Category: Sports

Rugby World Cup explainer using data

Last week, a stereotypical “French” ceremony opened the 10th Rugby World Cup in Stade de France, in the suburbs of Paris, France. As a small boy growing up in the southern half of France, I developed a strong interest for the sport. Now being an adult living and working in North America, where barely anyone has ever heard the word “Rugby”, I now rarely have anyone else to talk to about Antoine Dupont’s (captain of the French team and best Player in the world in 2021) prowess. Despite being very aware of this reality, I still wasn’t expecting the confused looks on my teammates faces when I casually brought up that I was excited for the World Cup to start during a Friday team meeting. I quickly stopped, before anyone asked more, all too aware that the confusion would only get worse if I had to start saying out loud scores like this 82-8 Ireland blowout or this 32-26 nail-biter involving Wales and Fiji.

From Rugby Noise. I have to admit that those numbers could look confusing at first

If you squinted at those numbers, keep reading! Sure, those might sound weird at first, but experiencing actions like this score is worth it! In this quick article, I’ll try to give you some explanations and comparisons to other sports grounded in data. Hopefully, in just a few minutes, you’ll be able to join in rugby gossip. And as a bonus, maybe you’ll learn a few things about data analytics in R along the way?

Countries having participated in at least one Rugby World Cup, from Wikipedia

Descriptive data on games scores

First things first, if you don’t know how points are scored in Rugby, I recommend you take a look at this guide. Now, about the data. I have access to a dataset of all International games played between the 19th Century and 2020. Since both how the game is played and how points are scored changed a lot throughout the years, I restricted my dataset to games played since 1995 (close to 1,500 games total). The data and the code are available on GitHub. We can start with some descriptive statistics about scores. Our dataset contains offense, which is the number of points scored by the home team, and diff, the difference with their opponents points (so a negative number means the away team was victorious, and vice versa).

library(tidyverse)
df_sports_with_rugby <- readRDS("df_sports_with_rugby.rds")
desc_stats <- df_sports_with_rugby %>%
  group_by(sport) %>%
  summarize(avg_offense = mean(offense)
        	, med_offense = median(offense)
        	, sd_offense = sd(offense)
        	, avg_diff = mean(diff)
        	, med_diff = median(diff)
        	, sd_diff = sd(diff)
        	) %>%
  arrange(avg_offense %>% desc)
desc_stats
sportavg_offensemed_offensesd_offenseavg_diffmed_diff
basketball102.6510210.982.573.0
rugby33.593016.006.866.0
football27.212708.042.482.5
hockey3.7741.430.271.0
soccer2.0721.330.501.0

As expected, basketball is the sport with the highest average and median winning scores. Rugby and football are fairly close to each other in that regard… which could give the impression that the score will look similar (Spoiler alert: they’re not!). Finally, standard deviations are not necessarily easy to read at first glance, but we immediately spot that despite having an average winner’s points 4 times below basketball’s, it’s standard deviation is higher. And Rugby is also an outlier in score difference. It has actually the highest average, median and standard deviation for diff. So clearly Rugby games are not expected to be close! Highest-level basketball and football on the other hand have an average score difference of just 2.5 points, which is below what you can get in just one action. This hints at very close games with exciting money time… so American! Finally, hockey and soccer have the lowest scores, and their average and median difference is also less than a goal.

One thing that I’d like you to notice is the difference between median and average scores (first two columns of the table above). The two numbers are extremely close for all sports… except Rugby. This suggests that something specific is happening at the tail of the distribution. To get confirmation, we can look at two additional metrics that give us more information about said tail. Skewness, when positive, indicates that accumulation is stronger above the median (below if negative). Kurtosis compares the size of the tail to that of the normal distribution: positive if the tail is larger and negative if lower. A large tail indicates that extreme events (in this case high total points scored) are more likely to happen compared to a variable whose distribution is normal.
In order to compute these two statistics in R, we’ll need the help of another package:

library(e1071)
tail_stats <- df_sports_with_rugby %>%
  group_by(sport) %>%
  summarize( skew_offense = skewness(offense)
        	, kurtosis_offense = kurtosis(offense)
        	, skew_diff = skewness(abs(diff))
        	, kurtosis_diff = kurtosis(abs(diff))
  ) %>%
  arrange(kurtosis_offense)
tail_stats
sportskew_offensekurtosis_offenseskew_diff
football0.14-0.151.26
basketball0.250.361.45
hockey0.460.401.18
soccer0.941.441.24
rugby1.785.502.01

Unsurprisingly, Rugby scores the highest in skewness and kurtosis for total points and point difference. All the other results are very interesting, and a little counter-intuitive. I would not have guessed that soccer would be second to last in that list ordered by tail size, with higher skewness and kurtosis for points and difference than hockey. However, finding football and basketball at the top only confirms the “American” bias towards close games. We can even notice that the Kurtosis of points scored in American football is negative, which makes it a “platykurtic” distribution. In other terms, we’d get a slightly wider total scores table if we simulated football scores from a normal distribution compared to reality. Finally, all the skewnesses of diff are positive. This means a clear accumulation on the positive side of the curve, which is where the home team prevails. In other terms, our 5 sports show signs of home field advantage. Neat.
We can also use ggplot2 to visualize these distributions, for example the home team score (offense):

adjust_offense <- 3 ## Visual factor to adjust smoothness of density
plot_distributions_offense <- ggplot(data=df_sports_with_rugby) +
  geom_density(alpha=0.3, aes(x=offense, fill=sport), adjust=adjust_offense) +
  # scale_x_log10() +
  scale_colour_gradient() +
  labs(x = 'Home team points', y='Density'
   	, title = 'Density plots of home team points') +
  theme_bw() +
  NULL
print(plot_distributions_offense)

An interesting thing to plot is to focus specifically on football, and compare with a simulated normal distribution, which will show in dashed lines:

football_avg <- desc_stats[desc_stats$sport == 'football',]$avg_offense
football_sd <- desc_stats[desc_stats$sport == 'football',]$sd_offense
adjust_football <- 1.5
plot_distributions_offense_football <- ggplot(data=df_sports_with_rugby %>%
                                   	filter(sport == 'football')) +
  geom_density(alpha=0.3, aes(x=offense, fill=sport), adjust=adjust_football) +
  # scale_x_log10() +
  scale_colour_gradient() +
  labs(x = 'Home team points', y='Density'
   	, title = 'Density plots of home team points') +
  theme_bw() +
  geom_density(data=tibble(t=1:10000, x=rnorm(10000, football_avg, football_sd))
         	,aes(x=x), alpha=0.6, linetype='longdash', adjust=2) +
  NULL
print(plot_distributions_offense_football)

Notice how the distribution peaks higher than normal, and then (at least on the left side), plunges to 0 more quickly than the dashed line? This is negative kurtosis visualized for you. The left and right sides being on different sides of the dashed lines: this one is the positive skewness we noticed a few paragraphs ago.

