For those with a fever and the only cure is MORE BJ~!!!
Posts Tagged ‘btn’
BJ Penn MMA Career BTN – Followup
Saturday, November 28th, 2009Brock Lesnar MMA Career BTN
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Brock Lesnar is one of the most polarizing fighters in the history of Mixed Martial Arts. It seems almost everyone either loves him or hates him. What makes Brock’s case so interesting (frustrating?) is that many don’t seem to care what he actually does in the ring. Some people have hated/hugged him since before he had his first fight and they show no signs of budging from their current stance.
My goal with this rant is to hopefully provide some information that might otherwise go overlooked. If you hate Brock, then I’m sure you’ll find information here that further proves he sucks. If you love Brock, then I’m sure you’ll find information below that helps explain how he’s already better than Zeus. Really though, this rant is for those that fall somewhere between hater and hugger. For those people that want to take an honest look at what he’s done thus far, and how it compares to others.
BJ Penn BTN
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009Without question the most argued over fighter I’ve encountered during the history of this site is BJ Penn. There are some that feel he’s #1 and some that don’t think he’s top 10. Some that think he’s p4p king and some that think he’s a joke.
Given how often the topic comes up; I felt it might be useful to have some of the more common issues/facts available in one handy-dandy place. So let’s get started…
Pre-nup
Oh wait, before we get started there are a few things that need to be made clear. I (Evil Pooh) don’t personally give a rat’s ass what you think of BJ Penn. My intention with this rant is *NOT* to make you love him, not to make you hate him, not to make you buy Apple stock so I turn more of a profit. Nay~!!! My one and only goal here is to attempt to provide clear information that some may choose to use in making their decision about where they stand on the issue.
If you find yourself to be someone who doesn’t enjoy facts, decisions, logic, reading, thinking, and/or statistics then please just leave now. Seriously, go. You don’t “have” to read this. The last thing I need is someone skimming every 10th line to find a few words they can complain about while having no clue at all what the bigger picture is.
Having said that I think it is also important to note that what follows is in no particular order. I’m going to number some points in an attempt to avoid repeating myself and to make referencing a bit easier, “Nah dude, check what EP dropped last Wendz at ELO bout mah boi BJ, Numero Dos, Fer shiz” (feel free to adjust phrasing based upon target audience).
1) Achievement Vs. Ability
This needs to be its own rant, but I never get around to finalizing it. Despite what readers might think I actually do proofread these things. (scary I know). Anyway, the point here is that this site and sports in general are more about achievement than ability.
Ability is a great thing, it’s potential, it’s possibility, but at some point ability loses out to achievement. Sure it’s great that someone “might” do something great, but at some point it’s more about who actually did do something great.
If you want to talk, “coulda”, “shoulda”, “woulda” then again, I’m afraid you are in the wrong place.
2) First American…
One of the very first things people often mention about BJ Penn is that he is the first American to win the BJJ Championship. For some this is a very important point and adds to the “plus” column for those explaining BJ Penn’s greatness.
The thing many need to realize is that the statement usually places too much emphasis on “American” and not on the achievement that follows. What I mean by this is that BJ Penn wasn’t the “First” to do anything, he was the “First *AMERICAN*” to do something. Go ahead and remove “First American” and you see that BJ Penn won the BJJ Championship. That’s an accomplishment, no doubt. Does it sound like as big a deal though?
See the issue with “First American” is that it skews what happened. People in France don’t care that BJ Penn was the “First American” to do anything. People in Korea could care less. What should receive the emphasis is the feat that was achieved and *NOT* the nationality of the person doing it.
Think about it like this, have you ever heard anyone utter the phrase, “Michael Phelps is the ‘First American’ to win 8 gold medals at one olympics”? Ever? Nope, me neither, what I hear is “Michael Phelps is the first *PERSON* to win 8 gold medals at one olympics.” Sometimes it’s even phrased as, “Michael Phelps is the *ONLY* person to ever win 8 gold medals at one olympics.”
