Footbag Analytics

Working on a footbag-related project? Ask for help, get feedback/advice here.
AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 06 Aug 2015 18:34

As most of you probably know, the fans and analysts of many other sports use advanced statistics to track the competitors and teams. Footbag has seen precious little of this, so this is my endeavor to bring analytics to our community. Let’s see what the numbers tell us.

I decided to use the 2015 Worlds Circle Finals for the analysis for a few reasons. First, this is some of the most amazing shred I have ever seen, especially in competition. Second, there was some controversy over the order the players finished (as there always seems to be at the World Championships), so hopefully analytics will shed some light on this. Third, I wanted to use something that was recent to make it a bit more topical for footbaggers out there. We can always go back and apply the analysis to older videos.

Before I start with the methodology and data, I would like to say there will be some critiquing of the competitors. This is in no way intended to downplay any of their achievements, all four of them are fantastic players. Me hitting any of the runs in this competition would rank better than or among the best runs I have ever hit, and I would be ecstatic. This is only to compare the players against each other, and maybe even give them insights into their own games.

Methodology

For the purposes of counting unique moves, anything with a unique combination of an uptime component (which scores ADDs of some type) with a downtime component was counted as a unique move. Moves which have no uptime component were not considered unique based on where they were set from unless the set location caused a change in the ADDs of the move, i.e. paradox moves.

For counting unique components only uptime and downtime divisions were used. For moves in which something occurred at midtime, the following rules were applied:
1. For ducking, weaving, diving, and zulu moves, the duck was applied to both the uptime component and the downtime component. I felt this was needed because showing something like stepping ducking is certainly showing a different master of a set than just ducking, and likewise with downtime components. These were further separated by the side from which the bag approached for sets or descended to for downtime components. For example, a ripped warrior counted as a stepping ducking uptime component and a ducking butterfly downtime component. A stepping zulu butterfly would count as a stepping diving uptime component, and a weaving butterfly downtime component.
2. For which largely occur starting at midtime and cannot easily be divided into uptime and downtime components, the first portion was considered uptime. For example, double around-the-world was considered a pixie uptime and a pickup downtime even though the move is not performed that way. This was to keep move that could not be classified in this way from counting as too many unique components. The same goes for triple around the world (or orbit), whirr, and ripstein. Each of these moves would count as a unique against the move using the same components which was clearly performed using a distinct uptime and downtime. E.g. pixie SS pickup and double around-the-world would be considered unique moves, but the components would not be considered unique from each other.

The analysis does rely on the ADD system to help measure difficulty. We all know the ADD system has its disadvantages, and I will not rehash them here, but it is the best estimation we all understand, so they are what I used. I did separate the “traditional” ADDs from those calculated using XDEX/XSPIN, so two different numbers will be listed. I also applied them literally, so fusion gets and XDEX ADD, although it is likely not in the spirit of the rule. Gyro miraging dexes did not get an XDEX add because the dex is no longer full.

So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you don’t like my system….then go make your own! This is the Adam Keith analysis :D

Scoring Circle

When I have judged circle it has always been scored the same way. Each round, variety and density, are scored separately, then the two scores are added together and the highest score wins. The winner of each round is given a score of 10 and the other competitors are given numbers 1 to 9 based on how well they did relative to each other. I tried to use the stats presented to place the relative scores here.

For the variety phase the most important criterion is, obviously, variety. Therefore, of the stats I will present, the most important numbers should be the number of unique moves, and the number of unique components. My belief is that the number of unique components is actually more important, because someone could do 10 unique stepping moves vs. someone doing 10 unique moves all with different sets and downtime components. To me the latter shows greater overall variety and mastery over more concepts. The number of contacts, total ADDS, and ratio are all still a factor. Overusing easier moves (especially BOPs) is a detriment.

For the density phase the most important factor is difficulty. Not just difficult moves, but difficult links as well. Also important is sustaining the difficulty. This is best reflected by the ADD-to-contact ratio. The number of contacts is also a key component, maintaining difficulty over 30 tricks is more difficult than maintaining difficulty over 10. However, variety is still important. One could simply do 40 ripwalks in a row and have a ratio of 4.00 and 40 contacts, but that is nowhere near as good as someone who matches those statistics with 20+ uniques. Once again, I would contest that unique components is more important than unique moves here, but neither tell the whole story.

I know that was long winded. So without further ado… the STATS! I’ll go in chronological order.