Converting scores in other sports equivalents

A few years ago, we created a scores converter app, which used comparisons between distributions to propose “equivalent scores” in different sports. Using my new Rugby dataset, all I had to do was add it to the app, and voila… we are now able to play with the app with Rugby and “translate” some of the confusing first round scores I mentioned in my opening paragraph into other sports in which we might be more fluent:

Equivalent scores for Wales-Fiji (32-26)
Equivalent scores for Ireland – Romania (82-8)
Equivalent scores for France – New Zealand (27-13)

I’ll try to keep updating the new scores conversions as the World Cup progresses in our Mastodon and my personal (brand new) Threads. If you have any questions or just want to say hi, feel free to reach out there as well. Happy Rugby World Cup!

Using R to build predictions for UEFA Euro 2020

Last friday, Euro 2020, one of the biggest events in International soccer, was kicked off by the inaugural match between Italy and Turkey (Italy won it 3-0). Euros (short for European Championships) are usually held every 4 years, but because of he-who-must-not-be-named, last year’s edition was postponed to this summer, while keeping the name “Euro 2020” (much like the Tokyo Olympics). 4 5 years ago, for Euro 2016, I basically wanted to try some cool methods based on splines on a real-world example. The model ended up doing fairly well, and most importantly it was a lot of fun, so we decided to do it again this year! The model, from training to the web app, is entirely built in R.

Click on this image to access the predictions!

How it works

The model is built on about 12.500 international football matches played since 2006. The main part actually consists in a combination of two models, one that predicts the number of goals scored by the reference team in a given game, the other one that predicts the number of goals they will allow. This basically models offense and defense for each team. A number of models for soccer have used similar ideas in the past, including FiveThirtyEight’s brilliant Soccer Power Index.

The features that are taken into account in the main models are:

  • Date
  • Indicator of home field advantage
  • Teams skills
  • Tournament importance (ex: Friendly Game rated as 1, Euro or World Cup Game rated as 8, etc.)
  • Confederation of opponent
  • Indicator showing if team is in list of “special playstyles” (compsition of the list is selected to maximize prediction accuracy)
  • Interaction term skill difference x tournament importance

Unfortunately the model does not take into account player-level data. For example, the absence of Milan AC’s superstar Zlatan Ibrahimovic is not taken into account in Sweden’s odds to win it all. Another great improvement could come from using expected goals instead of directly scored goals. The idea is that scored goals are a very small sample in soccer, so there’s much more signal in xG. Unfortunately, computing these expected goals requires play-by-play data, which I don’t have access to.

“I tried a lot of different methods, but none were able to beat my baseline set up with a simple linear regression”

As for the choice of the algorithm, although we had good success last time with splines, I also wanted to try various algorithms from the ML world in order to get the best possible results. In the end, I tried a lot of different methods, but none were able to beat my baseline set up with a simple polynomial regression. Perhaps unsurprisingly to many data science practitioners, linear regression wins again!

"The virgin non-parametric regression vs. The Chad linear regression"
“The virgin non-parametric regression vs. The Chad linear regression” – meme taken from Reddit

This first part of the prediction pipeline returns a double (see image below), which unfortunately we can’t directly use to create meaningful probabilities for the outcomes we’re interested in (group stage games, group rankings, teams final rankings).

Example of number goals predicted by the polynomial regression: results are floats, not integers
Example of number goals predicted by the polynomial regression: results are floats, not integers

In order to get something useful, we have to resort to simulations. Simulations are really necessary in this case since a lot of non-linear factors can influence the final results: group composition, a somewhat convoluted qualifying system, etc. To me these “nonlinearities” are the fun part though! For this reason, we’ll update predictions after each day so that readers who are into this stuff can see how match results affect the likelihood of the global outcomes.

So, how do we transform a floating-point predicted number of goals into simulations? We start by using the predicted goals as parameter of a Poisson distribution. This generates all possible scores for each individual game and assigns a probability to each score. Then for each game we select at random one of the possible outcomes. This selection is done with unequal probabilities: the probability for each outcome to be selected corresponds to the probability indicated by the Poisson model (basically you don’t want to end with as many 8-3s as 1-0s in your simulations!). This is done through functions available in the excellent package sampling (see illustration below).

Screencap of the `draw_onesim` function, which uses sampling::UPsystematic to select an outcome at random with unequal probabilities
The main function used to select game outcomes at random according to probabilities generated by the Poisson process. It uses the method UPsystematic from the sampling package

And then… we repeat the process. 10.000 times, Monte-Carlo style. With a little help from the great package foreach for easy parallelization of the computations. And voila, by counting and averaging the simulated results, we get probabilities for each match, each team occupying each rank in their group, and for each team to reach each stage in the second round. 😊

A small statistical twist

The Poisson distribution is often used in simulations for sports predictions, and it is generally a great tool to use. However, the raw results present flaws that can come bite you if you don’t pay attention. For example, the Poisson tends to generate far fewer draws than expected (11% less in our case, to be precise). In order to account for this, we used one of my favorite tricks: weight calibration (implemented in the package Icarus). Basically, the idea is to modify the probabilities given by the Poisson distribution so that they match a certain pre-known result. There are infinite many ways to go about this, so weight calibration chooses the result that minimizes the distance to the initial probabilities. One of the other benefits of using this method is that we can calibrate on many probabilities at the same time, which we eventually did for:

  • Total number of goals scored per match and average
  • Share of draws
  • Among draws, share of 1-1s, 2-2s and draws with more than 6 goals
  • Share of draws in matches with “small” difference between teams skills
  • Share of draws in matches with “large” difference between teams skills
Output from the calibration process given by the Icarus package

Model selection and results

In order to select the best possible model, we ran a whole lot of tests and hyperparameter selection scripts. The main metrics for the selection process were prediction accuracy and the Brier score, which represents the quality of the estimated probabilities. Despite the simplicity of the model, the accuracy of the overall prediction is ~61% +/- 2% (both on the test set and in Cross-Validation), which is in line with most other soccer models. The 3-dimensional Brier score is 0.57 +/- 1%.

We get a clear trio of favorites: Belgium, France, and England. Although the first two are ranked 1st and 2nd in the FIFA rankings, England is probably favored because they’ll have home turf advantage for most of the second round. (But then as Dr Sean Elvidge writes, home turf advantage could be very relative this year ¯_(ツ)_/¯). It’s also interesting to see that leading soccer nations like Germany or Italy are not ranked favorably by our model, contrary to some others. I’m not totally sure I understand why btw, so feel free to let me know in the comments or on Twitter if you think you have an explanation!

