|
Post by tachyon on Apr 26, 2022 12:02:23 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? Some data wins I've posted. Stoke will be out of the bottom three by Christmas when we were effectively rock bottom after 10. We made it on Boxing Day iirc. Who are the best free agent keepers when we were short in that position 1n 2020/21. Lonergan and Maenpaa were rated 1st & 2nd. We signed them both. Clucas' goals fall off after his mega over-performing season (Fish in a barrel). And yes JB is an excellent raw talent, who you could spot a mile off at Barnsley using data. Particularly enticing because he'd only scored 3 from 8 xG (all open play, no pens, free kicks) & the 60 odd chances he'd made for teammates were huge because he presented every single one to the players feet, rather than their head. His experience to age was amazingly mature for a young player and availability is a often ignored asset and he's been universally available to play. Yes he is slightly over achieving at the moment 13 Championship goals from 10xG (Hot, but not Tyrese worryingly hot). I get the "trust my eyes" stuff, although it appears not to apply when the ball ends up in the net 20 times in just under 2 seasons. semi rant over :-)
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 26, 2022 12:51:07 GMT
Don't worry about "trust my eyes". That comment comes from the person who recently posted: "Stoke would still be in the Premier League if they had taken my advice"
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 28, 2022 8:23:22 GMT
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. To you maybe but to anyone seeking a reliable assessment of a player's actual abilities - stick to the data. It's what anyone who actually has responsibility for making decisions in professional football is going to do anyway. And for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 28, 2022 9:59:35 GMT
My eyes and the eyes of thousands of supporters are worth more. Neither are progressive passers of a ball. To you maybe but to anyone seeking a reliable assessment of a player's actual abilities - stick to the data. It's what anyone who actually has responsibility for making decisions in professional football is going to do anyway. And for good reason. If these are the results, the "good reason" doesn't seem to be that good.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Apr 28, 2022 11:53:48 GMT
To you maybe but to anyone seeking a reliable assessment of a player's actual abilities - stick to the data. It's what anyone who actually has responsibility for making decisions in professional football is going to do anyway. And for good reason. If these are the results, the "good reason" doesn't seem to be that good. For those still remotely interested, here's what's happening. 1) Bayern has found some stats based trivia relating to Ben Wilmott, amongst others. 2) This trivia perhaps identifies BW as a progressive passer. ( BO won't reveal his source). 3) BW does actually pass the ball forward 15% more frequently than the average Championship defender who also play in his positions. 4) But BO has then conflated this piece of trivia with BW being a good progressor of the ball. 5) An even slightly more detailed analysis shows that BW's completion rate for progressive passes is 18% BELOW that for other centre backs.. 6) So without doing a full blown passing model for BW, we can fairly confidently assume that he is a prolific, but inefficient progressor of the ball. 7) Bookmark this post, because whenever data analysis is mentioned BO will pile in with a "remember when data said BW was a good ball progessor". It actual doesn't. (Seen this anti data tactic 100's of times).
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 29, 2022 9:03:25 GMT
If these are the results, the "good reason" doesn't seem to be that good. For those still remotely interested, here's what's happening. 1) Bayern has found some stats based trivia relating to Ben Wilmott, amongst others. 2) This trivia perhaps identifies BW as a progressive passer. ( BO won't reveal his source). 3) BW does actually pass the ball forward 15% more frequently than the average Championship defender who also play in his positions. 4) But BO has then conflated this piece of trivia with BW being a good progressor of the ball. 5) An even slightly more detailed analysis shows that BW's completion rate for progressive passes is 18% BELOW that for other centre backs.. 6) So without doing a full blown passing model for BW, we can fairly confidently assume that he is a prolific, but inefficient progressor of the ball. 7) Bookmark this post, because whenever data analysis is mentioned BO will pile in with a "remember when data said BW was a good ball progessor". It actual doesn't. (Seen this anti data tactic 100's of times). You make a very good point - it is not only the quality of the data that matters it is also important to be careful as to how you interpret the data. Assuming your data source is accurate then it shows Wilmott is a progressive passer of a football. Bayern has repeatedly said Wilmott isn't a progressive passer of a football - in which case the data implies he is wrong - Wilmott is a good progressive passer of the ball but he isn't very good at it. I suspect what Bayern is implying is that Wilmott isn't a very good progressive passer of a football - in which case the data supports his case and he is wrong to use this as proof that data isn't reliable. Bizarrely Bayern's opinion that Wilmott isn't a very good progressive passer of a football is supported by the data and disproves his assertion that data can't be relied upon because it doesn't support his opinion about Wilmott. So either his opinion about Wilmott is wrong and his view about data being unreliable is correct or his opinion about Wilmott is correct and his opinion about data being unreliable is wrong. This is going to take a lot of unnecessary punctuation to sort out.
|
|