Variety

Milan #1
Contacts: 43
Unique Moves: 26
Unique Components: 26 (4 uptime, 22 downtime)
Total ADDs: 141/142
Ratio: 3.279/3.302
BOPs: 12 (10 butterfly, 2 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 27.91%

Jim #1
Contacts: 11
Unique Moves: 9
Unique Components: 11 (4 uptime, 7 downtime)
Total ADDs: 36/36
Ratio: 3.273/3.273
BOPs: 5 (2 butterfly, 1 osis, 2 paradox mirage), 45.45%

Vasek #1
Contacts: 47
Unique Moves: 30
Unique Components: 31 (12 uptime, 19 downtime)
Total ADDs: 154/155
Ratio: 3.277/3.298
BOPs: 14 (13 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 28.79%

Evan #1
Contacts: 80
Unique Moves: 39
Unique Components: 34 (12 uptime, 22 downtime)
Total ADDs: 268/271
Ratio: 3.350/3.388
BOPs: 19 (15 butterfly, 4 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 23.75%
HUGE run! 8 Ducking Clippers ending on the left foot.

Milan #2
Contacts: 21
Unique Moves: 15
Unique Components: 18 (5 uptime, 13 downtime)
Total ADDs: 69/69
Ratio: 3.286/3.286
BOPs: 4 (4 butterfly, 0 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 19.05%

Jim #2
Contacts: 67
Unique Moves: 36
Unique Components: 29 (6 uptime, 23 downtime)
Total ADDs: 242/242
Ratio: 3.612/3.612
BOPs: 29 (21 butterfly, 6 osis, 2 paradox mirage), 43.28%

Vasek #2
Contacts: 67
Unique Moves: 38
Unique Components: 42 (18 uptime, 24 downtime)
Total ADDs: 235/236
Ratio: 3.507/3.522
BOPs: 22 (21 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 32.84%

Evan #2
Contacts: 43
Unique Moves: 30
Unique Components: 32 (9 uptime, 23 downtime)
Total ADDs: 147/147
Ratio: 3.419/3.419
BOPs: 10 (8 butterfly, 2 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 23.26%

Milan #3
Contacts: 33
Unique Moves: 24
Unique Components: 26 (9 uptime, 17 downtime)
Total ADDs: 116/117
Ratio: 3.515/3.545
BOPs: 6 (5 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 18.18%

Jim #3
Contacts: 17
Unique Moves: 15
Unique Components: 18 (7 uptime, 11 downtime)
Total ADDs: 64/65
Ratio: 3.765/3.824
BOPs: 7 (4 butterfly, 2 osis, 1 paradox mirage), 41.18%

Vasek #3
Contacts: 22
Unique Moves: 18
Unique Components: 18 (9 uptime, 9 downtime)
Total ADDs: 80/80
Ratio: 3.636/3.636
BOPs: 7 (6 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 31.82%

Evan #3
Contacts: 22
Unique Moves: 18
Unique Components: 23 (10 uptime, 13 downtime)
Total ADDs: 80/80
Ratio: 3.636/3.636
BOPs: 4 (3 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 18.18%

Milan Variety Total – Score: 7
Contacts: 97
Unique Moves: 45
Unique Components: 40 (11 uptime, 29 downtime)
Total ADDs: 326/328
Ratio: 3.361/3.381
BOPs: 22 (19 butterfly, 3 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 22.68%
I noticed Milan’s combos all seem to reset on a left footed butterfly. Love that he uses paradox illusion instead of paradox mirage, makes his game more unique.

Jim Variety Total – Score: 6
Contacts: 95
Unique Moves: 43
Unique Components: 34 (9 uptime, 25 downtime)
Total ADDs: 342/343
Ratio: 3.600/3.611
BOPs: 41 (27 butterfly, 9 osis, 5 paradox mirage), 43.16%

Vasek Variety Total – Score: 9
Contacts: 136
Unique Moves: 62
Unique Components: 52 (23 uptime, 29 downtime)
Total ADDs: 469/471
Ratio: 3.449/3.463
BOPs: 43 (40 butterfly, 3 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 31.62%

Evan Variety Total – Score: 10
Contacts: 145
Unique Moves: 64
Unique Components: 50 (19 uptime, 31 downtime)
Total ADDs: 495/498
Ratio: 3.414/3.434
BOPs: 33 (26 butterfly, 7 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 22.76%

Density

Milan #1
Contacts: 22
Unique Moves: 18
Unique Components: 16 (6 uptime, 10 downtime)
Total ADDs: 81/83
Ratio: 3.682/3.773
BOPs: 0 (0 butterfly, 0 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 0.00%
No BOPs!

Jim #1
Contacts: 8
Unique Moves: 8
Unique Components: 10 (2 uptime, 8 downtime)
Total ADDs: 34/35
Ratio: 4.250/4.375
BOPs: 4 (2 butterfly, 1 osis, 1 paradox mirage), 50.00%
Blurry Barroque, Blurry Whirl (btb), PS Whirl

Vasek #1
Contacts: 49
Unique Moves: 29
Unique Components: 28 (9 uptime, 19 downtime)
Total ADDs: 206/209
Ratio: 4.204/4.265
BOPs: 8 (7 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 16.33%
17 moves of 5+ ADDs!

