Previous post:

Next post:

Contest Results

by Doug on June 23, 2013

in Checkdowns

contestLast week Chase announced this contest in honor of Football Perspective’s first birthday. Here’s the backstory…

A couple of years ago, I moved. The house I was moving into, like many houses, had walls. The walls did not have artwork pre-installed, so I spent a good six months of my life obsessed with finding good wall-art. Somewhere in there, I stumbled on the open-source visualization program called Gephi. It looked super-cool, so I decided to play around with it.

The bug/bean/Australia/peanut/hairball Chase posted last week is the result. In addition to framing one for my own wall, I framed one each for Chase and Lisk, and I mailed them off. I don’t use the word “hero” very often, but really, what other word is there for someone who is talented enough to create world-class art and generous enough to send it to his friends? This was a good thing I had done. So what’s a hero to do when he is told, tactfully of course, by both Chase and Lisk, that his art kinda sucks? I thought the bean’s worth was self-evident.

The mechanics are straightforward. I don’t even remember the specifics but, as you all figured out, this is a roster of the best players in modern-ish NFL/AFL history. The size of a player’s dot represents his quality, as measured by career AV or 100-95-90-… AV — I can’t remember which. The strength of a connection between two players is the number of games they played with and against each other. So Peyton Manning is strongly connected to Marvin Harrison, less connected to Tom Brady, still less connected to Brian Urlacher, and not at all connected to Dan Fouts or Bill George. The layout was determined by Gephi’s “force atlas” algorithm. My understanding is that it pretends the connections are elastic bands — the stronger the connection the tauter the band — and then lets the physics take over. Manning and Harrison naturally end up close together because they are connected by a tight band. Urlacher sort of wants to be close to Manning, but there are tighter bands pulling him in other directions so he doesn’t get too close. He does get closer than Dan Fouts does, though.

So the layout was unplanned, but has some emergent features that you all noticed: modern players on the left and older guys on the right, AFC/AFL on top and NFC/NFL on bottom, teammates clustered together, and the team clusters tend to huddle up next to their division rivals (note the Chiefs and Raiders in the upper right). To me, the most interesting part of the layout is the slight gap running down the middle populated by Payton, Dorsett, White, and Jones. Does this actually say something about those players and/or their era? Or is it just an artifact of the algorithm? I don’t know.

A few of the answers nailed the mechanics to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances. The first of these was JeremyDe. For this, he earns an automatic berth into the top three.

Chase kept demanding to know what was to be learned from this piece of art, and I never had a good answer for him. Chase believes that the proximity of Tony Gonzalez to Vinny Testaverde should tell us something about their careers that we didn’t already know. This is, I think, an unreasonable standard to hold art to. I really feel sorry for people like Chase who can’t shut down the analytical part of their brain long enough to feel the way art-lovers, like me, can. As Andrew Carroll says, “its beauty lies not in its meaning!” For this, and for the rest of Andrew’s answer, which is to literature as my bean is to art, he earns his way into the top three.

The final slot in the top three, in a bit of an upset, goes to Wade Iuele. Clear, straightforward, and correct.

Apologetic (sincerely) honorable mentions go to Scott Tanner, Arif Hasan, Travis Finck, and Eric Holland.

Final contest results:

Show

Enjoy those prizes, guys, and happy first birthday to Football Perspective!

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Shattenjager June 23, 2013 at 12:11 pm

” I really feel sorry for people like Chase who can’t shut down the analytical part of their brain long enough to feel the way art-lovers, like me, can.”

As someone who writes 1000+-word movie reviews that I tend to call analyses more than reviews and usually begin with a discussion of the “point” of the film, I felt like this line was pointed at me as well. :)
There was one time in undergrad, during my short time as a film student, that I had a discussion with my favorite film professor about why Almodóvar included a particular shot of a man swimming in Hable con ella (Pedro Almodóvar, Spain 2002). Someone had asked him why it was there and his response was, “I don’t know, but it’s a beautiful shot!”
I suggested a possible explanation and I asked, “Can this really be, like you said, one of the best films of the last 25 years if it includes a shot whose only purpose is to look pretty?”
He said, “It’s too high of a standard to expect everything to mean something, but if you’re going to include a shot that doesn’t mean anything, it damn well better look good.”

Anyway, it was a fun contest and it’s good to have even a brief appearance from Doug. Congrats to the winners.

Reply

Wade Iuele June 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Outstanding! It is an honor to be selected as the second place winner. Thank you, Doug. And thank you Chase for holding the contest and for the amazing website. My first preference for prizes is the article of my choice, of course. If the grand prize winner takes that one, I will be proud to accept my second choice: honor and glory.
:D

Reply

Chase Stuart June 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Congrats, Wade, on getting second place. You are fortunate enough to receive your first preference with respect to the prizes offered. Feel free to redeem your prize by posting here or e-mailing me (my contact information is in the About section).

Reply

Andrew Carroll June 24, 2013 at 12:18 am

Awesome. In honor of Doug’s shared fondness for the innate value of beautiful art — regardless of its deciphered meaning — I am going to pick as my prize the least tangible option: honor and glory.

I leave to Wade and Jeremy their share of the physical spoils. Plus, Wade says he actually prefers the “article of my choice” option and I am therefore sure he has something much more interesting in mind for Chase than I could concoct.

Thanks! :D

Reply

Chase Stuart June 25, 2013 at 8:34 pm

Congrats, Andrew. You are now the recipient of some honor and glory.

Reply

Arif Hasan June 24, 2013 at 2:11 am

Curses, I should have gone with AV!

In all seriousness, I was glad to learn what the art stemmed from. I was hoping to force Chase to write an article, but I didn’t know what on or why I wanted him to do that. A lot of great entries, though! I liked the PFR comments to the blog and I find the footballperspective comment community to be growing in ways similar to that comment community.

I wouldn’t call Wade’s choice an upset. Aside from nailing the purpose of the chart, he also had a succinct and useful set of reasons to put up the poster. It helped that he plainly called it “art”

As for the connection between Gonzales and Testaverde? I’d have to say that it means that the Chiefs played the Ravens, Jets, Cowboys, Patriots and Panthers a lot, I guess.

More cosmically, it means that the eternal dance of football connections never ceases to produce surprising and inexplicable wonders and also that Junior Seau, Troy Vincent and Steve McNair played a lot of AFC football.

Reply

Shattenjager June 24, 2013 at 3:31 am

Testaverde and Gonzalez apparently only actually played each other twice–on November 1, 1998 and November 11, 2001, both when Testaverde was with the Jets.

I assume that their proximity is driven by the players around them, because otherwise it does not seem to make sense. They overlapped in the AFC for 13 years and thus have strong connections with many of the same players, even though they don’t have much of one between themselves.

Reply

Richie June 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm

Doug lives!

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <strong> <em> <pre> <code> <a href="" title="">