World Cup Notes

My opinion: it's been the best World Cup ever, or at least since I've been paying much attention to them (about 20 years). So many exciting games, so many late goals, so many lead changes, so many good teams out early. I decided to compile some data about this.

In 2006, the average number of goals scored was 2.30/game and the average margin of victory was 1.42. The decisive goal (i.e. the one that either tied the game or gave the winning team its final lead) came in the 46th minute, and there were 1.45 lead changes per game.

In 2010, scoring was down a bit: 2.27/game with a margin of 1.23/game. The decisive goal came in the 50th minute and there were 1.34 lead changes per game.

Compare to 2014, where we've played 56 of the 64 games of the tournament. Thus far, we've seen 2.75 goals/game, with an average margin of 1.39. But the decisive goal came in the 59th minute, with 1.77 lead changes per game. Those last two numbers are the most interesting ones: much later decisive goals and many more lead changes. So it isn't just an impression: this is actually happening.

Finally, how many decisive goals came late? In 2006, there were 28 in the 2nd half and 5 after 90 minutes. In 2010, 30 in the 2nd half and 4 after 90. But this year, it's 34 in the 2nd half and fully 9 after 90 minutes. And still 8 games left.

Let's just hope the final match is a good one. After all this action, it would be disappointing to see a 1-0 snoozer where Germany scores in the 22nd minute and then just holds off Argentina for the remaining 68.

Differently Abled

The story of Oscar Pistorius is inspiring. Born with a limb development defect, Pistorius had his lower legs amputated at the age of six months. He grew up wearing prostheses, and played rugby in high school. His coach noticed how fast he was, and got him into track and field, where he became a sprinter. Pistorius competed in the 2008 Paralympics and won gold medals in the 100m, 200m and 400m dashes.

This year, he competed in the London Olympics, not the Paralympics, and this brings up the interesting question of whether he should have been allowed to. Because of his double amputation, Pistorius requires prostheses to run. He uses a carbon-fiber "spring" type of prosthetic when competing. Some have complained that these springs may provide an unfair advantage.

His defenders point out that the prosthetic has no computing or power source: it's just a piece of metal. Therefore, they say, he must have no advantage, since he provides all the power. This argument falls flat instantly, though: a bicycle rider provides all the power as well, but the mechanical advantage is so great that he would leave runners well behind. (The world record in the 250m cycling time trial from a standing start is 17.1s; the world record in the 200m dash is 19.2s. It's pretty clear from these times that at 400m a cyclist would be several seconds ahead.)

Scientific study showed that Pistorius actually does enjoy considerable advantage due to his prosthetic, but the study was later found to be wanting by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and he was ruled eligible for the Olympics. While we can all appreciate Pistorius' will and determination to compete with able-bodied athletes, the ruling sets a bad precedent. At this level of competition, the difference between the best runners and those not even qualifying for the Olympics is minuscule. So what happens when the next double-amputee has improved prostheses and wants to compete? If a gold medal were to be won by an athlete using a prosthetic, the whole sport would be overturned. Where could the line be drawn? Would every such athlete have to be tested beforehand to determine whether their particular prosthetic brought a mechanical advantage? The very uncertainty of such testing makes this an unlikely scenario, but the precedent set in this case is to do just that.

It may seem unlikely now, but one can certainly imagine a future in which one cannot compete for the top spots in running events without prostheses. That would be a terrible result for the sport of track and field, equivalent to rampant doping. So let's appreciate Pistorius' achievement, but hope future cases are handled differently.

World Cup

So it's Spain v. Holland in the final. I have to admit I'm torn on this one. The Dutch, with their centuries-long ties to England, are the closest to being my countrymen, so sheer familial respect prefers them. But the Spanish side, La Roja, is so great to watch.

Often in games like this I have to start watching and see where my heart finds itself rooting. It usually makes some pre-rational decision of its own. Let's just hope it's a good game... and that it doesn't end in penalty kicks.

World Cup Tiebreakers

John J. Miller finds it "lame" that there is (or was: the games are over) a possible outcome in which the U.S. and England, tied for 2nd and 3rd place in Group C, would have their positions determined by lottery.

He may not be aware of this, but the same is true in the American football playoff system. There is a series of tiebreakers, the last of which is "coin toss".

This isn't surprising: at some point in any round-robin system, it's possible that two or more teams may tie on any given number of measures. If that happens, something must be introduced to break the tie. You might say: use a one-game playoff, which works fine if two teams tie. But what if three teams tie? That's certainly a possible outcome, and further playoffs may do nothing to resolve the situation. So a coin toss, or lottery, is necessary just to come to a decision. It may be "lame", but it's unavoidable.

Happily, the U.S. and England each won their games and advanced to the knockout round without the need for any lotteries.

Gimme a Double McTwist

American snowboard half-piper Shaun White, who won his second consecutive gold medal in Vancouver last night, proved he is currently the king of the sport. No one else could really touch him. White's airs were a good five feet higher than anyone else's, and he executed incredible tricks nearly effortlessly. It's not that often in sports that you see someone so dominating.

I'm still torn on the judged events, though. They can be fun to watch, but some of them (like figure skating) tend in the direction of excessive predetermination: there are a fixed number of tricks, and each skater is expected to execute a certain number of them. So the differences come down to execution and artistry. Execution could be judged pretty objectively, but artistry cannot be. In some cases, the objective elements separate the competitors enough that it's clear who should win anyway (as in Shaun White's case), but all too often the subjective judgments are decisive.

Snowboard half-pipe still seems pretty "free", though. The sport is still innovative. White mentioned in his post-competition interview that the trick nearly everyone who had a shot at a medal was doing (the "double cork") was just developed in the past couple of years. White's latest invention, called the Double McTwist or the Whitesnake, is basically done only by him. But required elements are creeping in: every 'boarder had to do at least one "straight air" where no spins or flips were executed. It would be a shame to see that free-wheeling spirit eroded the way it has been in figure skating.

Olympics: Some Early Thoughts

I admit it: I'm a sucker for the Olympics. Winter, summer, whatever. I still remember the 1980 Winter games in Lake Placid. Not so much because of the Miracle on Ice, and Eric Heiden - those stories I only learned and came to appreciate later in life - but because my parents were so into it. As for myself, I'd build little skaters and skiers out of Lego to entertain the family.

Some random thoughts on this year's games:

