Studying the limits of human perfection, through darts(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Studying the limits of human perfection, through darts
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/upshot/darts-sports-perfection.html
46 comments
It all boils down to money. Yeah, even in the 90s athletes were getting paid a lot of money, but since then, thanks to TV deals, union negotiations, etc., the money is exploding. If you take away Michael Jordan's outlier 2 year $30MM/yr contract, even today's journeymen players are making huge amounts of money relative to the top stars we grew up watching. The stars', and even top draft picks' contracts are in the stratosphere.
Thanks to this, a cottage industry around improving performance and longevity has popped up as pro teams wanted to protect their investments. From there, you get people selling these techniques and lessons learned on all levels of sport, for athletes who want to invest in themselves, for parents who want to invest in their kids, for high schools and colleges wanting to get the notoriety through sport, etc.
On a side note, whoever is talking about US players losing a step is just trying to be a provocateur.
Thanks to this, a cottage industry around improving performance and longevity has popped up as pro teams wanted to protect their investments. From there, you get people selling these techniques and lessons learned on all levels of sport, for athletes who want to invest in themselves, for parents who want to invest in their kids, for high schools and colleges wanting to get the notoriety through sport, etc.
On a side note, whoever is talking about US players losing a step is just trying to be a provocateur.
It's not just about money, there are cultural changes that you can see from a distance, but when you are not in the middle of it.
For example, I used to play soccer when it was thought that doing weights made one slow or "tied up." When using any form of data was inapplicable because "soccer is different." When using a psychologist was considered weird, queer or a waste of time. And me lifting weights (I watched volleyball players and baseball players coming to the same gym I was going to doing weights all the time), using the little data available to help me better understand the game (I am a scientist after all), and being interested in the psychology of performance was seen as the quirky guy who partly you tolerate, and partly you make fun of. I was right, but I was there too soon.
Now everyone lifts weights, everyone uses data to inform decisions, and most professional players use the services of a psychologist or are interested in the psychological aspects of performance.
One thing that has changed in a major way is that what was done by the 0.001% of athletes, with the Internet, social media, and the ubiquity of cell phones, has become visible, and even the most stubborn, conservative, and skeptical people have seen how the top-of-the-food-chain trained and operated. It became impossible to deny it, to say "but for us/in our sport, it is different". It was not.
For example, I used to play soccer when it was thought that doing weights made one slow or "tied up." When using any form of data was inapplicable because "soccer is different." When using a psychologist was considered weird, queer or a waste of time. And me lifting weights (I watched volleyball players and baseball players coming to the same gym I was going to doing weights all the time), using the little data available to help me better understand the game (I am a scientist after all), and being interested in the psychology of performance was seen as the quirky guy who partly you tolerate, and partly you make fun of. I was right, but I was there too soon.
Now everyone lifts weights, everyone uses data to inform decisions, and most professional players use the services of a psychologist or are interested in the psychological aspects of performance.
One thing that has changed in a major way is that what was done by the 0.001% of athletes, with the Internet, social media, and the ubiquity of cell phones, has become visible, and even the most stubborn, conservative, and skeptical people have seen how the top-of-the-food-chain trained and operated. It became impossible to deny it, to say "but for us/in our sport, it is different". It was not.
I don't disagree with you but there's still a lot of sports pseudoscience out there, and/or science that gets ignored, and people can really overestimate the effects of some technique or gear for a given scenario. I guess I see it as the flip side of the coin maybe.
Changing the goalposts with improvements in gear and engineering mask a lot of training improvements too in my opinion. In general I feel like maximal performance improves but why it's improving is often a mystery, and whether those improvements would matter to average athletes is also lost on people. There's kind of a shotgun approach to it all, and less so trying to sift through whether a particular thing matters and when.
I guess what's frustrating to me is this sense that people just kind of chase around the latest training idea, or latest marginal gear gain, ignoring that it will never make a practical difference to them in particular at their level of performance or setting, or might actually be harmful. My sense is it drives up product costs dramatically due to demand for (or supply limited to?) unnecessary things, and leads to a lot of confusion about what you "should" be doing and bad advice.
