Scoring opportunities per hour

[septimus]

I’ve thought basketball with its very high scores and soccer with its very low scores were quite similar! In each game turnovers are fairly unimportant: In soccer a turnover is unlikely to lead to a score; in basketball it is, but scores are so plentiful a single one is unimportant. Contrast this with American football, where every turnover is a matter of high drama.

BTW, basketball is much too fast-moving for my slow analytic brain – I think I’d enjoy the game much more viewing it in slow-motion throughout.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Superhal

There’s a cultural aspect as well. I think baseball used to be more popular when it reflected the agrarian nature of American life. However, when life became more hectic, basketball became more popular. Football, imho, reflects the competition inherent in all aspects of American life, and how difficult it is to achieve small goals.

Americans don’t like soccer because it involves fair play, sportsmanship, etc.

And flopping. Lots of flopping.

[President_Johnny_Gentle]

@MOIDALIZE

Since basketball features scoring on roughly half of the possessions, a better metric to judge a basketball team is points per possession (and it’s corollary, points allowed per opponent’s possession). If a team is lousy at scoring, they’re probably pretty boring and frustrating to watch, especially if they combine their poor shooting with a grinding defense that limits their opponent’s scoring.(AKA Wisconsin Badgers basketball).

I think that possessions per game might be a better metric along those lines.

@EllisDee

For hockey I’d go with power plays.

Hockey already has a fairly decent metric, which is actually referred to as “scoring opportunities.” A hockey broadcast will usually give both Shots on Goal and Scoring Opportunities. The third postgives a nice summation of the differences between the two stats.

[Asympotically_fat]

Let’s remember soccer is the most popular sport in the world in terms of viewship and participation so it must be doing something right. In World sport terms American football is an also-ran.

Yes you do get nil-nil “bore-draws” in soccer (though there have been some good 0-0 games), but that’s part of what maeks the sport exciting, there’s no guranatee your team will score*, so that’s why soccer crowds go so crazy when someone scores.
*though, for example to take Derby County in the 2007-08 season who were statiscally the worst-perforning Premiership team since the inception of the English Premier League. They still managed score at least one goal in 16 out of their 38 games and that’s the extreme end of the spectrum.

[Asympotically_fat]

@septimus

I’ve thought basketball with its very high scores and soccer with its very low scores were quite similar! In each game turnovers are fairly unimportant: In soccer a turnover is unlikely to lead to a score; in basketball it is, but scores are so plentiful a single one is unimportant. Contrast this with American football, where every turnover is a matter of high drama.

BTW, basketball is much too fast-moving for my slow analytic brain – I think I’d enjoy the game much more viewing it in slow-motion throughout.

They are simlair in the element of skill and, dare I say it, creative expression that they allow players.

These two sports are the two that I most enjoyed playing.

[fjs1fs]

@SenorBeef

I think, for me at least, my appreciation for the scoring opportunities actually relates to a feeling of progression and non-randomness.

By that I mean - when I watch soccer or hockey, they’re moving the ball/puck up and down the field and occasionally taking a shot at the goal. Some go in, some don’t. It feels essentially random, although obviously there’s a skill/teamwork element to it.

Football, on the other hand, has you methodically marching down the field. You gain ground, getting closer to your goal. Obviously you can have 50 yard scoring passes or defensive touchdowns on any play, but generally there’s a very clear correlation and progression between marching down the field and scoring.

Baseball is somewhat similar - there’s always the chance for a home run, but you build up scoring opportunities by getting people on base and advancing them.

In both cases, there’s also a hard limit to the offensive attempts - you get 3 outs in baseball, and four downs in football. Whereas games like hockey and soccer just sort of go on and meander until the clock stops.

So in one type of sport you have one team in clear possession of the ball, trying to advance towards their goal, while giving the offense hard limits by which the defense can stop them, and others where it just seems like mostly random back and forth, where the chance of success of a scoring attempt is low and essentially feels random.

