Taking the Fear Out of Statistics

To revive the passion for a subject from my student days, I began teaching a course on statistics at a college in Northern California. The experience has taught me quite a bit about why students think that the subject is a refined form of torture. There are too many formulas; the concepts are hard to grasp for those whose facility with algebra and even basic mathematical operations are shaky. There were students in my class who were attempting to pass the course for the fourth and the fifth time. It was what was preventing them from graduating.

With this as background, I decided that the only way students were going to pass the course was if I could make statistics come alive for them, if somehow I could connect it to events from everyday life.

I was lucky. The gubernatorial race in California was heating up. Papers were full of election predictions. Major magazines had stories like "Anti-depressants don't work," with the proof coming from treatment and placebo groups. There was plenty of material that let me convince students that statistical literacy would not only help them become better citizens of a democracy, it would also help them with their careers, no matter what they chose to specialize in.

Once this psychological barrier was broken, suddenly the subject became relevant and even enjoyable!

Statistics had two major goals, I told students at the beginning of the semester: First, we must learn to draw meaning from data when all the data are known. That meant organizing, describing and summarizing data. Second, draw conclusion (inference) about the whole population when we have only sample data.

This put into perspective the syllabus for the course. Descriptive statistics included measures of central tendencies, variances and standard deviation. We then moved onto probability, the foundation of inferential statistics, and its application to medicine, insurance, economics, social and biological sciences and so on. This naturally led to detailed description of binomial and normal distributions and the famous bell curve.

For probability, I found it instructive to demonstrate the ideas with a quarter, a dice and a bell. I was able to take much of the fear out of the fearsome formula for normal distribution by actually "ringing" my bell and emphasizing that the formula simply described the symmetric shape of a bell.

As students learned to look up binomial probability tables, z scores and t-values, their confidence soared. They struggled at first to understand what the values and the scores actually meant but once they mastered it, they were able to solve some fairly complicated problems.

From there, I went to fundamental ideas of estimation and hypothesis testing. The Null Hypothesis, the p-value and the idea of what is "statistically significant" caused a lot of problems, particularly because of double negatives inherent in the concepts. I suspect this is where many statistics students are ready to throw in the towel. I persisted and eventually made some headway, but not before students telling me decisively that statistics has a strange way of testing whether a medicine works or not! I had to agree.

The final part was regression and correlation. Here, I had to use a full lecture reviewing algebra and the equation of a straight line. From there, predicting variables with the regression line became more straightforward than it would have been otherwise.

My best moment from this demanding course came at the end when students told me that had indeed developed an appreciation of statistics, that they would look at poll predictions with new and understanding eyes. Example: Candidate A is expected to get 60% of the votes with a margin of error of +- 4%.. "That implies that the confidence level is 95%," they told me. "Which means what?" I asked. "If pollsters had 100 simple random voter samples to work with, each sample consisting of the same number of voters, 95 of those samples would contain in the confidence interval the actual percentage of votes that candidate A would get. 5 of those samples would not. That's 95% confidence level."

The response certainly gave a boost to my confidence in teaching statistics!

Boring, Physical Final of the Vuvuzela World Cup

In the end, in extra time, Spain got the job done and defeated the Netherlands 1-.0 to be crowned the new King of Soccer. But it was a boring, physical game in which the Dutch players committed blatant fouls that deserved a red card or two. Spain was the better team, more poised and patient, and although Netherlands had its chances, the result was poetic justice for a nation that had broken the hearts of its fans for too long. Separatist unrest has already started in Catalonia, but for a few days at least, Spain deserves to bask in the glow of its sweet victory. Perhaps winning the 2010 World Cup will unify the country more than any political party can.

Watching this frustratingly ugly game made one thing clear: When Europeans play one another in the final, expect to be bored. We see exciting soccer when a European team is matched against a South American team. The Germany-Uruguay match for third and fourth place was far more entertaining than Spain-Netherlands. Contrasting styles make the beauty shine through in the beautiful game. Too bad both Brazil and Argentina lost and left early.

Some final thoughts:

The record for most goals in the World Cup will be held by Brazil's Ronaldo (15) at least through 2118. Miroslav Klose came close at 14 in his third World Cup but he will not be playing in 2114. Given that Lionel Messi hasn't scored a single goal in South Africa, there is no way he can catch Ronaldo even if he dominates the next two World Cups.