Do you like data science and would be interested in building products that help entrepreneurs around the world start and grow their businesses? Shopify is hiring 2021 engineers and data scientists worldwide! Feel free to reach out if you’d like to know more 🙂

Featured image: Logo UEFA Euro 2020, © UEFA

Analyse de pronostics pour le Mondial 2018

On est les champions ! Si nous n’avons pas eu le temps de faire un modèle de prédiction pour cette coupe du monde de football 2018 (mais FiveThirtyEight en a fait un très sympa, voir ici), cela ne nous a pas empêché de faire un concours de pronostics entre collègues et ex-collègues statisticiens, sur le site Scorecast. Les résultats obtenus sont les suivants :

JoueurScore
Nic102
Cle100
Ron100
Lud96
Tho90
Lio88
Lis87
Pap86
Mau84
Yan78
Ant78
Lau75
Thi71
Arn56
Oli28
Mar7

Un autre système de points ?

Le système de points utilisé par Scorecast est le suivant : si on a le bon gagnant, on gagne un faible nombre de points ; si en plus du bon gagnant, on a bien prédit l’écart de buts, on gagne un peu plus de points ; et enfin, si on a le score exact, on gagne le nombre maximal de points. Ce nombre maximal de points augmente au fur et à mesure de la compétition : la finale vaut plus de points qu’un match de poules. Ce système ne tient pas compte de cotes préexistantes (comme le fait par exemple Mon petit prono), ou du fait que certains matchs sont bien prédits par tout le monde alors que pour d’autres seule une personne a bien trouvé, voire personne.

Je propose donc ici d’altérer légèrement l’attribution des points, de la façon suivante : on dispose d’un nombre de points équivalent pour chaque match d’une même manche (match de poule, de quart, etc.), qu’on répartit entre les joueurs qui ont bien prédit le score, avec un avantage pour ceux qui ont le bon écart de points ou le bon score exact. Le nombre de points à répartir augmente tout au long de la compétition, de sorte que les phases finales aient plus d’importance dans le classement final.

Pourquoi faire ça ? Pour favoriser les joueurs qui ont fait des paris plus originaux et potentiellement plus risqués, ou en tout cas qui étaient les seuls à avoir la bonne intuition. Voici les résultats :

JoueurScoreScore modifié
Mau84185
Lud96163
Nic102144
Tho90136
Ant78135
Cle100126
Ron100123
Lis87120
Lio88115
Pap86108
Yan78105
Lau75100
Thi7190
Arn5678
Oli2843
Mar710

On constate que le classement évolue sensiblement avec cette nouvelle méthode de points ! Mais peut-être que certains auraient fait d’autres paris si ces règles étaient décidées…

Choix des scores

Une des principales difficultés du pronostic est qu’il ne suffit pas de savoir (ou de penser savoir) qui va gagner le match, mais il faut aussi indiquer le score attendu. Regardons si les prédictions de l’ensemble des parieurs de notre ligue ont été pertinentes par rapport aux vrais scores ! Pour cela, on détermine pour chaque score le pourcentage des matchs qui ont abouti à ce résultat d’une part, et le pourcentage des paris faits avec ce score. On regarde ensuite la différence entre les pourcentages, qu’on va illustrer par la heatmap ci-dessous. Les cases vertes correspondent aux scores des matchs trop rarement prédits ; les cases rouges aux scores très souvent prédits mais qui n’arrivent que peu ou pas.

On constate que l’on a surestimé largement le nombre de 2-1, de 3-0 et de 4-0 (score qui n’est jamais arrivé lors de cette coupe du monde) ; ce sont d’ailleurs les seuls “gros” scores qui ont été surestimés dans les prédictions : tous les autres ont été sous-évalués. Cela peut laisser penser que les paris ont été faits avec une logique conservative et en évitant de tenter des scores absurdes, comme 7-0 pour l’Arabie Saoudite contre la Russie !

Analyse de données et classification

Enfin, une dernière utilisation possible de ce jeu de données est d’en faire l’analyse pour en extraire des classes de parieurs ayant un peu le même profil (ou en tout cas les mêmes réussites), et pour voir ce qui les sépare. Plusieurs méthodes sont possibles pour cela.

Commençons par un grand classique : la Classification Ascendante Hiérarchique (CAH pour les intimes), qui est une méthode qui part de groupes d’une personne, et qui, à chaque étape, regroupe deux groupes de telle façon à ce que l’inertie intra augmente au minimum. De façon moins barbare, cela veut dire qu’on regroupe les deux groupes qui se ressemblent le plus, étape par étape, jusqu’à arriver à la population totale. On représente souvent ce type de méthodes par un dendogramme, qui ressemble un peu à un arbre phylogénétique en biologie de l’évolution, et qui illustre la construction des classes, de bas en haut.

On remarque qu’il y a de nombreux binômes qui sont cohérents, et qui signalent des parieurs avec des profils comparables (par exemple, Mar et Oli, qui correspondent à deux joueurs ayant raté une bonne partie de la compétition, soit en arrêtant les paris, soit en arrivant en cours), et qu’il y a une séparation entre les quatre joueurs de gauche et les autres (eux-mêmes largement séparés entre les 3 les plus à gauche et les autres).

Une autre possibilité est d’utiliser l’Analyse en Composantes Principales, que nous avions déjà utilisé dans un contexte footballistique ici ou ici (en). La logique est ici de chercher à résumer une matrice avec beaucoup d’informations (pour chaque joueur, l’ensemble des points obtenus via ses paris pour chaque match) en un nombre minimal de dimensions, dits d’axes, qui suffisent pour avoir une bonne idée de la logique d’organisation du jeu de données.

Si l’on réalise cette méthode ici, voici ce que l’on obtient sur les premiers axes :

L’axe 1 est souvent victime de ce qu’on appelle l'”effet taille” : on entend par là le fait que les individus ayant de grandes valeurs de certaines variables en ont souvent aussi pour les autres variables, et symétriquement pour les individus qui ont des petites valeurs. En effet, on voit que la variable supplémentaire, le total de points obtenus (avec la méthode Scorecast), en bleu, est proche de l’axe 1. Cela veut dire que les individus à droite de l’axe ont tendance à avoir un score important, tandis que ceux à gauche n’ont pas très bien réussi leurs prédictions.

On constate également que les représentations sur les plans constitués des dimensions 1-2, et 2-3, ont tendance à rapprocher les individus que la classification effectuée plus haut associait en binôme. Cela montre une certaine cohérence, ce qui est toujours rassurant !

