I’m trying to read the box scores and they keep updating. I thought we all decided that automatic carousels were a bad idea years ago.
Yes, I see now that you can stop this my manually advancing the carousel but it’s not at all obvious. Particularly since it’s no longer visible on mobile when you’ve scrolled down to the scores.
I can see the appeal of football Scorigami -- there's a story, an interesting one, behind some of the scores. Some seem impossible, but are barely doable. Some were only feasible in a different time, when the game was played differently. Many have to do with obscure rule clauses. It all makes for a great way to appreciate football from a different angle.
Here I'm not really invested in any of the numbers... the website is beautiful though.
Ok
1) thank you for the comment about the website haha I am flattered.
2) Anything I could do to make your more invested in the numbers? I get what you mean about some of the scores being almost too homogenous and therefore the fact it's unique at a best-of-5 level makes it almost less globally unique. Any thoughts on how I could make the "story" a bit more interesting?
Skimming briefly, it looks like a lot of the missing score are some combo of 6-0 and then 0-6. Which makes sense. It's highly unlikely for a set to to be that unbalanced, and then be so unbalanced the other way.
Adding some math: assume player 1 has a probability of p of winning a game, and therefore, player 2 having a probability of 1-p.
Then, the probability of player 1 winning a set 6-0 is p⁶; the probability of player 2 doing that is (1-p)⁶.
Let’s assume a fairly evenly matched game, where p=0.6. Then, those probabilities are about 4.7% and 0.4%. Combined, that’s about 1 in 5,000, or 1:2500 to get either of 6:0;0:6 or 0:6;6:0.
Doesn’t sound too bad but in real life, that number will be a lot lower because of the server advantage in tennis. Especially in men’s tennis, the server has a big advantage, making even single set 6-0 scores highly unlikely.
> And if the first set is 6-0, that indicates one side has exceptionally better skills.
In the model I proposed, it doesn’t. Even if the players are perfectly balanced, there’s a 1:64 probability of getting 6-0 and a 1:64 probability of getting 0-6. Combined, that’s a 3% chance of getting a bagel.
But as I said, there’s a huge server’s advantage in men’s tennis. That makes ‘bagels’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel_(tennis)) less likely there, and means a player winning a set 6:0 indeed statistically is much better than their opponent.
They’re fairly common in women’s tennis, though, even ones with the side losing that set winning the match.
Just a note, if you guys haven't checked out the `Explore` page, I would highly recommend doing that for some interesting visualizations. My first page -> second page dropoff % is higher than I would have hoped for...
I’m trying to read the box scores and they keep updating. I thought we all decided that automatic carousels were a bad idea years ago.
Yes, I see now that you can stop this my manually advancing the carousel but it’s not at all obvious. Particularly since it’s no longer visible on mobile when you’ve scrolled down to the scores.
Great feedback. I hear ya on the automatic carousels just was trying to capture that scoreboard-esque feel.
I'll take action on these comments soon(ish). But yes, I concur I need to drastically improve the mobile layout tbh.
I can see the appeal of football Scorigami -- there's a story, an interesting one, behind some of the scores. Some seem impossible, but are barely doable. Some were only feasible in a different time, when the game was played differently. Many have to do with obscure rule clauses. It all makes for a great way to appreciate football from a different angle.
Here I'm not really invested in any of the numbers... the website is beautiful though.
Ok 1) thank you for the comment about the website haha I am flattered. 2) Anything I could do to make your more invested in the numbers? I get what you mean about some of the scores being almost too homogenous and therefore the fact it's unique at a best-of-5 level makes it almost less globally unique. Any thoughts on how I could make the "story" a bit more interesting?
(I didn't know it) Footbal Scorigami https://nflscorigami.com/
The lore behind the idea of Scorigami:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5C8cGMueY
Skimming briefly, it looks like a lot of the missing score are some combo of 6-0 and then 0-6. Which makes sense. It's highly unlikely for a set to to be that unbalanced, and then be so unbalanced the other way.
Adding some math: assume player 1 has a probability of p of winning a game, and therefore, player 2 having a probability of 1-p.
Then, the probability of player 1 winning a set 6-0 is p⁶; the probability of player 2 doing that is (1-p)⁶.
Let’s assume a fairly evenly matched game, where p=0.6. Then, those probabilities are about 4.7% and 0.4%. Combined, that’s about 1 in 5,000, or 1:2500 to get either of 6:0;0:6 or 0:6;6:0.
Doesn’t sound too bad but in real life, that number will be a lot lower because of the server advantage in tennis. Especially in men’s tennis, the server has a big advantage, making even single set 6-0 scores highly unlikely.
Your math assumes each game is fair, but we know they aren't, because different players have different skill levels, and skill is an important factor.
And if the first set is 6-0, that indicates one side has exceptionally better skills.
> And if the first set is 6-0, that indicates one side has exceptionally better skills.
In the model I proposed, it doesn’t. Even if the players are perfectly balanced, there’s a 1:64 probability of getting 6-0 and a 1:64 probability of getting 0-6. Combined, that’s a 3% chance of getting a bagel.
But as I said, there’s a huge server’s advantage in men’s tennis. That makes ‘bagels’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel_(tennis)) less likely there, and means a player winning a set 6:0 indeed statistically is much better than their opponent.
They’re fairly common in women’s tennis, though, even ones with the side losing that set winning the match.
Sorry OP I was so mesmerized by the cute mouse interaction in the logo that I didn't yet get around to checking out what this site is about.
Honestly, it ends up being about 30% of the way I interact with my landing page. For better or for worse.
Just a note, if you guys haven't checked out the `Explore` page, I would highly recommend doing that for some interesting visualizations. My first page -> second page dropoff % is higher than I would have hoped for...
[dead]
TL;DR
In the Women’s 3-set match, where there are 735 possibilities, these scores have never eventuated:
6-0 0-6 7-5, 6-0 0-6 6-0, 0-6 6-0 7-5
Meanwhile, in the 5-set format of Men’s matches, only 8.5% of the more than 100k result possibilities have occurred.
Then add on a huge UI.