Do you see the difference between the two? People aren’t talking about what BJ Penn did, they are talking about who he is. If you are a strongly patriotic person then “First American” will no doubt stir up some emotion/pride/whatever, but should someone’s greatness hinge on the country they are from? Do people want to hear arguements that Hanz Gruber is the best baseball player of all time because he is the “First German” to hit over 500 home runs in MLB?
3)Activity
Since we looked at one of the points used to support BJ Penn, lets now look at one of the points used againist him. Activity in sports is one of those things that’s a bit hard to really gauge. Some athletes have amazing careers, but they get cut short. Some have a couple great years, but never can sustain that greatness. Whatever the case maybe it’s safe to say that for most fans activity (and usually consistency) are important factors in gauging overall ‘greatness’.
When we look at BJ Penn’s career we see:
2001/05/04 – First Fight
2009/01/31 – Last Fight
2009/03/18 – Today
Since BJ doesn’t have a fight scheduled within the next 2 months I’m just going to round up and say that BJ Penn has fought for 8 years. An “average” MMA fighter competes about three times a year. The math on that is somewhere on this site and if only I’d added cool numbers I could easily reference that. Shame on me, anyway, back to the math…
8 Years *TIMES* 3 Fights per year = 24 Fights.
Given an “average” rate of competition BJ Penn should have fought about 24 times at this point in his career. The actual number of times he’s fought is 19. That’s 13 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw.
19 *DIVIDED BY* 24 ~79.2% (I rounded up to further assuage any fears I’m Penn bashing)
As you can see BJ Penn simply hasn’t competed nearly as much as many would expect. For those maybe wanting a point or two of comparison here are a few other people BJ Penn is often compared to:
Fedor – 30/27 ~111% (I rounded down and that assumes no more fights before 2009/08/16 *AND* ignores the NC against Nog)
Spider – 27/27 ~100% (That assumes he doesn’t fight again before the 27th of May)
GSP – 20/21 ~95% (Going from 2002/01/25 to 2009/01/31 would technically be extra month and change between the 31st of January and today).
As you can see, the 3 fights a year holds pretty steady, yet BJ hasn’t even had 80% of the fights that he should given the length of his career.
Also note that the last year where BJ actually fought three times was 2004…He fought twice in 08, once in 07, twice in 06 and twice in 05.
Although activity is only one measure of achievement, for MMA it goes a bit deeper than that. People using this fact against BJ like to note that by not fighting as much BJ avoided a lot of strain on his body. He didn’t have to train as much, he didn’t risk injury nearly as much, etc.
4) Strength of Schedule
In response to those that argue BJ Penn hasn’t fought very much (See point 3 above) people often point out the strength of schedule that BJ has faced. You can find a pretty in-depth explanation of strength of schedule *HERE*.
Basically what strength of schedule does is give us a way to measure the level of competition BJ Penn has faced. People touting BJ Penn’s greatness like to point out that despite having relatively few fights (See point 3 above) those fights have been against very difficult opponents.
Taking a look at All-time Strength of Schedule we see that BJ Penn currently ranks #2. This shows that indeed BJ Penn has fought a lot of high ranked opponents and wasn’t simply bashing on cans.
In anticipation of the Anti-BJ Penn crowd, and to save another bullet point I’m going to mention here that BJ actually lost most of his matches against highly rated opponents. BJ Penn’s overall strength of schedule is about 1848, but the strength of schedule for opponents he actually beat is only about 1802. 1802 is still very good, but some would rightly point out that his overall strength of schedule is inflated by having lost to GSP twice and Matt Hughes (whom he also beat once).
5) Double Standards
There are several times where one standard is applied “for” BJ Penn and then later applied “against” other people. One of the issues some people have with this site is that it’s coldly logical. If you take Fighter A’s career and swap it with Fighter B’s, guess what happens? Yup, their ratings/rankings swap too. Sadly, this isn’t how it works for some people.
