Modeling Media Noise: Signal vs. Noise in Sports Commentary

Cutting through the chatter: why Michael Carrick’s “irrelevant noise” matters to anyone who analyzes sports data

Are you overwhelmed by match-to-match fluctuations in xG, possession percentages, or a coach’s press-conference talking points? Coaches, analysts, students and teachers share the same pain: time-series sports data look chaotic, commentators add more volume than insight, and it’s hard to see the underlying trend you really care about. In early 2026 this problem is only more urgent — teams rely on near-real-time dashboards and AI-driven scouting, and a bad filter can turn short-term noise into the wrong strategic call.

"Michael Carrick has branded the noise generated around Manchester United by former players 'irrelevant'."

That quote is a useful metaphor: sports media produce commentary noise; your data pipeline produces measurement noise. Both can be suppressed with the right filtering techniques. This article uses Carrick’s “irrelevant noise” remark as a springboard to explain how moving averages, low-pass filters, and modern smoothing methods turn jagged time-series into actionable trends.

The problem: signal vs. noise in sports time-series

In sports analytics, a typical time-series might be match-by-match xG, successful passes per 90, defensive actions, or an aggregated team form score. Each observation mixes:

• Signal — the underlying team ability, tactical regime or systematic change you want to track.
• Noise — random match-to-match variation from luck, small-sample effects, sensor error, or pundit commentary creating perception volatility.

Why filter? Because decisions — selection, transfers, tactical changes — should rely on the signal. Filtering reduces variance while preserving trend information.

What filtering does (intuitively)

Think of a coach removing background chatter in the locker room to hear the captain’s real assessment. Filters remove the high-frequency jitter while preserving low-frequency changes. In signal-processing terms, you apply a low-pass filter to keep slow-varying components (trends) and suppress fast fluctuations (noise).

Key techniques to separate signal from noise

Below are practical filters used in sports time-series, from simplest to more advanced. Each section includes why you’d use it, a short recipe, and quick tips for parameter tuning.

1) Simple Moving Average (SMA)

The moving average is the most intuitive smoother: average the last N games. It’s easy to implement and explain, which is why it remains a staple in analyst reports and commentary rebuttals.

1. Formula (window size m): SMA_t = (x_{t} + x_{t-1} + ... + x_{t-m+1}) / m
2. When to use: quick, robust trend estimate when you care about short-to-medium term smoothing.
3. Tip: choose m based on domain rhythm — e.g., 5–10 games captures short-form trends, a 15–20 game window captures half-season changes.

# Pseudocode for a rolling SMA (Python-like)
def rolling_sma(series, window):
    return [mean(series[i-window+1:i+1]) for i in range(window-1, len(series))]
  

Tuning SMA: bias–variance tradeoff

A larger window reduces variance but increases lag and can wash out fast tactical shifts. Validate window choice with a rolling-origin cross-validation (walk-forward) and compare forecast errors (MAE, RMSE) on holdout segments.

2) Exponential Moving Average (EMA)

EMAs weight recent matches more heavily, which reduces lag and reacts faster to genuine changes while still smoothing noise.

1. Formula (smoothing factor α): EMA_t = α * x_t + (1−α) * EMA_{t-1}
2. When to use: real-time dashboards and live scouting where recent form should matter more.
3. Tip: express α as alpha = 2 / (m + 1) to link EMA responsiveness to a notional window m.

# Simple EMA loop
ema = series[0]
for x in series[1:]:
    ema = alpha * x + (1-alpha) * ema

3) Savitzky–Golay filter

Useful when you want smoothing without losing shape: Savitzky–Golay fits a local polynomial and preserves local extrema better than plain averages — handy for detecting short peaks or dips in performance.

• Use when you expect smooth changes but don't want to blur peak events (e.g., breakout player performances).
• Pick window length (odd) and polynomial order; validate to avoid overfitting.

4) Classical low-pass filters (Butterworth, FIR)

These filters operate in the frequency domain: decide a cutoff frequency (how fast a fluctuation is considered noise) and design a filter that attenuates higher frequencies. A Butterworth filter is popular for its flat passband.

Pipeline:

1. Resample or interpolate match-level data to an evenly spaced time grid.
2. Estimate the power spectrum (periodogram) to identify dominant frequency bands.
3. Choose cutoff frequency (e.g., seasonal vs. match-to-match noise) and design a filter.

5) Kalman filter (and state-space models)

Kalman filters provide an optimal recursive smoother under Gaussian assumptions and are excellent for online smoothing and state tracking. They model the observed metric as a noisy measurement of an evolving latent state (team strength).