Evan #1
Contacts: 24
Unique Moves: 17
Unique Components: 20 (8 uptime, 12 downtime)
Total ADDs: 102/103
Ratio: 4.250/4.292
BOPs: 4 (3 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 16.67%
11 moves of 5+ ADDs

Milan #2
Contacts: 27
Unique Moves: 21
Unique Components: 25 (8 uptime, 17 downtime)
Total ADDs: 99/99
Ratio: 3.667/3.667
BOPs: 7 (4 butterfly, 3 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 25.93%
5 moves of 5+ ADDs
Jim #2
Contacts: 63
Unique Moves: 30
Unique Components: 27 (7 uptime, 20 downtime)
Total ADDs: 239/239
Ratio: 3.794/3.794
BOPs: 22 (18 butterfly, 3 osis, 1 paradox mirage), 43.28%
12 moves of 5+ ADDs

Vasek #2
Contacts: 29
Unique Moves: 11
Unique Components: 16 (6 uptime, 10 downtime)
Total ADDs: 108/109
Ratio: 3.724/3.759
BOPs: 7 (7 butterfly, 0 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 24.14%
3 moves of 5+ ADDs

Evan #2
Contacts: 17
Unique Moves: 8
Unique Components: 13 (5 uptime, 8 downtime)
Total ADDs: 147/147
Ratio: 4.000/4.588
BOPs: 2 (1 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 11.76%
Blurry Ducking Whirl > Gyro Whirling Swirl

Milan #3
Contacts: 27
Unique Moves: 24
Unique Components: 26 (9 uptime, 17 downtime)
Total ADDs: 98/100
Ratio: 3.630/3.704
BOPs: 3 (2 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 11.11%
5 moves of 5+ ADDs

Jim #3
Contacts: 47
Unique Moves: 30
Unique Components: 27 (7 uptime, 20 downtime)
Total ADDs: 182/182
Ratio: 3.872/3.872
BOPs: 13 (8 butterfly, 4 osis, 1 paradox mirage), 27.66%
9 moves of 5+ ADDs

Vasek #3
Contacts: 33
Unique Moves: 23
Unique Components: 24 (7 uptime, 17 downtime)
Total ADDs: 136/136
Ratio: 4.121/4.121
BOPs: 6 (6 butterfly, 0 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 18.18%
12 moves of 5+ ADDs

Evan #3
Contacts: 13
Unique Moves: 11
Unique Components: 14 (6 uptime, 8 downtime)
Total ADDs: 52/52
Ratio: 4.000/4.000
BOPs: 3 (2 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 23.08%
3 moves of 5+ ADDs

Milan Density Total – Score: 5
Contacts: 76
Unique Moves: 39
Unique Components: 36 (12 uptime, 24 downtime)
Total ADDs: 278/282
Ratio: 3.658/3.711
BOPs: 10 (6 butterfly, 4 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 13.16%
11 moves of 5+ ADDs

Jim Density Total – Score: 7
Contacts: 118
Unique Moves: 36
Unique Components: 31 (8 uptime, 23 downtime)
Total ADDs: 455/456
Ratio: 3.856/3.864
BOPs: 39 (28 butterfly, 8 osis, 3 paradox mirage), 33.05%
25 moves of 5+ ADDs

Vasek Density Total – Score: 10
Contacts: 111
Unique Moves: 52
Unique Components: 43 (15 uptime, 28 downtime)
Total ADDs: 450/454
Ratio: 4.054/4.090
BOPs: 21 (20 butterfly, 1 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 18.92%
32 moves of 5+ ADDs

Evan Variety Total – Score: 6
Contacts: 54
Unique Moves: 27
Unique Components: 28 (11 uptime, 17 downtime)
Total ADDs: 222/233
Ratio: 4.111/4.315
BOPs: 9 (6 butterfly, 3 osis, 0 paradox mirage), 16.67%
16 moves of 5+ ADDs

Final Scores:
Vasek: 19
Evan: 16
Jim: 13
Milan: 12

My final thoughts. Vasek and Evan were as even as could be in the Variety phase, but Evan’s lack of contacts in density was a huge difference in the Density phase. Milan just didn’t throw enough big tricks in the Density phase. Jim suffered from too many short runs, if he had gone lower density and hit more moves in Variety he might have scored much better. I was surprised how little fairy sets and paradox mirages were used, even atomics were a bit sparse. Vasek is still a BEAST!!!

If there are any stats you would like to see that you feel would improve the story, let me know. Please give me feedback either on here or on Facebook, I think this will be helpful to our sport.

This has been a fun but very time intensive exercise. I would like to thank the competitors, going through their shreds this thoroughly was an amazing exercise, and I feel like I know their games better and appreciate them even more than I did before.

Add Block
BSOS Beast
Posts: 413
Joined: 07 Feb 2014 03:04

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by Add Block » 06 Aug 2015 23:36

This doesn't take links into consideration. Links are often more important in evaluating the difficulty of a run than tricks themselves.

Also style. Now there is no direct mention of style in the official rules for Circle, but there is a mention of difficulty, which is previously defined as a combination of many things, one of which is style/form.