As a quick example, take a look at *THIS*.
What we see is a fighter comparison between BJ Penn and GSP. Now I need you to follow me *VERY* closely on this one. Right now when comparing BJ Penn to GSP we see that:
GSP:
More wins
Fewer Losses
More (t)KOs
Higher (t)KO%
Equal Subs
With those facts in mind (and the rest from the page I linked) there are some people that will say BJ Penn is greater than GSP. (Don’t freak out, I’m not even to the point yet)
They will ignore the win difference, they will ignore 250% more losses in fewer fights, they will ignore 2-1 vs Matt Hughes instead of 1-1, etc. They will ignore all of that and declare BJ Penn should be ranked higher.
Now, knowing that, if we *switched* the names at the top of that page so that BJ Penn: Had more wins, had fewer losses, had more (t)Kos, had a higher (t)Ko%, etc. Those same people would…wait for it……….*WAIT FOR IT~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Still say BJ Penn should be ranked higher than GSP
I know that might sound silly, but it’s true. On this site switching what fighters actually did would flip-flop where they stand, that’s because we don’t care about names, we care about results. Much like point #2 though (with a bit of point #1 thrown in), BJ Penn for some has become more about the name, than about what it represents. If GSP lost to Matt Hughes people would say GSP should drop. BJ loses to Matt Hughes and BJ is still Number 1. BJ loses to GSP, he’s still number one.
BJ Penn at one point dropped 2 fights in a row and 3 of his last 4 and people *STILL* wanted him to be ranked #1. As it stands right now Matt Hughes has dropped 3 of his last 4 and people don’t even want him in the top 10. *boggles*
Take a second to look at Dan Henderson. Dan actually held two belts in two weight classes at the same time, and yet when he dropped two fights in a row (to Rampage and Anderson Silva) some claimed he was a washed up has been and no longer top 10.
What about Cro Cop. After winning 5 in a row (something BJ Penn has *NEVER* done) cro cop lost 2 in a row. Immediately people wanted him out of the top 10, were calling him a can, were questioning some of his previous opponents, etc.
Maybe these fighters fell off, maybe they had a rough spot, but why is it ok to bash certain fighters for losing two whole fights in a row and then turn around and bash people that question BJ Penn for dropping 3 out of 4? That is just one example of the double standards used in the “BJ Penn Debate”.
5.0.1)Weight
I decided to throw in an extra number to break up the rant a bit. Here is another area where a double standard is often applied to BJ Penn. When people talk about BJ Penn’s greatness they *ALWAYS* talk about his wins over heavier opponents. Part of BJ’s mystique and the reason why he gets so much p4p talk is because he’s moved up in weight class.
We’ve all heard that BJ Penn beat Matt Hughes at 170. We’ve heard about his fights at 185 against Renzo (more on that later). Clearly some find that winning against a heavier fighter is a bigger accomplishment. My place here isn’t to judge, simply to point it out and then try to carry that logic forward.
The question this begs is, why does BJ get so much credit “beating” heavier guys, and no one mentions his fights against lighter fighters?
Jens Pulver is a 145lb fighter. Before his rematch with BJ Penn he even said win or lose he was going back down to 145lbs. This is where things get a bit confusing because if BJ Penn gets more credit for fighting heavier guys, why doesn’t he get less credit for fighting lighter guys?
Some don’t want to give GSP credit for beating BJ because the fight was at 170lbs, but BJ took the fight, he showed up and he lost. By that same token Jens took the fight at 155, showed up and beat BJ, then took another fight, showed up and lost. Why is it GSP gets no credit for beating a “lighter” fighter, but BJ Penn gets credit for not only beating a lighter fighter, but “avenging a loss” to a lighter fighter?
