# football by suchufp

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 47

• pg 1
```									   An Intelligence
Approach to Evaluation
of Sports Teams
by
Edward Kambour, Ph.D.

1
Agenda
I.     College Football
II.    Linear Model
III.   Generalized Linear Model
IV.    Intelligence (Bayesian) Approach
V.     Results
VI.    Other Sports
VII.   Future Work
General Background
Goals
Forecast winners of future games
Beat the Bookie!
Estimate the outcome of unscheduled games
What’s the probability that Iowa would have beaten
Ohio St?
Generate reasonable rankings
Major College Football
No playoff system
“Computer rankings” are an element of the
BCS
114 teams
12 games for each in a season
Linear Model
Rothman (1970’s), Harville (1977), Stefani
(1977), …, Kambour (1991), …, Sagarin???
Response, Y, is the net result (point-spread)
Parameter, , is the vector of ratings
For a game involving teams i and j,
E[Y] = i - j
Linear Model (cont.)
Let X be a row vector with
1    if k  i

X k  1 if k  j
 0 otherwise

E[Y]=X
Regression Model Notes
Least Squares  Normality, Homogeneity
College Football
Estimate 100 parameters
Sample size for a full season is about 600
Design Matrix is sparse and not full rank
Force i to be home team and j the visiting team
Add an intercept term to X
Adds one more parameter to estimate
UAB = Alabama
Rice = Texas A&M
Doubles the number of parameters to estimate
Linear Model Issues
Normality
Homogeneity
Lots of parameters, with relatively small
sample size
Overfitting
The bookie takes you to the cleaners!
Linear Model Issues (cont.)
Should we model point differential
A and B play twice
A by 34 in first, B by 14 in the second
A by 10 each time
Running up the score (or lack thereof)
BCS: Thou shalt not use margin of victory in thy
ratings!
Logistic Regression
Rothman (1970s)
Linear Model
Use binary variable
Winning is all that matters
Avoid margin of victory
Coin Flips
Logistic Regression Issues
Still have sample size issues
Throw away a lot of information
Undefeated teams
Transformations
Transform the differentials to normality
Power transformations
Rothman logistic transform
Transforms points to probabilities for logistic
regression
“Diminishing returns” transforms
Downweights runaway scores
Power Transforms
 Y = sign(Z)|Z|a
a = 1  straight margin of victory
a = 0  just win baby
a = 0  Poisson or Gamma “ish”
Maximum Likelihood Transform
1995-2002 seasons
Power       -2ln(likelihood)
0.1         52487
0.3         41213
0.5         35128
0.67        32597
0.8         31418
1           31193

MLE = 0.98
Predicting the Score
Model point differential
 Y1 = Si – Sj
Additionally model the sum of the points
scored
 Y2 = Si + Sj
Fit a similar linear model (different parameter
estimates)
Forecast home and visitors score
H = (Y1 + Y2 )/2, V = (Y2 - Y1)/2
Another Transformation Idea
Scores (touchdowns or field goals) are
arrivals, maybe Poisson
Final score = 7 times a Poisson + 3 times a
Poisson + …
Transform the scores to homogeneity and
normality first
The differences (and sums) should follow suit
Square Root Transform
Since the score is “similar” to a linear
combination of Poissons, square root should
work
Transformation
T  S k
 Why k?
For small Poisson arrival rates, get better
performance (Anscombe, 1948)
Likelihood Test
LRT: No transformation vs. square root with
fitted k
Used College Football results from 1995-2002
k = 21
Transformation was significantly better
p-value = 0.0023, chi-square = 9.26
Predicting the Score with
Transform
Model point differential
 Y1  Si  21  S j  21
Additionally model the sum of the points
scored
 Y2  Si  21  S j  21
Forecast home and visitors score
H = ((Y1 + Y2 )/2)2 , V = ((Y2 - Y1)/2)2
Note the point differential is the product
Unresolved Linear Model Issues
Overfitting
History
Going into the season, we have a good idea as
to how teams will do
The best teams tend to stay the best
The worst teams tend to stay the worst
Changes happen
Kansas State
Intelligence Model
Concept
The ratings and home-ads for year t are similar
to those of year t-1. There is some drift from
one year to the next.
Model
  t   t 1   t
where
 t ~ N(0,  2 )
Intelligence Model (Details)
Notation
 L teams
 M seasons of data
 Ni games in the ith season
Xi : the Ni by 2L “X” matrix for season i
Yi : the Ni vector of results for season i
 i : the Ni vector of results for season I
Details (cont.)
Data Distribution:
For all i = 1, 2, …, M
 Yi N  Xi  i ,  2  (independent)
Details (cont.)