The most dominating team performance: Germany over Argentina 4-0. This was also the most thrilling match of the tournament. Viewers got their money's worth. Runner-up: Brazil over Chile 3-0.

Best player: Uruguay's Diego Forlan. His performance was consistently spectacular. He seemed to have a mystical understanding of the temperamental flight of the Jabulani ("to celebrate" in Zulu) World Cup soccer ball and bend it his way.

Most overrated: England's Wayne Rooney. The English team as a whole never measured up. The English are clearly masters of marketing. When it comes to delivering, they are the biggest dud in the world. To rate Rooney as a great player is to insult players who are truly great.
Runner up: Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo.

Young player to watch: Germany's Mesut Ozil. A gifted playmaker, his best days on the pitch are yet to come.

Best sideshow: Diego Maradona. He had the guts to speak his mind and bring passion to a game that badly needs it. His stars failed him.

Most intriguing character: Paul the Octopus, oracle of Germany's Oberhausen aquarium. Perfect prediction for all matches, including Germany's loss to Spain in the semifinal. Please release Paul to his natural habitat after his stellar performance.

South Africa as host: Wonderful!

The Young and the Restless Checked

The Germans looked strangely grim and subdued against Spain today. Maybe the European Cup championship loss two years ago to the same team was haunting them. Maybe the burden of expectations had finally caught up with them. Maybe the thunderous victory over Argentina had sapped them of motivation. More likely, Spain's superior ball control and possession disrupted the flow of their exuberant soccer. Whatever the reason, Spain was clearly the superior team from the get-go and deservedly won 1-0.

Miroslav Klose hardly saw the ball. Mesut Ozil was nervous. None of the set plays of Germany ever had a chance to "unfolded like a symphony." The players were chasing the ball most of the time. Too many of their passes went awry. They seemed in awe of the Spaniards, showed them too much respect. Spain displayed more imagination and daring, two qualities that had become synonymous with the German team until now.

What Germany had to do was not allow Spain to dictate the flow of the game. But that's what the Klose and company precisely did. In fact, Spain did to Germany what Germany did to Argentina.

Soccer can be sublime and exhilarating but it can also be cruel which, given the idiosyncrasies of the referees, was often the case in this World Cup. But none of that was an issue today. Spain seemed mentally better prepared . It showed in the self-assurance of its players on the pitch . Germany may yet redeem itself somewhat by winning the "bronze medal" against Uruguay on July 10. It can also look forward to building on the promise of its young players. Experience can be a great teacher.

In terms of democratizing the appeal of soccer, though, there couldn't be a better final on July 11. Neither Spain nor Holland had ever won a World Cup. The Netherlands played in the finals twice, in 1974 (lost to host West Germany) and 1978 (lost to host Argentina). The "total football" of the Orangies can be a breathtaking combination of finesse, power and creativity. Spain is the favorite in terms of overall talent and teamwork. It can take control of a game with uncanny passing and lightning charges from the flanks. A most intriguing and keenly-contested match awaits us.

Unlike the "usual suspects," a new nation will be crowned the king of soccer this Sunday, and that's a good thing for the World Cup and its billions of followers. The storied honor associated with the most popular sport on the planet should spread wider so that even the smallest nation participating can one day claim the ultimate prize.

As for who will raise the trophy on July 11, I am going with Holland. But to do that, clockwork orange will have to play exactly unlike the Germans. The Dutch must show no respect and go at the Spaniards with everything they have right away. They must complement their brilliance with steely toughness, both mental and physical. If they make their intention clear in the opening minutes, the game will tilt in their favor. And South Africa and Amsterdam will erupt in joy, even as darkness descends on Madrid and Barcelona.

Do Cry for Me, Argentina (and Brazil)!

Germany's ruthless dismantling of Argentina 4-0 on the world's biggest sporting stage will haunt the South American nation for decades to come. Somewhere down the road, there maybe revenge or redemption but not anytime soon. Diego Maradona relied far too much on the artistry of Messi and Tevez and perhaps a few others but ignored the fact that he also had to defend his fort. His "attack, attack, attack" style of play could not mask the holes in his defense and midfield. Argentine defense was porous and second-class at best, and the Germans exploited it to the hilt.