This is the double standard that confuses some people. If you believe that beating a “heavier” fighter is important and grants additional “greatness”, then why isn’t that standard applied across the board? Again, to make this clear, I take no stance on the “great weight debate” (that’s the topic for a different rant at a different time), but if you are someone that does place value in it, then value should be placed across the board, not in select circumstances.
5.0.2)Renzo Gracie
This is nothing against Renzo Gracie as a fighter, but it’s another “information” point that gets lost at times. Many people will mention BJ Penn beating Renzo Gracie and it seems as though this is another point where the name carries more weight than what it represents.
Again I want it mentioned that all I’m doing here is trying to point out facts and flush out some of the arguments I’ve heard on both sides of this argument. Here is some additional information about Renzo Gracie at the time of his fight with BJ Penn.
- Renzo hadn’t fought in almost 2 years leading up to the BJ Penn fight
- Renzo hadn’t *WON* in over 3 and a half years before the BJ Penn fight
- Renzo had lost 2 in a row going into the BJ Penn fight
- Renzo had lost 5 of his last 6 going into the BJ Penn fight
Now maybe this information doesn’t mean anything to some. That’s ok. It is true though and things like the above are facts that need to be understood by all regardless of which side they find themselves on.
6)#1 Lightweight
One argument I’ve heard a bit more of late is that BJ Penn is #1 at lightweight. They aren’t talking about his welterweight losses to GSP, or his Middleweight victories. What they contend is that BJ Penn is #1 at lightweight based purely upon his performance at lightweight. Let’s consider that a bit more…
If you remove BJ Penn’s fights above lightweight you do a few things:
- Remove 4 of his 5 losses
- Remove 4 of his 13 wins
- Remove 40% of his submission victories
- Drastically reduce his Strength of Schedule
- Drastically reduce his activity level
Looking only at lightweight fights BJ Penn is 9-1-1 in basically 8 years of competition. That’s not a bad record, but people need to ask themselves how it compares to some of the other lightweights out there. Be sure to keep point #5 in mind and realize that if you put BJ higher than someone with his 9-1-1 record you have to also be willing to say that if the situation were reversed and BJ were 20-3 (or whatever) and someone else were 9-1-1 that BJ would be ranked lower.
Fin?
Believe it or not there are many other points I didn’t get to discuss here. If there is any information I have wrong or simply mistyped please let me know. Please also let me know any additional arguments on either side that you would like to see included.
BTN: System Accuracy
Wednesday, December 24th, 2008Unlike my last few relationship I’m going to start this rant by being painfully honest. This rant contains math. There I said it, but now that we know, lets try to work through this together.
I’ve tried to provide examples and keep the math simple. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and I’ll attempt to explain further. Even for those that hate math I’d suggest trying to read through it a time or two.
With the disclaimer out of the way, lets move on. The point of this rant is to examine how best to measure and represent system accuracy. I’m going to go over three methods that have been suggested and show how the current system model on the site measures up. There will also be a brief(ish) discussion of what I perceive the pros and cons to be with each approach. Feedback here is much appreciated as I’d like this metric to be something people could quickly use to weigh one system against another.
Method 1: Heads I win, Tails you lose
The first approach is the most basic. It looks at every fight and measures how many fights the higher rated fighter won. It then divides that number by the total number of fights.
Example
Assume there were only 10 fights, and the higher rated fighter won 4 of them, then the result would be 40%. That is to say that the system was correct 40% of the time.
The good, the bad, and the ugly
PROS: One of the upsides of this approach is that the number is very easy to understand. It’s very easy for someone to look at past picks and understand they got 2 out 5 right. Another benefit is that this number is easily compared to other systems.
CONS: The biggest downside to this metric is that it deviates from the entire basis of the site. When talking about sports almost nothing is ever 100%. One of the major benefits of the site is that it is able to recognize that even though one fighter is rated higher that doesn’t guarantee victory or even proclaim vast superiority(such proclamations should be left to the fans and the fighter’s mom).
Another potential drawback is that every single fight is counted.
