THE SCORE LINE IS NOT A TRUE REFLECTION OF THE GAME?

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. Its negation, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “with this, therefore because of this”) and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occurs before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc.

The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

• A occurs in correlation with B.
• Therefore, A causes B.

Example:

Sleeping with one’s shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.
Therefore, sleeping with one’s shoes on causes headache.

The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that sleeping with one’s shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case alcohol intoxication, which thereby gives rise to a correlation.

So often we hear coaches of the losing teams say: “score line is not a true reflection of the game”. I say: “Numbers Don’t Lie: The Match Results and Table (standings) don’t lie. Interpretations Might”

If not the score line then what is the true reflection of the game? Ball possession, shots at goal, etc? “The “F” Grade is not a true reflection of how I fared on the exams.” Huh? “I forgot to answer 2 questions.” “I run out of time.” The truth of the matter is that you failed and Grades reflect how you fared on the exams. Similarly, scores reflect how the team fared. Hitting the post doesn’t count.

You play to win the game and you win by scoring goals. So, in my opinion, a margin of more than a goal is a true reflection of the game. Though it may not imply that the winning team played better, it does imply that the losing team has a lot of defensive weaknesses. There is a correlation between goals conceded and weak defense. If you have a weaker defense you concede more goals.

On the other hand if a team loses by a single goal, if I were the coach I wouldn’t say: “the score line is not a reflection of the game.” I would possibly say: “Luck was not on our side.” Winning or losing 1-0 may be attributed to luck. 2,3,4? Definitely not.

Regression fallacy: “Regression to the mean” is a well-known statistical phenomenon where a measured extreme value is later measured to be much closer to average. For example, in order to be a championship sports team, a team will have to be both lucky and skilled; many times, a team that wins a championship one season will have a merely average season the next, because although they are equally skilled, they simply did not get the same lucky breaks. Assuming that something other than regression to the mean caused the decreased performance is the regression fallacy.

Man U are not that far from an average team. They are just luckier than other teams. Man U have been winning 1-0. The score line does not lie but most of the games that Man U won 1-0 they could have won by a wider margin. Seems even winning teams may say that score line is not a true reflection of the game.

Mozambique beat Malawi 2-0. Mozambique Mambas missed several good scoring chances.

“The players did not play that bad. They kept possession well and the score line is not a true reflection of the game.” – Kinnah Phiri (Flames Coach)