John Stones

[the_game_161]

Well stones is gone from Everton that's for sure...just where he goes.

 

[Dax777]

So "Whoscored" are the oracle on player performance are they? Their algorithm is just right, whereas the one done for the Euro's is fatally flawed?

Again, you are back to your quintessential strawman arguments. Where did I say whoscored was the Oracle? And where did I say the Euros algorithm was flawed. Neither is flawed or wholly indisputable. However, what I implied very clearly, is that your conclusion regarding what the Euro stats iis saying are flawed. The Euro stat is saying Milner is the 5th most "in form" player going into the Euros. You are saying Milner is the 5th best player at the Euros. These are categorically different things.

Their words are that there is weight given to more recent games. That doesn't mean it's the only stat that's relevant does it. It simply means some weight is given to form. How much weight is pure speculation.

Not some. More weight. It is not speculation at all, it is exactly what they said.

the more recent the match, the higher the weighting assigned to the data from it i.e. player stats from yesterday are given more significance than those from last week.

I did not write any of the above. They did!!!!

According to your "Whoscored" list Ibrahimovic was the best player on that list. Do you think that's an accurate reflection of how good he is?

I don't think Ibra is the best player, but of all those going to the Euros, yes I wouldn't bat an eye if someone ranked him first. He is easily in the top 3. Ronaldo, Zlatan, Pogba, Bale, Griezmann, Lewandoski, Payet. Are easily the best players from last season going into the tournament. Statistically Zlatan had,52goals and 16 assists. Do I think that kind of production is deserving of #1 considerations? Absofukinglutely!!!

 

[Shaelumstash]

Again, you are back to your quintessential strawman arguments. Where did I say whoscored was the Oracle? And where did I say the Euros algorithm was flawed. Neither is flawed or wholly indisputable. However, what I implied very clearly, is that your conclusion regarding what the Euro stats iis saying are flawed. The Euro stat is saying Milner is the 5th most "in form" player going into the Euros. You are saying Milner is the 5th best player at the Euros. These are categorically different things.

Not some. More weight. It is not speculation at all, it is exactly what they said.

the more recent the match, the higher the weighting assigned to the data from it i.e. player stats from yesterday are given more significance than those from last week.

I did not write any of the above. They did!!!!

I don't think Ibra is the best player, but of all those going to the Euros, yes I wouldn't bat an eye if someone ranked him first. He is easily in the top 3. Ronaldo, Zlatan, Pogba, Bale, Griezmann, Lewandoski, Payet. Are easily the best players from last season going into the tournament. Statistically Zlatan had,52goals and 16 assists. Do I think that kind of production is deserving of #1 considerations? Absofukinglutely!!!

I'm not being impolite, but I'm not sure if English is your first language, so I think you get hung up on linguistic nuances that you don't really understand. Talking about the weighting of the recent form, it's obvious that "more" weight is given to the most recent games, that's implied by the fact weight is given to form. When I said "some" weight is given to more recent games, I wasn't implying it could be more or less than earlier games, as you falsely assumed. I was saying "some" weight because we don't know how much. We're speculating. "Some" in this instance is a term used to show we don't know the number.

The statistics don't show him as in the top three in your list. It shows him as first. So are you now suggesting the "Whoscored" ratings aren't absolute and can't be relied upon? So they're pretty inaccurate then?

Based on human reasoning it's possible for you to analyse Zlatan's performances, the standard he has played at and against, and deduce all by yourself that Ronaldo is a better player. You're able to do that based on hundreds of hours of watching football, of general knowledge of how much superior La Liga is to the French league. Well done. This is progress. I believe in your ability to think for yourself, even if you don't ;-)

 

[fatbloke]

I'm not being impolite, but I'm not sure if English is your first language, so I think you get hung up on linguistic nuances that you don't really understand. Talking about the weighting of the recent form, it's obvious that "more" weight is given to the most recent games, that's implied by the fact weight is given to form. When I said "some" weight is given to more recent games, I wasn't implying it could be more or less than earlier games, as you falsely assumed. I was saying "some" weight because we don't know how much. We're speculating. "Some" in this instance is a term used to show we don't know the number.