Thoughts: Although I like the simplicity of the number and how portable it is, I don’t like how it fails to utilize the site’s expected win percentage model. Additionally, I think if an approach like this were to be used it might make sense to specify additional parameters(ex. minimum number of fights).
Site result: 65%
Method 2: Fighter history
The way this approach works is by going fighter by fighter looking at every fight they had past their sixth fight where their opponent also had at least six fights previously. For each of those fights I calculate their expected number of wins, and total their actual number of wins.
The absolute value of the difference between expected wins and actual wins is then accumulated across all fighters and this number is ultimately divided by the total number of fights.
Example
Lets look at a two fighter example to get a better idea of how this works:
Fighter A
Total fights = 2
Expected wins = 1
Actual wins = 1
Absolute difference = 0
Fighter B
Total fights = 4
Expected wins = 3
Actual wins = 2
Absolute difference = 1
In this case our total absolute difference is 1 and our total number of fights is 6. From here we can divide the total absolute difference by the total number fights to get a percentage of incorrect outcomes across all fights.
1 / 6 ~ 0.167
We can then subtract that number from 1 to get a percentage correct for the system:
1 – 0.167 = 0.833 ~ 83%
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: The Quickening
PROS: Unlike the previous approach this method factors in the expected win percentage. Which is good because there is a lot of value in the expected win percentage and not just for looking at “pot odds” when placing a bet on a given fight.
CONS: The approach used in this method is definitely more complicated than the first. There is also the possibility that this number doesn’t represent a useful metric for people.
Thoughts: Overall I like this approach better than the first method. It factors in the expected win percentage and is an overall deeper number. There’s no doubt that it would be misinterpreted at a glance by some, but I’m willing to put in the time so that anyone truly interested would be able to understand it.
Basically this number helps give us an idea of the average fighter’s actual performance compared to their expected performance. I’m not sure how useful a measure that is though, so feedback is definitely welcomed on this method.
Site result: 86%.
Method 3: Slice of Life
The final suggested method is an extension of the rant I did a little while ago. How it works is by slicing all fights up into smaller pools of fights based upon the difference in rating between the two fighters. From there it looks at the actual percentage of fights won by the favorite versus the expected percentage of fights that would be won.
In order to get an overall picture of the system on a per fight basis we multiply the number of fights in a given slice, by the absolute difference, accumulate that value across all slices and then divide by the total number of fights from all slices.
I know that might sound complicated, but if I wrote it as a formula with sigmas and stuff you’d hate me even more. Even if the math sounds like gibberish please try to picture what it represents in real world terms. What this method boils down to is showing how close to the expected win percentage various rating slices actually come.
Example
Consider two very broad slices:
1-300 Rating difference:
Total fights = 10
Expected win percentage 65%
Actual Win Percentage 70%
Absolute Difference = 5%
301-600 Rating difference:
Total Fights = 5
Expected win percentage = 85%
Actual win percentage = 70%
Absolute difference = 15%
We then take ((5 * 10) + (15 * 5)) / (5 + 10) ~ 8.33%
That’s means that on average the above system would be off by about 8.33% or put another way it’s about 91.67% accurate in terms of expected win percentage based upon rating versus the actual win percentage.
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and The Crystal Skull
PROS: The stat focuses in on the expected win percentage approach. It allows one to quickly see how real life results are measuring up against predicted outcomes. This number helps give an idea of the overall accuracy of the system when it says Fighter A is expected to win 65% of the time versus Fighter B.
CONS + Thoughts: At first I was going to say that it’s more of a system stat than a user stat, but that’s pretty much what we are looking for here. What we want is a way for a user to gauge how accurate the other numbers they are seeing are. It’s great to claim that Fighter A will win 45% of the time, but if in actuality the expected win percentages are off by 40% then the value of the original expected win percentage number is greatly deflated.
Site result: 97%
some words Just random
Whenever you deal with stats it’s important to know exactly what the number you are looking at represents and whether that number is remotely relevant to what you are doing.