I think in the past people could also get stuck with bad ideas or worse gear, and would never want to go back in time in athletics, so I don't want to come across as a sort of sports luddite. But I do think the signal to noise ratio has gone way down even as the amount of information has gone way up, and as a result I'm not sure the changes are as beneficial as they could be, or are even harmful or wasteful.
In some fields it feels like the very top athletes are maybe performing 1-2% better or something, but we ignore that's due to changing the goalposts sometimes, and everyone else is getting worse or staying the same while spending way more money than they should, even when they're never going to podium at all, nor is that their motivation for being in the sport to begin with.
Some fields seem better about this all than others, too, which is kind of interesting to compare and contrast sometimes.
Changing the goalposts with improvements in gear and engineering mask a lot of training improvements too in my opinion. In general I feel like maximal performance improves but why it's improving is often a mystery, and whether those improvements would matter to average athletes is also lost on people. There's kind of a shotgun approach to it all, and less so trying to sift through whether a particular thing matters and when.
I guess what's frustrating to me is this sense that people just kind of chase around the latest training idea, or latest marginal gear gain, ignoring that it will never make a practical difference to them in particular at their level of performance or setting, or might actually be harmful. My sense is it drives up product costs dramatically due to demand for (or supply limited to?) unnecessary things, and leads to a lot of confusion about what you "should" be doing and bad advice.
I think in the past people could also get stuck with bad ideas or worse gear, and would never want to go back in time in athletics, so I don't want to come across as a sort of sports luddite. But I do think the signal to noise ratio has gone way down even as the amount of information has gone way up, and as a result I'm not sure the changes are as beneficial as they could be, or are even harmful or wasteful.
In some fields it feels like the very top athletes are maybe performing 1-2% better or something, but we ignore that's due to changing the goalposts sometimes, and everyone else is getting worse or staying the same while spending way more money than they should, even when they're never going to podium at all, nor is that their motivation for being in the sport to begin with.
Some fields seem better about this all than others, too, which is kind of interesting to compare and contrast sometimes.
Related: NBA player Joel Embiid taught himself to shoot by watching white guys on Youtube, which he recounts in this article he wrote: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/articles/joel-embiid-its-s...
> When Smith aims for the triple 20 — the highest-value subsection of the board, but smaller than half a square inch — he hits it less than half the time.
Note that perfection does not necessitate hitting a high percentage of triple 20s, since one is also constrained by having to throw a total of 501 points.
One way to achieve true perfection is to hit triple 20 + triple 19 + double 50 with every 3 darts, giving all 9 darters.
Note that perfection does not necessitate hitting a high percentage of triple 20s, since one is also constrained by having to throw a total of 501 points.
One way to achieve true perfection is to hit triple 20 + triple 19 + double 50 with every 3 darts, giving all 9 darters.
But hitting it when you're aiming for it is important.
None of the other options are significantly easier to hit. Also, the hit rate of any other suitable combo won't differ much from that of triple 20, and triple 20 has the advantage of getting you to the high numbers sooner.
You could avoid triple 20 entirely, you can go for 8 triple 19s and a triple 15, for example.
You could avoid triple 20 entirely, you can go for 8 triple 19s and a triple 15, for example.
No; that won't work, since the final dart is required to be a double...
> None of the other options are significantly easier to hit.
Can you point to data supporting that claim?
I would think a simple model for throwing is:
- get the left-right direction right
- get the throwing angle/speed combo right
and do not rule out that some players are better at one of those than at the other, showing smaller variation. If so, those players would be better at hitting the (almost) vertical triples than the (almost) horizontal ones or vice versa.
I guess I would want to know the point-spread function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function) per player.
If you know that, you could devise an optimal strategy, weighing the number of points each target is worth (even if you can hit triple-10 with 100% precision, it most of the time isn’t a good idea to aim for it) and situation of the game (you’re maximizing the probability of winning, not the winning margin, so if you’re far, far ahead, that triple-10 may become enticing)
Can you point to data supporting that claim?
