The moneyball problem: What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Athletes in most sports now have access to an abundance of information about the situational tendencies of their opponent(s) but it is currently unclear how effectively this information can be used or how to best present it. Three different methods for presenting situational information about a baseball pitcher were compared for college baseball players hitting in a batting simulator: Build-Up (shown cumulative pitch distributions), Full (shown complete distributions) and Control (shown no distributions). Initially, both the Build-Up and Full groups had significantly higher batting averages than the control group, however, the Full group had significantly lower batting performance when the pitcher was changed. Providing situational probability information gives a significant advantage to a batter, however, there is a trade-off (between short-term effectiveness and negative transfer) which depends on how the information is presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publication2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015
PublisherHuman Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc.
Pages1377-1381
Number of pages5
Volume2015-January
ISBN (Electronic)9780945289470
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015
Event59th International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014 - Los Angeles, United States
Duration: Oct 26 2015Oct 30 2015

Other

Other59th International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014
CountryUnited States
CityLos Angeles
Period10/26/1510/30/15

Fingerprint

athlete
statistics
Statistics
present
Sports
Simulators
Group
performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics

Cite this

Gray, R. (2015). The moneyball problem: What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete? In 2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015 (Vol. 2015-January, pp. 1377-1381). Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591229

The moneyball problem : What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete? / Gray, Robert.

2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015. Vol. 2015-January Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc., 2015. p. 1377-1381.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Gray, R 2015, The moneyball problem: What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete? in 2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015. vol. 2015-January, Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc., pp. 1377-1381, 59th International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014, Los Angeles, United States, 10/26/15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591229
Gray R. The moneyball problem: What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete? In 2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015. Vol. 2015-January. Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc. 2015. p. 1377-1381 https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591229
Gray, Robert. / The moneyball problem : What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete?. 2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015. Vol. 2015-January Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc., 2015. pp. 1377-1381
@inproceedings{bf77b1d759f141fca428c5cf10780f04,
title = "The moneyball problem: What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete?",
abstract = "Athletes in most sports now have access to an abundance of information about the situational tendencies of their opponent(s) but it is currently unclear how effectively this information can be used or how to best present it. Three different methods for presenting situational information about a baseball pitcher were compared for college baseball players hitting in a batting simulator: Build-Up (shown cumulative pitch distributions), Full (shown complete distributions) and Control (shown no distributions). Initially, both the Build-Up and Full groups had significantly higher batting averages than the control group, however, the Full group had significantly lower batting performance when the pitcher was changed. Providing situational probability information gives a significant advantage to a batter, however, there is a trade-off (between short-term effectiveness and negative transfer) which depends on how the information is presented.",
author = "Robert Gray",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1177/1541931215591229",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2015-January",
pages = "1377--1381",
booktitle = "2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015",
publisher = "Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc.",
address = "United States",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - The moneyball problem

T2 - What is the best way to present situational statistics to an athlete?

AU - Gray, Robert

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Athletes in most sports now have access to an abundance of information about the situational tendencies of their opponent(s) but it is currently unclear how effectively this information can be used or how to best present it. Three different methods for presenting situational information about a baseball pitcher were compared for college baseball players hitting in a batting simulator: Build-Up (shown cumulative pitch distributions), Full (shown complete distributions) and Control (shown no distributions). Initially, both the Build-Up and Full groups had significantly higher batting averages than the control group, however, the Full group had significantly lower batting performance when the pitcher was changed. Providing situational probability information gives a significant advantage to a batter, however, there is a trade-off (between short-term effectiveness and negative transfer) which depends on how the information is presented.

AB - Athletes in most sports now have access to an abundance of information about the situational tendencies of their opponent(s) but it is currently unclear how effectively this information can be used or how to best present it. Three different methods for presenting situational information about a baseball pitcher were compared for college baseball players hitting in a batting simulator: Build-Up (shown cumulative pitch distributions), Full (shown complete distributions) and Control (shown no distributions). Initially, both the Build-Up and Full groups had significantly higher batting averages than the control group, however, the Full group had significantly lower batting performance when the pitcher was changed. Providing situational probability information gives a significant advantage to a batter, however, there is a trade-off (between short-term effectiveness and negative transfer) which depends on how the information is presented.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84981712769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84981712769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1541931215591229

DO - 10.1177/1541931215591229

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84981712769

VL - 2015-January

SP - 1377

EP - 1381

BT - 2015 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2015

PB - Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc.

ER -