The statistics don't show him as in the top three in your list. It shows him as first. So are you now suggesting the "Whoscored" ratings aren't absolute and can't be relied upon? So they're pretty inaccurate then?

Based on human reasoning it's possible for you to analyse Zlatan's performances, the standard he has played at and against, and deduce all by yourself that Ronaldo is a better player. You're able to do that based on hundreds of hours of watching football, of general knowledge of how much superior La Liga is to the French league. Well done. This is progress. I believe in your ability to think for yourself, even if you don't ;-)

You'll never get him to admit he's wrong, even when you have proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Dax777]

I'm not being impolite, but I'm not sure if English is your first language, so I think you get hung up on linguistic nuances that you don't really understand. Talking about the weighting of the recent form, it's obvious that "more" weight is given to the most recent games, that's implied by the fact weight is given to form. When I said "some" weight is given to more recent games, I wasn't implying it could be more or less than earlier games, as you falsely assumed. I was saying "some" weight because we don't know how much. We're speculating. "Some" in this instance is a term used to show we don't know the number.

The statistics don't show him as in the top three in your list. It shows him as first. So are you now suggesting the "Whoscored" ratings aren't absolute and can't be relied upon? So they're pretty inaccurate then?

Based on human reasoning it's possible for you to analyse Zlatan's performances, the standard he has played at and against, and deduce all by yourself that Ronaldo is a better player. You're able to do that based on hundreds of hours of watching football, of general knowledge of how much superior La Liga is to the French league. Well done. This is progress. I believe in your ability to think for yourself, even if you don't ;-)

Ranking Zlatan First is not mind blowing. Messi is the best player in the world yet in the last 7 years he has lost a few Ballon does to Ronaldo. So yes, Ronaldo could have an arguably better season even if I think Messi is a better player.

So in a the league stats used to coalate the seasonal stats, Zlatan had 38 goals to Ronaldo's 35 and 13 assist to Ronaldo's 11. With 14 MOM to Ronaldo's 8. So yeah it's clearly arguable he had a better season. It's not arguable though, that Milner did.

Regardless of whether you think Ronaldo is better. Now if someone concludes Giroud is number 5, that's not arguable. You are splitting hairs over an arguable claim. Both Zlatan and Ronaldo had top 5 season's this year, Milner didn't.

Where you and I agree Zlatan is in the top five is arguable, you say 5, I say 3, whoscored says 1. Those are all within common sense. Milner at 5 simply isn't.

I'm the one with English as a 3rd language, yet you are the one struggling with context :( Yeesh! :p

 

[Dax777]

You'll never get him to admit he's wrong, even when you have proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

Wrong about what? I know it your natural inclination to side with anything opposing my view. But what exactly was I wrong about in my discussion with Shael?

And as far as not admitting wrong, you probably should stop protecting :)

 

[Neville Kneville]

So "Whoscored" are the oracle on player performance are they? Their algorithm is just right, whereas the one done for the Euro's is fatally flawed?

Their words are that there is weight given to more recent games. That doesn't mean it's the only stat that's relevant does it. It simply means some weight is given to form. How much weight is pure speculation.

According to your "Whoscored" list Ibrahimovic was the best player on that list. Do you think that's an accurate reflection of how good he is?

And Silva has been in better form than Modric.

It's nothing more than a helpful guideline & that's all the best pros use it for. More useful are the actual measurements taken, to show which areas can be improved upon.

As far as actually guaging the usefulness of a player in a team, it's bollocks & one person who will not be basing his decisions on statistics is Pep Guardiola.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Ranking Zlatan First is not mind blowing. Messi is the best player in the world yet in the last 7 years he has lost a few Ballon does to Ronaldo. So yes, Ronaldo could have an arguably better season even if I think Messi is a better player.

So in a the league stats used to coalate the seasonal stats, Zlatan had 38 goals to Ronaldo's 35 and 13 assist to Ronaldo's 11. With 14 MOM to Ronaldo's 8. So yeah it's clearly arguable he had a better season. It's not arguable though, that Milner did.