Basketball is closer to hockey/soccer in this regard, but has a much higher number of attempts on goal with a much greater success rate. This at least gives the appearance of being less random - with a larger sample size, the score tends to reflect the skill of the teams more. Basketball also has a much harder limit on the offense than those two other sports in the form of the shot clock.

Incidentally, that doesn’t directly correlate to my preferences. I generally don’t even like sports except football, but I’d rather watch basketball than baseball. Soccer is definitely at the bottom, with hockey a significant step up due to the speed and violence.

I think these are great points, especially the “random” scoring aspect, in hockey, and especially soccer. I am not a soccer fan, but I often watch very excitedly as teams put together great displays of passing, which may result in great scoring chances. But what becomes a turnoff about the game is that scoring is so near impossible that the winning team has often been totally outplayed by the other team, but just happens to get one “lucky” goal on much fewer chances than its opponent. Or, even worse, after hours of no scoring (or one goal by each team), the game is decided by the ridiculous shootout. The thought of wasting several hours of my time, only to see a winner declared by this silly “contest” is such a turnoff.

[Asympotically_fat]

@fjs1fs

I think these are great points, especially the “random” scoring aspect, in hockey, and especially soccer. I am not a soccer fan, but I often watch very excitedly as teams put together great displays of passing, which may result in great scoring chances. But what becomes a turnoff about the game is that scoring is so near impossible that the winning team has often been totally outplayed by the other team, but just happens to get one “lucky” goal on much fewer chances than its opponent. Or, even worse, after hours of no scoring (or one goal by each team), the game is decided by the ridiculous shootout. The thought of wasting several hours of my time, only to see a winner declared by this silly “contest” is such a turnoff.

At the end of the day you score the most goals and you win. Possession can be a useful metric, but a team that can’t turn possession in to goals isn’t a winning team whereas a team that can cede possesion but score on the counterattack can be. Just about all the best teams of the past few years have had a strong counterattacking element. Of you lose the game by a lucky goal, the chances are very high you didn’t do enough to deserve to win it.

Shoot-outs are contraversial in soccer, I wish there was a better way of deciding ties (well there is - replays, which still do happen, though for practical purposes there use is pretty limited thesee days).

[gonzomax]

@Stanislaus

On cricket: This will be tricky because at any given moment each team can score in two very different ways. And the value of each particular “score” will change according to the match situation.

Batsmen are trying to score runs, bowlers (and the fielding team generally) are trying to take wickets. Generally speaking, any given ball is more likely to see a run scored than a wicket taken. Equally, while there are no restrictions in the laws about how many (or how few!) runs may be scored, you can only win a cricket match by taking 20 wickets. So any ball which takes a wicket is more exciting, and has a potentially bigger effect on the match, than any given ball which gets hit for runs (even if it’s a boundary).

So it might be tempting to argue that the relevant factor in cricket should be wickets - or, to allow for opportunities as well as scores - wickets and near-misses (e.g. dropped catches, near-run outs, appeals for LBW, or, most crucially, beating the bat). But there will be situations where this is misleading.

The most obvious is the run chase. Take the 1992/3 Australia vs W. Indies Test at Adelaide. Australia, in their second innings, have been set a target of 186 runs to win. They have 10 wickets in hand. If they score the runs, they win. If they don’t reach 186, but lose less than 10 wickets, it’s a draw. If they lose all 10 wickets, they lose the match. Despite losing 7 of those wickets for only 74 runs, they struggle on to 102/8 and then 144/9. With one wicket to go and 22 runs needed, each and every run is thrilling. A boundary unbelievably so. And the score mounts up, past 160, past 170, one or two runs at a time, occasionally four, all the way to 184. When finally, the bowler strikes and the match is won by one run. But of course, the nearer Australia got to their target, the more exciting each run became.

The second area where runs are thrilling is the general situation where bowlers are on top. In the recent South Africa vs India series, Dale Steyn took 5 for 75 - and in the same innings, Tendulkar scored a century (145, IIRC). When wickets are coming easily, it’s thrilling to see a batsman soak up the pressure, ride his luck, and start counter-attacking when the time comes.