I would think a simple model for throwing is:
- get the left-right direction right
- get the throwing angle/speed combo right
and do not rule out that some players are better at one of those than at the other, showing smaller variation. If so, those players would be better at hitting the (almost) vertical triples than the (almost) horizontal ones or vice versa.
I guess I would want to know the point-spread function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function) per player.
If you know that, you could devise an optimal strategy, weighing the number of points each target is worth (even if you can hit triple-10 with 100% precision, it most of the time isn’t a good idea to aim for it) and situation of the game (you’re maximizing the probability of winning, not the winning margin, so if you’re far, far ahead, that triple-10 may become enticing)
The 20 is symmetrical, so if you aim for the center, and are slightly off to the left or to the right, you are equally likely to still hit, compared to the 19 which is at an angle and thus biased to one side. Therefore, when shooting for the 19 you'd have to rotate your point of symmetry which means adjusting the angle, speed, AND left/right.
I personally don't have any data to support this, but it seems extremely intuitive and so I think the burden should be on you to show 19 is equally easy to hit if for some reason you think it is.
20 also has the advantage of getting you closer to 0 if you don't shoot a perfect game, which is pretty much always, so 20 is BETTER unless 19 is significantly easier to hit.
I personally don't have any data to support this, but it seems extremely intuitive and so I think the burden should be on you to show 19 is equally easy to hit if for some reason you think it is.
20 also has the advantage of getting you closer to 0 if you don't shoot a perfect game, which is pretty much always, so 20 is BETTER unless 19 is significantly easier to hit.
8 60s and a 21 seems more elegant, though your approach is more difficult because you have to aim for more different places.
You cannot end with 21; it has to be a double...
The amount of money one can earn as a professional sports player has also multiplied so the incentive to practice has multiplied also.
If I spent my youth playing darts 8 hours a day I would be considered rather foolish, nowadays not so much.
If I spent my youth playing darts 8 hours a day I would be considered rather foolish, nowadays not so much.
In professional cycling the earnings have fallen quite a lot since the 90s, but professionalism in training and the overall level has risen. So money can't be the only explanation.
I'm struggling to think of a way in which either individual or team earnings could possibly be lower now than in the 90's.
[deleted]
>So money can't be the only explanation.
Well, of course not. There is better equipment, better training practices, and I imagine there are more participants doing cycling both on amateur and professional level. No wonder the results are better.
Well, of course not. There is better equipment, better training practices, and I imagine there are more participants doing cycling both on amateur and professional level. No wonder the results are better.
What is the data that you are basing this statement on?
On that average speeds records are being broken in racing all the time. That ex pros comment that the professionalism and training is on a much higher level now than it was in the 90s. And a whole lot of other things picked up following cycling for a long time.
Sorry.
I should have asked a different question.
Your statement mentioned that earnings have fallen since the 90s.
I don't know of any data sources outside of the price money of the Tour de France.
I was wondering if there were different source on which you relied to make that statement?
I commented and answer on that before but deleted it, as I didn't felt like having a discussion about it. Cycling economy is frustratingly oblique. I relied on a host of source most of them not in writing, beside my own calculations on salaries. The academic monography The Economics of Professional Road Cycling claims that cycling has expanded economically since the 90s, while I think that their method is not trustworthy.
Reminds me of Star Trek episode where they have darts and Bashir stops holding back:
https://youtu.be/j3RgXKU0RsQ?si=Gbh7JPVoEgrmQJqR
And it is this very topic:
https://youtu.be/orDyHlnaFys?si=4BxQBBLaf7suk4XA
Star Trek explored many subjects!
Too bad I can’t find the darts scene that closed out the episode
https://youtu.be/j3RgXKU0RsQ?si=Gbh7JPVoEgrmQJqR
And it is this very topic:
https://youtu.be/orDyHlnaFys?si=4BxQBBLaf7suk4XA
Star Trek explored many subjects!
Too bad I can’t find the darts scene that closed out the episode
The best baseball players get on base < 33% of the time.