The inventive and unselfish Germans had two advantages going into the quarterfinals: a) Michael Ballack's absence and b) the loss to Serbia 1-0 in the group match. The first meant that the predictable and ponderous Ballack would not stymie the free-flowing game of the young and the relentless Germans. The second was a wakeup call that only increased the fierce resolve of the team to win.

But perhaps the greatest asset of the Germans is the mix of their players. Mesut Ozil is a Muslim of Turkish descent. Sami Khedira and Jerome Boateng have Tunisian and Ghanaian fathers., respectively. Cacau is a naturalized Brazilian and Dennis Aogo boasts a Nigerian heritage. Combining forces with Klose, Mueller and the rest of the team, they ran Messi and company ragged for 60 minutes. The last 30 minutes of the game was painful to watch as the Argentines simply folded. They were outrun, outhustled, and outperformed in every aspect of the game. Messi's weak shots were easily blocked. In all, he took 30 shots on goal in the tournament and not one went in, a deeply disappointing performance. Messi may yet redeem himself in 2114 but that's an eternity away.

As for Brazil, although its defense was also poor overall, the player responsible for the perennial favorite to get the boot in the quarterfinals was Kaka. This "star" also failed to score a single goal in the World Cup. The moment of truth came deep into the second half against Holland when Kaka fielded a ball in the penalty area and had ample time to take a look at the goal to line up the perfect shot. He took the shot and ... what a letdown! There was no curve to the ball as it floated harmlessly away. At that moment you knew that Brazil would lose. The only player who lived up to his billing was Robinho but even he proved to be not a finisher like Romario or Ronaldo.

Brazil will have to remain content with the "five-time champion" label for years to come. The 2114 World Cup will be held in Brazil but unless players like Romario or Ronaldo (too much to expect a Pele or a Garrincha) arrive to lead a young and energetic team who can change strategy as the dynamics of the pitch demands, quarterfinals will be as far as the host nation will go.

Brazil and Argentina remind me of India and Pakistan in field hockey. Until the '70s, these two nations always met in the final in the Olympics. Then other nations began investing in the sport and now India and Pakistan are often eliminated even before reaching the quarterfinals stage.

The German brand of soccer we are now witnessing is the result of a decade-long investment in developing new talents and new approaches to the game. German players seem to combine the flair and flamboyance of the South Americans and the athleticism and work ethic of the, well, Germans. It is unlikely that Spain, which was unconvincing in its 1-0 wins against both Portugal and Paraguay, can hold back the irresistible German force. Look for Germany against Holland in the final and for Klose and his rainbow team to hoist the World Cup after a hard-fought game.

FIFA Must Come Out of the Stone Age

Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, came up with this gem: "Something has to be changed." This, in the wake of outrageous calls by referees that cast a dark shadow over the 2010 World Cup Soccer matches (England-Germany, Mexico- Argentina, to name only two). This would be the understatement of the year, had it not been so maddeningly infuriating.

The dynamics of a soccer game can turn on a dime. A blown call, and suddenly the momentum shifts, with one team, rather than the other, ascendant. Nothing demoralizes players than to see a legitimate goal disallowed or a non-goal allowed.

Since bad calls by referees have been plaguing the greatest sporting event on earth for decades, you would think that FIFA would have waken up to reality and bring technology to the rescue. But no! Instead, you hear asinine statements by officials, coaches, commentators and even some players that "Errors by referees are part of soccer. It's what makes the game unpredictably exciting!"

Try telling it to the victimized teams and their fans. We get to see this truly world-wide phenomenon every four years. To see its luster dimmed because of errors by officials is unacceptable.

At the very least, goal-line technology must be instituted starting 2114. If the ball crosses the goal-line, it's a goal. Can anything be simpler than that? Technology can settle the question definitively, as it does in ice hockey. Hasn't Mr. Blatter ever been to an ice-hockey game?

But even more than goal-line technology, FIFA should institute video replays to settle the toughest calls. That's only fair. Viewers get to see instant replays of what has occurred on the pitch, so why not referees?

There's a reason why FIFA honchos have been resistant to change. It has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with human nature. This is the FIFA president's and his associates' moment in the sun. The whole world is watching what they do and how they react. Why not drag it out for maximum exposure?

But change is inevitable. Technology will make soccer more just and fair. It will redeem worthy efforts and break less hearts. It will complement the human drama and make the beautiful game even more beautiful. Embrace it, FIFA, and come out of your stone-age mentality.