1. Model: state_{t+1} = A * state_t + process_noise; observation_t = H * state_t + measurement_noise
2. When to use: when you want probabilistic smoothing with uncertainty estimates and the ability to fuse multiple noisy inputs (e.g., xG + expected possession + event-based rating).
3. Tip: calibrate process vs measurement noise to control how fast the filter adapts.

# Very high-level Kalman update (pseudo)
# predict
x_pred = A @ x_prev
P_pred = A @ P_prev @ A.T + Q
# update
K = P_pred @ H.T @ inv(H @ P_pred @ H.T + R)
x_upd = x_pred + K @ (z - H @ x_pred)
P_upd = (I - K @ H) @ P_pred

How to choose the right filter for sports analytics (practical checklist)

Follow this step-by-step process to pick and validate a filtering strategy for a team metric.

1. Define the decision horizon. Do you need minute-by-minute signals (in-game tactics) or season-long trends (transfer strategy)? Short horizon → faster filter (EMA or Kalman); long horizon → larger window SMA or low-pass.
2. Explore the spectrum. Compute a periodogram or Welch PSD to see which frequencies dominate. If the spectrum shows most energy below a certain frequency, choose a cutoff above that band.
3. Simulate with ground truth. If possible, create synthetic data with known signals + noise to test filters and choose parameters by minimizing reconstruction error.
4. Use rolling validation. Time-series cross-validation prevents look-ahead bias: train/validate on sequential blocks.
5. Inspect residuals. After smoothing, residuals should look like white noise. Structured residuals mean the filter removed signal or left structure in the noise.
6. Report uncertainty. Use filters that provide uncertainty (Kalman, Bayesian smoothing) when decisions are high-stakes.

Spectra, cutoffs and an intuition for choosing frequency thresholds

In 2026, teams routinely run spectral analyses on match streams: a strong weekly cycle (7 or 14 days), mid-season trends, and occasional spikes caused by red cards or match anomalies. Translate those into frequencies—e.g., if match-to-match noise appears as daily/weekly spikes, choose a cutoff that keeps multi-match trends but removes higher-frequency jitter.

Practical method:

1. Compute FFT of the evenly-sampled series.
2. Plot power vs frequency and find frequency where power drops to the baseline noise floor.
3. Select cutoff slightly above that knee; verify by inverse-transforming filtered series and visually checking trend fidelity.

Case study: smoothing a noisy team xG time-series

Imagine a 38-match season xG sequence that bounces between 0.3 and 2.1. Commentators call form “inconsistent” after a single loss — but is that true? Here’s a concise pipeline:

1. Plot raw xG vs match index — include markers for red cards, injuries, and opponent strength.
2. Apply a 7-match EMA to highlight recent form; compare with a 15-match SMA for longer-term trend.
3. Run a Kalman filter fusing xG with a match difficulty index to get a probabilistic team strength track.
4. Validate: compute MAE of one-step-ahead forecasts across filters and check residual autocorrelation.

Result: You’ll often find the EMA captures a recent upswing while the SMA reveals that the team’s underlying level is still stable — and the Kalman filter shows uncertainty bounds that explain why pundit certainty is misplaced.

2026 trends that change how we filter sports data

New developments in late 2025 and early 2026 are making filtering both more powerful and more essential:

• Real-time microdata: optical and wearable tracking data now flows live into dashboards, increasing the need for low-latency, online filters like Kalman and exponentially-weighted smoothing.
• Edge computation in stadiums: teams apply lightweight filters at the edge to power in-match tactical decisions without cloud round-trip delay.
• Model fusion: analysts fuse event data, tracking, and broadcast signals. This multi-sensor setting favors probabilistic state-space models that handle different noise scales.
• Explainable smoothing: regulators and clubs demand interpretable pipelines — moving averages and simple Kalman models remain popular because they produce explainable outputs for coaching staff and stakeholders.
• Automated commentary filtering: NLP tools trained on 2025 media corpora automatically tag “irrelevant noise” in commentary streams; combining that with smoothed metrics reduces narrative volatility in public dashboards.

Visual intuition: how to design charts and animations that reveal the difference

Visuals are how coaches and journalists internalize filtering effects. Build charts that show:

• Overlay of raw series and smoothed series (SMA/EMA/Kalman) with different colors.
• Shaded uncertainty bands (from Kalman or bootstrap) so viewers see confidence.
• Interactive slider to change window size or alpha and watch the smoothed line adapt — an animation that teaches lag vs. reactivity.