Which imo makes the sport quite a bore to watch as someone who never played. I'm sure it's an incredibly impressive display of skill if I had any idea how hard it is, but all I know as a spectator is I get to sit there and watch people strike out. Occasionally there will be a base gained in an inning. Maybe a run or two from my team in a game. It just doesn't seem like a very balanced game, at least for the metric of creating excitement in the audience. I think it would be more interesting if the athletes were worse at it
You’re not alone. MLB has adopted a bunch of new rules in order to both speed up the game and generate more plays. They see the problem as well.
Pitch clock, pick-off attempt limit, the shift being reined in a bit. The bases are slightly larger, which should tip the scale toward the runner.
Pitch clock, pick-off attempt limit, the shift being reined in a bit. The bases are slightly larger, which should tip the scale toward the runner.
And yet, based on the one game I saw while visiting the US, they will gladly spend hours doing anything except playing the game - they'll play 2-3 minutes and then go away for 15. I'm glad I got to see a "kiss cam" in real life, but I ended up watching more Jumbotron TV than game.
You want to speed up the game? Turn off the screens. I know there's a tradition of taking baseball more like a picnic than a sport, but if cricket could come up with variations to shorten 2-3 days into 3 hours I'm sure baseball can do it too.
You want to speed up the game? Turn off the screens. I know there's a tradition of taking baseball more like a picnic than a sport, but if cricket could come up with variations to shorten 2-3 days into 3 hours I'm sure baseball can do it too.
The only time I’ve gone to a baseball game as an American (with a “World Series” winning team, no less) in the last twenty years was because my work shuttle bussed us all an hour from the office, and we got unlimited alcoholic drinks in a covered area. I got to hang out with coworkers all day which was important as we were just coming out of Covid restrictions and were all working remotely, so it was an excellent opportunity to get to meet and interact with people.
I have absolutely no recollection which team won or who was playing against my local sports team. But I remember having fun!
I have absolutely no recollection which team won or who was playing against my local sports team. But I remember having fun!
You would think that the 7th inning stretch would have been a clue that the game has gone on too long. But no. It does reduce my faith in humanity though.
They do this so they can show more commercials to people watching the game on TV.
Of course it makes watching the game a worse experience.
Of course it makes watching the game a worse experience.
Only Americans could invent a more violent form of golf while not realizing that baseball and golf feature watching grass grow as a spectator sport.
Baseball was invented in Great Britain.
Not true, but golf was invented in Scotland.
Do me a favor and check a minimum of sources before you shoot that Not true.
I did.
> Early baseball or town-ball had many, many variants, as would be expected of an informal boys' game, and most differed in several particulars from the game which developed in New York in the 1840s.
All wikipedia pages point to baseball being invented in new england, USA.
Yes, other games that involve hitting balls with sticks were invented elsewhere, including great britian, and the influence can be traced to those, but the game we play today was invented in the USA.
> Early baseball or town-ball had many, many variants, as would be expected of an informal boys' game, and most differed in several particulars from the game which developed in New York in the 1840s.
All wikipedia pages point to baseball being invented in new england, USA.
Yes, other games that involve hitting balls with sticks were invented elsewhere, including great britian, and the influence can be traced to those, but the game we play today was invented in the USA.
What
In what ways is baseball violent or like golf?
In what ways is baseball violent or like golf?
Maybe OP only watched baseball a long time ago, where runners could, say, smash the catcher at home plate to try to get him to drop the ball.
Those rules have also been changed and those plays are extremely rare, and also frowned upon by players.
However, the pitcher intentionally throwing a ball 90 mph at a batter's head because of some perceived slight is still part of the game.
Those rules have also been changed and those plays are extremely rare, and also frowned upon by players.
However, the pitcher intentionally throwing a ball 90 mph at a batter's head because of some perceived slight is still part of the game.
Thanks for your comment.
Indeed, smashing the catcher at home plate was common whether initiated by the catcher or the base runner. For over one hundred years, MLB has debated whether there is any place for violence at home plate between base runners and catchers, intentional or otherwise. It is a complex question that has been answered by rules and player attitudes with little consensus between rule makers, players, and spectators, which, of course, closely mirrors society at large.