• The fatal training accident that killed Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili seems like it could have been prevented by a wall to stop out-of-control competitors. Such a wall was built after the accident, before competition started on Saturday. It is truly tragic that such a simple measure could have saved a life. But it's also hard to blame the engineers who designed the Whistler Sliding Centre; the course was approved by the IOC, and over 5,000 successful runs had been made prior to the accident. These sports are simply dangerous and it's not possible to eliminate every risk.
• I felt bad for the Canadian organizers of the opening ceremonies when the fourth Olympic cauldron pillar refused to rise. There's such a curse on these things, almost like missions to Mars. Other than that glitch, it was a terrific ceremony, highlighting Canada's technical accomplishments, free-wheeling spirit, and artistic sense. Unlike the obsequious NBC commentators, I didn't think the Beijing ceremony was so wonderful that nothing else could ever top it. These events are all different and tell us different things about the host nations. Beijing's told us that China can get thousands of its people coordinated. Great, and pretty to watch. But Canada's more individualistic endeavor was more aligned with Western values.
• One thing I love about short-track speed-skating is that there is a gold-medal heat in which the first to cross the finish line is the winner. An irritating necessity of long-track speed-skating is that each heat is basically just a time trial. There are two skaters, but by and large they are skating against the clock, not each other. Some of the thrill is lost when the eventual gold-medalist skates early and all the tension is in watching other competitors fall short. Can you imagine, say, the running or swimming events from the Summer games in a similar format? Snoozerama.
• One thing I hate about short-track speed-skating is the role played by cruel fate. In the first medal event, the men's 1500-meter, the powerful South Korean team entered the final turn in first, second, and third place. They were on track to sweep the medals. Then the Korean in third tried a risky pass, caught an edge, and wiped out, taking his second-place teammate down with him. Americans Apolo Anton Ohno and J. R. Celski, in the right place at the right time, ended up second and third respectively. Many of these newer "extreme sport" events have this roller-derby aspect to them, and while it's entertaining in a way, it can be very frustrating to watch. Where's the pure sport in it?
• The pairs figure skating event left me conflicted. I was happy to see Russian dominance of the event ended - they are the Yankees of pairs figure skating - but wish it had been by anyone other than the Chinese. Their athletics program is so inhuman, so collectivist, so identity-destroying, that I find it hard to root for them. This is not the fault of the individual athletes, though, and many of them, including the gold-medalists Shen and Zhao, have remarkable stories that compel admiration. And there was no question that the Chinese team was the best on the ice.
• When watching events that feature cross-country skiing, I'll take Nordic Combined over any of the others. The other events, even biathlon, feature many of the worst aspects of sport: staggered starts mean that you can only figure out where competitors rank while on the course by comparing times at checkpoints, and, let's face it, watching a skier struggle up a hill, then coast down it, is about as boring as it gets. At least with Nordic Combined, you get the soaring thrill of the ski-jumping part, which determines the start sequence for the cross-country part. So the finish is a real finish: if I cross the line before you, then I beat you, period. No comparing of times or racing against the clock.
• Since I started this with a tragic note on the luge, let's end on a lighter note also on luge. Is it really a sport at all? This question came up last night at a dinner party. The arguments on the "yes" side were based around the fact that it's physically challenging. I'm sure this is true: the G-forces can be extreme, the visibility is poor, the speeds are high and the tolerance for error small. But does this qualify something as a sport? Flying a fighter aircraft is physically challenging, but that's not a sport. Moving furniture is physically challenging. Although either of these could be made into sports; Ultimate Frisbee, the Highland Games, and Chess-Boxing all seem to prove the point that any physical activity humans can engage in will at some point be turned into a competition.
  
  But I think the reason people question luge is different. It's that the run times are so close and it's so hard for the uninitiated (of which I am one!) to distinguish a "good" run from a "bad" run (without checking the clock). The gold-medalist in Vancouver, German Felix Loch, finished his four runs in a total of 3:13.085. The tenth place finisher, Austrian Manuel Pfister, finished 2.184 seconds back; that's just 1.1%. The thirtieth place finisher was only six seconds, less than 3%, behind the winner. That would be all eight runners in the 100-meter dash finishing within 0.1 seconds of each other. If that happened, we would rightly wonder whether most people can run about the same speed, but sometimes one person happens to get a good start or a lucky break, and wins.
  
  But that's (one reason) why they have multiple runs in luge. For reasons that I can understand intellectually but which are too subtle for me to perceive, a slider like Loch can consistently herd that luge down the track faster than anyone else. And I think that makes it a sport. Unlike short-track speed-skating, cruel fate doesn't seem to play much of a role. What an awful tragedy that the one time it did in Vancouver, it took a life.

Obama Takes On the BCS

Geoffrey Norman laments the idea recently floated by President Obama to investigate the BCS - that's Boal Championship Series, the method by which college football national champions are selected, for the uninitiated - for possible anti-trust violation.

Personally, I say: go for it! Let Congress investigate. Let them hold hearings on steroids in baseball, adultery in golf, illegal handling of the ball in soccer, improperly tightened tennis racquets, and whether or not disabled sprinters with electric-powered prosthetics should be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Bring it on!

Because, I figure, if they're spending their time on sports, that leaves less time to pass "stimulus" packages, "fix" our health-care system, and institute cap-and-trade rules on our carbon emissions.