tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.comments2024-02-29T05:39:45.179-07:00CURL WITH MATHKevin Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09511486508859362103noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-50821495009148444582018-12-12T16:45:16.708-07:002018-12-12T16:45:16.708-07:00yes, to all those future directions. i'd love ...yes, to all those future directions. i'd love to take a crack at analyzing shot by shot data myself. the goal would be to determine, from any position, what the best shot call actually is. it would be crude at first, but then you could imagine building in subtleties that would make it powerful. you'd need a ton of shot by shot data, with tons of scenarios played out to inform your model. early end strategy would be more doable though, since so many of those positions repeat across ends and games. <br /><br />so much in shot selection is done on feel and past experience, but both those things are pretty obviously faulty. i'd wager there are a few things even the best skips get wrong, that just have never been questioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-21925117576047286432017-10-15T07:19:22.749-06:002017-10-15T07:19:22.749-06:00Hey, Kevin!
Amazing game & liked the way you ...Hey, Kevin!<br /><br />Amazing game & liked the way you have depicted all in detail. <br />Thanks for sharing such awesome stuff.Education Franchisehttp://www.alohagujarat.com/inquiry/franchisee-inquirynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-49315622130667794772016-04-06T08:04:29.942-06:002016-04-06T08:04:29.942-06:00Thanks for the catch. I meant to say 2 up playing...Thanks for the catch. I meant to say 2 up playing 6. I have now corrected.Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-45116489406710941522016-04-05T09:20:27.378-06:002016-04-05T09:20:27.378-06:00While we're annoyingly correcting.... A team t...While we're annoyingly correcting.... A team that is up one playing 6 that plays a low risk shot to carry over (haha) will still only be up 1 with 2 ends to play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-64293759439190209262016-03-30T19:35:41.099-06:002016-03-30T19:35:41.099-06:00The relegation discussion is amazing. I was agains...The relegation discussion is amazing. I was against relegation completely, but I would so be convinced if this were the formatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-42784404355815149792016-03-16T12:10:42.762-06:002016-03-16T12:10:42.762-06:00This is pretty common now at sports venues for wat...This is pretty common now at sports venues for water or pop that comes in bottles - prevents the caps from being a handy thing to toss onto the field if you're angry about something.<br /><br />"On drinking rules that make no sense, a fan who had attended the Scotties in Grande Prairie told me they were required to open the cap on water bottles before leaving the bar. No word if they were limited to two per person."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-81058551942094574042015-12-10T08:20:05.712-07:002015-12-10T08:20:05.712-07:00Hi CWM,
I like the idea of the stat - in some sen...Hi CWM,<br /><br />I like the idea of the stat - in some sense, it could be a measure of "clutchness" of your skip. Perhaps similar to a measure of how much better/worse a baseball player hits with runners in scoring position.<br /><br />I think you could expand it to include skips trying to go for a difficult blank, as well. You've written before about skips making odd calls (by WE) to blank in certain game situations - but your theory would apply.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-7650665892726110802015-11-21T12:15:06.580-07:002015-11-21T12:15:06.580-07:00My apologies to Curling Canada. I should have sai...My apologies to Curling Canada. I should have said CC instead of CCA. Old habit.<br />Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-1698797562573891312015-11-21T12:14:13.125-07:002015-11-21T12:14:13.125-07:00Agreed. The CCA Rules state: "If a stone(s),...Agreed. The CCA Rules state: "If a stone(s), which may have affected the points scored in an end, is displaced prior to the skips or vice-skips deciding the score, the team causing the displacement shall forfeit the point(s) involved."<br /><br />However, this is a WCT Grand Slam. Not all CCA rules are adopted by the tour and, essentially, there are no officials involved on the ice. Teams officiate themselves. In any case, I agree it's a difficult position to put Tracy and her team in. In the Scotties, I believe an on ice official would have ruled but not necessarily, they still may have asked Fleury if she planned to measure. Can you imagine a baseball game played where the catcher calls the balls and strikes? A basketball game where players call their own fouls? Hockey players putting themselves in the penalty box? Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-18539300124529415382015-11-21T09:56:31.390-07:002015-11-21T09:56:31.390-07:00I would ask that you at least look at how the Fleu...I would ask that you at least look at how the Fleury team was put into such a position of 'having to decide'. Look again at the rule book and then take note that it's actually stated the offending team (Homan, via Courtney) were to concede the point and the non-offending team (Fleury) would not have had to make a decision. It would have been expected to give it to Team Fleury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-62173491196834328552015-09-12T15:40:50.545-06:002015-09-12T15:40:50.545-06:00My last post was written and posted before I looke...My last post was written and posted before I looked at your graph. However I would still like the actual value of having last rock when the game is tied. The value is somewhere between 1 and 2 points and this value changes with each end Your graph % should be able to translate to a numeric value.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825045406401074191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-91230775800826128612015-09-12T14:55:13.062-06:002015-09-12T14:55:13.062-06:00You contradict yourself by the 9th paragraph In ...You contradict yourself by the 9th paragraph In the 5th paragraph you say the following "One way to take a sample of data is looking at 10 end games that are tied after 2 ends (i.e. now an 8 end game). Our results show us a 61% winning percentage." In the the 7th paragraph you say the following "the Early game is then either 4 ends for a 10 end game or 2 ends for an 8 end match." In the 8th paragraph you say the following "The Odds of winning at the completion of each end during the Early game is nearly equal."<br /> In the 9th paragraph you say the following "This is a fascinating discovery that not only explains why the Early Game doesn’t end until 6 ends remain in the game, but supports the theory that an 8 end game is competitively equal to a 10 end game." A 61% winning % is statistically significant and proves that the last rock is truly an advantage even with the 4 rock rule. An 8 end game cannot be competitively equal to a 10 end game if the winning % is 61 % unless the winning % of a 10 end game is also 61%. I would conjecture that the 10 end game % is slightly less than 61% and if you had a million end game , last rock in 1st end would probably be close to 50%. Obviously as the number of ends increase the graph winning line % would drop gradually. What we need to know is what the winning % of having last rock in 1st end would be for 1 end games ,2 end games, 3....4 ...etc all the way to 10 end games since no one plays any longer games than 10 ends. I would conjecture that the % would start from 80% for a 1 end game and go down gradually to 60% for a 10 end game and then even more gradually down to 50.000001 % for a million end game. It should be easy to collect the stats for these games with less than 8 ends. All you do is take any game after a certain end where the score is tied and the remaining number of ends goes into a database category for that number of ends remaining. By the way what does your research tell us what the value is of last rock at the end of each particular end? The value obviously changes and becomes greater as the game nears conclusion. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh I keep hearing curling announcers espouse the discredited even/odd end theory even to this day. Don Duguid a former world champion believed in it and after I heard him say it for the 1st time I never listened to him again.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825045406401074191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-86058862388713059302015-05-29T19:02:32.058-06:002015-05-29T19:02:32.058-06:00Hi Kevin
I appreciate what you write, even if it ...Hi Kevin<br /><br />I appreciate what you write, even if it takes me a long time to get to it, and even though it's not as much as you would like to be able to do. Still, it's better than nothing, and much better than most people have to offer, so please don't worry about when the next post is coming. Write when it moves you. That's good enough. <br /><br />I agree with a lot of what you've written here, and I especially agree that is ludicrous that the sum of measured draws to the button can knock a team out of the main event of a national championship. <br /><br />But I also disagree with some of what you have written, and especially when you say that relegation "may have the effect of killing competitive curling in Northern Canada, what I thought was the opposite intent of relegation in the first place."