Other than that, it looks like it might work. You'd have to test the system on other circles (some lower level circles, too), to see if it doesn't glitch somewhere.

Now that I think about it more, I don't like it at all, since it's counting ADDs. You can't be operating in a system that counts DaDa Curve and Quantum Barrage as equal.
I hate bad form and I'm a hypocrite.

Vojta

User avatar
Wiktor
Multidex Master
Posts: 305
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 12:43
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by Wiktor » 07 Aug 2015 00:58

Wow. Huge work. I will review it, but seems accurate.
Of course no execution nor links are counted, but still solid data.
Immpossible to get into real competition, as it takes soo much time.
Still our Judges saw it the proper way.
Wiktor Debski

boyle
Post Master General
Posts: 2795
Joined: 19 Sep 2007 23:42
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by boyle » 07 Aug 2015 02:02

This is a good idea. I am assuming you have transcribed all the runs...do you think you could post that here?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 04:19

I did give some thought to links, and the simple answer is I think they can be measured somehow, I just haven't come up with a method yet. It is true that is an important factor, especially for the density round.

As for the ADD subject, while there are obviously some problems, over a large number of tricks that is normalized to an extent. I think you will find players hit so many of the same moves that one or two anomalies per run doesn't change the numbers that much. I think Milan had a couple more of those with moves like Furious SS Leg Over only being 4 adds. But even if it were 7 it wouldn't change it much. I have previously worked on a revised scoring system that I think handles difficulty a bit better, but I don't know how worthwhile it is to implement and teach a new system.

It's not perfect, but neither are advanced stats for other sports, but they are still valuable. These are also still very rudimentary, given 100 years of collecting the numbers like baseball has, we could generate more meaningful stats.

I also don't really think circle should be scored directly from the numbers, but I can say if I had this data while judging it would be much easier to make my decisions.

Dan, yes I did transcribe all the runs. That took the most time, as I created a pretty exhaustive excel sheet to pull up all the numbers and do the calculations. I'll post them when I get home.

Kylescook
BSOS Beast
Posts: 477
Joined: 14 Jun 2014 06:14
Location: St.Louis, Missouri

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by Kylescook » 07 Aug 2015 04:57

I don't have much to contribute, but did want to say thanks for all the work you put into this. I enjoyed reading it.
Kyle Cook
St.Louis
My Footblog
My Challenges

User avatar
acxel22
Post Master General
Posts: 3018
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 18:52
Location: Montreal, Qc

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by acxel22 » 07 Aug 2015 05:02

for variety this forgets some important aspects, for example, from my memory Vasek had more balance between toe and clipper, did more toe linking, and that is also a different form of variety, where most other players went on clipper trick after one toe trick more often.
Mathieu Gauthier

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 05:12

Good point. I thought about including some toe vs clipper data, but it was taking so long I wanted to get the post up. I also thought about including dexing data like total and breakdowns by dex type to see who had better balance and who just threw 1 or 2 tricks in.

Add Block
BSOS Beast
Posts: 413
Joined: 07 Feb 2014 03:04

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by Add Block » 07 Aug 2015 05:18

One thing I forgot to mention, I do like uniqueness as a measure in Variety a lot, but it has no place in Density rounds. To paraphrase:

2. Density: In the density phase, players are compared in terms of the overall link difficulty across all the moves they execute during their run (as defined in 504.06 Run Density). Judges must be capable of distinguishing easy links from difficult links, and must take into account the overall difficulty of the run as well as the overall link difficulty, as described in 504.06-C Run Density Estimation Method.

Those rules are old, however, and the lack of both-side requirement disturbs me. :)

I think if you did not count uniqueness in Density and counted X-DEXes (I'm quite happy with the ADD system like that), your system could be helpful to judges, but can in no way replace them.

I know replacing judges was not your intention, which is wise. You'd have to take links into consideration, fix the ADD system a bit and even then it would basically turn into Shred30, because of the purely objective rating system.
I hate bad form and I'm a hypocrite.

Vojta

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 06:00

I disagree that uniques and unique components have no place in the density round, I believe they should just be secondary information to things like ratio and link difficulty. Someone might hit 10 nemesis back-to-back. Very hard link, very high ratio, very tough to do, but it still only shows high density through 2 unique moves and 4 unique components. I feel density should be gauged over a large range of components. Consider a more realistic example, many players could throw in many ripwalks, blurry whirls, blurriests, and ps whirls. Hard links can be made using these moves, but it would be much better to throw similarly difficult moves in addition to those to show density over more components. What I guess would be better than unique moves and unique components would be unique links, but first I have to figure out some way to represent them with data.