Plus dans le détail, on voit que les axes 2 et 3 semblent correspondre aux paris suivants, qui sont donc discriminants entre les différents joueurs :

  • Pour l’axe 2, avoir réussi son pari sur les matchs Pérou-Danemark, Mexique-Suède, Brésil-Suisse, Espagne-Russie et Argentine-Croatie
  • Pour l’axe 3, avoir réussi son pari sur les matchs Japon-Sénégal, Suisse-Costa Rica, Danemark-France ou encore Brésil-Mexique

Difficile de trouver une interprétation de ces axes…

[Sports] Fifa et analyse de données

Après un été chargé en sports, l’automne et la Ligue 1 reprennent peu à peu leurs droits. C’est l’occasion de détailler un sujet d’analyse de données élaboré pour un cours à l’ENSAE. Il s’agit d’analyser des données qualitatives (caractéristiques physiques, tactiques et aptitudes relatives à certains aspects techniques du jeu) décrivant les joueurs du championnat de France de football. Le but final est de déterminer “statistiquement” à quel poste faire jouer Mathieu Valbuena 🙂 On utilise le langage R et l’excellent package d’analyse de données FactoMineR.

Les données

Comme indiqué dans l’énoncé du TD, il n’est pas nécessaire de bien connaître le football pour pouvoir suivre cet article. Seule une notion de l’emplacement des joueurs sur le terrain en fonction de leur poste (correspondant à la colonne “position” du dataset) est souhaitable. Voici un petit schéma pour aider les moins avertis :

disposition_terrain

Les données sont issues du jeu vidéo Fifa 15 (les connaisseurs auront remarqué que les données datent donc d’il y a déjà deux saisons, il peut donc y avoir quelques différences avec les effectifs actuels !), qui donne de nombreuses statistiques pour chaque joueur, incluant une évaluation de leurs capacités. Les données de Fifa sont quantitatives (par exemple chaque capacité est notée sur 100) mais pour cet article on les a rendues catégorielles sur 4 positions : 1. Faible / 2. Moyen / 3. Fort / 4. Très fort. On verra l’intérêt d’avoir procédé ainsi un peu plus loin !

Préparation des données

Commençons par charger les données. Notez l’utilisation de l’option stringsAsFactors=TRUE (plus d’explications sur ce fameux paramètre stringsAsFactors ici). Eh oui, une fois n’est pas coutume, FactoMineR utilise des facteurs pour effectuer l’analyse de données !

> champFrance <- read.csv2("td3_donnees.csv", stringsAsFactors=TRUE)
> champFrance <- as.data.frame(apply(champFrance, 2, factor))

La deuxième ligne sert à transformer les colonnes de type int créés par read.csv2 en factors.

FactoMineR utilise le paramètre “row.names” des data.frame de R pour l’affichage sur les graphes. On va donc indiquer qu’il faut utiliser la colonne “nom” en tant que row.names pour faciliter la lecture :

> row.names(champFrance) <- champFrance$nom
> champFrance$nom <- NULL

Voilà à quoi ressemble désormais notre data.frame (seules les premières lignes sont affichées) :

> head(champFrance)
                      pied position championnat age taille general
Florian Thauvin     Gauche      MDR      Ligue1   1      3       4
Layvin Kurzawa      Gauche       AG      Ligue1   1      3       4
Anthony Martial      Droit       BU      Ligue1   1      3       4
Clinton N'Jie        Droit       BU      Ligue1   1      2       3
Marco Verratti       Droit       MC      Ligue1   1      1       4
Alexandre Lacazette  Droit       BU      Ligue1   2      2       4

Analyse des données

Nous avons affaire à un tableau de variables catégorielles : la méthode adaptée est l’Analyse des Correspondances Multiples, qui est implémentée dans FactoMineR par la méthode MCA. Pour le moment on exclut de l’analyse les variables “position”, “championnat” et “âge” (que l’on traite comme variables supplémentaires) :

> library(FactoMineR)
> acm <- MCA(champFrance, quali.sup=c(2,3,4))

Trois graphes apparaissent dans la sortie : la projection sur les deux premiers axes factoriels des catégories et des individus, ainsi que le graphe des variables. A ce stade, seul le second nous intéresse :

2_nuages_points_2
Projection des individus sur les deux premiers axes factoriels

Avant même d’essayer d’aller plus loin dans l’analyse, quelque chose doit nous sauter aux yeux : il y a clairement deux nuages de points ! Or nos méthodes d’analyse de données supposent que le nuage qu’on analyse est homogène. Il va donc falloir se restreindre à l’analyse de l’un des deux nuages que l’on observe sur ce graphe.

Pour identifier à quels individus le nuage de droite correspond, on peut utiliser les variables supplémentaires (points verts). On observe que la projection de la position goal (“G”) correspond bien au nuage. En regardant de plus près les noms des individus concernés, on confirme que ce sont tous des gardiens de but.

On va se concentrer pour le reste de l’article sur les joueurs de champ. On en profite également pour retirer les colonnes ne concernant que les capacités de gardien, qui ne sont pas importantes pour les joueurs de champ et ne peuvent que bruiter notre analyse :

> champFrance_nogoals <- champFrance[champFrance$position!="G",-c(31:35)]
> acm_nogoals <- MCA(champFrance_nogoals, quali.sup=c(2,3,4))

Et l’on vérifie bien dans la sortie graphique que l’on a un nuage de points homogène.

Interprétation

On commence par réduire notre analyse à un certain nombre d’axes factoriels. Ma méthode favorite est la “règle du coude” : sur le graphe des valeurs propres, on va observer un décrochement (le “coude”) suivi d’une décroissance régulière. On sélectionnera ensuite un nombre d’axes correspondant au nombre de valeurs propres précédant le décrochement :

> barplot(acm_nogoals$eig$eigenvalue)

 

barplot
Éboulis des valeurs propres

Ici, on peut choisir par exemple 3 axes (mais on pourrait justifier aussi de retenir 4 axes). Passons maintenant à l’interprétation, en commençant par les graphes des projections sur les deux premiers axes retenus pour l’étude.

> plot.MCA(acm_nogoals, invisible = c("ind","quali.sup"))

axes_1_2_modalites
Projection des modalités sur les axes factoriels 1 et 2 (cliquer pour agrandir)

On peut par exemple lire sur ce graphe le nom des modalités possédant les plus fortes coordonnées sur les axes 1 et 2 et commencer ainsi l’interprétation. Mais avec un tel de nombre de modalités, la lecture directe sur le graphe n’est pas si aisée. On peut également obtenir un résultat dans la sortie texte spécifique de FactoMineR, dimdesc (seule une partie de la sortie est donnée ici) :

> dimdesc(acm_nogoals)
$`Dim 1`$category
                         Estimate       p.value
finition_1            0.700971584 1.479410e-130
volees_1              0.732349045 8.416993e-125
tirs_lointains_1      0.776647500 4.137268e-111
tacle_glisse_3        0.591937236 1.575750e-106
effets_1              0.740271243  1.731238e-87
[...]
finition_4           -0.578170467  7.661923e-82
puissance_tir_4      -0.719591411  2.936483e-86
controle_balle_4     -0.874377431 5.088935e-104
dribbles_4           -0.820552850 1.795628e-117

Les modalités les plus caractéristiques de l’axe 1 sont, à droite, un niveau faible dans les capacités offensives (finition, volées, tirs lointains), et de l’autre un niveau très fort dans ces même capacités. L’interprétation naturelle est donc que l’axe 1 discrimine selon les capacités offensives (les meilleurs attaquants à gauche, les moins bons à droite). On procède de même pour l’axe 2, et on observe le même phénomène, mais avec les capacités défensives : en haut on trouvera les meilleurs défenseurs, et en bas les moins bons défenseurs.