Prior Distribution
 I   0  2
 1                      
2
N  0, 
 0 0.05I  
         0.25I   0  2
i    2
N   i 1 ,                for i  2,..., M
          0    0.01I  
 2   2,0.5 
Details (finally, the end)
The Posterior Distribution of M and -2 is
closed form and can be calculated by an
iterative method
The Predictive Distribution for future results
(transformed sum or difference) is straight-
forward correlated normal (given the
variance)
Forecasts
For Scores
Simply untransform
E[Z2] = Var[Z] + E[Z]2
Product of two normals
Simulate 10000 results
Enhanced Model
Fit the prior parameters
Hierarchical models
Drifts and initial variances
No closed form for posterior and predictive
distributions (at least as far as I know)
The complete conditionals are straight-forward, so
Gibbs sampling will work (eventually)
Results
(www.geocities.com/kambour/football.html)

2002 Final Rankings
Team              Rating         Home
Miami             72.23 (1.03)   0.21 (0.04)
Kansas St         72.04 (1.04)   0.44 (0.03)
USC               71.95 (1.03)   0.04 (0.03)
Oklahoma          71.85 (1.02)   0.18 (0.03)
Texas             71.57 (1.03)   0.36 (0.03)
Georgia           71.49 (1.03)   0.02 (0.03)
Alabama           71.45 (1.03)   -0.09 (0.03)
Iowa              71.30 (1.03)   0.21 (0.04)
Florida St        71.29 (1.02)   0.43 (0.03)
Virginia Tech     71.25 (1.03)   0.12 (0.03)
Ohio St           71.18 (1.03)   0.27 (0.03)
Results
2002 Final Rankings
Team            Rating     Home
Miami           72.23      0.21
Kansas St       72.04      0.44
USC             71.95      0.04
Oklahoma        71.85      0.18
Texas           71.57      0.36
Georgia         71.49      0.02
Alabama         71.45      -0.09
Iowa            71.30      0.21
Florida St      71.29      0.43
Virginia Tech   71.25      0.12
Ohio St         71.18      0.27
Results
2002 Final Rankings
Team            Rating     Home
Miami           72.23      0.21
Kansas St       72.04      0.44
USC             71.95      0.04
Oklahoma        71.85      0.18
Texas           71.57      0.36
Georgia         71.49      0.02
Alabama         71.45      -0.09
Iowa            71.30      0.21
Florida St      71.29      0.43
Virginia Tech   71.25      0.12
Ohio St         71.18      0.27
Bowl Predictions
Ohio St               17
Miami Fl (-13)        31     0.8255   0.5228
Washington St         21
Oklahoma (-6.5)       31     0.7347   0.5797
Iowa                  21
USC (-6)              30     0.7174   0.5721
NC State (E)          20
Notre Dame            17     0.5639   0.5639
Florida St (+4)       24
Georgia               27     0.5719   0.5320
2002 Final Record
Picking Winners
522 – 157         0.769
Against the Vegas lines
367 – 307 – 5     0.544
Best Bets
9 – 7             0.563
In 2001, 11 - 4
ESPN College Pick’em

1.   Barry Schultz                     5830
2.   Jim Dobbs                         5687
3.   Michael Reeves                    5651
4.   Fup Biz                           5594
5.   Joe *                             5587
6.   Rising Cream                      5562
7.   Intelligence Ratings              5559
Ratings System Comparison
(http://tbeck.freeshell.org/fb/awards2002.html)

Todd Beck
Ph.D. Statistician
Rush Institute
 Intelligence Ratings – Best Predictors
College Football Conclusions
Can forecast the outcome of games
Capture the random nature
High variability
Sparse design
Scientists should avoid BCS
Statistical significance is impossible
Problem Complexity
Other issues
NFL
Similar to College Football
Square root transform is applicable
Drift is a little higher than College Football
Better design matrix
Small sample size
Playoff
NFL Results
(www.geocities.com/kambour/NFL.html)

2002 Final Rankings (after the Super Bowl)
Team              Rating       Home
Tampa Bay         70.72        0.29
Oakland           70.57        0.28
New England       70.16        0.12
Atlanta           70.13        0.20
NY Jets           70.10        -0.01
Pittsburgh        69.95        0.28
Green Bay         69.92        0.28
Kansas City       69.90        0.51
Denver            69.89        0.50
Miami             69.89        0.49
2002 Final NFL Record
Picking Winners
162 – 104 – 1           0.609
Against the Vegas lines
135 – 128 – 4           0.513
Best Bets
9 – 8                   0.529
NFL Europe
Similar to College and NFL
Square root transform
Dramatic drift
Teams change dramatically in mid-season
Few teams
Better design matrix
Transform?
Much more normal (Central Limit Theorem)
A lot more games
Intersectional games
Less emphasis on programs than in College
Football
More drift
NCAA tournament
Pre-tournament Ratings
Team            Rating    Home
Arizona         100.06    3.97
Kentucky        99.33     4.32
Kansas          95.89     3.85
Texas           93.42     4.44
Duke            92.90     4.66
Oklahoma        90.19     4.31
Florida         90.65     3.99
Wake Forest     88.70     3.65
Syracuse        88.50     3.49
Xavier          87.89     3.37
Louisville      87.88     4.16
NBA
Normal – No transformation
A lot more games – fewer teams
Playoffs are completely different from
regular season
Regular season – very balanced, strong home
court
Post season – less balanced, home court
lessened
Hockey
Transform
Rare events = “Poissonish”
Square root with k around 1
A lot more games
History matters
Playoffs seem similar to regular season
Balance
Soccer
Similar to hockey
Transform
Square root with low k
Not a lot of games
Friendlys versus cup play
Home pitch is pronounced
Varies widely
Soccer Results
Correctly forecasted 2002 World Cup final
Brazil over Germany
Correctly forecasted US run to quarter-finals
Won the PROS World Cup Soccer Pool
Future Enhancements
Hierarchical Approaches
Conferences
More complicated drift models
Correlations
Individual drifts
Drift during the season
Mean correcting drift