|
Post by boweryboy on Apr 24, 2022 8:45:17 GMT
The data must say that we are the worst passing side in the championship surely,as seen week after week,we can only pass to one another at the back,a forward pass to one our players is completely out of the question,the lack of quality on the ball by some of our players is alarming.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 8:50:37 GMT
The data must say that we are the worst passing side in the championship surely,as seen week after week,we can only pass to one another at the back,a forward pass to one our players is completely out of the question,the lack of quality on the ball by some of our players is alarming. We have 4 defenders in the top 20 for progressive (so forward) passes. Souttar Ostigard THB Wilmot
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 24, 2022 8:55:12 GMT
If the data says they can pass a ball it is a fact. If you say they cannot pass a ball it is an opinion. Data is what actually happened not what some biased individual thinks they thought they saw. No it’s not. Neither are good passers of a ball. I think most peoples eyes will tell them that. Indeed it’s why we got rid of Ostigard and replaced him with a player like THB who is good with the ball. As such the data should be questioned. There is such a thing as poor quality and unreliable data. But if the data is properly collated by a reliable source it is far superior to the opinions of a bunch of football fans. If properly collated the data about a player is what actually happened every game they played. The opinions of a football fan are based on a snapshot of their performances and riddled with personal bias. Good data is objective and is based on what happened. Opinion is subjective and is what someone thinks happened. Football managers seek out good data when making transfer and selection decisions for good reason - it's unbiased and reliable. They don't seek the opinion of football fans for another good reason - they are biased, unreliable and for the most part don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but anyone who actually thinks their opinion is more accurate and more reliable than properly sourced data has lost the plot.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 8:57:57 GMT
No it’s not. Neither are good passers of a ball. I think most peoples eyes will tell them that. Indeed it’s why we got rid of Ostigard and replaced him with a player like THB who is good with the ball. As such the data should be questioned. There is such a thing as poor quality and unreliable data. But if the data is properly collated by a reliable source it is far superior to the opinions of a bunch of football fans. If properly collated the data about a player is what actually happened every game they played. The opinions of a football fan are based on a snapshot of their performances and riddled with personal bias. Good data is objective and is based on what happened. Opinion is subjective and is what someone thinks happened. Football managers seek out good data when making transfer and selection decisions for good reason - it's unbiased and reliable. They don't seek the opinion of football fans for another good reason - they are biased, unreliable and for the most part don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but anyone who actually thinks their opinion is more accurate and more reliable than properly sourced data has lost the plot. Wilmot and Ostigard are not good progressive passers of a football. Period.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 24, 2022 10:27:41 GMT
Couple of crosses he missed/dropped. 😂😂 You’ve lost the plot son He just does it for attention
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 24, 2022 10:44:20 GMT
There is such a thing as poor quality and unreliable data. But if the data is properly collated by a reliable source it is far superior to the opinions of a bunch of football fans. If properly collated the data about a player is what actually happened every game they played. The opinions of a football fan are based on a snapshot of their performances and riddled with personal bias. Good data is objective and is based on what happened. Opinion is subjective and is what someone thinks happened. Football managers seek out good data when making transfer and selection decisions for good reason - it's unbiased and reliable. They don't seek the opinion of football fans for another good reason - they are biased, unreliable and for the most part don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but anyone who actually thinks their opinion is more accurate and more reliable than properly sourced data has lost the plot. Wilmot and Ostigard are not good progressive passers of a football. Period. That's your opinion. If the data says otherwise I will choose to believe the data - as would anyone who knows the difference between carefully collated data and the ramblings of a football fan.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 10:46:16 GMT
Wilmot and Ostigard are not good progressive passers of a football. Period. That's your opinion. If the data says otherwise I will choose to believe the data - as would anyone who knows the difference between carefully collated data and the ramblings of a football fan. The “carefully collated data” in this instance is wrong. It can happen.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 24, 2022 10:47:54 GMT
That's your opinion. If the data says otherwise I will choose to believe the data - as would anyone who knows the difference between carefully collated data and the ramblings of a football fan. The “carefully collated data” in this instance is wrong. It can happen. How do I know it is wrong - because you say so?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Apr 24, 2022 10:50:46 GMT