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11343
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by C-Fan » 07 Aug 2015 06:36

Very interesting. Looks like a lot of work, so thanks for putting the time in on it. Couple quick observations:

:arrow: I agree that adds and difficulty basically normalize over time. Is quantum barrage harder than dada curve? Yes definitely. But how often do you see people throwing either of those in circle comp? If an elite player is throwing around 150 tricks in the course of circle comp, I'm guessing less than 5 tricks are grossly misrepresented in adds, and as long as the judges have some subjective say, they won't get extra credit for add hunting anyway.

:arrow: The big challenge in both routines and circle, is that its incredibly hard for judges to process all the information accurately on the fly. Having a contact counter helps, having a rough add counter would also help, but even with those its tough for a judge to nail every decision accurately on the fly. That's why as a competitor you want to make as much separation with your competition as possible, so you're not leaving the judges a chance to make the wrong decision. Which is easier said than done obviously.

User avatar
DubleDex
Shredaholic
Posts: 175
Joined: 25 Oct 2005 09:45
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by DubleDex » 07 Aug 2015 06:46

This is a really interesting analysis of the competition. The results that this formula came to match up with my "eyeball" test from watching them (I am obviously no judge).

It would be nice to match up some sort of analytics with the expertise of judges, but it is just so hard to do in real time, or even in "reasonable time."

Thanks for all the work and the detailed breakdown!
Darren Kautz
Kicking since 1991

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 07:09

Ken, I completely agree with your comments.

As for quick information, not that I think it would be quite fast enough yet, but in doing this analysis I set up an Excel sheet such that all I have to do is type in the move name and which foot the bag contacts and the spreadsheet imports all the ADD and component data from a separate spreadsheet that contains all the moves and relevent data, then does the calculations. It does so much stuff that the sheet runs really slow! I'd like to add more stuff to the sheet like my reply to Matthieu mentioned. If someone could call moves fast enough in real time at an event the judges could probably have the information at their disposal within a few minutes. The real difficulty is getting quick and accurate transcription.

Add Block
BSOS Beast
Posts: 413
Joined: 07 Feb 2014 03:04

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by Add Block » 07 Aug 2015 08:09

AtotheK wrote:I disagree that uniques and unique components have no place in the density round, I believe they should just be secondary information to things like ratio and link difficulty. Someone might hit 10 nemesis back-to-back. Very hard link, very high ratio, very tough to do, but it still only shows high density through 2 unique moves and 4 unique components. I feel density should be gauged over a large range of components. Consider a more realistic example, many players could throw in many ripwalks, blurry whirls, blurriests, and ps whirls. Hard links can be made using these moves, but it would be much better to throw similarly difficult moves in addition to those to show density over more components. What I guess would be better than unique moves and unique components would be unique links, but first I have to figure out some way to represent them with data.
I'm indiferent about uniques in Density rounds, but this was not about my opinion, I just stated that the official rules for Circle do not place uniqueness as a variable you should be taking into consideration.
Yes we could change the rules, and I wouldn't be voting against you (not that I have a vote), but good luck getting anything through footbag dinosaurs.
I hate bad form and I'm a hypocrite.

Vojta

User avatar
acxel22
Post Master General
Posts: 3018
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 18:52
Location: Montreal, Qc

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by acxel22 » 07 Aug 2015 09:33

I don't agree that variety would have a place in density, even how slight it could be. Say what you want, have someone step up and do 10x nemesis in a row, that is more hardcore dense then illegal greek bestiality porn.

someone could go fearless 20 contacts with blurry whirl, spin whirl, ps whirl, tomahawk, pdx blenders, and it's still not as dense as 10 nemesis. Uniques are not really important in density and it makes total sense to me.

Why make it harder for the players, the majority of people still don't understand how to compete in circle, I have seen so many people repeating tricks 10's of times in variety, and you expect them to do different in density?
Mathieu Gauthier

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 14:22

Well, I'll have to agree to disagree about scoring for the density round. I think the example with consecutive Nemesis is flawed because it is much higher in difficulty than the other proposed string. A more balanced one might be 20 consecutive Blurry Whirls vs. a string of 20 mid-difficulty 4's and easy 5's. Most people consider Blurry Whirl an easy 5, so the difficulty per trick here should be about the same, and the Blurry Whirl run would have a slightly higher ratio, but as a judge I would say the second string is better because it shows a better mastery of the game at a similar density. I also don't think judging criteria should be influenced because competitors have used bad strategy in the past.

But, my intention was not to debate how to score circle, or even propose that these stats be used to score circle, maybe to verify the eye test, but nothing more. Instead I wanted us to think of how they could benefit the footbag community and how more meaningful data could be generated in the future. I personally think tracking this stuff could help me gauge improvement in my own game. I also think it would be good for footbag fans (if we ever get to the point of having any). Fans of other sports follow stats more than those involved generally, it becomes a way to connect with the game for some people.

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 16:16

Here are transcribed runs. L and R refer to which foot catches the bag, and SS means near.