I love baseball and golf and have participated in both, but only as a young player. To me, spectator sports that aren't the Tour de France, F1, or WRC are just not dense enough with action to sustain my interest, even if that action is enabled by wheels and sources of power that may not be human.
This tension between safety and freedom is a theme that has played a role for at least as long as the publication of Trevor Melia's book, "Lucifer State", more than four decades ago. I'm out-of-my-depth in classics but I'd be surprised if there weren't a much older reference to this tension in antiquity. The role of that tension in modern society most certainly divides the room whether we are talking about art, sports, or life itself.
Indeed, smashing the catcher at home plate was common whether initiated by the catcher or the base runner. For over one hundred years, MLB has debated whether there is any place for violence at home plate between base runners and catchers, intentional or otherwise. It is a complex question that has been answered by rules and player attitudes with little consensus between rule makers, players, and spectators, which, of course, closely mirrors society at large.
I love baseball and golf and have participated in both, but only as a young player. To me, spectator sports that aren't the Tour de France, F1, or WRC are just not dense enough with action to sustain my interest, even if that action is enabled by wheels and sources of power that may not be human.
This tension between safety and freedom is a theme that has played a role for at least as long as the publication of Trevor Melia's book, "Lucifer State", more than four decades ago. I'm out-of-my-depth in classics but I'd be surprised if there weren't a much older reference to this tension in antiquity. The role of that tension in modern society most certainly divides the room whether we are talking about art, sports, or life itself.
So they finally jazzed it up?
I think it would be more interesting if the athletes were worse at it
MiLB isn't any more exciting than MLB games. At least the games are more affordable. You might find some NCAA games more interesting though, since the quality gap between teams tends be higher and home runs rates are higher than other levels. Allowing metal bats probably has something to do with it.
MiLB isn't any more exciting than MLB games. At least the games are more affordable. You might find some NCAA games more interesting though, since the quality gap between teams tends be higher and home runs rates are higher than other levels. Allowing metal bats probably has something to do with it.
That's not true. A .400 OBP is attainable by the best baseball players and has been done over a season or even career many times.
Juan Soto, who is currently playing, has a career .421 OBP.
A .333 OBP in MLB, depending on the player's position and what year it is, would be OK. Not great, certainly not the best.
Juan Soto, who is currently playing, has a career .421 OBP.
A .333 OBP in MLB, depending on the player's position and what year it is, would be OK. Not great, certainly not the best.
tl;dr - Games are continually made easier by bending the rules and better equipment. Also more people practise more.
Where did you find "bending the rules" in the original article?
People will cry "steroids", but it's way deeper than that. Weight wasn't everywhere like it is today. It's hard to imagine baseball or basketball without significant weight training, but it seems obvious now. Golfers and runners incorporate weight training which would have been unheard of just 30 years ago (except for that one weird guy).
Nutrition has made huge strides. Also the concept of "off season" has largely disappeared. Football players no longer show up to preseason to get into shape -- that's what they were working on the whole summer.
Then there is data analytics. Teens have power monitors and more in cycling. Baseball players have pitch tracking and way more.
Then the internet. I played soccer in college in the late 80's. We had to learn everything from coaches or a "friend who saw this one thing from a guy they played with when travelling...". Now you can get a technique broken down -- in detail.
Coaching has abundant online resources and training on how to run a practice and drill skills, so 8 year olds are receiving a better training.
I'm watching this revolution take place right now in wrestling. The sport is getting bigger and better in the US. The difference between how a practice is run in soccer vs wrestling is stark. Wrestling is much more of getting thrown in the deep in and "find what works for you" where soccer is much more programmatic training of skills, raising the fundamental levels across the board. I suspect a lot of sports are going through this at the moment, catching up to the more formalized training methods of the biggest sports.
Along these lines, this year we saw a European player dominate the NBA playoffs. Lots of talk about how strong the fundamentals of his game are and whether US players brought up with the solo style (showing off?) system are actually falling behind a bit in technique.