Les variables supplémentaires peuvent aussi aider à l’interprétation, et vont confirmer notre interprétation, notamment la variable de position :

> plot.MCA(acm_nogoals, invisible = c("ind","var"))

var_sup_axes_1_2
Projection des variables supplémentaires sur les axes factoriels 1 et 2 (cliquer pour agrandir)

On trouve bien à gauche du graphe les les postes offensifs (BU, AIG, AID) et en haut les postes défensifs (DC, AD, AG).

Une conséquence de cette interprétation est que l’on risque de trouver les joueurs de meilleur niveau organisés le long de la seconde bissectrice, avec les meilleurs joueurs dans le quadrant en haut à gauche, et les plus faibles dans le quadrant en bas à droite. Il y a beaucoup de moyens de le vérifier, mais on va se contenter de regarder dans le graphe des modalités l’emplacement des observations de la variable “général”, qui résume le niveau d’un joueur. Comme on s’y attend, on trouve “général_4” dans en haut à gauche et “général_1” dans le quadrant en bas à droite. On peut observer aussi le placement des variables supplémentaires “Ligue 1” et “Ligue 2” pour s’en convaincre 🙂

A ce stade, il y a déjà plein de choses intéressantes à relever ! Parmi celles qui m’amusent le plus :

  • Les ailiers gauches semblent avoir un meilleur niveau que les ailiers droits (si un spécialiste du foot voulait bien m’en expliquer la raison ce serait top !)
  • L’âge n’est pas explicatif du niveau du joueur, sauf pour les plus jeunes qui ont un niveau plus faible
  • Les joueurs les plus âgés ont des rôles plus défensifs.

N’oublions pas de nous occuper de l’axe 3 :

> plot.MCA(acm_nogoals, invisible = c("ind","var"), axes=c(2,3))

axes_2_3
Modalités projetées sur les axes 2 et 3

Les modalités les plus caractéristiques de ce troisième axe sont les faiblesses techniques : les joueurs les moins techniques sont sur les extrémités de l’axe, et les joueurs les plus techniques au centre. On le confirme sur le graphe des variables supplémentaires : les buteurs et défenseurs centraux sont en effet moins réputés pour leurs capacités techniques, tandis que tous les postes de milieux se retrouvent au centre de l’axe :

sup_axes_2_3
Variables supplémentaires sur les axes 2 et 3 (cliquer pour agrandir)

C’est l’intérêt d’avoir rendu ces variables catégorielles. Si l’on avait conservé le caractère quantitatif des données originelles de Fifa et effectué une ACP, les projections de chaque caractéristique sur chaque axe auraient été ordonnées par niveau, contrairement à ce qui se passe sur l’axe 3. Et après tout, discriminer les joueurs suivant leur niveau technique ne reflète pas forcément toute la richesse du football : à certains postes, on a besoin de techniciens, mais à d’autres, on préférera des qualités physiques !

Mathieu Valbuena

On va maintenant ajouter les données d’un nouvel entrant dans le championnat de France : Mathieu Valbuna (oui je vous avais prévenu, les données commencent à dater un peu :p) et le comparer aux autres joueurs en utilisant notre analyse.

> columns_valbuena <- c("Droit","AID","Ligue1",3,1
 ,4,4,3,4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,4,4,3,3,1,3,2,1,3,4,3,1,1,1)
> champFrance_nogoals["Mathieu Valbuena",] <- columns_valbuena

> acm_valbuena <- MCA(champFrance_nogoals, quali.sup=c(2,3,4), ind.sup=912)
> plot.MCA(acm_valbuena, invisible = c("var","ind"), col.quali.sup = "red", col.ind.sup="darkblue")
> plot.MCA(acm_valbuena, invisible = c("var","ind"), col.quali.sup = "red", col.ind.sup="darkblue", axes=c(2,3))

Les deux dernières lignes permettent de représenter Mathieu Valbuena sur les axes 1 et 2, puis 2 et 3 :

Axes factoriels 1 et 2 avec Mathieu Valbuena en point supplémentaire (cliquer pour agrandir)
Axes factoriels 1 et 2 avec Mathieu Valbuena en point supplémentaire (cliquer pour agrandir)

Axes factoriels 2 et 3 avec Mathieu Valbuena en point supplémentaire (cliquer pour agrandir)
Axes factoriels 2 et 3 avec Mathieu Valbuena en point supplémentaire (cliquer pour agrandir)

Résultat de notre analyse : Mathieu Valbuena a plutôt un profil offensif (gauche de l’axe 1), mais possède un bon niveau général (sa projection sur la deuxième bissectrice est assez élevée). Il possède également de bonnes aptitudes techniques (centre de l’axe 3). Enfin, ses qualités semblent plutôt bien convenir aux postes de milieu offensif (MOC) ou milieu gauche (MG). Avec quelques lignes de code, on peut trouver les joueurs du championnat dont le profil est le plus proche de celui de Valbuena :

> acm_valbuena_distance <- MCA(champFrance_nogoals[,-c(3,4)], quali.sup=c(2), ind.sup=912, ncp = 79)
> distancesValbuena <- as.data.frame(acm_valbuena_distance$ind$coord)
> distancesValbuena[912, ] <- acm_valbuena_distance$ind.sup$coord

> euclidianDistance <- function(x,y) {
 
 return( dist(rbind(x, y)) )
 
}

> distancesValbuena$distance_valbuena <- apply(distancesValbuena, 1, euclidianDistance, y=acm_valbuena_distance$ind.sup$coord)
> distancesValbuena <- distancesValbuena[order(distancesValbuena$distance_valbuena),]

# On regarde les profils des 5 individus les plus proches
> nomsProchesValbuena <- c("Mathieu Valbuena", row.names(distancesValbuena[2:6,]))

Et l’on obtient : Ladislas Douniama, Frédéric Sammaritano, Florian Thauvin, N’Golo Kanté et Wissam Ben Yedder.

