Nicolas Otamendi - 2016/17 performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tugay One Cup said:
Just because I can write a lot of words doesn't mean that the text has any merit. It's a measure of quantity and not quality.
Click to expand...
True, but for you to be write a text you have to be able to write it first. You cannot be good in the air if you don't win your duels.
 
Dax777 said:
For example if someone has scored 20 goals this season, its hard to conclude he is a "shit striker." Sure you can find people who have scored 27 or 28. And you can conclude those are better. But this will only show how hard it is to find those who have scored more.
Click to expand...
I remember half way through one season when Michael Ricketts was the leading goal scorer, he was shit ( by premiership footballing standards).
 
Glad he obviously wins all his headers then. It's a damn shame he can't replicate that form in consistency or on the floor though.
 
Lancet Fluke said:
I can't believe anyone thinks stats are much use without context.
Click to expand...
No one does. What they in fact do is give more credence to an opinion those stats agree with.

If you think Aguero is a good goalscorer and I think he is a Shit goalscorer and we check the stars and find out Aguero is the 5 highest scorer in Europe's top 5 leagues.

Those stats give a bit more credence to your original opinion and diminishes my opinion a bit unless I could show how that stat is baised.

I.e. that Aguero had played 2ice the number of games, or that Aguero takes double the number of shots or gets double the number of opportunities to score that others have. Thus you need empirical evidence of your own to that undermines the veracity of the stats provided.

In essence I can't just say, " ah, the stats showing Aguero scores the 5th most # of goals has no context, therefore its invalid." And that is often the comeback you get from those who stats don't support their opinion.

That's simply a weak comeback. If you don't like a stat, show how it doesn't prove the claim. Not just guess that it doesn't. Saying it doesn't show so and so is weak. Showing that it doesn't show it is stronger.

I generally stop after 2 exchanges on these topics with Neville because I'm more wary of getting into those long draw out exchanges that bring down the quality of whole thread. But if new points are made I think its fair to respond to them.

Lets examine air battles. According to one set of stats Otamendi wins the most a game in the Prem. Then you go deeper and find that he is in the t top 20 in winning headers as a % of battles entered in the league. Then you dig even further and notice he has been in more headed battles than anyone. In spite of playing about 200 minutes less on average than everyone remotely close to him barring Van Dijk. Now add all those favorable stats to his diminutive height compared to almost everyone else around the top of list.... And the preponderance of the evidence begins to"suggest" not "prove", but suggests strongly that more likely than not he is very good in the air.

What is needed from the person who's opinion is contrary to what those stats show is evidence supporting their contrary opinion. I.e. Not claims of whether we didnt have context on the preponderance of stats already proffered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.