| |
|
 Subscribe in a reader
Explaining TPR - Volume II: The Win Component
How important is a win? Seems like a silly question, because fights are almost exclusively measured in binary: You've either won or lost, or to borrow an idiom, winning is everything.
The introduction of TPR changes that. A performance rating means that not all wins and losses are created equal; there are degrees to which some wins are better than others. Similarly, not all performances in a losing effort are equal. This begs the question: Is it possible for some losses to be better than some wins?
We posed this question in a survey and received over 200 responses from various segments of the MMA community. In all, the clear majority opinion (76% of respondents) was that losses can sometimes be better than wins.
The perceived logic behind this is two-fold. Firstly, some wins are questionable, whether because of bad decisions or early stoppages. Those victories are already devalued in the eyes of fans. More important is what we'll call the "Clay Guida Problem." Try ranking the following three performances in order of quality:
Justin McCully's against Antoni Hardonk
Clay Guida's against Roger Huerta
Gabriel Gonzaga's against Kevin Jordan
There would likely be variation in who was ranked second and third, but those 76% who responded above would almost definitely put Guida's performance as the best. Compared to a boring decision victory in McCully's case, or even to a definitive knockout in a three round snoozefest in Gonzaga's case, one would have to concede that Guida performed better, even though he was submitted.
The result is that the Win component contributes just five dedicated points to the TPR formula out of 100. Winning does have a larger effect, as we will see in discussions of the Time and Method components, but in the end, we've taken that original binary outlook and reduced it to a mere fraction of total performance quality.
This broaches an even bigger question: Is it possible for a loser to put in a better performance than the fighter who beat him? Here the binary problem is more pronounced. Thinking exclusively in terms of wins and losses means that a winner did not just perform better than the fighter he beat, but performed 100% better.
While this is true in principle, most fans would not agree to this if challenged. To use a recent example, even of those who believe that Michael Bisping deserved the win against Matt Hamill by way of the ten-point must system, most would agree that Hamill put in the better performance overall.
By not building a correction into the system that requires winning fighters to outpoint their defeated opponents, we've opened the door to non-traditional conclusions. Indeed, the TPR calculation gives Hamill a 69 rating, while Bisping, despite gaining the points included in the calculation for officially winning the fight, gets only a 47.
One of the reasons why fans are so incensed by bad decisions is that it leaves the loser with nothing to show for it. In Hamill's case, TPR leaves him with more than Bisping. This frees a fighter's performance from the bonds of the single comparison point: how did they do compared to their opponent? With TPR, we have the means to look at the larger picture and see how the fighter did in the context of every fight performance. In doing so, we can answer the question, "How important is a win?" Not nearly as important as a superior performance.
Explaining TPR - Volume I: The Basics
As happy as we were to announce the release of the Total Performance Rating, we didn't provide all that much helpful explanation at the outset. We will be exploring the statistic in greater detail in a series of posts. The first one answers the two most important questions:
What is it and what does it do?
First, what it isn't. TPR is not a judging mechanism. MMA fans seem so dissatisfied with the ten-point must system that they are willing to latch onto any alternative as a way to decide fights. That is not what TPR is for. For one thing, it has the official outcome built into the calculation. So whether a decision is good or bogus, the official winner is getting points. It is impossible to use TPR to judge a fight, given that the fact that a fighter won or lost is part of the score.
So then what is it? It's a single score that you can use to measure the quality of a fighter's performance in a single fight. Based on our analysis and your input, we've identified six measurable (more on that later) things that make one performance good and another not as good. They are: Offensive Volume, Accuracy, Domination, Win/Loss, Time, and Method. Understanding how a fighter performed against each of those categories gives you a pretty good idea of his performance.
What can you do with it? Here are three basic examples of analysis that can be performed using this statistic.
Example #1: Compare the two participants in a single fight
This is the simplest form of analysis. Take a look at the report featuring TPR's for Anderson Silva's five fights in the UFC. The one that sticks out the most in terms of margin of victory is his first bout, the one against Chris Leben. In this case, Silva got a perfect 100 while Leben got a 5. The size of the differential lets you know that this was a dominating performance by Silva and a disappointing showing by Leben.
