INSIDE THE NUMBERS
Jim Parinella

Despite what Mark Twain thought about statistics,
numbers can tell a story, often one which is quite
different from what our memory tells us.  How often
is anecdotal evidence cited to "prove" a universal
truth, when in reality all that is proven is that
one person has a differing story.  Ultimate seems
to have displayed great resistance to
quantification, RUFUS notwithstanding, partly
because no one wants to do the work, but moreso
because stats are so prevalent everywhere else in
sports and Ultimate wants to be different.  All the
same, though, there are a lot of us who prefer to
have the facts behind us when we speak.

As always, there has been a lot of discussion on
the Internet about calls in College and Club Open
Nationals.  I recently reviewed a tape of Club
Finals to get a numerical evaluation of the
situation.  Here is what I found.

				Double	DoG
Fouls by the marker		8	21
Fouls on the receiver		1	1
Fouls called by the
receiver but overruled		2	2
Picks called by defense		4	3
Travels called 			1	3
Strips called but ruled
inconclusive			0	1
Passes thrown			422	132
% of passes that the
thrower was fouled		5.0	6.1

Additional commentary:

1.  The strip call was a close one but correct.

2.  Foul breakdown by DoG:
	Dennis McCarthy		7
	Jordan Haskell		5
	3 with			2
	3 with 			1

   Dennis and Jordan played point most of the game.
Dennis was the one cited on the Net for being
"called for over 30 fouls".  I don't think a foul
limit would have affected DoG here.  If one
existed, we would have switched around markers so
no one would get into foul trouble.  In a game some
would label a "call-fest" (at least 46 stoppages of
play) with a team with "aggressive marking", at
most two players (but more likely zero) would have
been in danger of fouling out.

3.  Aggressive marking.  Again, from the Net:
"FOUL FIRST... DH frequently was unable to get off
a second pass [in the zone]...  Part of this is due
to the hustle and smarts displayed by DoG's wings
and deep players, but part is due to the fact that
the first DoG player to reach the thrower would
immediately administer a foul (or at least an
"aggressive mark") before retreating to their
position in the zone."

I specifically watched for this, yet counted a
total of only four contacts between a defender and a
popper who had just caught the disc.  Three of them
came in a flurry on one possession, so it's easy to
see where it would appear to be systematic.  One
contact I would call "pretty bad", although it
didn't really stop the flow.  Scott Lippy caught a
15-20 yarder through the middle, a DoG wing ran by
and set up about two yards in front of him
preventing the huck, and about 4-5 seconds after
the catch, a DoG point ran up and fouled him fairly
hard.  The other two contacts that point were
fairly solid, but it appeared to be more of a
mutual collision and no fouls were called.   The
fourth occurrence had the middle middle running
hard to the disc, couldn't get it, and put his
hands up to prevent a full body contact.  Nothing
unsportsmanlike, but he did slow the flow, and
again no foul called.  This appears to be the only
violation on DoG's part that affected DH's flow.
The reason Double wasn't getting a continuation was
that they would almost always look back
immediately. A few times they did look for the next
pass and moved it up well.

4.  A couple of the fouls committed by DoG could be
called "bad fouls", and a couple of the calls by
Double seemed pretty lame.  I remember no bad calls
or bad fouls the other way.

5.  4 of 6 fouls called by receivers were overruled.

6.  I think no matter what your view on the
situation, you can find some corroborating
information in this article.  In fact, after
posting a similar article to rec.sport.disc, I
received a question from someone who read "DH was
unable to get some throws off in the zone due to
fouling by the marker", quite the opposite of my
intention.

I sensed that the consensus after the game was that
the Boston team played like hacks.  People probably
remembered many fouls and the occasional hard
foul.  However, DoG actually fouled at a lower rate
per pass than did Double Happiness.  Additionally,
DoG was in a zone, where a higher percentage of
passes require several fakes and/or have to beat
the mark (this is unsubstantiated, of course, but I
think it's true), whereas DoG's receivers were so
wide open all game that they rarely had a mark
(slight stretch of the truth).  The facts here, I
believe, don't point to either team as the
aggressor.  Selective memories and prior talk of
"foul-happy" East vs. "happy feet" West have
probably biased views, so let's keep those minds
open.

Back to Stat page