Variety

Milan #1
Fury R > Butterfly L > Ducking Leg Over L > Symple Swirl L > Merkon R > Symposium Mirage R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Symple Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Reverse Swirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Paradox Illusion R > Drifter L > Butterfly L > Stepping Osis L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Swirl L > Gyro Mirage R > Butterfly L > Ducking Clipper R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Merkon R > Butterfly L > Food Processor L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Swirl L > Spinning Osis R > Butterfly L > Ducking Clipper R > Double Leg Over R > Butterfly L > Double Leg Over L > Flying Butterfly Kick L > Butterfly L > Ducking Leg Over L > Double Down L > Paradox Illusion R > Eggbeater R > Eclipse R

Jim #1
Blurry Whirl L > Paradox Mirage R > Whirl L > Osis R > Swirl R > Swirl R > Butterfly R > Stepping Leg Over R > Dimwalk R > Butterfly L > Paradox Mirage R

Vasek #1
Pixie Leg Over L > Pixie Leg Over R > Magellan R > Pixie Clipper L > Blizzard R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Drifter L > Drifter R > Butterfly L > Diving Clipper L > Zulu Clipper R > Ducking Clipper L > Ducking Clipper R > Symple Swirl L > Butterfly L > Stepping Osis L > Butterfly R > Stepping Osis R > Butterfly L > Merkon R > Pixie Leg Over L > Pixie Leg Over R > Legbeater L > Butterfly L > Stepping Clipper L > Butterfly R > Stepping Leg Over R > Pixie SS Pickup R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Double Blender R > Gyro Clipper L > Ripstein L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Motion R > Butterfly L > Merkon R > Double Over Down Swirl L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Reverse Swirl R

Evan #1
Swirling Whirr L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Stepping Leg Over L > Pixie Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Whirl L > Merkon R > Dimwalk R > Ripwalk L > Sidewalk L > Ripwalk R > Symposium Whirl R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Ducking Clipper L > Whirr L > Butterfly R > Reverse Swirl R > Swirl R > Osis L > Reverse Swirl L > Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Butterfly L > Merkon R > Pixie Leg Over L > Pixie Leg Over R > Fairy Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Ducking Clipper R > Spinning Clipper R > Vortex R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Vortex L > Spinning Whirl L > Spinning Swirl L > Merkon R > Double Around the World R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Eclipse L > Whirl L > Butterfly R > Stepping Leg Over R > Pixie Leg Over L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Mobius R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Double Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Osis R > Butterfly L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Gyro Clipper L > Blazing Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Spinning Clipper R > Mobius L > Butterfly R > Spinning Clipper R > Spinning Clipper R > Ripwalk L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Vortex L > Merkon R

Milan #2
Blazing SS Leg Over R > Flail R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Symposium Mirage R > Butterfly L > Ducking Clipper R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Paradox Illusion R > Symple Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Furious SS Leg Over R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Eggbeater R > Butterfly L > Drifter R > Drifter L > Paradox Illusion R > Drifter L > Blizzard R

Jim #2
Whirlygig R > Osis L > Motion R > Butterfly L > Paradox Mirage R > Whirl L > Osis R > Gyro Whirl L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Blizzard R > Tripwalk L > Osis R > Barfly L > Butterfly R > Symposium Whirl R > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Paradox Mirage R > Butterfly R > Blur R > Legbeater L > Blizzard R > Butterfly L > Symposium Whirl L > Osis R > Superfly L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Stepping Leg Over L > Butterfly L > Blur R > Whirl R > Drifter L > Drifter R > Butterfly R > Torque R > Butterfly L > Drifter R > Paradox Drifter R > Paradox Drifter R > Blurry Drifter R > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Butterfly R > Blurriest L > Blurry Whirl R > Butterfly R > Paradox Blender R > Butterfly L > Scorpion's Tail L > Osis R > Stepping Leg Over R > Paradon R > Butterfly L > Paradox Double Leg Over R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Bedwetter R > Butterfly L > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Stepping Clipper R > Butterfly R

Vasek #2
Symposium Fission R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Superfly L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Stepping Ducking Clipper L > Stepping Ducking Clipper R > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Atomic Leg Over R > Atomic SS Leg Over L > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Tripwalk L > Stepping Leg Over L > Tripwalk R > Butterfly Swirl L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Symple Reverse Swirl R > Butterfly L > Symposium Reverse Whirling Swirl L > Butterfly R > Symposium Reverse Whirling Swirl R > Butterfly L > Motion L > Butterfly R > Motion R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Drifter R > Drifter L > Paradox Drifter L > Drifter R > Torque R > Drifter L > Vortex L > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Pixie Diving Clipper L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Blizzard R > Butterfly L > Mobius R > Butterfly L > Barroque L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Butterfly R > Gyro Barroque L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Double Around the World R > Butterfly L > Stepping Leg Over L > Double Around the World L > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Double Orbit R > Butterfly L > Ripstein L > Swirling SS Eclipse L