Example #2: Compare multiple fights by the same fighter
In its most basic form, this is easy to see. Silva's performance against Leben (TPR of 100) was much better than his performance against Travis Lutter (TPR of 68). Or as another example, you can see that both Silva's and Rich Franklin's performance quality was nearly identical in their two fights. The first had TPR's of 95 to 27, while the second fight had TPR's of 96 to 28. The differential is exactly the same and the TPR's are only one point off for both fighters.
Example #3: Compare different fights featuring different fighters
This is where having a mathematical rating system comes in the handiest, because observations aren't as clear as in the previous two examples. For this application, take a look at the report with TPR's for UFC 80. Consider the first fight listed, the championship match between BJ Penn and Joe Stevenson. Clearly, this was a dominating performance by Penn, evidenced by a TPR of 91. TPR allows us to ask a unique question: Which performance was more dominant: Penn's against Stevenson or Silva's second fight against Franklin?
In terms of individual performance quality, the edge goes to Silva. His TPR of 96 includes perfect scores for Accuracy and Offensive Volume and a near-perfect score for Time. Penn's TPR of 91 matches Silva in terms of Volume, but lags in Time (Silva finished three minutes faster) and Accuracy. Still a fantastic performance by Penn, but slightly less so than Silva, who proves his reputation for striking precision is well-founded.
Bu the question above was about dominance, and that's where Penn holds the advantage. Silva received a Dominance score of 12 while Penn was nearly perfect with a 14. Penn also had the greater TPR differential, with 69 points separating him from his opponent, while Silva's differential was 68. Again, the advantage is slight, but Penn's victory over Stevenson was the more dominant.
These are just three examples of the ways TPR can be used to analyze fight results. Watch this space for future installments, when will delve into the finer points of this powerful calculation.
Performance Rating Roundup for UFC 80
UFC 80 gave us a new set of fights to process using FightMetric's newly-released Total Performance Rating statistic. Here is our report for the eight televised fights from last night's UFC 80 broadcast.Some TPR notes from each fight:Penn unleashed a truly impressive amount of offense, accumulating 495 effectiveness points for offensive volume in just over 9 minutes. That works out to 54.8 points per minute (PpM), compared to the historical average of 12.33. Penn earned a TPR of 90, while Stevenson's TPR of 23 reflects his heart and relentlessness until the fight-ending tapout.Gabriel Gonzaga might not have come away from his loss looking as bad as Joe Stevenson, but his TPR of 27 reflects how ineffective he was in his nine minutes of fight time. Despite executing three takedowns and winning the first round, Werdum's domination in the second round put much distance between the two fighters, resulting in a disappointing score for Gonzaga.Both Gouveia and Lambert have good things and bad on their report. Gouveia won, but his TPR of 69 was the lowest of any winner at UFC 80. Lambert had above-average marks for offensive volume, but his TPR of 45 is exactly the average for losing fighters.Give Paul Taylor credit for an above-average performance in his loss to Paul Kelly. Despite heavy damage, Taylor gutted out a decision, leaving him with a TPR of 50.How close was Marcus Davis to perfection? His TPR of 99 would have been a perfect 100 if he had finished the fight four seconds faster.Jorge Rivera was nearly as close, with a TPR of 97. Kendall Grove scores a 1 for lasting into the third minute of the fight.Despite missing on his only strike attempt, James Lee gets a TPR of 19 for his three takedowns. It looked like he might have had Sakara going there for a minute.Congrats to Antoni Hardonk for the evening's only perfect score. Taking only 17 seconds to TKO Colin Robinson and absorbing no strikes in the process will do that.
