Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoisjuan | Hacker News Reader

As an AI enthusiast, this is exciting. As a Football fan, this is a concerning trend.

Usage of technology has ruined several aspects of traditional association football. The VAR for example, is ruining the serendipitous nature of football. Fans in general dislike the VAR because it removes this extra element of drama that the sport has.

I’m supportive of technology in sports though. I just think there should be a limit, otherwise they become a very boring and cold activity.

I’m not necessarily against the suggested approach here. Having analytics of how a game is going or went seems useful and a net positive. It’s just hard to tell if that could keep eroding those entertainment elements that make Football fun to watch.

View on HN

As a basketball fan, my only gripe with VAR is how much time it takes to complete. Advanced AI would presumably extend into those systems and make the review near instantaneous.

I think the main complaints about VAR in football have been the amount of time these decisions take and the inconsistency of the rulings. Instead of the constant play we used to have, now we see players stand around as the screen shows lines drawn in seemingly arbitrary locations to decide whether or not an attacking player was onside before a goal.

In contrast, fans have been fine with the goal-line technology, which gives decisive (usually) and quick results.

The use of AI in this paper seems more relevant for setting team strategies and picking players rather than enforcing rulings.

VAR could be used in situations where it is quicker.

For example, in basketball, it should be able to do goal-tending in near real time. Also 3s in the key.

The holy grail though is if it can help charge/block calls. Or we should consider changing the rule so that it can be consistently called, but that's a topic for a basketball forum.

I wouldn't really be concerned. This new element basically changes coaching and recruitment, not so much the actual play. Unlike basketball, football is open enough to not have an easy to prove maximizing strategy (unlike basketball, with the emphasis on 3 pts shooting).

the 3-pointer by itself isn’t point-maximizing, and surely doesn’t assure victory. the point-maximization is only valid in the context of the current game aesthetics. if a team tried to shoot only 3-pointers, they’d almost certainly lose because the counter-defense becomes simple. only by mixing shot selection does the 3-pointer’s slight advantage matter, and it’s not enough of an advantage to trivialize the game. it does what it was meant to do, which is inject unpredictability/variety into both offense and defense, especially at the end of close games, for more interesting and exciting gameplay.

Of course I simplified the issue, but my main point is that in football there isn't an equivalent to the 3 pts advantage in basketball (however slight it may be).

In football it is the forward pass.

football in this context means association football, aka soccer

> the 3-pointer by itself isn’t point-maximizing

Of course, but the reality is that analytics have proven that there are only really two shots worth taking in modern basketball: the 3 pointer and a shot near the rim. For anything in between the expected points for the shot is simply not worth it. Even an uncontested midrange shot is going to have similar or fewer expected points per shot than a contested 3-pointer or shot beneath the rim. And these two kinds of shots are spatially far from each other, so even if the opposing team knows this is your strategy, its still difficult to defend against. Teams and players that have tried to exploit the fact that modern basketball is fairly homogenous by taking relatively less defended midrange shots occasionally find streaks of success, but it hasn't proven sustainable, and certainly not enough to win a championship.

Basketball would probably benefit from either eliminating the 3 point shot, or, perhaps preferably, pushing the line back a few feet to even it out in terms of point expectations with midrange shots. Shots under the rim will still remain the most reliable point source, but teams won't have to divide as much attention on getting steam-rolled by three pointers. It will bring back scoring big men like a prime Shaq who have mostly disappeared from the game, still allow phenoms like Steph Curry to thrive (fewer players can match his ability to hit 3-pointers from further distance), and will make the midrange focused strategies more viable again.

A lot of teams still get their points inside the perimeter. Look at Zion Williamson for example. Injured now, but most of the Pelican's points come through him, and it's only going to become more worthwhile to do it, and build a team around the fact that he almost guarantees two points every other possession.

The strategic trends always go in and out of fashion.

One thing that I see in Basketball that needs fixing though, is that the rules make the defender's job incredibly hard. Especially with the rules around fouls. They need to look into fixing that. I think a solution to that class of issues, will inadvertently fix the 3 pointer issues you cite too.

> A lot of teams still get their points inside the perimeter. Look at Zion Williamson for example.

Yes, but by "inside the perimeter", you mean up-close to the basket. Zion is a great example. Take a look at his shot chart [0]. He doesn't even think about shooting more than a few feet away from the rim.

As I said, at this point, basketball has coalesced around offenses entirely focusing on shots at the rim, or beyond the 3-point line. Anything between there is a wasteland where teams don't even bother shooting anymore, despite Hall of Fame players like Michael Jordan and Karl Malone making those areas of the court a huge part of their game in the 90s. And this doesn't seem like much of a fad. Its a trend that has been becoming increasingly entrenched for nearly 2 decades at this point. The charts on this 538 article are all you need to see why this isn't simply a matter of what's fashionable, and is a simple mathematical reality under the current rules [1].

But I definitely agree with your last point. Basketball has numerous issues currently, of which unequal shot efficiency is only a part.

[0] https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/zion-williamson-shot-chart

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-mapping-shots-in-th...

no, the midrange shot is exactly the shot that propels teams to championships, as the rockets of the past 5 years learned the hard way, so much so that d'antoni was demoted and harden moved on to a superteam with great midrange shooters (durant & irving). and as great as curry's shot is, the warriors are unlikely to make the playoffs this year. the midrange plays a specific strategic role, and teams pull it out especially for the playoffs.

the playoffs are all about effective shot selection, with the midrange becoming prominent because defenses tighten up arond the perimeter and the basket. lebron and anthony davis both explicitly featured their midrange game in last year's championship run. the clippers, incidentally, have the best midrange shooter (kawhi) and lost early last year because they relied too much on the 3-pointer. even the warriors of old used the midrange shot to keep defenses guessing enough to give their shooters space to shoot.

and that's exactly the issue with relying too heavily on analytics--humans aren't static, and pinning down the exact parameters where a model is valid is seductively elusive. mathematical models don't so much tell us about how the world is, but rather more about how the modeler sees the world. models aren't useless but they are limited (really knowing how is the hard part).

I think the causation here is kind of backwards. Those teams are good because they have the best players that shoot well in any range. But looking at Kawhi’s shot chart [1] indicates he should be shooting more 3’s as defenses still keep him to below 1 point expected per mid range shoot vs. more than 1 point in 3 range.

[1] - https://nbasavant.com/player.php?ddlYear=&ddlShotMade=&ddlTe...

what's missing is that those things are correlated. kawhi wouldn't have the 3-point percentages he has without the midrange threat to loosen defenses. and the best players are the only ones trusted with midrange shots (even on lesser teams--derozen & jimmy butler for example). role players are expected to only take 3's or layups. that's the aesthetics today.

Baseball has been grievously harmed by the numbers. Too many strike outs and home runs, and the shift has just become infuriating. Reading a 6-3 in the scorebook, one has no idea what actually happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com