Il y aurait plein d’autres choses à dire sur ce jeu de données mais je préfère arrêter là cet article déjà bien long 😉 Pour finir, gardez à l’esprit que cette analyse n’est pas vraiment sérieuse et sert surtout à présenter un exemple sympathique pour la découverte de FactoMineR et de l’ADD.

 

[Sports] On peut rater une flèche aux JO

En cette période de Jeux Olympiques d’été, c’est l’occasion de regarder à la télévision sur des chaînes de grande écoute et à des heures décentes (modulo le décalage horaire !) des sports méconnus du grand public. Nous avons déjà parlé ici du biathlon (en ce qui concerne les JO d’Hiver, qu’on retrouvera en 2018), mais ce billet va parler d’un autre sport : le tir à l’arc. Le but du tir à l’arc est de placer ses flèches sur une cible, assez souvent très éloignée, dans des cercles concentriques qui valent de plus en plus de points au fur et à mesure qu’on se rapproche du centre, de 1 à 10 (voire 0 si l’on rate la cible, ce qui est assez rare aux JO !).

Les règles semblent simples, mais il y a une petite subtilité qui est apparue cette année. En effet, jusqu’à présent les archers tiraient quatre volées de trois flèches chacun, de façon alternée, et on sommait les points obtenus : celui qui avait le meilleur score était qualifié pour la manche suivante. En cas d’égalité, une flèche était tirée pour chaque archer, et le plus proche gagne le match.

Les nouvelles règles mettent en avant la notion de “set” : désormais, chaque volée de trois flèches est considérée de façon indépendante. L’archer qui a un meilleur score que son adversaire à la fin d’un set marque 2 points, et en cas d’égalité au set, les deux marquent 1 point, sachant que le match se joue en 6 points. On joue alors cinq sets, et si personne n’est arrivé à 6 à la fin de ces cinq sets, chacun tire une flèche et la plus proche gagne le match.

Selon les journalistes sportifs de France Télévisions, ces nouvelles règles permettent à un tireur de rattraper un mauvais tir (c’est à dire un tir en dessous du 8, à ce niveau de compétition) plus facilement que lorsque l’on somme la totalité des points, où une flèche ratée pénalise toute la partie. Nous allons à l’aide d’un exemple et de quelques simulations vérifier si cette affirmation est vraie.

Considérons deux archers, Arthur et Bastien. Les deux archers ont un niveau équivalent, mais ils n’ont pas le même profil : Arthur ne met jamais de flèches en dessous de 8, mais tire souvent dans le 8. Bastien, lui, peut rater un tir et toucher un 5 ou un 7, mais arrive plus souvent à toucher la partie jaune de la cible (9 ou 10). Plus précisément, leurs chances pour chaque tir sont les suivantes :

Flèche Arthur Bastien
1 à 4 0 % 0 %
5 0 % 2 %
6 0 % 0 %
7 0 % 1 %
8 50 % 40 %
9 40 % 47 %
10 10 % 10 %

Un rapide calcul permet de constater que pour les deux archers, chaque flèche rapporte en moyenne 8,6 points. Ils ont donc bien un niveau comparable. Nous allons maintenant simuler plusieurs dizaines de milliers de matchs en suivant les deux jeux de règles possibles afin de déterminer qui gagne, et si Bastien est bien favorisé par les nouvelles règles. Les résultats obtenus sont les suivants :

Règles Arthur gagne… Bastien gagne…
Somme totale 48,2 % des matchs 51,8 % des matchs
Jeu par sets 44,2 % des matchs 55,9 % des matchs

Cela se confirme donc bien : les nouvelles règles favorisent Bastien, qui rate de temps en temps son tir, et permettent donc plus facilement de revenir dans le match après une flèche ratée. Cela permet également un suspens plus important, car rien n’est jamais joué d’avance !

[Sports] What the splines model for UEFA Euro 2016 got right and wrong

UEFA Euro 2016 is over! After France’s heartbreaking loss to Portugal in the Final, it’s now time to assess the performance of our “splines model“. On the main page of the project you can now find the initial predictions we made before the start on our competition. I also added a link to the archives of the odds we updated after each day (EDIT: I realize I made a mistake with a match that was played on Day 2, I’ll correct this asap – results should not be altered much though.)

screenshot Euro 2016
Screenshot predictions Euro 2016

What went well (Portugal, Hungary, Sweden)

Let’s begin with our new European champions: Portugal. They were our 5th favorite, with an estimated 8.3% chance of winning the title. To everyone’s surprise (including ours to be honest 😉 ), they finished 3rd in group F. However, the odds of this happening were estimated at 20%, so we can hardly say the splines model was completely stunned by this outcome! In fact, except for the initial draw against Iceland, we had all calls correct for Portugal games!

Hungary were described by some as the weakest team of the tournament, so by extension as the weakest team of group F. But they won it! Our model didn’t agree with those pundits, estimating the chances of advancing to the second round for Gábor Király‘s teammates at almost 3 out of 4.

Sweden certainly had one of the best players in the world with Zlatan Ibrahimovic. But our model was never a fan of their squad, and they did end up at the last place in group E. Similarly, Ukraine was often referred to as a potential second-rounder but ended up at the last place (losing all their games), which was the most likely outcome according to the splines model.

What went wrong (Iceland, Austria, England)

Austria were seen by the splines model as outsiders for this competition (4.7% of becoming champs – for instance, Italy’s chances were estimated at 4.2%). We evaluated their chances of advancing to the second round to be greater than 70%. They ended up at the last place of Group F with a single point.

On the contrary, Iceland were seen as one of the weakest teams of the competition and a clear favorite for last place in Group F. Eventually, they were astonishingly successful! On their way to the quarter-finals, they eliminated England. Our model gave England a good 85% probability to win the match. But, surprising as it was, this alone does not prove our model was not reliable (more on upsets on the next paragraph). Yet we can’t consider the projections for the Three Lions other than a failure, because they also ended up second in group B when we thought they would easily win the group.

Spain lost in round of 16 to Italy and in the group phase to Croatia. The estimated probabilities for these events were 40% and 16%.

Hard to say

We almsot included Turkey in the previous paragraph: after all, we gave them the same chances as Italy for winning the tournament, and we estimated their odds of advancing to the round of 16 to more than 70%, yet they failed. In addition, their level was described by experts as rather poor. But paradoxically, the splines model had all calls correct for Turkey games! What doomed them was the 3-0 loss against the defending champions, Spain. With a final goal average of -2 and 3 points, they couldn’t reach the second round as one of the four best thirds.

Wales unexpectedly beat Belgium, one of our favorites, in quarter-finals. But is this a sign of a bad model or bad luck? Upsets happen, and they’re not necessarily a sign that a team’s strength was incorrectly estimated.

