Sports cliches you hate

In My Humble Opinion
101

I’m not sure if this next one is really a cliche, or just a nother example of sloppy reasoning.

DISCLAIMER: I didn’t go to U.S.C., am not a Trojans fan, and don’t object to prognosticators picking somebody else to win the national championship. It’s perfectly fine if prognosticators want to say “USC will miss Norm Chow,” or “They’ve got some weaknesses,” or “They have some dangerous opponents on their schedule.” There are all kinds of valid reasons to question whether they’ll go all the way this season.

But there’s one PARTICULAR argument I’ve already heard on radio talk shows and seen in newspaper columns several times this month that baffle me. The argument has usually gone something like this:

“It’s HARD to win a national championship. It’s VERY hard to do it twice in a row. It’s almost impossible to do it three times in a row. That’s why I don’t think they can do it this year.”

HUH?

To use a crude analogy, if I flip a coin ten times, the chances of it coming up heads all ten times are 1 in 1024. Pretty remote, right? But if I get heads 9 times in a row, it’s absurd for someone to say “The next flip can’t possibly come up heads, because the chances of flipping heads ten times in a row are so slim.” The previous 9 flips have no bearing on what happens next time! The odds on THIS flip are 50-50 all over again.

So, while it’s perfectly valid to say “I just don’t think USC is good enough to go all the way this year,” it’s ridiculous to factor in the past two seasons when calculating the odds of their going all the way THIS season.

One other thing that I hear from sportscasters all the time… again, this may not be a cliche, but it shows sloppy thinking.

It’s a pretty safe bet that, if you check out .any NFL team’s stats, you’ll find that they have a .900 winning percentage whenever their star running back carries the ball 40 or more times. I mean, I’m sure the Steelers are nearly undefeated when Jerome Bettis has 40 carries. I’m sure that the Bengals had a great winning percentage whenever Corey Dillion carried the ball 43 times.

On the other hand, it’s a good bet the New York Giants lost most games in which Kerry Collins threw 50 passes. And most likely, the Bills had a terrible record in games where Drew Bledsoe threw for 400+ yeards.

And TV color commentators always ascribe great significance to that stat. TO them, it proves that the only way to win is to run the ball.

No. Just the opposite. They’ve got it backwards. The only way to to run the ball that many times is to be winning.

That is, the Steelers didn’t win all those games BECAUSE Bettis carried it 40 times- rather, they had the luxury of running the ball repeatedly late in the game because they had a big lead! And the Giants didn’t lose BECAUSE Kerry Collins threw the ball 50 times- rather, he HAD to throw the ball a lot BECAUSE the Giants were trailing by a wide margin.

102

How many have to stand up and be counted?

To the American members, you are fortunate that you don’t have to listen to the banal commentators of cricket. I could fill a library with my venom at some of those morons.

103

Great points; you nailed them both.

I read an interesting article about a stat that has real, actual predictive power. It said that the average NFL team runs approximately 440 first downs, 370 second downs, and 180 third downs in a season. Roughly, 800 first & second down situations, and 200 third, or about 20% of all plays are on third down.

So, if you see a team that does consistently well (or poorly) on first and second, but then the exact opposite on third, you can reasonably expect that team to change their fortune the following season. The reason being that since they were 80% consistent, they likely just ran afoul of bad luck on third down.

The article then went on to cite a number of examples. The Chargers in 2003 were great on first and second but choked on third, so the fact that they did so well in 2004 should not have been a surprise. Others included the Panthers from 2002 to 2003, the Rams from 98 - 99, and several other fairly well known franchise turnarounds.

Interesting article.

104

Definitely connecting a win with belief in God or Jesus, or stating that, “We knew if we had faith, Jesus would take care of us.”

Yeah, Jesus definitely cares whether the Colts win. He loves them so much, yet for some unknown reason, he loves the Patriots more.

105

Baseball announcers fall victim to a similar failure of reasoning: “He’s a .280 hitter, he’s gone oh-for-three so far today, which means he’s overdue.”

106

“He’s a real competitor”. or “He’s a major leaguer”.

No shit - that’s why the guy is on a professional team.

Invariably heard when a coach or player is asked about someone on another team. Heaven forbid once they say something honest like “Well, that guy doesn’t throw well so we shouldn’t have troubel beating them”.

107

i don’t know whether this is a national trend or just a local abomination but it’s especially noticeable during Seattle Seahawk radio broadcasts. Every single thing that happens during the game is presented by a different sponsor, as in “this first down is brought to you by…” or “this touchdown is brought to you by…” or “this moment of flatulence is made possible by…” I know that advertising makes it possible for me to watch or listen to the game for free but, to paraphrase an old joke about hockey, I was listening to 3 hours of commercials last night and a football game broke out. The constant interjection of advertising destroys the flow of the game. I’ve begun a personal boycott of all products mentioned in these contexts. It won’t have any impact on the advertisers but it makes me feel better to do this.

108

From NASCAR: All he has to do is get up front and stay up front and avoid THE BIG ONE ™ and he’ll win the race.

Yeah…'cause the guy in front at the finish always wins, but if he wrecks, he can’t finish.

At least I haven’t heard any mention of Vortex Theory this year.

