Jump to content

Transfer Speculation (Summer 2013)


samjp26

Recommended Posts

To extend the conversation, the problem with Saber ideas is football is the subjective nature of any useful stat. Con's favorite "key passes" stat, for instance, relies on a person deciding which passes are key and which are not. In baseball, however, you have either gotten on base or not. No subjectivity needed.

It's not subjective. You don't understand how it works.

A key pass is that which would have been an assist if the shot at goal had gone in. So a key pass results in a shot at goal.

It is completely subjective. Who decided what a shot is? If a corner gets hit in and it glances off someone's head, where Bannan got most of his "key passes" btw, is that a real chance?

You do not even understand basic statistical analysis, which makes your insistence on using them very humorous to those of us who do.

I'm glad you are amused. It's second best to being informed but at least you're not angry.

You criticise me for subjectivity and then hand wave blatant generalisations like "where Bannan got most of his key passes btw" and I'm supposed to believe this? You've just told me it's all subjective, so like I'm going to believe you on this datapoint.

All right. We are going to walk through this, together.

What is a key pass?

*note after you answer this simple question there will be more to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

All right. We are going to walk through this, together.

What is a key pass?

*note after you answer this simple question there will be more to follow.

 

 

 

Don't patronise. Read the discussion between me and BJ10 first. We're just going to repeat ourselves otherwise and it will derail the thread for everyone else.

Edited by Con
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right. We are going to walk through this, together.

What is a key pass?

*note after you answer this simple question there will be more to follow.

Don't patronise. Read the discussion between me and BJ10 first. We're just going to repeat ourselves otherwise and it will derail the thread for everyone else.

The correct answer is a pass that leads to a shot.

2nd question. Could one person score an action as a shot while a different person scores the same action as not a shot?

Edited by Raymond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you're in space 40 yards from goal and want to make an attacking move but all the through balls are closed off, a good pass is to a long shot specialist.

Haha

But like i said according to you it doesn't matter. All you care about is that key pass stat. You don't care if it was a great ball through that leads to a one on one or if it's a simple pass to any player who decides to shoot.

Its why looking at the stat and nothing else is pointless.

 

 

If you want a key pass statistic that distinguishes between Hard Key Passes and Easy Key Passes you will need to come up with a better system.

 

 

 

Which is exactly why your insane persistence of basing EVERYTHING on stats is bullshit (imo of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't patronise. Read the discussion between me and BJ10 first. We're just going to repeat ourselves otherwise and it will derail the thread for everyone else.

The correct answer is a pass that leads to a shot.

2nd question. Could one person score an action as a shot while a different person scores the same action as not a shot?

 

 

I already said that in my reply to you earlier - and you quoted me.

 

 

 

A key pass is that which would have been an assist if the shot at goal had gone in. So a key pass results in a shot at goal.
 
Why should I reply to you if you don't even read what you're quoting me about?
 
In answer to your second question, I've been over that with BJ10 so I will copy and paste as you are unwilling to read back.
 

 

If you could pass 2 yards to Bale or 2 yards to Parker for a long shot, who would you choose?

 

Bale is more likely to shoot than Parker, because he's a better shooter.

 

That is objective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not even close to answering my question. Here it is again. Could one person view an action as a shot at goal and another view the same action as not a shot at goal?

The answer is of course yes, which is why you do not want to answer it.

If one person can view an action as a shot at goal while another can view the same action as not a shot at goal, then one person could view a pass as a key pass while another could view it as not a key pass. That is the definition of subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not even close to answering my question. Here it is again. Could one person view an action as a shot at goal and another view the same action as not a shot at goal?

 

The answer is of course yes, which is why you do not want to answer it.

If one person can view an action as a shot at goal while another can view the same action as not a shot at goal, then one person could view a pass as a key pass while another could view it as not a key pass. That is the definition of subjective.

 

No. You must be referring to crosses or cross shots which end up on target.

 

That goes down as a dangerous attempt on goal, whether the player was deliberately "shooting" or not. 