<br /><br />In my opinion, you have made an error by failing to distinguish between "stated intent" and "actual intent." <br /><br />As you have probably heard more than once, actions speak louder than words. And you can tell a lot more about their intent by watching what they do, than by listening to what they say. <br /><br />The deck is stacked against teams from the North in let-me-count-the ways. The population is sparse, the distances between population centres are huge, the climate is nasty (even for Canada), the facilities are limited, and everything (except beer) costs far more than in the South. So if you are trying to put together a competitive team, the odds against you are enormous -- just because of the geography. It's enough to make a serious curler (such as Kevin Koe, for instance) move away (i.e. to a province). So, to all the disadvantages I've already listed, you can add some talent drain. <br /><br />Meanwhile, we now have 10 provinces, Northern Ontario, and Team Canada -- 12 southern teams -- plus 3 northern teams, and -- one way or another -- they have to fight it out for 12 spots. <br /><br />I don't think it matters a damn how many teams are in the qualifying round and how many spots are available. Whether it's 4 teams for 1 spot, or 5 teams for 2 spots, or 6 teams for 3 spots, the essential fact is that they are doing this to eliminate 3 teams. Well, where are the 3 weakest teams going to come from? <br /><br />All this is supposedly necessary because, according to Curling Canada, the optimal format for a national championship is a 12-team round robin. How they decided this is anyone's guess. I believe you can see how seriously they take this, and how much they think it matters, by watching how the Canada Cup and the Olympic Trials are run. <br /><br />In fact there is nothing sacred about a 12-team round robin, and there is no empirical evidence suggesting that it does a better job of selecting a champion than any other competition format. <br /><br />There is no good reason why the Brier and the Tournament of Hearts can't be modified to accommodate more than 12 teams. The Junior championships prove that it can be done, and that Curling Canada knows how to do it. <br /><br />And therefore, in my opinion, it is what it looks like -- a structure expressly designed to weed out the 3 weakest geographical areas -- effectively excluding the Northern teams, while superficially appearing to include them. <br /><br />As I've been saying, this is my opinion. You are not required to share it or anything. But you did ask for feedback, and now you've got some. <br /><br />Thanks again and keep up the good work -- at your convenience, of course! ;-)<br /><br />Par<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-68876376488602226662015-02-03T00:33:20.387-07:002015-02-03T00:33:20.387-07:00Terrific episode. Terrific episode. catesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13866229084232691423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-86976402805745042822014-12-17T16:23:54.847-07:002014-12-17T16:23:54.847-07:00Hello Kevin,
Thank you for all your efforts on th...Hello Kevin,<br /><br />Thank you for all your efforts on this blog, I have been a huge fan since day one as you know. I have used the information gained here as both a player and a coach.<br /><br />I am pretty sure Steve was "right" or at least not wrong. While watching the game the shot was called and instantly the announcers where all over him, " I like to be winning" and many other comments like this. Sounded a lot like "trust your defense" <br /><br />When I am making a choice that is potentially going to drastically change my WE I want to hear "Trust my stats guy" <br /><br />Hopefully in part 2 you can do the proper math, but I had a robo perfect drawing Steve needing to win in 8 tied with hammer 90% of the time to make hitting correct. <br />@85% on the draw in 7 he would need to win tied in 8 84% of the time<br />@ 75% on the draw in 7 he would need to win 78% of the time.<br /><br />All seems pretty reasonable to me.<br /><br />Couple that with the fact that like you mention 2 down without playing 8 is a spot that is changed the most by the 5 rock rule. (Currently 10% WE)<br /><br />In that scenario upping your chance to get three greatly changes the overall WE ( admittedly a change from 10% - 14% would be considered massive ) and most people believe that the 5 rock rule will increase 3's scored in these situations.<br /><br />When 2 is scored the fact that elite teams lose very few extra ends these days comes into play.<br /><br />I think this is a call that will be considered standard in 4 years, and makes for a great topic to speak about now.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Jason GunnlaugsonJason Gunnlaugsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379811108237902154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-88109451209700938952014-12-17T16:09:25.964-07:002014-12-17T16:09:25.964-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jason Gunnlaugsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379811108237902154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-65772739110145141752014-12-17T14:39:26.819-07:002014-12-17T14:39:26.819-07:00Also, I found that photo of Bob Pickering, but I w...Also, I found that photo of Bob Pickering, but I was looking for the shot og him lifting his rock on the backswing. Strange there's nothing online. Would make the modern no-lift player cringe.Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-53767477126741477182014-12-17T14:34:13.646-07:002014-12-17T14:34:13.646-07:00It is possible I'm too polite, but there are m...It is possible I'm too polite, but there are many ifs in this analysis with less hard numbers than we would like. But in the same way stats folks felt bunting was originally a poor decision, later analysis then showed that it can be under certain circumstances. You've made me consider wirtting a part 2 that includes some more math to break these decisions down further. Stay tuned.Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-60166741783574250702014-12-17T06:26:14.282-07:002014-12-17T06:26:14.282-07:00You're too polite, Kevin. At best a skip sacri... You're too polite, Kevin. At best a skip sacrifices five percent of win expectancy in exchange for the reassurance of having final stone. Maybe for most players a WE swing < 10% is seen as trivial, because it's single digits?<br /><br /> Five to ten percent is enormous imo. Trading that for momentum or emotional security of hammer seems similar in reason to NFL coaches choosing to punt on 4th & 3 at the opponent's 40. Risk aversion.<br /><br /> Anecdotally, it sure does seem like five rock will lead to an increased number of 2+ ends tho.<br /><br /> Great work as always.<br /><br /> http://www.saskcurl.com/sca/honourroll/gallery/TEAM%20-%20BOB%20PICKERING%20TEAM%20-%201968,70%20&%2071.jpg<br />Dalke Geedznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-12609241752824541462014-11-29T21:35:23.387-07:002014-11-29T21:35:23.387-07:00Great article Kevin!! Always enjoy your analytical...Great article Kevin!! Always enjoy your analytical perspective. I am also be interested in Rogers spreadsheet. Looking forward to your next offering. Gerry<br /><br />gpeckham@curling.caAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-59131169215134314542014-11-29T14:53:37.948-07:002014-11-29T14:53:37.948-07:00Would be great to get a copy of the spreadsheet. ...Would be great to get a copy of the spreadsheet. You can connect with me at k_palmer@shaw.ca. Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-90893830650124398212014-11-29T14:15:32.447-07:002014-11-29T14:15:32.447-07:00I don't know of any studies of angles precisio...I don't know of any studies of angles precision for curling raises and runbacks, but it's pretty easy to calculate based on the collision of two circular objects. I've constructed a spreadsheet that calculates the delta-overlap required to make a shot for any particular angle and distance. The precision required of course depends on the length of the runback. For a 10 foot runback (straight-back) the tolerance to catch the target rock is about plus/minus 5% or about 1/2 inch either away. To runback and stick, you probably need to reduce that figure by half. The precision required falls off slowly as overlap decreases, and increases rapidly beyond a half-rock to a quarter rock. At 30 degrees, precision required is 80% of nose. It doesn't drop below 50% of nose until you get to about 1/8 rock. I'd be happy to share the spreadsheet with you.<br /><br />Your article inspired an instruction article for our club newsletter on the topic of angles (with math). I always enjoy your analysis of probabilities. Good stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798803588799078060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-28072589465254085532014-11-28T15:39:20.379-07:002014-11-28T15:39:20.379-07:00I created Win Expectancy back in 2006 with the hel...I created Win Expectancy back in 2006 with the help of Gerry and Dallas from CurlingZone. It's been used a few times on TV, usually when discussing the 60/40 odds in the final end of a 1 point game. In the National finals, Kevin Martin mentioned "3%", in relatiuon to the difference in odds between blanking and taking 1 point. Like OPS and WARP in baseball, I doubt WE will become a common stat that's used on a graphic, but you never know.Kevin Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856697089223162035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-32510429897815048562014-11-27T12:49:29.466-07:002014-11-27T12:49:29.466-07:00There were a lot of interesting and aggressive cal...There were a lot of interesting and aggressive calls in that final, and you could argue that both skips went over the top on several occasions. Still, I think the double takeout attempt vs Stoughton in the round robin was the right call. The tap is not so easy as it seems, it is a shot that you do not play that often, as simple as that. I also quite like McEwen's call in the second end vs Jacobs to try and get three. It wasn't so difficult but he definitely underthrew it. After the shot, you could feel that he knew it was a great chance to stamp his authority on that game early on. All other calls in this article arwe questionble, to say the least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4441578581214913395.post-83541883981444518222014-11-27T08:24:25.393-07:002014-11-27T08:24:25.393-07:00Is there any way that your WE stats can be incorpo...Is there any way that your WE stats can be incorporated into the broadcast as the skip is deliberating on crucial calls? Maybe team up with Gerry? I love K Mart's gut feel analysis because as a great skip you get a sense of the flow and momentum of the game, but if the stats agree or disagree with a decision I would love to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com