The data must say that we are the worst passing side in the championship surely,as seen week after week,we can only pass to one another at the back,a forward pass to one our players is completely out of the question,the lack of quality on the ball by some of our players is alarming. We have 4 defenders in the top 20 for progressive (so forward) passes. Souttar Ostigard THB Wilmot I'm not surprised at all, the issue is once it's been passed forwards a few feet it comes straight back to them, they do it again, rinse and repeat. The stats make them look good which we know in Ostigard's case is false.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 10:52:39 GMT
The “carefully collated data” in this instance is wrong. It can happen. How do I know it is wrong - because you say so? Because most of us have been complaining how crap their passing has been for the time they have been with us. Wilmot put on a great display of it yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 24, 2022 13:01:18 GMT
How do I know it is wrong - because you say so? Because most of us have been complaining how crap their passing has been for the time they have been with us. Wilmot put on a great display of it yesterday. The point about collating data is that if done properly it is objective and neutral and reflects what is actually going on in the real world. Individual opinions are riddled with bias and the opinion of crowds is bent out of shape by collective prejudice and group think. Give me the data every time - opinions are useless when it comes to making decisions.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 14:51:08 GMT
Because most of us have been complaining how crap their passing has been for the time they have been with us. Wilmot put on a great display of it yesterday. The point about collating data is that if done properly it is objective and neutral and reflects what is actually going on in the real world. Individual opinions are riddled with bias and the opinion of crowds is bent out of shape by collective prejudice and group think. Give me the data every time - opinions are useless when it comes to making decisions. So you think Ostigard and Wilmot are good progressive passers then?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Apr 24, 2022 15:24:31 GMT
They trust data because data is fact and does not pander to our tastes. The vast majority of disagreements about football are to do with taste not fact. There’s nothing wrong with taste but we should understand what an huge influence it has on moulding our opinions. Neither can pass a football well. It is not fact. If their pass completion rate is high then they know their limitations and keep possession. That doesn’t sound like Wilmot to me but I’ve never looked at his passing stats. I just know I like him. He’s high energy proactive and tries to make things happen with his possession but it doesn’t come off a bit too often. Never hides and has showed a great attitude despite being royally fucked about by the manager who eulogised over him when he signed him and has since January preferred THB despite numerous fuck ups and generally not being a stand out player. Accurately compiled data can not lie. I’m sure if you know what you want it’s available to include the ambition or ease of the pass attempted.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 15:36:18 GMT
Neither can pass a football well. It is not fact. If their pass completion rate is high then they know their limitations and keep possession. That doesn’t sound like Wilmot to me but I’ve never looked at his passing stats. I just know I like him. He’s high energy proactive and tries to make things happen with his possession but it doesn’t come off a bit too often. Never hides and has showed a great attitude despite being royally fucked about by the manager who eulogised over him when he signed him and has since January preferred THB despite numerous fuck ups and generally not being a stand out player. Accurately compiled data can not lie. I’m sure if you know what you want it’s available to include the ambition or ease of the pass attempted. I like Wilmot but the stat is progressive passing ie forward passing. Not sure what the others are tbh. That’s not his game. That’s why I can’t take it that seriously.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Apr 24, 2022 15:38:19 GMT
If their pass completion rate is high then they know their limitations and keep possession. That doesn’t sound like Wilmot to me but I’ve never looked at his passing stats. I just know I like him. He’s high energy proactive and tries to make things happen with his possession but it doesn’t come off a bit too often. Never hides and has showed a great attitude despite being royally fucked about by the manager who eulogised over him when he signed him and has since January preferred THB despite numerous fuck ups and generally not being a stand out player. Accurately compiled data can not lie. I’m sure if you know what you want it’s available to include the ambition or ease of the pass attempted. I like Wilmot but the stat is progressive passing ie forward passing. Not sure what the others are tbh. That’s not his game. That’s why I can’t take it that seriously. Maybe because you take your own opinion too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2022 15:58:54 GMT
I like Wilmot but the stat is progressive passing ie forward passing. Not sure what the others are tbh. That’s not his game. That’s why I can’t take it that seriously. Maybe because you take your own opinion too seriously. No. It’s because both players have been castigated for their passing by most fans watching them. We’re not making it up.