For a lot of people all they will care about is method 1. Sadly, that wastes a lot of the systems value. There is a world of difference between a 1601 rated fighter taking on a 1600 rated fighter and a 1950 rated fighter taking on a 1700 rated fighter. To simply say A > B (even if by the slimtest of margins) portents guranteed victory is a mistake.
Being the numbers geek that I am, method 3 is the most interesting to me. It’s a number that helps clarify the validity of other numbers. It’s interesting to see how close (on average) to expected results the system is actually coming. This also provides a degree of cushion when weighing expected win percentage between two fighters of various ratings.
If there are any methods I missed or any additional parameters you would like to see applied to any of the methods, please let me know. I’d really like to reach a bit of a consensus on this in the near future as it will prove useful with a couple future features/rants.
BTN: Weight and Decisions
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008BTN (By The Numbers) is a series of posts I have planned that explore various stats in MMA. As the title says the purpose of this episode is to explore the (potential) correlation between weight and decisions in MMA.
Due to data limitations weight was determined by looking at the current weight for both fighters. If both fighters currently weigh the same, then that is the “bucket” the fight result was put into. If both fighters are not currently the same weight, then the fight was ignored. Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, but even with this criteria the smallest bucket is still over 1200 fights.
Results
| Weight | (t)ko | Sub | Dec | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 131-146 | 21% | 32% | 37% | 10% |
| 147-156 | 23% | 35% | 35% | 7% |
| 157-171 | 26% | 38% | 28% | 8% |
| 172-186 | 30% | 34% | 28% | 8% |
| 187-206 | 35% | 33% | 26% | 6% |
| 207-266 | 40% | 40% | 16% | 4% |
Conclusions
1) As fighter weight increases the overall percentage of fights that end in (t)ko increases.
2) As fighter weight increases the overall percentage of fights that go to decision decreases.
That is probably what most people would expect. What they might be a bit surprised to see is the submission percentage across all weight classes. Keep in mind that a “sub” due to strikes is still considered a sub. There are also fights where a sub is sunk in after a large(ish) amount of striking has softened up the other fighter. *shrugs*
Individual Results
Since we now have a rough idea how results breakdown between the various weight classes lets take a look at some non-HWs with lots of ko’s and some HW that go the distance a lot.
The criteria used here is the outcome of fights won by the fighter. A fighter having a propensity for getting KO’d might increase the likelihood of a fight not going to decision, but this approach allows the knocker to get credit for finishing fights instead of the knockee getting credit for being finished. 8P
Heavy Handed
Melvin Manhoef – 95%
Luis Arthur Cane – 89%
- 1 sub win, no decisions, and only loss is by DQ.
Scott Smith – 85%
Mauricio Rua – 81%
Robbie Lawler – 81%
Norifumi Yamamoto – 71%
Time to see if Cecil Peoples was watching the same fight as the rest of us…
Randy Couture – 44%
- 0 losses by decision
Justin McCully – 38%
Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira – 29%
- 100% of losses by decision. (Insert, “Big Nog never loses he simply runs out of time” quote here). Additionally, both the decision loss to Henderson and the decision loss to Barnett were “split”. The @$$poundings by Fedor were unanimous @$$poundings though.
Blankets, Fight Finishers, and bears Oh My~!!!
| Fighter | (t)ko% | Sub% | Dec% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sean Sherk | 27% | 39% | 33% |
| Jake O’Brien | 80% | -0- | 20% |
| Karo Parisyan | -0- | 50% | 50% |
| Kenny Florian | 30% | 60% | 10% |
| Travis Fulton | 31% | 66% | 3% |
Please note that Karo “coin toss” Parisyan has 1 submission due to strikes.
Interesting, eh? Any fighters that should be listed above that I missed? Any additional numbers you’d like to see included? Any pizza left in the fridge? (heads off to check…)