Originally posted by Ginger Ninja
View Post
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Washington!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nasser95 View PostI don't masquerade them as being factual, I merely give factual backing in the form of stats to whatever my opinion is. It's always been an opinion, it just has backing from facts.
Where you come unstuck is you are often highly selective in your use of stats, so as to portray your personal favourite players in a more favourable light and equally, your non-favourite players in a poorer light.
IMO this is the reason why you get so much stick on here. If you really want credibility as a statistician you cannot allow your personal opinions of a player to affect your judgments of them in your stat based posts. I appreciate that's not an easy thing to achieve, but it's crucial to do so nevertheless.
I hope that provides some food for thought.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hove Ranger View PostNice backtracking. Just highlights how stupid a comment it was in the first place"What stats allow you to do is not take things at face value. The idea that I trust my eyes more than the stats, I just don't buy that because I've seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats and I know I just know that rabbit's not in there." - Billy Beane
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rangers77 View PostYou don't p iss people off, Ginge. You converse and listen, mate.Top Scorers 2018/2019
Nakhi Wells - 8
Pawel Wszolek - 6
Luke Freeman - 6
Matt Smith - 6
Ebere Eze - 4
Joel Lynch - 3
Tomer Hemed - 3
Toni Leistner - 2
Massimo Luongo- 2
Angel Rangel - 2
Bright Osayi-Samuel - 2
Geoff Cameron - 1
Aramide Oteh - 1
Jake Bidwell - 1
Jordan Cousins - 1
Summer Transfers 2019
IN
OUT
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stanley View PostNas, that would be fine if you were wholly impartial with your utilising of stats over the entire squad.
Where you come unstuck is you are often highly selective in your use of stats, so as to portray your personal favourite players in a more favourable light and equally, your non-favourite players in a poorer light.
IMO this is the reason why you get so much stick on here. If you really want credibility as a statistician you cannot allow your personal opinions of a player to affect your judgments of them in your stat based posts. I appreciate that's not an easy thing to achieve, but it's crucial to do so nevertheless.
I hope that provides a little food for thought.
And you say I favour certain players (I'll assume Luongo is the big one that people think I will ignore logic to support) and thus highlight their strengths when compared to someone you believe I dislike (in this case, people think I dislike Conor personally). I totally find that to be untrue and here's my counter-point. Everyone thinks Luongo should be a more attacking player and on that basis he isn't good enough. I think and see that Luongo for us is used in a more defensive role and given what he does in that sense, I highlight his defensive statistics as those are the most relevant to the role he takes in our squad. If he was a striker, I'd look at his shooting stats primarily along with dribbling to a degree. And would you look at that, whenever I criticise CW's performance prior to the last two games, I do exactly that. I look at his finishing and shot accuracy, shot frequency, shot positioning and I make my judgement accordingly. Take a look at all the stats stuff I've put up on this forum and it's all been pretty relevant to his role as a striker.
So no, I don't favour certain players. Just like people here feel I've been overly critical on CW, which I disagree with, I feel people have been overly critical with someone like Luongo and thus I'll defend as fervently as resistance is shown or I'll invariably get drowned out."What stats allow you to do is not take things at face value. The idea that I trust my eyes more than the stats, I just don't buy that because I've seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats and I know I just know that rabbit's not in there." - Billy Beane
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View PostI think we should have a Naz amnesty.
Start again from scratch from today and let him judge washington again accordingly .
Peas."What stats allow you to do is not take things at face value. The idea that I trust my eyes more than the stats, I just don't buy that because I've seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats and I know I just know that rabbit's not in there." - Billy Beane
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ginger Ninja View PostSo does Nasser mate, it's just his use of stats seems to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it's because those stats prove someone wrong sometimes and they don't like it, I dunno. Personally never cared for stats but that doesn't mean he has any less right to his opinion. On the subject of CW I have been just as critical and stubborn (for want of a better word) as Nasser, but haven't had any backlash from anyone. Just a bit strange to me mate that's all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nasser95 View PostI appreciate what you're saying but disagree wholeheartedly. I come here to post up my opinions, just like everyone else. I then ensure that my opinions have valid back up in the form of stats. Statistics are about interpretation, I've said it 27 billion times on here, but alone, they are useless, and in my opinion, the same can be said for completely ignoring them because they disagree with your view. A balanced view involving statistics that validate an argument and opinion is in my opinion necessary to form a cohesive argument and I won't change how I post and that is irrelevant of the stick I get on here because I don't care about the stick, people can hate me all they want but it won't change my posts.
