Fair and Accurate

There is an old adage:

"There are two sides to every argument."

Traditionally this statement has been interpreted as: "don't try to determine who's right and who's wrong until both sides have had the chance to present their case."

But today, there is a more modern interpretation based on the premise that "truth" is a matter of degree. A more realistic interpretation presents itself from this definition - one that does not require choosing a correct (winning) side. Rather it allows both proponents of an argument to be right - to some degree - and, of course, both sides to be wrong, also to some degree.

With virtually all disputes, both sides believe their claims are legitimate - and they usually are. But each side only sees its own "rightness" and at the same time, the other side's "wrongness." So, it's easy for each side to claim their view is totally right while that of their opponent is completely wrong. Each side believes by defending their own position successfully that this "disproves" the opposing view. Each side tries to "win" the argument by focusing exclusively on their own merits and completely ignoring valid arguments from the other side.

But arguments can be resolved fairly and accurately by not looking for an absolute "winner," but instead, by acknowledging the degrees of rightness and wrongness of both sides. Trying to get both factions to accept this fair and accurate resolution is what presents the greatest challenge!

What about a sporting event?

Must a game of hockey end with a "winner" and a "loser"?

For some time, the NHL allowed a game to end in a draw, but more recently, the league has forced these situations to be resolved by an overtime methodology. Each team receives a single point for getting into overtime and they then play-off in a "sudden-death" format for an additional 5 minutes. If the game is still tied after this period, a "shoot-out" takes place with three players in sequence shooting a penalty-shot against the opposing goalie with the winning team of these 3-shooters being awarded the extra point. If the teams are still tied after this shoot-out, the process continues one player per team at a time until one "team beats the other team".

All sports are based on winners and losers. Some allow prizes for second place and third place, but no one ever really remembers those who finish outside of first place.

One can assess sports teams in a "fuzzy-way" by applying all kinds of statistical analysis to various measures of performance - number of goals, number of saves, plus-minus statistics, etc, but no one has ever developed a method to allow a game to finish according to a degree of winning or losing. A crisp outcome to a sporting event appears to be essential for both the players and the fans.

One can point to occasions when one team so dominated a season that there was no dispute about the ranking of this team as Number One. But why should Number One also be applied to those situations in which the difference between the first and second place teams came down to a "shoot-out goal"? Is it simply a matter of how we keep score and how we rank athletic performance? Or is there a fundamental way in which the fuzziness of how we compare two teams or decide on the outcome of a game could be devised that would be "fairer" and "more accurate" than at present?