Home field advantage

Our model stood out from others (examples here, here or here) on predictions for France. As a matter of fact, it valued much less home field advantage than the other models. But France didn’t win the Euro! Similarly, nearly all models predicted a Brazil victory in World Cup 2014, mostly because of home field advantage… and we all know what happened!

To us, it is unclear whether home field advantage during Euro or the World Cup can compare to home field advantage for a friendly match or a qualifier. I hope someone studies this particular point in the future!

Conclusion

We had a lot of fun building this model and it helped us enjoy the competition! I hope you guys enjoyed it too!

[Sports] L’adversaire des bleus en 8èmes

Après la première place du groupe acquise par l’équipe de France, Baptiste Desprez de Sport24 se demandait aujourd’hui quel est l’adversaire le plus probable pour les Bleus en huitièmes.

Ça tombe bien, on dispose d’un modèle capable de calculer des probabilités pour les matches de l’Euro. Je vous laisse lire l’article de Sport24 si vous voulez comprendre toutes les subtilités concoctées par l’UEFA pour ce premier Euro à 24. Nous, on va se contenter de faire tourner le modèle pour obtenir les probabilités. On obtient (avec arrondis) :

Irlande du Nord : 72% ; République d’Irlande : 14% ; Allemagne : 8% ; Belgique : 4% ; Pologne : 2%

probas_huitiemes

Voilà, il est extrêmement probable que le prochain adversaire de l’équipe de France se nomme “Irlande” 🙂 . Curieusement, la probabilité de rencontrer l’Allemagne est bien plus forte que de rencontrer la Pologne, alors même que le modèle donne une forte probabilité pour que l’Allemagne termine première de son groupe devant la Pologne… C’est complexe un tableau de l’Euro ! On va quand même croiser les doigts pour ne pas croiser la route de Müller et cie aussi tôt dans le tableau !

Il est également amusant de constater que, bien que ce soit possible, un huitième contre une équipe du groupe D (Tchéquie, Turquie ou Croatie) est hautement improbable (<0.2% de chances d’après les simulations). Il semblerait que les configurations permettant à ces équipes de se qualifier en tant que meilleurs troisièmes sont incompatibles avec les configurations les envoyant en huitième contre la France. Si un opérateur vous proposait ce pari, je ne saurais trop vous conseiller de l’éviter 😉

[Sports] UEFA Euro 2016 Predictions – Model

Today we’re launching our own predictions for UEFA Euro 2016 that starts next week.

A model for football: state of the art

There are many ways to build a model to predict football results. The Elo ranking system is commonly used. As it name indicates, it relies on a ranking of the international football teams, either the official FIFA ratings (which are widely known as poorly predictive of a team’s strength) or a custom made Elo ranking. A few Elo rankings are available on the Internet, so one possibility was to use one of these to compute probabilities for each game (via a very simple analytical formula). But we wanted to do something different.

When FiveThirtyEight created a nice viz of their own showing odds for the men’s and women’s world cups, their model was based on ESPN’s Soccer Power Index (SPI). The principle of the SPI is quite simple: compute expected scored and against goals for each team under the assumption it plays against an “average” football squad. Then run a logistic regression to predict the outcome of any two teams, based on their expected performance against the “average” team. SPI takes an impressive amount of relevant parameters into account (including player performance), and has generally proven itself reliable (although FiveThirtyEight’s predictions always seemed a tad overconfident to me!).

Our very own model

For our model, we liked the principle of the SPI very much, but we wanted to try our own little variation. So we kept the core feature of the SPI: computing the expected goals scored and against for each team, but we chose to directly plug these results into our simulations (i.e without the logistic regression). Of course, due to lack of time and resources, our model will be way less sophisticated than ESPN’s (there was no way we could include player performance for example), but still the results might be worth analyzing!

So, for each one of the 24 teams competing, we’re trying to predict the quantitative variable that is the number of goals scored (and against) for each game. Of course, we’re going to use all our knowledge of machine learning to achieve this 😉 Our training data is composed of the 1795 international games played by the 24 teams that qualified for UEFA Euro 2016 between 2008 and 2016 (excluding the Olympics, which are too peculiar in football to be relevant).

We dispose of 1795 observations, for each of which we know: the location of the game, the teams that played, the final score and the type of the game (friendly, world cup qualifier, etc.). We matched each team to its Fifa ranking at the closest date available, and determine which team had home court advantage (if any).

Then we ran the simplest of regression models: a linear regression on year, team (as a categorical variable), dummy variable indicating if team plays at home or away, type of match and FIFA rankings of both teams. Before even thinking of using this model for simulations, we have to look at how it performs. And a lot of think indicates that it is too unsophisticated. The most telling example might be the prediction of large number of goals. Let’s plot the number of goals scored vs. the FIFA ranking of the opposing team.

linear_model
Number of goals scored with respect to strength of the opponent. Black points: observed ; red points: modeled (linear regression).

You can see on the right side of the plot that it’s not that rare that a large number of goals is scored, especially when playing a very weak team. However, the linear model is unable to predict more than 4 goals scored in a game. This can be a huge problem for simulations as ties are broken by number of goals scored at Euro.

The idea is thus to combine several linear models to get a more sensible prediction. This can be done using regression splines, for which the parameters are chosen using cross-validation.

model_splines_2
Number of goals scored with respect to strength of the opponent. Black points: observed ; green points: modeled (regression splines).

On number of ways, this model is much more satisfying than the first one. Regarding the large values of number of goals scored, the above plots show that our model is now able to predict them 🙂

Simulations and results

Our model gives us expected values for number of goals scored and against, as well as a model variance. We then simulate the number of goals with normal error around the expected value. We do this 10000 times for each match and finally get Monte-Carlo probabilities for the outcome of each group phase match, as well as odds for each team to end at each place in its group and to qualify to each round of the knockout phase.

The results can be found here, and I will post another article later to comment them (which really is the fun part after all!).

[Sports] Don’t miss a shot in biathlon races

Today, I want to speak about my favorite sport to watch on TV, which is biathlon (the one which involves skiing and shooting at things. Who doesn’t love that?). I really enjoy to follow the races, and not only because the best athlete at this moment is a french one (go Martin!), but because the shooting part seems so crucial and stressful. This leads me to wonder about how much missing a shot is relevant for the ranking in the end of the race. Let’s find out!

Shoot

Gathering some data

My idea is to do some basic analysis on data about the results of many biathlon races, in order to evaluate if there is some form of correlation between the final ranking and the number of shot missed. This requires to first gather the data. The results are stored on multiple sites: obviously Wikipedia pages of the championships, but this website is much more detailed. I’m going to use some of the results between 2007 and 2015. I won’t use all of the races because I want to have comparable results: I’m going to only consider the races where the number of competitors is between 50 and 60. This allows me to interpret the results about final ranking with a similar scaling system for all the races. Moreover, the specificity of biathlon is that the rules are very different from a format to another (see this Wikipedia article for more informations), and I can’t easily discriminate my data between them. Using a limitation on the number of participants is a way to limit the width of the spectrum of formats considered. Well, let’s forget these technicalities and analyse the data!