Announcing the Total Performance Rating
FightMetric is extremely happy to announce the release of our newest statistic, the Total Performance Rating, or T.P.R. This statistic fills a major gap for us. Up to now, we really only had meaningful comparative numbers for fights that go to a decision. With T.P.R., we can give a clear, easy measure of fight performance whether the fight lasts 30 seconds or 30 minutes.To demonstrate the use of this statistic, we have put together a presentation examining Anderson Silva's five fights since he joined the UFC. Anyone who has been paying attention can tell you how impressive Silva has been in his time in the Octagon. But with T.P.R., you can compare his performance in these fights against each other. For example, the fight against Travis Lutter was the only one in which Silva scored a T.P.R. below 90, a remarkable achievement. Consider T.P.R. to be for MMA fighters what the NFL's Passer Rating is for quarterbacks: a single number comprised of six weighted components that collectively measure the quality of a fighter's performance. This single statistic harnesses the power of FightMetric's proprietary database and effectiveness algorithm, with its calculations informed by the opinions of the MMA community. Two months ago, we asked you to respond to a survey asking hard questions about what matters most when evaluating fight performance quality. The results of the survey helped develop the category weightings. As with all of FightMetric's statistics, the calculations will become more accurate with time and additional data entered into our database.Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks as we explore and explain some of the thought that went into developing this powerful statistic.
Griffin-Edgar: A Cautionary Tale
Today marks the release of FightMetric's report on the phenomenal fight between Tyson Griffin and Frank Edgar from February of last year. The numbers in the report are not too contrarian, except that they allow for the rare 10-10 round. It's easy for a numerical system to call a round even because the numbers are the only deciding factor. MMA judges, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to be swayed toward one fighter or another, as if calling a round even is an indication of indecisiveness. Whatever their reason, FightMetric research indicates that no judge in NSAC history has ever called an MMA round 10-10.The cautionary tale in the title is about naming a bout Fight of the Year too early. In this case, the fight took place in February. Tyson Griffin alone would have two other FOTY-worthy bouts (against Clay Guida and Thiago Tavares) in the succeeding 10 months. So when an exciting match happens in the first few months of 2008, just remember, patience please.
How Well Do You Know MMA?
FightMetric is drawing on its extensive database of fight endings to see how well you know the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. We've created a one-of-a-kind quiz with answers culled from detailed results from thousands of fights. The difference between this quiz and any other is that there is no way to Google these answers. This is not trivia that you either know or don't. Answering these questions will test your knowledge of the way the sport of MMA operates. So how well do you know MMA? Answer these 10 questions and see for yourself.
FightMetric Analysis of Liddell-Silva
Was it everything you'd dreamed of and more? After the years of hype, we finally got Liddell-Silva. Today marks the debut of FightMetric's analysis of the fight. You can also find our stats and commentary in article form at MMA Madness.The findings shouldn't shock anyone, unless you're name is Adalaide Byrd or Dave Hagen. In that case, you'll disagree with our assessment of Round 2, for which the data points to an advantage for Silva. One question that lingers: If the fight was contested under the old Pride rules, would Silva have been so quick to let Liddell up after knocking him down in the second round? How much does the loss of stomps and soccer kicks affect Silva's game?
Wanderlei Silva Doesn't Jab
Stay tuned tomorrow for the full breakdown of Silva-Liddell, but in the meantime...Silva doesn't jab.
That's a bit of an overstatement, though not by much. Silva attempted 45 head jabs in a match that was spent almost entirely on the feet. By comparison, Liddell threw 82.
Historically, 45 jab attempts is not a small number, in fact, it's a bit above avergae. But it's Silva's jab-to-power strike ratio that is absurd. Based on FightMetric's database of statistics, the average fighter throws about 1.5 jabs for every power strike at distance, a ratio of three-to-two. So a normal fight would see a fighter throw about 40 head jabs compared to about 25 power strikes at a distance.
Silva threw more than 2.5 power strikes for every jab thrown, a five-to-two ratio. Those 45 head jabs are contrasted by 113 power strike attempts.
Baseball stats people talk about a "three true outcomes" hitter, that is, a batter who either walks, strikes out, or hits a homerun (the three outcomes that are independent of defense) most times at bat. Though he went to a decision this time, Silva could be the model for a "two true outcomes" striker. Winging all those power shots could knock someone out, but it could just as soon open you up for counter-striking.
|
|
|
|
