MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213220878 · doi:10.5750/jpm.v15i3.1963

Who are the most important players in team sports

2021· article· en· W3213220878 on OpenAlexaff
William T. Ziemba, Leonard C. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Prediction Markets · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballFootballFootball playersAdvertisingAmerican footballTeam sportPsychologyApplied psychologyBusinessAthletesPolitical sciencePhysical therapyMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a statistical model using box scores from games as data to develop a theory to determine which players are the most important to success in team sports. We apply this to NBA basketball, NFL football and NHL hockey. The results show that the most important players for team success are not necessarily the most outstanding players. Moreover, its generally much more successful to have several good players rather than a single outstanding player. In NBA basketball, NFL football, and NHL hockey defensive players often stand out. The results are useful for good team construction, game strategy and recruiting of players.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Prediction MarketsSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207