|
|
|
Post by thischarmingmanc on Apr 24, 2022 21:12:27 GMT
You kinda illustrated his point perfectly there... There is such a thing as poor quality and unreliable data. But if the data is properly collated by a reliable source it is far superior to the opinions of a bunch of football fans. If properly collated the data about a player is what actually happened every game they played. The opinions of a football fan are based on a snapshot of their performances and riddled with personal bias. Good data is objective and is based on what happened. Opinion is subjective and is what someone thinks happened. Football managers seek out good data when making transfer and selection decisions for good reason - it's unbiased and reliable. They don't seek the opinion of football fans for another good reason - they are biased, unreliable and for the most part don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but anyone who actually thinks their opinion is more accurate and more reliable than properly sourced data has lost the plot. Wilmot and Ostigard are not good progressive passers of a football. Period.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 25, 2022 6:40:45 GMT
The point about collating data is that if done properly it is objective and neutral and reflects what is actually going on in the real world. Individual opinions are riddled with bias and the opinion of crowds is bent out of shape by collective prejudice and group think. Give me the data every time - opinions are useless when it comes to making decisions. So you think Ostigard and Wilmot are good progressive passers then? What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether I think Ostigard and Wilmott are good progressive passers - if properly collated data demonstrates that Ostigard and Wilmott successful forward pass rate is better than most players in the league then at this level they are by definition good progressive passers regardless of what my faulty observations have led me to believe. The observations and opinions of individual football fans are inherently flawed - properly collated data is a far more accurate measure of a player's actual ability and I'm prepared to challenge and change my opinions based on the data. I'm simply not arrogant enough to think my observations and opinions are superior to properly collated data.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 25, 2022 9:44:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 25, 2022 9:48:38 GMT
So you think Ostigard and Wilmot are good progressive passers then? What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether I think Ostigard and Wilmott are good progressive passers - if properly collated data demonstrates that Ostigard and Wilmott successful forward pass rate is better than most players in the league then at this level they are by definition good progressive passers regardless of what my faulty observations have led me to believe. The observations and opinions of individual football fans are inherently flawed - properly collated data is a far more accurate measure of a player's actual ability and I'm prepared to challenge and change my opinions based on the data. I'm simply not arrogant enough to think my observations and opinions are superior to properly collated data. It does matter. Of course it matters. The data is flawed if it suggests these 2 are progressive passer of a football.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 25, 2022 16:55:54 GMT
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether I think Ostigard and Wilmott are good progressive passers - if properly collated data demonstrates that Ostigard and Wilmott successful forward pass rate is better than most players in the league then at this level they are by definition good progressive passers regardless of what my faulty observations have led me to believe. The observations and opinions of individual football fans are inherently flawed - properly collated data is a far more accurate measure of a player's actual ability and I'm prepared to challenge and change my opinions based on the data. I'm simply not arrogant enough to think my observations and opinions are superior to properly collated data. It does matter. Of course it matters. The data is flawed if it suggests these 2 are progressive passer of a football. The data is flawed if it wasn't properly collated. Where is your proof that the data wasn't properly collated? The data isn't wrong just because you and others think it is wrong. It is far more likely that your opinion is wrong and the data is correct. Your opinion is based on your observations but unless your observations are being conducted with the same level of rigour as someone undertaking independent data analysis it isn't as accurate or any where near as reliable as the "data". Your opinion is worthless in comparison to properly collated data.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Apr 25, 2022 17:31:39 GMT
The data is collected by a real person, in real time, assisted by automated computer software.
It's checked again post game.
A Premier League title winning team independently rechecked a whole seasons worth of such data, which they had purchased from a major content provider.
They were happy with the quality control.
It is very unlikely that the data is compromised, particularly the dataset that includes individual passing events.
But what is much more likely is that Bayern has been clickbaited by a superficial scatterplot or Venn Diagram.
The source would be handy :-)
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 25, 2022 20:46:14 GMT
It does matter. Of course it matters. The data is flawed if it suggests these 2 are progressive passer of a football. The data is flawed if it wasn't properly collated. Where is your proof that the data wasn't properly collated? The data isn't wrong just because you and others think it is wrong. It is far more likely that your opinion is wrong and the data is correct. Your opinion is based on your observations but unless your observations are being conducted with the same level of rigour as someone undertaking independent data analysis it isn't as accurate or any where near as reliable as the "data". Your opinion is worthless in comparison to properly collated data. No it’s not. Neither are progressive passers of a football. It’s bollocks. As per.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 25, 2022 22:09:18 GMT
The data is flawed if it wasn't properly collated. Where is your proof that the data wasn't properly collated? The data isn't wrong just because you and others think it is wrong. It is far more likely that your opinion is wrong and the data is correct. Your opinion is based on your observations but unless your observations are being conducted with the same level of rigour as someone undertaking independent data analysis it isn't as accurate or any where near as reliable as the "data". Your opinion is worthless in comparison to properly collated data. No it’s not. Neither are progressive passers of a football. It’s bollocks. As per. Where are we in the league based on your observations? Just curious if we’re in the playoffs; might have a case to raise with the EFL.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 26, 2022 7:19:39 GMT
The data is flawed if it wasn't properly collated. Where is your proof that the data wasn't properly collated? The data isn't wrong just because you and others think it is wrong. It is far more likely that your opinion is wrong and the data is correct. Your opinion is based on your observations but unless your observations are being conducted with the same level of rigour as someone undertaking independent data analysis it isn't as accurate or any where near as reliable as the "data". Your opinion is worthless in comparison to properly collated data. No it’s not. Neither are progressive passers of a football. It’s bollocks. As per. If the data is collated as Tachyon described it is an accurate representation of what has actually happened on the pitch. Your opinion is based on an incomplete data set, a faulty observation technique (lack of rigour) skewed by a tendency to see what you want to see (selection bias) and reinforcement by others who have adopted the same opinion (group think). The reason data is collated as Tachyon describes is because it counters the errors inherent in forming opinions based on incomplete data sets, lack of rigour, selection bias and group think. Football clubs pay companies for reliable, accurate data because it helps them make better decisions. They don't go round consulting their own fans because they know they will be inundated with a pile of contradictory opinions riddled with bias and rendered worthless by a faulty observation technique. The collation of data about players is an inexact science but at least it recognises that the scientific method leads to the most reliable knowledge we can have about what's going on in the real world. It isn't the data that is bollocks - it's your pronouncements about data being bollocks that is bollocks. You are basically saying that the way you form your opinions is better and more reliable than the information provided by the application of the scientific method. Which is egotistical nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Apr 26, 2022 8:20:28 GMT
This is how you use data to find players who progresses the ball.