Finally, of course, it’s possible for the batsmen to pile on so many runs (say, a 180-ish partnership) that taking a wicket won’t really make much difference to the game.

The upshot of this is that, for cricket, the metric would have to be weighted according to the game situation, to show the relative value of each “score”.

I got bored reading the explanation of why cricket is not boring.

[EllisDee]

@President_Johnny_Gentle

Hockey already has a fairly decent metric, which is actually referred to as “scoring opportunities.”

Oh yeah, you’re absolutely right. Forgot about that.

@These are my own pants

Let’s remember soccer is the most popular sport in the world in terms of viewship and participation so it must be doing something right.

What it’s doing right is being cheap to play. The fact that all the poorest countries in the world can participate is what makes soccer the McDonald’s of the sporting world.

@gonzomax

I got bored reading the explanation of why cricket is not boring.

hehheh.

[Stanislaus]

@gonzomax

I got bored reading the explanation of why cricket is not boring.

Sorry. That’s my fault for not **Could you get a better deal on your car insurance? **cutting to an ad-break every other The Best A Man Can Get. Now Better! sentence.

Just kidding. In all seriousness cricket is a game which rewards possession of a concentration span, and clearly that’s not going to be for everyone. But that’s OK.

[Alka_Seltzer]

@Stanislaus

Just kidding. In all seriousness cricket is a game which rewards possession of a concentration span, and clearly that’s not going to be for everyone. But that’s OK.

I enjoyed your explanation of why cricket isn’t boring, and your polite dig above.

[Asympotically_fat]

@EllisDee

What it’s doing right is being cheap to play. The fact that all the poorest countries in the world can participate is what makes soccer the McDonald’s of the sporting world.

Don’t think it’s cheaper than say baseball to play and of course it’s all the most popular sport in Western Europe…

I play sports (not so much anymore) and watch sports and soccer is by far the most enjoyable (except may be basketball) to play and to watch.

[Giles]

@These are my own pants

Don’t think it’s cheaper than say baseball to play and of course it’s all the most popular sport in Western Europe…

With soccer, played at the lowest amateur level, the only specialised equipment you need is a ball. You can improvise the goalposts with rocks, or whatever else is lying round. With baseball, you need a bat and a ball – and the bat can’t be just any piece of wood, it needs to be shaped properly – and the catcher (at least) probably needs to wear gloves.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@EllisDee

What it’s doing right is being cheap to play. The fact that all the poorest countries in the world can participate is what makes soccer the McDonald’s of the sporting world.

That would explain the shocking popularity of running as a spectator sport, too. Oh, wait. :dubious:

@Mahaloth

I’ve always insisted that Tennis has the highest amount of “key” or “potentially” exciting points.

With the match broken down into sets, games, and points, every point contributes to the current game and every game contributes to the current set and every set contributes to the current match, all in key ways. Tennis is designed so that every point is essential.

This is completely backwards. Points mean less in tennis than in almost any sport, because it’s one of the only sports in which you can win a match despite being outscored by your opponent.

[Asympotically_fat]

@Giles

With soccer, played at the lowest amateur level, the only specialised equipment you need is a ball. You can improvise the goalposts with rocks, or whatever else is lying round. With baseball, you need a bat and a ball – and the bat can’t be just any piece of wood, it needs to be shaped properly – and the catcher (at least) probably needs to wear gloves.

To play cricket you need a bat, a ball and stumps. A cricket ball is extremely hard so really you also the batsman needs shin pads, a box (to protect the unmentionables) and gloves. Certainly we would never have been allowed to play cricket at school without, pads, a box and gloves. A cricket bat needs to be properly shaped too. However Cricket is still a game played in the slums of Pakistan and India suing improvesied equipment.

A pick-up game of American football requires no more sophisticated equipment than a pick-up game of soccer.

Are you seriously suggesting that minor world sports like baseball and American football would be major world sports, but are held back by equipment issues?