Oh yeah, and “catching him is one thing, passing him is another”

Really…so passing another race car is hard? :dubious:

109

And you can take that to the bank.

My father always did this when I was growing up, and I picked up the habit. Not only are the radio announcers better at describing what’s happening and also make you feel like your in good company since they generally are cheering for the same team you are, but they tend to know more about the players, even those on the opposing team.

110

Bolding mine.

Actually, this is one thing i don’t like in a sports commentator. I have no trouble with a commentator getting excited, but they should get excited about good play no matter which team is responsible. I don’t like partisan commentary; i’d prefer to have a professional commentator who describes the game without cheering for one team or the other.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the sort of thing that i hate are the commentators for the Chicago White Sox. Those guys literally cheer every Chicago play, they sit there sullen and unhappy when the other team hits a home run and, worst of all, they show unbelievable and inexcusable bias when discussing umpiring decisions. They constantly criticise the umpires whenever calls go against the White Sox. That’s not what i want from professional sports announcers. If i were a White Sox fan, i’d be embarrassed by those guys.

Same with international events like the Olympics. Parochial cheerleading should be left to the viewers, not the commentators. When i lived in Australia, i used to get really pissed off with announcers who would talk about no-one but the Australian copmpetitors. Upon arriving in the US, i found out that it is just as bad here.

111

Last year there was some commercial… i forget the product, and someone was interviewing a prima donna in the lockerroom after the football game and the interviewer says “there’s no I in team” and the Prima Donna says “there ain’t no We neither”

112

You should hear their radio ads. They make 40s propaganda sound more balanced.

113

Leon!

114

(Though I use this a lot in our Flag Football and Softball games):

“Can you see them? Can you see them…little girls dancing, dancing for gold…”

115

The IRL race at Sears Point (call it whatever you want, it’ll always be Sears Point to me…) last weekend reminded me of this one. Hear this all the time when NASCAR goes to it’s two road courses, and IRL is running three of them this year. Whenever a racing series that normally runs on ovals goes to a road course, the announcers can never get enough of telling you how many times the drivers will shift gears during the race. 3,000 shifts last weekend. Told us about 3,000 times, too. Nevermind that F1, sports cars, etc…, do that every weekend.

116

“I have every respect for those other guys, but I think we have a good chance tonight if we can just stay focused. I think we need to concentrate on doing the things we do well, and not make any mistakes. If we can exploit their weaknesses, and if our defense holds up, then we’ll maybe get the opportunity to open up a few holes and put some points on the board. If we can hold a good lead and not let them get back into the game, then we’ve got an excellent chance to show what we’re made of. But don’t get me wrong: I have every respect for those other guys and we don’t want to underestimate them at all. It’ll be a good game.”

117

astorian, your cite of the gambler’s fallacy is not correct. Building, and then maintaining, a championship team is different from tossing a coin.

It’s true, as you say, that the tenth coin toss is independent of the preceding nine. And if an announcer says that winning the third championship in a row is very difficult, I don’t think he or she is saying so because it’s a statistical anomaly, a la the coin tosses.

But what I think it means is that to win a championship, many players on a team have to peak at the same time. To win the second year, many players also have to peak during that season, some of the same players as the previous year, or maybe completely new ones, or most likely a mixture of both.

The third championship? Even harder, again due to the necessity for many players to be at the top or near the top of their game. And considering how many players move around from team to team during the off season, some certainly because they can get more money elsewhere (‘cause they’re at the top of their game, right?), it’s pretty damn hard to have a team of top-notch, championship players for three straight years.

I think a better statistical description of what’s happening is regression toward the mean. This explains the so-called Sports Illustrated Curse, whereby a team or individual featured on the cover of SI invariably suffers bad “luck” due to the “curse.”

But really, teams or players get on the cover of SI because precisely *because * they are HOT at the moment, or because they’ve won the championship. In other words, because they have peaked. And if you’ve peaked, there’s only one place to go … and that’s down.

No curse, in other words, but just a selection bias and the statistical improbability that you can maintain your high level of play.

118

I was surprised how long it took for someone to bring up, “It’s a game of inches.” This is (AFAIK) usually associated with football (American) when one team comes up short of a first down or touchdown. But I’ve also heard the phrase used:

  1. When a hockey puck zips just past the net or hits the upright/crossbar.

  2. When a baseball is hit inches away from either side of the foul marker.

  3. When a soccer ball flies just out of reach of the goalie, or just outside the net (similar to hockey).

ANY game could be a game of inches given the situation.

Like Curling. Curling is definitely a game of inches…but who really cares?

119

If anyone out there is still curious after a week, the arctic tundra has a permanently frozen subsoil. The top part of the soil thaws out every summer and is wet and boggy because the water can’t drain through the frozen soil underneath. This was my original answer to the question, and is confirmed by a few intro bio textbooks I have nearby (Raven and Johnson and Purves, O’Brien, and Heller) as well as the definition at www.dictionary.com.

So, parts of the tundra are always frozen, but not all of it. A “frozen tundra” might mean “somewhat frozen tundra” or “completely frozen tundra.” :slight_smile:

120

“There’s no ‘I’ in Team America!”

“Yes there is.”