1) You value every blade of grass. (If you have possession in your own box, the chances of your team ultimately scoring from there is small, if you have possession in the opposition box, your chances are bigger).
2) If you move the ball forward from point A to point B, you have improved the chances of scoring and that can be measure as the difference in the value of the start point of your action and the successful end point. (Distance advanced and value added isn't connected. Moving 5 yards forward from a defensive position is worth much less than moving 5 yards forward from your attacking third).
3) A player can progess the ball by passing it or carrying it.
4) The likelihood of a player completing a pass can easily be modelled, based on where the pass starts and where it ends, as well as other variable such as phase of play & if it is a headed or kicked pass.
5) For any player you can therefore see if they are completing more or fewer passes than expected based on the difficulty of those pass attempts (the probability bit of the model) and you can calculate how much they improve the chances of their team scoring per pass attempt and per forward carry. (the value bit of the model). You can also see how much they hurt their team by incompleted passes or being dispossessed.
If the "evidence" you are quoting doesn't include these aspects, it's just trivia in, trivia out. So when using data to make a point, quote your methodology or primary source, otherwise it's worthless.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 26, 2022 8:22:03 GMT
No it’s not. Neither are progressive passers of a football. It’s bollocks. As per. If the data is collated as Tachyon described it is an accurate representation of what has actually happened on the pitch. Your opinion is based on an incomplete data set, a faulty observation technique (lack of rigour) skewed by a tendency to see what you want to see (selection bias) and reinforcement by others who have adopted the same opinion (group think). The reason data is collated as Tachyon describes is because it counters the errors inherent in forming opinions based on incomplete data sets, lack of rigour, selection bias and group think. Football clubs pay companies for reliable, accurate data because it helps them make better decisions. They don't go round consulting their own fans because they know they will be inundated with a pile of contradictory opinions riddled with bias and rendered worthless by a faulty observation technique. The collation of data about players is an inexact science but at least it recognises that the scientific method leads to the most reliable knowledge we can have about what's going on in the real world. It isn't the data that is bollocks - it's your pronouncements about data being bollocks that is bollocks. You are basically saying that the way you form your opinions is better and more reliable than the information provided by the application of the scientific method. Which is egotistical nonsense. My eyes and the eyes of thousands of supporters are worth more. Neither are progressive passers of a ball.
|
|
|
Post by chiprockets on Apr 26, 2022 8:56:07 GMT
This is how you use data to find players who progresses the ball. 1) You value every blade of grass. (If you have possession in your own box, the chances of your team ultimately scoring from there is small, if you have possession in the opposition box, your chances are bigger). 2) If you move the ball forward from point A to point B, you have improved the chances of scoring and that can be measure as the difference in the value of the start point of your action and the successful end point. (Distance advanced and value added isn't connected. Moving 5 yards forward from a defensive position is worth much less than moving 5 yards forward from your attacking third). 3) A player can progess the ball by passing it or carrying it. 4) The likelihood of a player completing a pass can easily be modelled, based on where the pass starts and where it ends, as well as other variable such as phase of play & if it is a headed or kicked pass. 5) For any player you can therefore see if they are completing more or fewer passes than expected based on the difficulty of those pass attempts (the probability bit of the model) and you can calculate how much they improve the chances of their team scoring per pass attempt and per forward carry. (the value bit of the model). You can also see how much they hurt their team by incompleted passes or being dispossessed. If the "evidence" you are quoting doesn't include these aspects, it's just trivia in, trivia out. So when using data to make a point, quote your methodology or primary source, otherwise it's worthless. Nah, I'll take a biased pair of eyes cheers m8
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Apr 26, 2022 9:30:14 GMT
My eyes and the eyes of thousands of supporters are worth more. Neither are progressive passers of a ball. [/quote][/b] As you want to bash data with the "BW as a progressive passer" stick, can you point out where exactly you've sourced this "data" claim.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 26, 2022 11:09:16 GMT
When Brown was being castigated last season,didn't Tachyon say that the data showed that he was a good investment. Doesn't the data suggest that Brown is overachieving at the moment and may not replicate or improve on his form next year?
|
|