he only had one arm."

"John Swot has both arms. I saw him three weeks ago."

"Must be a different John Swot, then, Maguire."

"Oh, in that case, I'm going to University B."


The knowing the guy is IRRELEVANT. It's a FALSE "salience and relevance" issue.

My example is one of a human being using human experience and personal knowledge to influence a individual choice. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means that person is probably weighing up the statistical probabilty of an outcome with the tangible, known and comparable references from source information they trust.

It's a personal choice, not one that has to be taken on a statistical basis.

I'm not saying that people don't have poor recall or incorrect perceptions, just that it really doesn't matter that much and decision making processes should take in many factors.

[Snowball]

My example is one of a human being using human experience and personal knowledge to influence a individual choice. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means that person is probably weighing up the statistical probabilty of an outcome with the tangible, known and comparable references from source information they trust.

It's a personal choice, not one that has to be taken on a statistical basis.

I'm not saying that people don't have poor recall or incorrect perceptions, just that it really doesn't matter that much and decision making processes should take in many factors.

At least I now know you aren't logical!

You are SO wrong. Why is it that people DO use the stats. All of them. Every one of them.

UNTIL they are given that one, basically irrelevant fact, that they might actually know the one person.


OK, ready? The same scenario. 43 First versus 1 First but he knows the person who got the one first. WHICH UNIVERSITY SHOULD HE CHOOSE?

Wait a moment. He ALSO knows a person in the 43 at University B. (Knows one at each Uni) WHICH UNIVERSITY SHOULD HE CHOOSE?

No wait! He knows TWO people who got the first-class degree (of the 43 awarded at B) WHICH UNIVERSITY SHOULD HE CHOOSE?

No wait! He knows THREE people who got the first-class degree (of the 43) WHICH UNIVERSITY SHOULD HE CHOOSE?

The Universities are equally good, their degrees equally good...

[Ian Royal]

We do the same with corners.

We remember GOALS scored from corners, and get excited when we win a corner.

That's because the excitement of a goal, the association with "the corner" makes us
believe that corners are valuable things to win. But they are not.

You might. Everybody I know gets excited about corners then turns round and says something along the lines of, we never score from corners so don't know why we're getting excited.

I think you're using a bit of excitement and chance to create some atmosphere as an incorrect measure for expectation.

Same as, most people round where I sit expect very little from corners from bitter experience. It's always a pleasant surprise when we score from one.

Well from my experience of games over the last 15 years, you'd have to be a bit of an idiot to expect much from a corner. It's like watching Paul Brayson go one on one with the keeper. You know it's going to result in nothing, but it doesn't stop you shouting and getting to your feet in excitement.

[ZacNaloen]

Ian, that's exactly his point. You know logically nothing is likely to come of it, but you aren't thinking logically in the heat of the moment so you get excited anyway.


And certainly if I was to go by my gut instinct I'd have said we scored more corners than we actually do.

[Ian Royal]

Ian, that's exactly his point. You know logically nothing is likely to come of it, but you aren't thinking logically in the heat of the moment so you get excited anyway.


And certainly if I was to go by my gut instinct I'd have said we scored more corners than we actually do.

I'm agreeing with Stranded & Hoop, not snowball who by the sounds of it varies from stat obsessed to incapable of rational thought at a match.

[ZacNaloen]

Err no, you just supported Snowballs hypothesis that when you watch games you aren't thinking clearly, because you still get excited despite the odds.


Believe it or not he's actually asking you to think about why you get excited and how that might colour your perceptions of what you see on the day. Human recall is notoriously unreliable, it's why he likes stats. Even if his conclusions are spotty as well.

You prefer your memory and preconceptions to (an attempt at) logical analysis, probably why you don't get along.

[Ian Royal]

Err no, you just supported Snowballs hypothesis that when you watch games you aren't thinking clearly, because you still get excited despite the odds.


Believe it or not he's actually asking you to think about why you get excited and how that might colour your perceptions of what you see on the day. Human recall is notoriously unreliable, it's why he likes stats. Even if his conclusions are spotty as well.

You prefer your memory and preconceptions to (an attempt at) logical analysis, probably why you don't get along.

Not really. I can enjoy the moment and get excited, whilst being able to maintain a level of intellectual detachment. You can get excited by the possibility, whilst knowing that the probability isn't good. Hence whilst being excited I know the chances of scoring are fairly slim, but there's still a chance. I'm certainly not perfect, but I am fairly good at it.

And you've got me wrong, I prefer a reasonable combination of both. As shown by my use of stats, but my lack of total reliance on them. By the fact I rarely make snap judgements about players and allow new information to change my opinion.

[Snowball]

Well from my experience of games over the last 15 years, you'd have to be a bit of an idiot to expect much from a corner. It's like watching Paul Brayson go one on one with the keeper. You know it's going to result in nothing, but it doesn't stop you shouting and getting to your feet in excitement.

15 years. That's, what, 30 games?

[Snowball]

Ian, that's exactly his point. You know logically nothing is likely to come of it, but you aren't thinking logically in the heat of the moment so you get excited anyway.


And certainly if I was to go by my gut instinct I'd have said we scored more corners than we actually do.

THANK-you

I do not believe that the greatest pessimist on this board
would say we could go about 140 corners without scoring.

I was flabbergasted to discover that.

[Snowball]

Err no, you just supported Snowballs hypothesis that when you watch games you aren't thinking clearly, because you still get excited despite the odds.


Believe it or not he's actually asking you to think about why you get excited and how that might colour your perceptions of what you see on the day. Human recall is notoriously unreliable, it's why he likes stats. Even if his conclusions are spotty as well.

You prefer your memory and preconceptions to (an attempt at) logical analysis, probably why you don't get along.

NEAT! YES!

I'm as fallible as the next bloke. But the difference is I KNOW I'm fallible.

Too many people on this board make decisions on micro-seconds. Sometimes they decide on a player before he's kicked a ball for Reading.

Ian Royal makes decisions based on listening to the radio.

[Hoop Blah]

What your science and stats is failing to recognise is why you get excited. It's not because you expect something to happen but because you want something to happen and actually want the excitement and euphoria of the expectation.

It's like buying a lottery ticket and planning how you'd spend the £5m. It doesn't mean you think you'll win!