Evan #2
Ripped Warrior L > Ripwalk R > Ripwalk L > Stepping SS Eclipse L > Whirl L > Ripwalk R > Stepping Osis R > Stepping Leg Over R > Pixie SS Eclipse L > Reverse Whirl L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Reverse Swirl L > Butterfly R > Reverse Swirl R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Swirl L > Butterfly R > Swirl R > Butterfly Swirl L > Butterfly R > Paradox Whirl L > Double Down R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Gyro Clipper L > Torque L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Osis R > Torque R > Eclipse R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Spinning Clipper R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Blur L > Legbeater R > Stepping Leg Over R > Fairy Leg Over L

Milan #3
Symposium Flurry L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Stepping Mirage R > Eggbeater R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Paradox Whirl L > Merkon R > Symple Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Alpine Blur R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Drifter L > Blizzard R > Tripwalk L > Schmoe R > Pixie SS Clipper L > Spinning Whirl L > Paradox Illusion R > Butterfly L > Blurry Whirl R > Symple Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Stepping SS Clipper L > Whirr L > Paradox Double Leg Over R > Butterfly L > Ducking Clipper R > Motion R > Osis L > Spinning Clipper L

Jim #3
Nemesis R > Osis L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Blizzard R > Whirl L > Butterfly R > Symposium Whirling Swirl R > Butterfly R > Blurriest L > Dyno R > Butterfly L > Spinning Butterfly L > Paradox Mirage R > Legbeater L > Ripwalk R > Sidewalk R

Vasek #3
Flurricane R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Ducking Clipper L > Symposium Reverse Whirling Swirl L > Butterfly R > Stepping Leg Over R > Magellan R > Pixie Leg Over L > Pixie Leg Over R > Atomic Leg Over R > Legbeater L > Blizzard R > Atomic SS Butterfly R > Butterfly L > Jani Walker R > Butterfly L > Sunil Walk L > Butterfly R > Jani Walker L > Osis R > Butterfly R

Evan #3
Ripstein L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Blur R > Phoenix R > Ripwalk L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Spinning Clipper L > Vortex L > Schmoe R > Pixie Clipper R > Spinning Clipper R > Spinning Clipper R > Spinning Butterfly R > Vortex R > Spinning Osis L > Paradox Drifter L > Blender R > Paradox Blender R > Butterfly L

Density

Milan #1
Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Ripwalk R > Ripwalk L > Blur R > Atomic Leg Over R > Magellan R > Pixie Leg Over L > Dimwalk L > Blizzard R > Tripwalk L > Sidewalk L > Blurry Whirl R > Ripwalk L > Blizzard R > Atom Smasher L > Atom Smasher R > Legbeater L > Blizzard R > Smudge R > Smear R > Legbeater L

Jim #1
Blurry Barroque L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Paradox Mirage R > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Blurry Whirl R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L

Vasek #1
Triple Around the World R > Butterfly L > Blizzard R > Double Down L > Double Down L > Double Down R > Barrage L > Double Down L > Double Down R > Double Down L > Whirr L > Blurriest R > Double Down L > Double Down R > Double Down L > Scorpion's Tail L > Spinning Motion R > Motion R > Double Down L > Spinning Butterfly L > Blurry Whirl R > Blurry Whirl L > Blurriest R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Whirlwind L > Spinning Butterfly Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Montage L > Blizzard R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Symposium Reverse Whirling Swirl L > Butterfly L > Blurry Whirl R > Butterfly L > Mobius R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Mobius L > Food Processor L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Double Spinning Clipper L > Double Spinning Osis R

Evan #1
Double Over Down Swirl L > Whirr L > Ripstein L > Butterfly R > Ripped Warrior L > Blurry Whirl R > Blurry Whirl L > Blurry Drifter L > Blurry Whirl R > Stepping Osis L > Butterfly R > Spinning Butterfly R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Osis R > Ducking Clipper L > Osis R > Butterfly L

Milan #2
Stepping Whirling Swirl L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Ripwalk L > Blizzard R > Smudge R > Eggbeater R > Drifter L > Blizzard R > Butterfly Swirl L > Merkon R > Toe Spinning Clipper L > Butterfly L > Spike Hammer R > Butterfly L > Blurry Whirl R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Food Processor L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Ducking Clipper R > Inspinning Osis R > Osis L

Jim #2
Dimwalk R > Blurriest L > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Paradox Mirage R > Double Down L > Osis R > Paradox Whirl L > Butterfly R > Sidewalk R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Blurry Whirl L > Ripwalk R > Ripwalk L > Blurry Whirl R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Blurriest L > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Osis R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Gyro Clipper R > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Paradox Double Leg Over R > Butterfly L > Butterfly R > Diving Clipper R > Superfly L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Mobius R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Paradox Torque R > Butterfly L > Paradox Whirl R > Paradox Whirl L > Paradox Whirl R > Butterfly R > Ripstein R > Butterfly R > Double Down L > Dyno R > Butterfly L > Merkon R > Dimwalk R > Ripwalk L > Blur R > Butterfly L > Blizzard R > Double Down R > Butterfly L > Double Down R > Butterfly R > Paradox Blender R > Butterfly L > Spender R > Butterfly L

