31–40 of 40 posts
Gretzky seemed to do just fine with 99...
...in american football. Context and history matter as this is the complete opposite for soccer: - Smaller numbers go to the defenders and big guys - Larger numbers are given to younger & academy player - Numbers like 7, 9, 10, 8 & 6 all have a specific meaning on the pitch So yeah, numbers matter, but so does everything else.
Having grown up in Argentina, it always annoyed me seeing players in any sport with numbers that don’t resemble certain position or role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having grown up in Argentina, it always annoyed me seeing players in any sport with numbers that don’t resemble certain position or role.
That is basically all this study is showing. The NFL (American football) used to subscribe to this and had strict rules over what numbers people could wear. 1-19 were reserved for the smallest players (quarterbacks, punters, and kickers). That was loosened roughly 25 years ago to allow slightly bigger players (wide receivers). They loosened it even more drastically within the last few years to allow most players to w…
I love this so much It’s such a great proof at how absolutely fundamentally tragically terrible humans are at evaluating things consistently based on purely sense perception.
I love this so much It’s such a great proof at how absolutely fundamentally tragically terrible humans are at evaluating things consistently based on purely sense perception.
Gretzky seemed to do just fine with 99...
Gretzky seemed to do just fine with 99...
I think all else being equal, numbers like xx, x0, and x (<10) are more desirable for perceived significance. If a player desires anything else it's presumably out of some personal significance to them (even if just 'the number I was randomly assigned on my first team').
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/rules-changes/nfl-jerse... Linemen are required to wear higher numbers so it's no surprise that people automatically associate higher numbers with bigger people.
> When we looked at the relationship between the ratings of size and slenderness and the numbers, [and] we did a very small range, like from 17 to 19, we see a very robust correlation."