Don’t miss a shot!

So, the idea is to put in regard the number of shots missed and the final ranking. Fun fact: the number of shot during a race is 20, but the maximum number of shot missed during a race I analysed is only 9. That’s not really a surprise if you frequently watch biathlon, because missing that much shots usually means that you’re going to finish in last place. I’m going to use a heat map in order to show the correlation. An heat map is a form of 2D data vizualisation which is based on a spectrum of colors. Thedarker the color is, the more important the value is. The idea here is to put in rows the final ranking, and in columns the number of shots missed. Here is what we obtain:

Miss a shot

There results directly show that:

  • There is a clear diagonal on the heat map. This isn’t really surprising: that means that everytime an athlete misses a shot, his final ranking goes lower. This is our first result: missing shot are penalties. What a surprise!
  • There is also a very dark blue area in the first column, at the top of the diagram. This means that most of the time, doing a clear round leads to a very good ranking in the end.
  • But it is clearly possible to win a race while missing some shots! The first row is filled with dark blue in the first few columns.

Don’t miss a prone shot!

As you may know, there is two different types of shooting during a biathlon race: the prone shot, where the athletes are lying on the floor; this position helps them to stabilise their aim. The other type is the standing shot, which is much more difficult. Therefore, it might be interesting to deal with the two phases of shooting separately. Let’s start with the prone shot, as this is usually the first phase of shooting during a race.

Prone shot

We see the same pattern as the total of shots. The top of the first column is much darker than before: this is because of two things. First, it is usual that a lot of athletes don’t miss a shot during the prone shot phase. And that means that missing a prone shot is much more a sign of a bad shooting, which leads to a bad ranking at the end. This point is very important: we’re not evaluating results in a vacuum: and missing a shot usually means that the athlete is in a bad shape compared to the others, and therefore has a bad ranking. But this also means that missing a shot during the first phase raise the odds of missing shots during the other phases.

Let’s have a look at the heat map for the standing shots.

Standing shot

As expected (because the initial one is the combinaison of these two heatmap), we’ve a much more dispersed heat map. Missing a standing shot is something that happens to pretty much everyone, even the best athletes.

Is the starting order relevant?

I add to the analysis a last factor: the starting order, which is linked to the expectation of results of the athlete (based on a global ranking, or on the results of another race). The heat map showing the correspondances bewteen the final ranking (still in rows) and the starting order (in columns) shows a clear diagonal line: the expectation seems relevant.

Starting order

In order to do a much more indepth analysis, I’m going to perform a linear regression on these variables. I want to know if the final ranking is explained by the initial order, the number of prone shots missed and the number of standing shots missed. This linear regression will also help me to evaluate how big of an impact these three variables have on the final outcome. Let’s have a look at the results:

Call:
lm(formula = ranking ~ prone shots  + standing shots + starting order)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-60.625  -8.483  -0.101   9.268  45.295 

Coefficients:
                  Estimate  Std. Error  t value   Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)       5.816571   0.212517   27.37

The three variables of the model are statistically significant, which means that they do have a relation with the final ranking. Understanding the coefficient for the Starting Order is kind of tough, but the two other coefficients are much more easier to analyse:

  • When you miss a prone shot, you lose about 5 places at the end of the race
  • When you miss a standing shot, you lose about 1 place at the end of the race

Obviously, these results are only valid on average. But this is kind of a fun way to comment biathlon shootings! “Oh, you just lost 10 places!”.

[Sports] Best/Worst NBA matchups ever

Earlier this month, the Philadelphia 76ers grabbed their first (and for now, only) win of the season by beating the Lakers. That night, checking for the menu on the NBA League Pass, I quickly elected not to watch this pretty unappealing matchup. Though I couldn’t help thinking that it is a shame for franchises that have both won NBA titles and see legends of the game wear their jerseys. During many seasons, a Lakers-Sixers game meant fun, excitement and most important of all excellent basketball. And I started wondering what were the best and worst matchups throughout NBA history.

Data and model

My criterion to evaluate these matchups will be the mean level of the two teams during each season. In fact, by “good” matchup I mean a game that feature two excellent ball clubs, making it an evening every NBA fan awaits impatiently as soon as the season calendar is made available. On the contrary, a “bad” matchup is a game whose only stake will be to determine draft pick orders. My criterion does not predict the actual interest of watching these games: a confrontation between two top teams might very well be pretty boring if the star players are having a bad night (or if the coach decides to bench them). Also, a contest between two mediocre teams might very well finally be a three-OT thriller with players showing excellent basketball skills. In fact, my criterion only holds from an historical perspective (or in the very unlikely case that you have to choose between the replay of several games without knowing when these games were played 🙂 ).

The level of each team is estimated using the excellent FiveThirtyEight NBA Elo rankings. Then, to rank the 435 possible matchups between the 30 NBA franchises, I will average the mean level of every two teams for all years between 1977 and 2015 (I chose to limit the analysis to after the NBA-ABA merger of 1976 so as to avoid dealing with defunct franchises). You can found the R codes I used on my GitHub page.

The best matchups

Of course, our method values regularity, so it’s no surprise we find at the top matchups between the teams that have been able to maintain a high level of competitivity throughout the years. In fact, the best matchup ever is “Lakers – Spurs”, two teams that have missed the playoffs only respectively 5 and 4 years since the 1976-1977 season! “Celtics – Lakers” comes in 6th: basketball fans won’t be suprised to find this legendary rivalry ranked up high. It might even have been higher if I had taken seasons prior to the merger into account. The first 10 matchups are:

1. “Lakers – Spurs”
2. “Lakers – Suns”
3. “Lakers – Trailblazers”
4. “Lakers – Thunder”
5. “Suns – Spurs”
6. “Celtics – Lakers”
7. “Spurs – Trailblazers”
8. “Spurs – Thunder”
9. “Rockets – Lakers”
10. “Spurs – Heat”

The worst matchups

The worst matchup ever is “Timberwolves vs. Hornets”. Thinking about the last few years, I have to admit that these games were clearly not among my favorites. Poor Michael Jordan’s Hornets trust the last 7 places on the ranking, thanks to the inglorious Bobcats run.

Among the most infamous matchups ever are:

425. “Clippers – Timberwolves”
426. “Clippers – Nets”
427. “Raptors – Hornets”
428. “Wizards – Timberwolves”
…
434. “Kings – Hornets”
435. “Timberwolves – Hornets”

I really hope the owners of these franchises are able to turn the tide and put their teams back up in the rankings soon!