Advertisement

The Agency of Numbers: The Role of Metrics in Influencing the Valuation of Athletes

  • Roslyn KerrEmail author
  • Christopher Rosin
  • Mark Cooper
Chapter

Abstract

A number of authors have noted the increasing use of policies that emphasise accountability and measurable progress in sport. One component of these policies that has received less attention is the use of metrics, despite their increasing use owing to the proliferation of new technologies generating ever more data. In this chapter, we examine three cases to engage how the assessment and valuation of individual athletes is reduced to numeric values. First, we note the way that certain measures have become fixed illustrations that instantly indicate a strong performance, such as running the 100 m sprint in under 10 seconds. Second, we examine the case of the perfect 10 in gymnastics and note the struggle to reward gymnasts with the appropriate score using the 10 as a ceiling. Finally, we discuss how in both physical ability testing and the U.S. National Football League ‘combine’ system, the reduction of athletes to numeric values is contested. We analyse these cases through Latour’s concept of the immutable mobile and Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of territorialisation. Our analysis highlights the significance of metrics as potential actors, a notion that has implications beyond sport and for further theorisation of non-human agency.

References

  1. Anshel, M., & Lidor, R. (2012). Talent detection programs in sport: The questionable use of psychological measures. Journal of Sport Behavior, 35, 239.Google Scholar
  2. Baerg, A. (2013). Sport, analytics, and the number as a communication medium. In P. Pedersen (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 75–83). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baerg, A. (2017). Big data, sport, and the digital divide: Theorizing how athletes might respond to big data monitoring. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen, M. K. (2009). An eye for talent: Talent identification and the ‘practical sense’ of top-level soccer coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(3), 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colás, Y. (2017). The culture of moving dots: Toward a history of counting and of what counts in basketball. The Journal of Sport History, 44(2), 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, D., & Bailey, R. (2013). ‘Scienciness’ and the allure of second-hand strategy in talent identification and development. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 5(2), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, D., & Cruickshank, A. (2017). Psychometrics in sport: The good, the bad and the ugly. In Psychometric testing: Critical perspectives (pp. 145–156). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, D., Carson, H. J., & Cruickshank, A. (2015). Blaming Bill Gates AGAIN! Misuse, overuse and misunderstanding of performance data in sport. Sport, Education and Society, 20(8), 1088–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooren, F., Matte, F., Taylor, J., & Vasquez, C. (2007). A humanitarian organization in action: Organizational discourse as an immutable mobile. Discourse & Communication, 1(2), 153–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  12. Denison, J., & Mills, J. (2014). Planning for distance running: Coaching with Foucault. Sports Coaching Review, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eldridge, L. (1988, October 4). Too many ‘perfect’ scores of 10 distort Olympic gymnastics results. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/1004/prom.html.
  14. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finn, J. (2016). Timing and imaging evidence in sport: Objectivity, intervention, and the limits of technology. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 40(6), 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerrard, B. (2017). Analytics, technology and high performance sport. In N. Schulenkorf & S. Frawley (Eds.), Critical issues in global sport management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guttmann, A. (1978). From ritual to record. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hutchins, B. (2016). Tales of the digital sublime: Tracing the relationship between big data and professional sport. Convergence I, 22(5), 494–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kerr, R. (2006). The impact of Nadia Comaneci on the sport of women’s artistic gymnastics. Sporting Traditions I, 23(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
  21. Kerr, R. (2018). The role of science in the practice of talent identification: A case study from gymnastics in New Zealand. Sport in Society, 22(9), 1–15.Google Scholar
  22. Kerr, R., & Obel, C. (2015). The disappearance of the perfect 10: Evaluating rule changes in women’s artistic gymnastics. The International Journal of the History of Sport I, 32(2), 318–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Konoval, T. S. (2018). Moving on to practice: Exploring the impact of a Foucauldian-informed coach development collaboration. PhD thesis, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. Isis, 52(2), 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Society and Space, 19, 609–621.Google Scholar
  28. Lidor, R., Côté, J., & Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: To test or not to test? The use of physical skill tests in talent detection and in early phases of sport development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyons, B. D., Hoffman, B. J., Michel, J. W., & Williams, K. J. (2011). On the predictive efficiency of past performance and physical ability: The case of the National Football League. Human Performance, 24(2), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macris, L. I., & Sam, M. P. (2014). Belief, doubt, and legitimacy in a performance system: National sport organization perspectives. Journal of Sport Management, 28(5), 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Majumdar, A. S., & Robergs, R. A. (2011). The science of speed: Determinants of performance in the 100m sprint. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(3), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth, maturation, and physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  33. Mari, L. (2003). Epistemology of measurement. Measurement, 34, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, P. K., Cronin, C., & Baker, G. (2015). Nurture, nature and some very dubious social skills: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of talent identification practices in elite English youth soccer. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(5), 642–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Millington, B., & Millington, R. (2015). ‘The datafication of everything’: Toward a sociology of sport and Big Data. Sociology of Sport Journal, 32(2), 140–160.Google Scholar
  36. Muller, J. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pain, M. T. G., & Hibbs, A. (2007). Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(1), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter, T. (1994). Making things quantitative. Science in Context, 7(3), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossi, G. B. (2007). Measurability. Measurement, 40, 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sam, M. P., & Macris, L. I. (2014). Performance regimes in sport policy: Exploring consequences, vulnerabilities and politics. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 6(3), 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simperingham, K. D., Cronin, J. B., & Ross, A. (2016). Advances in sprint acceleration profiling for field-based team-sport athletes: Utility, reliability, validity and limitations. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1619–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slawinski, J., Dumas, R., Cheze, L., Ontanon, G., Miller, C., & Mazure-Bonnefoy, A. (2012). 3D kinematic of bunched, medium and elongated sprint start. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 33(7), 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, S., & Manley, A. (2016). Elite coaching and the technocratic engineer: Thanking the boys at Microsoft! Sport, Education and Society, 21, 828–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lincoln UniversityChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations