Jump to content
IGNORED

Lies, Damned lies and statistics .


Major Isewater

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

So ' statistically ' Joe Bryan is the best left back in the Championship.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/stats-say-bristol-city-need-70884

Quite.

I went to whoscored.com's website, and they say the use Opta data for the Championship, with a 'unique algorithm'. An average player should score 6.0-6.9. Our stats are here to save on pointless evil post site visits. And none of our lot come out worse than average. Pity they don't cover league one so we could all have a good laugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using statistics can be a good way of filtering potential signings (not in the way this website uses) as it allows you to look at players particularly effective in the area of your sides key performance indicators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the Bryan thing!

In general though, it sort of figures, makes a certain degree of sense- collectively, not necessarily about individual players!

Performance wise we have probably- by most metrics- finished a bit below where we should. More of a midtable than a bottom third side on balance- lower midtable but midtable nonetheless.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/feb/07/defence-football-statistics-drama-data

A topical read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they consider an average player would score 6-6.9 and Tammy Abraham actually scored 7.06, well in one example it has been shown their algorithm is bollox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another thing to look at with it is number of games- so e.g. his performance may have risen- or dropped had he played more.

Stats like this certainly aren't flawless but they are a useful indicator.

I think that is right.  The stats might not tell the whole story, but they are very useful.  There is a huge mismatch in the perception of some fans that Joe Bryan isn't good enough at this level, and a detailed statistical report that suggests he is the best left back in the division, but then one is based at least partly on emotion while the other isn't.  Frankly, I'll go with the stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I think that is right.  The stats might not tell the whole story, but they are very useful.  There is a huge mismatch in the perception of some fans that Joe Bryan isn't good enough at this level, and a detailed statistical report that suggests he is the best left back in the division, but then one is based at least partly on emotion while the other isn't.  Frankly, I'll go with the stats.

That detailed statistical report is generated having been fed through an algorithm - which the author "emotionally" gave extra weighting to particular stats, and determined the extent of said weighting.

It's a sophisticated way a person projecting what they think makes a good player 'generally' and applying a broad brush. I think as a table of information it is quite interesting, but when it comes to the "rating" no more valid than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

People obsessed with stats 

Win ratios

yards covered

assists etc. Etc

:grr:

 

Open your eyes & watch carefully - gives a far more accurate assessment

Stats are something to consider not to rule everything and provide every answer

If there was a 'rabbit in the headlights' award , JB would have got that a couple of times last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

If there was a 'rabbit in the headlights' award , JB would have got that a couple of times last year.

Drives me bonkers Mike

We had a multiple page thread on here recently with people using (and all manipulating or being choosy about what part of the stats) stats purely based on win percentages to argue whether SC or LJ are the 'better manager' - Unbelievable

Football like life is not as simple as a mathmatical equation 

:grr:

the only stats in football to seriously concentrate on is Your number of goals against the oppositions in the short term , and your points total in the short/ medium term

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

People obsessed with stats 

Win ratios

yards covered

assists etc. Etc

:grr:

 

Open your eyes & watch carefully - gives a far more accurate assessment

Stats are something to consider not to rule everything and provide every answer

Agree with this but I think people are too tough on Joe Bryan at LB. Fullback is a tough position in the league with very few elite ones. We see Joe every week and we can point out what he isn't good at but we don't point to the things he does better than most as well. Most of us will se a fullback twice a year at most. It's tough to judge them fairly against our fullbacks on that. Look at the team of the season in the championship. RB was Bruno who is a good pro and solid RB but no one will rave about him. At LB 16 Ryan Sessegnon  got it and that's because he scored a few goals and that in I think half the seasons worth of appearances(some at LW). 

Joe is a good LB at this level. He has his flaws but that's why he's at Bristol City and even then bigger clubs are interested in him. He's class in a good side who wants to have possession. He's woeful when asked to defend for long periods of time. March and onwards I think we saw a top young LB. The 3-4 months before that when we were up against it I think we saw the worst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Agree with this but I think people are too tough on Joe Bryan at LB. Fullback is a tough position in the league with very few elite ones. We see Joe every week and we can point out what he isn't good at but we don't point to the things he does better than most as well. Most of us will se a fullback twice a year at most. It's tough to judge them fairly against our fullbacks on that. Look at the team of the season in the championship. RB was Bruno who is a good pro and solid RB but no one will rave about him. At LB 16 Ryan Sessegnon  got it and that's because he scored a few goals and that in I think half the seasons worth of appearances(some at LW). 

Joe is a good LB at this level. He has his flaws but that's why he's at Bristol City and even then bigger clubs are interested in him. He's class in a good side who wants to have possession. He's woeful when asked to defend for long periods of time. March and onwards I think we saw a top young LB. The 3-4 months before that when we were up against it I think we saw the worst. 

Good post Joe and I'm a big fan of his generally Joe

My post was more of a rant about ******** statistics

I have watched him closely at times this season and can't fathom out why he can look a Prem Poltential full back one minute and a poor Non League full back moments later

Has all the attributes in theory to be a very good full back and he's clearly intelligent 

I Can't work it out at all - very frustrating

The Birmingham game was a classic - watched him rather than the play for 10-15 mins and he looked for the most part as if he'd won a competition to play

Seemed to become increasingly frustrated and then suddenly went on that run where he burst through their defence and fired narrowly wide (First half) almost as if he was taking out his frustration out in that moment which was (nearly) pure brilliance 

One of my bits of advice to him would to be to soften / take pace off (some of his)  deliveries / crossing , at times - he tries to whip everything in with real pace - excellent when he gets it right but in doing so shanks and mishits more than he gets anywhere near right

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

People obsessed with stats 

Win ratios

yards covered

assists etc. Etc

:grr:

 

Open your eyes & watch carefully - gives a far more accurate assessment

Stats are something to consider not to rule everything and provide every answer

I you are watching a game you see only a fraction of what is going on on the field at any one time.  If you focus on one player, there are 21 other players on the pitch that you are not focusing on.  If you are watching what is happening on the ball, you are missing everything that is happening off the ball.  You cannot hope to get a true sense of what players are doing just by using the evidence of your own eyes, because there is so much that you won't see.  I've been to live matches and subsequently watched the film of them and seen things in quite a different light.  I've watched things on tv, and seen things differently when I watch the replay, sometimes only after rewatching it several times.  The fact is that you get one impression live, and that is often after the event, because you may not be watching the key action at all.  No wonder statistics tell us something that otherwise we might not know.  Good managers know this and use it to their advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a bit of time, being selective with the data, I could make LJ look as good or bad as you want :shifty:

In finance it's called cooking the books but in normal day to day life it's called bull shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I you are watching a game you see only a fraction of what is going on on the field at any one time.  If you focus on one player, there are 21 other players on the pitch that you are not focusing on.  If you are watching what is happening on the ball, you are missing everything that is happening off the ball.  You cannot hope to get a true sense of what players are doing just by using the evidence of your own eyes, because there is so much that you won't see.  I've been to live matches and subsequently watched the film of them and seen things in quite a different light.  I've watched things on tv, and seen things differently when I watch the replay, sometimes only after rewatching it several times.  The fact is that you get one impression live, and that is often after the event, because you may not be watching the key action at all.  No wonder statistics tell us something that otherwise we might not know.  Good managers know this and use it to their advantage. 

I think you misunderstand when I say  I'm watching just him DP - I'm watching him closely and aware of  where the ball is / what else is happening etc etc but concentrating on him and how he reacts positionally , vocally etc etc in relation to what's happening in the game - exactly what I would do if scouting a player (Obviously LJ or any other manager doesn't have the time or luxury to do this 'live' - he has eleven to worry about as well as all the shape , tempo and everything else to gauge)

And I accept stats  provide an interesting  picture and may be good to consult at times but for me they should be used in that way rather than be expected to provide the full picture, if you see what I mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think Joe gets a hard time on here.  Yes, he has made mistakes (who doesn't) and is still learning, but at times he's been woefuly exposed by the left sided player in front of him.  Also Wright isn't left footed so I suspect he may not always get great cover from him either.

Joe looks much better with someone like O'Dowda playing in front of him.  He can trust him to track back and fill in for Joe when he attacks, and O'Dowda has the energy to double up on attacking players so Joe isn't left isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I think that is right.  The stats might not tell the whole story, but they are very useful.  There is a huge mismatch in the perception of some fans that Joe Bryan isn't good enough at this level, and a detailed statistical report that suggests he is the best left back in the division, but then one is based at least partly on emotion while the other isn't.  Frankly, I'll go with the stats.

Definitely very useful.

That said he's certainly not the best LB in the division IMO- a solid one and indeed with room for growth, nowhere near as bad as people say though I think.

Stats...will rise as a bigger part of the game I think. One of many things coaches, managers and clubs will use to gain even the smallest advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

Personally I believe the stats more than the people on here. A lot of fans notice mistakes but not good play if it's only routine stuff, the stats don't miss anything.

Football stats are only as good as the observer (the person recording the data).

Observers can have their own biases, make some common mistakes etc.

Observers can change and with those changes they can bring their own biases, make some mistakes etc. This adds to a variation.

If we can be assured that the inconsistencies are reduced to an acceptable (what ever that means/is) level, I'd agree with you.

As to stats and people on here... ummm, it depends on what you want to believe and that can depend on which flavour of bull shit you like :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Good post Joe and I'm a big fan of his generally Joe

My post was more of a rant about ******** statistics

I have watched him closely at times this season and can't fathom out why he can look a Prem Poltential full back one minute and a poor Non League full back moments later

Has all the attributes in theory to be a very good full back and he's clearly intelligent 

I Can't work it out at all - very frustrating

The Birmingham game was a classic - watched him rather than the play for 10-15 mins and he looked for the most part as if he'd won a competition to play

Seemed to become increasingly frustrated and then suddenly went on that run where he burst through their defence and fired narrowly wide (First half) almost as if he was taking out his frustration out in that moment which was (nearly) pure brilliance 

One of my bits of advice to him would to be to soften / take pace off (some of his)  deliveries / crossing , at times - he tries to whip everything in with real pace - excellent when he gets it right but in doing so shanks and mishits more than he gets anywhere near right

 

I think he was following managers instructions and when he didn't he went on that run,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, stats clearly don't paint the whole picture and I see why some people are suspicious of them.

But for me, those people are missing the point. A balance needs to be found. You often hear things like "we never used to have stats" - all good and well, so the only 'stats' you had then were the scorers or assists. Corners and maybe fouls. 

The reason I like stats is, if you just watch the game, you inevitably focus on those few things, so you only ever praise the big things. The goals, saves, thunderous tackles, mazy runs, amazing crosses. 

Stats help you see the intricacies, the subtle side, where a players quality is vital to the team, but not recordable in obvious ways. Football is full of those players, JB perhaps proving to be case in point. 

Take a big cup final for example. It will always be remembered for who scored the winner, but that player couldn't have scored the winner if their team mate hadn't made a key, yet simple recovery of possession earlier, for example, maybe from a great moment of anticipation, position or vision, but no-one remembers that.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

First of all, stats clearly don't paint the whole picture and I see why some people are suspicious of them.

But for me, those people are missing the point. A balance needs to be found. You often hear things like "we never used to have stats" - all good and well, so the only 'stats' you had then were the scorers or assists. Corners and maybe fouls. 

The reason I like stats is, if you just watch the game, you inevitably focus on those few things, so you only ever praise the big things. The goals, saves, thunderous tackles, mazy runs, amazing crosses. 

Stats help you see the intricacies, the subtle side, where a players quality is vital to the team, but not recordable in obvious ways. Football is full of those players, JB perhaps proving to be case in point. 

Take a big cup final for example. It will always be remembered for who scored the winner, but that player couldn't have scored the winner if their team mate hadn't made a key, yet simple recovery of possession earlier, for example, maybe from a great moment of anticipation, position or vision, but no-one remembers that.....

 

I do .

 

 

 

What was the question again ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

First of all, stats clearly don't paint the whole picture and I see why some people are suspicious of them.

But for me, those people are missing the point. A balance needs to be found. You often hear things like "we never used to have stats" - all good and well, so the only 'stats' you had then were the scorers or assists. Corners and maybe fouls. 

The reason I like stats is, if you just watch the game, you inevitably focus on those few things, so you only ever praise the big things. The goals, saves, thunderous tackles, mazy runs, amazing crosses. 

Stats help you see the intricacies, the subtle side, where a players quality is vital to the team, but not recordable in obvious ways. Football is full of those players, JB perhaps proving to be case in point. 

Take a big cup final for example. It will always be remembered for who scored the winner, but that player couldn't have scored the winner if their team mate hadn't made a key, yet simple recovery of possession earlier, for example, maybe from a great moment of anticipation, position or vision, but no-one remembers that.....

 

Agree with your good post Alessandro

the only thing , with regards to the highlighted bit I'd say the majority of supporters won't But any decent coach / Manager definitely will have , and would praise and highlight it post match to the players if no one else, and the players are likely to have recognised it anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alessandro said:

First of all, stats clearly don't paint the whole picture and I see why some people are suspicious of them.

But for me, those people are missing the point. A balance needs to be found. You often hear things like "we never used to have stats" - all good and well, so the only 'stats' you had then were the scorers or assists. Corners and maybe fouls. 

The reason I like stats is, if you just watch the game, you inevitably focus on those few things, so you only ever praise the big things. The goals, saves, thunderous tackles, mazy runs, amazing crosses. 

Stats help you see the intricacies, the subtle side, where a players quality is vital to the team, but not recordable in obvious ways. Football is full of those players, JB perhaps proving to be case in point. 

Take a big cup final for example. It will always be remembered for who scored the winner, but that player couldn't have scored the winner if their team mate hadn't made a key, yet simple recovery of possession earlier, for example, maybe from a great moment of anticipation, position or vision, but no-one remembers that.....

 

I'm not sure, I think of casual supporters that's true, but most of us are spoon fed so much preview, punditry and analysis that people become attuned to reading the game. 

Players like Carrick, Essien, Kante, Dier, Alonso, Busquets - who go about their business quietly but are universally praised show that people do appreciate non-flair players. It's not just at top clubs of top players - even for Bristol City the ones who can't identify what Pack brings to the team are growing fewer and fewer; Taylor has barely scored and had shocking misses but is roundly credited with allowing Tammy to flourish alongside; and Djuric has not had the champagne moment but has impressed very many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

Football stats are only as good as the observer (the person recording the data).

Observers can have their own biases, make some common mistakes etc.

Observers can change and with those changes they can bring their own biases, make some mistakes etc. This adds to a variation.

If we can be assured that the inconsistencies are reduced to an acceptable (what ever that means/is) level, I'd agree with you.

As to stats and people on here... ummm, it depends on what you want to believe and that can depend on which flavour of bull shit you like :blink:

At matches now there are 3 observers, one for each team and one to check the others are right so there's little room for bias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...