Vasek #2
Fusion L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Blurry Whirl R > Butterfly L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Symposium Whirling Swirl L > Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Spinning Clipper L > Ripstein L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly Swirl L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Schmoe R > Smear R

Evan #2
Blurry Ducking Whirl L > Gyro Whirling Swirl R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Spinning Clipper L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Whirr L > Ripstein L

Milan #3
Spike Hammer R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Ripwalk L > Stepping Whirl L > Blizzard R > Tripwalk L > Schmoe R > Smear R > Atom Smasher L > Atom Smasher R > Eggbeater R > Smudge R > Drifter L > Blizzard R > Symple Swirl L > Merkon R > Butterfly L > Stepping Ducking Crossbody Rake R > Osis L > Paradox Illusion R > Symple Swirl L > Spinning Swirl L > Spinning Clipper L > Ripped Warrior R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Mobius R

Jim #3
Alpine Whirlygig L > Osis R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Blurry Whirl L > Blurry Whirl R > Butterfly R > Haze R > Dimwalk R > Blurriest L > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Ripwalk R > Sidewalk R > Stepping Leg Over R > Dimwalk R > Ripwalk L > Stepping Leg Over L > Dimwalk L > Paradox Mirage R > Dimwalk R > Blurriest L > Dyno R > Double Down L > Paradox Whirl R > Paradox Whirl L > Paradox Whirl R > Swirl R > Paradox Symposium Whirl L > Spinning Whirl L > Dyno R > Food Processor R > Butterfly L > Blizzard R > Tripwalk L > Paradox Eggbeater R > Butterfly L > Butterfly R > Butterfly R > Butterfly L > Dyno R > Dyno L > Osis R > Swirl R > Osis L > Swirl L > Osis R

Vasek #3
Stepping Whirling Swirl L > Blurry Whirl R > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Blurriest L > Blurriest R > Superfly L > Butterfly L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Whirlwind L > Stepping SS Clipper L > Stepping Ducking Clipper R > Ripwalk L > Whirlygig R > Ripwalk L > Blurry Torque R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Whirlygig L > Ripwalk R > Paradox Torque L > Ripwalk R > Butterfly L > Mobius R > Butterfly L > Barroque L > Butterfly R > Ducking Clipper L > Merkon R > Magellan R > Pixie Leg Over L > Pixie Leg Over R

Evan #3
Fairy Double Down Swirl R > Osis L > Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Ripwalk R > Stepping Whirl R > Butterfly R > Blurry Whirl L > Blurry Whirl R > Ducking Clipper L > Ducking Butterfly R > Ripwalk L > Spinning Butterfly L

janis
Post Master General
Posts: 2707
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 18:46
Location: Australia

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by janis » 07 Aug 2015 17:08

I like the effort that has been made here.

Basically I think the best way to classify the difficulty of tricks would be to essentially create a bunch of rankings for the *relative* difficulties of moves. Essentially you could start with something like the ADDs system then introduce a relative ranking between the moves like the ELO ratings system by having skilled players vote on pairwise combinations of moves. This would avoid all those issues with moves that aren't nicely covered by ADDs such as the example before of quantum barrage being a lot tougher than say dada curve. However it would go a lot further than this as it would start to create a rankings system that's a lot more true to the difficulties of all the moves, which I think would help judge relative difficulties than add counts.

There might be a few similar viable approaches for looking at links however this starts getting substantially more complex.

This type of question seems to come up a lot and was ultimately one of the aims of the footbag site project I was working on.
If placed on the right platform (like a freely accessible web app) information like in the posts here could be used a whole lot faster.

h4x354x0r
Shredalicious
Posts: 65
Joined: 20 Dec 2008 07:52
Location: Columbia MO US
Contact:

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by h4x354x0r » 07 Aug 2015 18:01

Wow... this looks amazingly similar to the methodology I've been using for my own long-term blog analysis project:

Image

Double Wow (Wow!) because I know how much work it is to meticulously score entire routines like that. Thanks for doing this!

Triple Wow (Wow! Just... WOW!!) because of some of the raw scores. Quibble with the methodology and the outcomes if you want, and I know adds aren't very accurate once you get into higher add moves, but... I think the methodology is valid enough for it's intent. Some of those scores are just insane! Major props to the shredders.

AtotheK
Circle Kicker
Posts: 12
Joined: 19 Feb 2013 16:23

Re: Footbag Analytics

Post by AtotheK » 07 Aug 2015 19:51

Janis, thanks for the thoughts on links and scoring. I'm not sure I personally want to take this that far, but I've thought about similar solutions in the past. The way diving scores difficulty comes to mind.

H4x glad someone knows the pain of doing this type of analysis! And I agree, props to the shredders, part of the reason I chose this particular competition was how much these guys killed it!

Post Reply