Example D3 animation idea (high-level): animate a sliding window average and highlight the points included at each frame. For classroom use, a simple Matplotlib animation that cycles window length is often enough.

Practical recipes you can try today

Recipe A: Quick smoothing for dashboards

1. Compute a 7-game EMA (alpha = 2/(7+1)).
2. Add a 15-game SMA to show medium-term baseline.
3. Plot both with the raw series; add tooltips explaining filter choice.

Recipe B: Robust trend detection with uncertainty

1. Fit a simple local-level Kalman filter to match-level metric(s).
2. Produce the smoothed state and 95% credibility interval.
3. Flag trend changes when the smoothed state moves beyond the interval of the previous 5 matches.

Recipe C: Signal-first pipeline for automated reports (2026-ready)

1. Ingest tracking + event microdata and transform into standardized per-90 metrics.
2. Run automated PSD analysis to recommend filter cutoffs.
3. Apply a Kalman filter with process noise tuned by opponent strength variability.
4. Produce a short natural-language summary that mentions trend + uncertainty, avoiding media noise amplification.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Over-smoothing: using too large a window removes real tactical shifts. Solution: cross-validate and inspect residuals.
• Lag blindness: slow filters delay detection of genuine improvement. Solution: combine a fast EMA for detection with a slow SMA for confirmation.
• Ignoring non-stationarity: seasons, injuries, or a new coach change the data-generating process. Solution: use state-space models that adapt or use regime-switching models when you expect structural breaks.
• Faulty interpolation: many filters assume evenly spaced data. Solution: resample carefully or use continuous-time models.

Measuring success: how to know your denoising helped

Use objective metrics:

• Predictive power: compare one-step-ahead forecast error before/after smoothing.
• Decision quality: track how often filtered signals led to better match outcomes or correct tactical calls in historical backtests.
• User trust: coach and analyst feedback — smoother should increase confidence, not conceal uncertainty.

Bringing it back to Carrick: why calling noise "irrelevant" is both right and incomplete

Michael Carrick’s blunt labeling of media noise as "irrelevant" captures an important instinct: not every fluctuation deserves a strategic response. But in data science terms, we want a more disciplined response — distinguishing between actually irrelevant noise and small-but-real signals. Filters are the disciplined way to do that. The best pipelines don’t simply mute everything; they present a smoothed trend plus a quantified uncertainty band so decision-makers can act proportionally.

Actionable takeaways

• Start simple. Use EMA or SMA as a baseline and visualize overlay with raw series.
• Validate choices. Use rolling cross-validation and spectral analysis to pick parameters.
• Use uncertainty. Prefer filters that provide confidence bands when possible (Kalman, Bayesian smoothers).
• Combine models. Fast filters for detection + slow filters for confirmation reduces false alarms.
• Invest in visuals. Interactive sliders and animated windows teach stakeholders the bias–variance tradeoff behind each choice.

Next steps (practical exercises)

1. Take a 2-season match-level xG series and apply SMA(7), EMA(7), and a Kalman smoother. Plot overlays and compare one-step forecast errors.
2. Compute the FFT and choose a Butterworth cutoff. Compare filtered results to SMA and EMA.
3. Build a small interactive web demo (D3 or Plotly) that lets users change EMA alpha and SMA window and watch the line adapt.

Conclusion and call-to-action

By 2026, the sports analytics toolkit has grown, but the fundamental challenge remains: don’t let media noise or match-to-match variance drive decisions. Use moving averages, low-pass filters, and probabilistic smoothers to extract the real story from noisy metrics. Start with simple filters, validate them, and present uncertainty — that’s how teams turn Carrick-style skepticism into disciplined decision-making.

Try it now: download a public match dataset, apply an EMA and Kalman filter, and share your charts with a coach or class. Want an interactive starter notebook and sample data? Subscribe to our newsletter for a 2026-ready filtering toolkit including Python and D3 templates, or reach out with a dataset and we’ll suggest the best smoothing recipe for your metric.

Related Reading

• Home-Ground Heroes: Fan Portraits — People Who’d Do Anything for a Season Ticket
• Quantum-Ready Edge: Emulating Qubit Workflows on Raspberry Pi 5 for Prototyping
• Can a $170 Smartwatch Actually Improve Your Skin? A Shopper’s Guide to Wearable Wellness
• Autonomous AI Agents for Lab Automation: Risks, Controls, and a Safe Deployment Checklist
• Staging Homes for Dog Owners: A Niche Real Estate Service You Can Offer