 

Not sure where you are going with your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not even close to answering my question. Here it is again. Could one person view an action as a shot at goal and another view the same action as not a shot at goal?

The answer is of course yes, which is why you do not want to answer it.

If one person can view an action as a shot at goal while another can view the same action as not a shot at goal, then one person could view a pass as a key pass while another could view it as not a key pass. That is the definition of subjective.

No. You must be referring to crosses or cross shots which end up on target.

That goes down as a dangerous attempt on goal, whether the player was deliberately "shooting" or not.

Not sure where you are going with your argument.

So you believe there is no way two different people could view the same action and one conclude it was a shot while the other concludes it is not a shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is not even close to answering my question. Here it is again. Could one person view an action as a shot at goal and another view the same action as not a shot at goal?

The answer is of course yes, which is why you do not want to answer it.

If one person can view an action as a shot at goal while another can view the same action as not a shot at goal, then one person could view a pass as a key pass while another could view it as not a key pass. That is the definition of subjective.

No. You must be referring to crosses or cross shots which end up on target.

That goes down as a dangerous attempt on goal, whether the player was deliberately "shooting" or not.

Not sure where you are going with your argument.

So you believe there is no way two different people could view the same action and one conclude it was a shot while the other concludes it is not a shot?

 

 

People can conclude a Ronaldo special from 30 yards tipped round the post by keeper's outstretched fingers was a cross. Nothing is stopping them doing that.

 

As long as you have a well-defined methodology, and it is followed, you will have objectivity.

 

A cross can result in a goal. Jarvis scored one at the weekend. Had that cross hit the post, not gone in, it would have been a shot, even though it was mean't to be a cross?

 

If it had hit the post yes, a shot. You can make that a rule as part of the methodology. If it missed the post then you can call it a cross.

 

Stick to the methodology and you have objectivity. In theory you could set up smart cameras and design computer programme to recognise patterns and do the adding up without any human opinion.

 

That's objective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

People can conclude a Ronaldo special from 30 yards tipped round the post by keeper's outstretched fingers was a cross. Nothing is stopping them doing that.

 

As long as you have a well-defined methodology, and it is followed, you will have objectivity.

 

A cross can result in a goal. Jarvis scored one at the weekend. Had that cross hit the post, not gone in, it would have been a shot, even though it was mean't to be a cross?

 

If it had hit the post yes, a shot. You can make that a rule as part of the methodology. If it missed the post then you can call it a cross.

 

Stick to the methodology and you have objectivity. In theory you could set up smart cameras and design computer programme to recognise patterns and do the adding up without any human opinion.

 

That's objective. 

 

 

I have highlighted the bit that proves it is not objective.  As it seems we are going in circles I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is objective within the parameters of the methodology for adding up key passes.

 

That's the only objectivity that matters, because you want the same methodology applied in every game. 

 

So the key pass stat is objective, it is coherent between players.

 

They're not using one methodology for one match and a different one for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyone think we could have a look at Tom Ince or will the price tag be too high?

 

 

 

 

I think daddy Ince will be telling him to aim higher than us, unfortunately.

 

 

If he has his son's best interest at heart, and haven't totally lost perspective and reason about his son.

Then he should absolutely recommend Villa, if you stay up then I'd say it's a perfect match with Ince and Villa.

Only more suited option is perhaps Swansea due to European football and Laudrup's knowledge about his position

Wouldn't be surprised if he hangs onto the Zaha talk from earlier though and expect higher fee and wages than Zaha, placing him at City as Sinclair's replacement. Good way to kill a career.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well this is fun.

Haha

Want to argue about something to make it more interesting? ;)

 

 

Well, we could argue about transfer speculation, at least to make it on topic? 

 

*AUGUST 2013* GODDAMMITLAMBERTWHYHAVENTUSIGNEDANYONEONLYJOHNNYSMITHFROMACCRINGTONBUTHEDOESNTCOUNT

 

While I was typing that I had an interesting thought. Would people rather keep Benteke and sign no one or sell Benteke and sign people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â