[Alka_Seltzer]

@These are my own pants

To play cricket you need a bat, a ball and stumps. A cricket ball is extremely hard so really you also the batsman needs shin pads, a box (to protect the unmentionables) and gloves. Certainly we would never have been allowed to play cricket at school without, pads, a box and gloves. A cricket bat needs to be properly shaped too. However Cricket is still a game played in the slums of Pakistan and India suing improvesied equipment.

Casual cricket is often played using a tape ball, removing the need for any protective equipment. A basic bat isn’t that hard to make.

@These are my own pants

A pick-up game of American football requires no more sophisticated equipment than a pick-up game of soccer.

A completely casual game of either type just requires a ball, but soccer requires far less equipment for a serious game. As a result, amateur soccer is far more popular than amateur american football.

Obligatory link to the football pitches at Hackney Marshes. 88 full size pitches in one field.

[YamatoTwinkie]

@SenorBeef

I think, for me at least, my appreciation for the scoring opportunities actually relates to a feeling of progression and non-randomness.

By that I mean - when I watch soccer or hockey, they’re moving the ball/puck up and down the field and occasionally taking a shot at the goal. Some go in, some don’t. It feels essentially random, although obviously there’s a skill/teamwork element to it.

Football, on the other hand, has you methodically marching down the field. You gain ground, getting closer to your goal. Obviously you can have 50 yard scoring passes or defensive touchdowns on any play, but generally there’s a very clear correlation and progression between marching down the field and scoring.

Baseball is somewhat similar - there’s always the chance for a home run, but you build up scoring opportunities by getting people on base and advancing them.

In both cases, there’s also a hard limit to the offensive attempts - you get 3 outs in baseball, and four downs in football. Whereas games like hockey and soccer just sort of go on and meander until the clock stops.

So in one type of sport you have one team in clear possession of the ball, trying to advance towards their goal, while giving the offense hard limits by which the defense can stop them, and others where it just seems like mostly random back and forth, where the chance of success of a scoring attempt is low and essentially feels random.

Basketball is closer to hockey/soccer in this regard, but has a much higher number of attempts on goal with a much greater success rate. This at least gives the appearance of being less random - with a larger sample size, the score tends to reflect the skill of the teams more. Basketball also has a much harder limit on the offense than those two other sports in the form of the shot clock.

Incidentally, that doesn’t directly correlate to my preferences. I generally don’t even like sports except football, but I’d rather watch basketball than baseball. Soccer is definitely at the bottom, with hockey a significant step up due to the speed and violence.

I was going to put together a post almost exactly like this with the same points, but realized it had already been done in better words.

[Rysto]

@President_Johnny_Gentle

Hockey already has a fairly decent metric, which is actually referred to as “scoring opportunities.” A hockey broadcast will usually give both Shots on Goal and Scoring Opportunities. The third postgives a nice summation of the differences between the two stats.

“Scoring opportunities” is a completely subjective stat, and it’s not an official one tracked by the NHL.

[EllisDee]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That would explain the shocking popularity of running as a spectator sport, too. Oh, wait. :dubious:

It’s funny how soccer apologists are quick to sing the praises of how economically accessible the sport is in one argument and then completely deny this factor in its popularity in another.

@These are my own pants

I play sports (not so much anymore) and watch sports and soccer is by far the most enjoyable (except may be basketball) to play and to watch.

Well that settles that.

[Malacandra]

@Alka_Seltzer

Casual cricket is often played using a tape ball, removing the need for any protective equipment. A basic bat isn’t that hard to make.

Yep, we used to play from time to time at school with a length of wood that had once been part of a desk, a very elderly tennis ball, and our jackets or whatever as a wicket. And we’d likely have been resource hogs compared to street cricketers in India or the West Indies.

Bill O’Reilly (not the TV guy) learned to bowl to his brothers in his youth using a carved lump of banksia root as a ball, and Bradman famously taught himself to bat with an old cricket stump and a golf ball (presumably rescued from a course somewhere).