And you say I favour certain players (I'll assume Luongo is the big one that people think I will ignore logic to support) and thus highlight their strengths when compared to someone you believe I dislike (in this case, people think I dislike Conor personally). I totally find that to be untrue and here's my counter-point. Everyone thinks Luongo should be a more attacking player and on that basis he isn't good enough. I think and see that Luongo for us is used in a more defensive role and given what he does in that sense, I highlight his defensive statistics as those are the most relevant to the role he takes in our squad. If he was a striker, I'd look at his shooting stats primarily along with dribbling to a degree. And would you look at that, whenever I criticise CW's performance prior to the last two games, I do exactly that. I look at his finishing and shot accuracy, shot frequency, shot positioning and I make my judgement accordingly. Take a look at all the stats stuff I've put up on this forum and it's all been pretty relevant to his role as a striker.
So no, I don't favour certain players. Just like people here feel I've been overly critical on CW, which I disagree with, I feel people have been overly critical with someone like Luongo and thus I'll defend as fervently as resistance is shown or I'll invariably get drowned out.
Another example would be Onuoha. I find your use of stats with him to be selective and therefore doesn't reflect an accurate portrayal of the player overall.
A further example would be Scott Parker when we played them away. Your stat-posts about him gave a totally skewed impression of his overall performance, when he was easily their best player.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stanley View PostConor obviously is not one of your favoured players, that's why your ridiculous stat of his 1.5 goals scored gave you so much grief on here. It's just another example of your stat posts being unbalanced.
Another example would be Onuoha. I find your use of stats with him to be selective and therefore doesn't reflect an accurate portrayal of the player overall.
A further example would be Scott Parker when we played them away. Your stat-posts about him gave a totally skewed impression of his overall performance, when he was easily their best player.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rangers77 View PostClaiming Luongo was better than Manning last night in terms of tackles, when Manning played 60 mins and Luongo 90 ( nad Manning had an extra tackle) might back you up Stan......"What stats allow you to do is not take things at face value. The idea that I trust my eyes more than the stats, I just don't buy that because I've seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats and I know I just know that rabbit's not in there." - Billy Beane
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rangers77 View PostIf it were up to the same ones (or one) saying different Jimmy would still be the manager... LOL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ginger Ninja View PostSo does Nasser mate, it's just his use of stats seems to rub people the wrong way. Maybe it's because those stats prove someone wrong sometimes and they don't like it, I dunno. Personally never cared for stats but that doesn't mean he has any less right to his opinion. On the subject of CW I have been just as critical and stubborn (for want of a better word) as Nasser, but haven't had any backlash from anyone. Just a bit strange to me mate that's all.I played sunday league football today.
Clearly I was the best player on the pitch.
I scored 5 and made 7 last ditch tackles.
We lost 5-0 but the rest of my team were sh it!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rangers77 View PostClaiming Luongo was better than Manning last night in terms of tackles, when Manning played 60 mins and Luongo 90 ( nad Manning had an extra tackle) might back you up Stan......
Comment
-
Originally posted by nasser95 View PostWhen did I claim that? Read what I said before you post ridiculous statements.
"Manning made 6 tackles, Luongo made 5 but Luongo also made an interception that Manning didn't do. Luongo also won a couple in the air and manning only won one and Luongo made a successful dribble which manning didn't do"
Manning played 60 odd mins. Luongo 90. In case you can't, er, do the math: 6 tackles in 60 mins is, I think, a more impressive statistic than 5 plus an interception in 90. You clearly want the 'interception' to count more than a tackle.
Oh dear. It's so not worth my time, I so know. It really isn't. Reply how you want. I'm not breaking my rule again.
Comment
Comment