# Epistemic Certainty in Sports *This essay poses a hypothetical and offers solution-frames to discuss epistemic certainty in scouting and recruitment.* > For the full version with images, embedded tweets, and visual breakdowns, [visit BallerzBantz](https://www.ballerzbantz.com/p/certainty). ## Introduction: A Case Study A striker is through on goal. They've beaten the off-side trap, have no defenders on their tail, and only the goalkeeper stands between them and the back of the net. Four common finish selections present themselves: 1. Dribble past the keeper and roll the ball into the net. 2. Shoot early to catch the keeper off-guard. 3. Feign and nut-meg the keeper. 4. Chip ('dink') the ball over the keeper. Our striker chooses one of these options. And misses. It is not the first time. Viral highlight reels document a season of squandered one-on-ones. As the recruitment executive of a Champions-level club **YOU** receive a dossier from your analysts. Inside is a file labelled **'1v1s'** – a super-cut of every clear one-on-one the striker has faced during the last three seasons. The dossier forces a series of epistemic questions: - What can we infer about this player's finishing ability? - Is it reasonable to conclude they are generally poor in 1-on-1 situations? - How strongly can we project their performance into a different league or tactical context? - How certain can we be about any of the above? - What additional information would increase or decrease that certainty? --- > **This essay explores those questions and, more broadly, epistemic certainty in scouting and recruitment.** --- ## Epistemic vs Psychological Certainty ### Epistemic Certainty In analytic epistemology, epistemic certainty describes the strength of justification for believing a proposition is true. It is a function of evidence, logical coherence, methodological soundness, and the absence of defeaters. ### Psychological Certainty Psychological certainty is a feeling of conviction, which may or may not track epistemic warrant. A coach convinced a striker will 'come good' might possess high psychological certainty yet low epistemic warrant if the data say otherwise. --- ## Two Analytical Frames for 1-on-1 Evaluation There are two frames we can employ to attempt the aforementioned questions. | Frame | What it looks at | Core Question | Typical Tools | |-------|-----------------|---------------|---------------| | **Frame 1: Outcome-based Mechanics** | *Observable execution* of the chosen technique (post-hoc). | "How did the attempt play out?" | Video tagging, biomechanics breakdown, xG models | | **Frame 2: Intention-based Decision Analysis** | *Underlying choice architecture* that produced the attempt. | "Why did the player choose that option?" | Cognitive task analysis, VR replay & interview, eye-tracking data, coach-player debriefs | ### Strengths & Weaknesses **Frame 1** maximizes measurability and thus epistemic certainty but abstracts away internal decision processes. **Frame 2** accesses intent, useful for coaching and player self-reflection, but relies on inaccessible mental states, lowering epistemic warrant. ### Choosing a Frame For **forecasting** (transfer recruitment, salary negotiation) we prioritize verifiable, mechanically-grounded evidence: **Frame 1** becomes primary; **Frame 2** remains complementary for player development programs. --- ## Technique, Mechanics, and Decision-Making 1. **Technique (How)**: The specific motor pattern selected (e.g., inside-foot placed finish). 2. **Decision-Making (Why)**: The rapid perceptual-cognitive process that selects a technique given constraints. 3. **Mechanics (What Happened)**: The physical outcome: ball trajectory, keeper reaction, result. *This is a pivot from the usual frame I had previously published on this blog before.* --- ## Factors Modulating Epistemic Certainty **Back to the last two questions:** > How certain can we be about any of the above? > What additional information would increase or decrease that certainty? **Here are some simple attempts at these:** | Increases Certainty | Decreases Certainty | |-------------------|-------------------| | Larger sample size of 1-on-1s | Small sample (highlight bias) | | Contextual data (xG, shot location, goalkeeper positioning) | Context change (new league tempo, defensive spacing) | | Multi-season trend stability | Tactical system mismatch | | Biomechanical metrics (approach speed, body shape) | Psychological volatility (confidence swings) | | Training data & coach testimony | Incomplete or low-quality video | --- ## So, Should YOU Sign the Striker? 1. **Aggregate Evidence**: Three-season 1v1 conversion rate vs (*outgoing*) league average. 2. **Context Adjustment**: Compare quality of chances (post-shot xG). 3. **Model Forecast**: Bayesian update incorporating club tactical fit. 4. **Residual Uncertainty**: Highlight unknowns (injury history, adaptation to higher tempo). Finally, provide a probability estimate rather than a binary verdict. --- ## Epistemic Humility in Talent ID Absolute certainty is unattainable: the goal is to bound uncertainty tightly enough that decisions are rational under risk. Combining a mechanics-first frame with selective insights from intention analysis provides the highest defensible warrant when millions - and trophies and jobs - are at stake. --- ## Related - [[Justified True Belief]] - [[Crawling Plants]] - [[Smartest People]] - [[Álvaro Fernández]]