Regardless of whether you think Ronaldo is better. Now if someone concludes Giroud is number 5, that's not arguable. You are splitting hairs over an arguable claim. Both Zlatan and Ronaldo had top 5 season's this year, Milner didn't.

Where you and I agree Zlatan is in the top five is arguable, you say 5, I say 3, whoscored says 1. Those are all within common sense. Milner at 5 simply isn't.

I'm the one with English as a 3rd language, yet you are the one struggling with context :( Yeesh! :p

Third! I'm guessing German or Dutch first, Mathematics second?! ;-)

Yeh all of your arguments above are just fluff. We all have our opinions on who is better. The stats can't prove who is better either way. It's inconclusive. It's a flawed way of judging a player. That's my point.

All stats can do is show you data. If I said Ronaldo scored more than Zlatan you could prove me wrong with the statistics. If I said Ronaldo is a better player than Zlatan, it's open to opinion, "emotion" and judgement. Any statistical analysis is limited how the person who came up with the algorithm decides to weight things.

Some algorithms are better than others. Some opinions are more informed than others. I would trust Pep's or Ferguson's judgement on a player more than I would a 10 year old kid who plays FIFA, because they are experts in the field.

But the limitation of any algorithm in judging a player is that it can only analyse certain sets of data. It can't analyse intelligence for example. That's why even you, not an expert in the field, can deduce that Ronaldo is better than Zlatan. Whereas the algorithm, however sophisticated, cannot.

 

[Dax777]

And Silva has been in better form than Modric.

It's nothing more than a helpful guideline & that's all the best pros use it for. More useful are the actual measurements taken, to show which areas can be improved upon.

As far as actually guaging the usefulness of a player in a team, it's bollocks & one person who will not be basing his decisions on statistics is Pep Guardiola.

Shael's argument which I think you agree with is that stats doesn't show everything. Everyone actually agrees with that. My position is that in a discussion where someone relies solely on his memory from being at the game vs someone who watched the game, analyzed the stats and used it as part of his overall conclusion, I am more inclined to agree with the latter. Just simply more info is better than sketchy emotion clouded remembering.

But Shael and a few others have simplified that position to mean staya is better than all things. So this whole discussion which is unrelated to Stones by the way is Shael attempt to proof me wrong on a position I don't even hold. Yet he has done a poor job of it.

Here is how the Euro site advertisizes it's stats

The ultimate form tracker for UEFA EURO 2016 players

So it is no surprise that it shoots up strange #s. But when Shael sees his error, he then focuses on the irrelevant, like Zlatan is ranked 1st on whoscored as opposed to 2ne at the Euros. Oh well.


I need info on Stones please!!!! Enough dick swinging Shaels :)

 

[Dax777]

Third! I'm guessing German or Dutch first, Mathematics second?! ;-)

Yeh all of your arguments above are just fluff. We all have our opinions on who is better. The stats can't prove who is better either way. It's inconclusive. It's a flawed way of judging a player. That's my point.

All stats can do is show you data. If I said Ronaldo scored more than Zlatan you could prove me wrong with the statistics. If I said Ronaldo is a better player than Zlatan, it's open to opinion, "emotion" and judgement. Any statistical analysis is limited how the person who came up with the algorithm decides to weight things.

Some algorithms are better than others. Some opinions are more informed than others. I would trust Pep's or Ferguson's judgement on a player more than I would a 10 year old kid who plays FIFA, because they are experts in the field.

But the limitation of any algorithm in judging a player is that it can only analyse certain sets of data. It can't analyse intelligence for example. That's why even you, not an expert in the field, can deduce that Ronaldo is better than Zlatan. Whereas the algorithm, however sophisticated, cannot.

Ok. I don't hold the position stats show you everything, you just pretend I do :) I know it's cute. However, in a discussion where opinions differ BTW 2 people who have watched the same player, I give greater credence to the one with both personal judgement and statistics, over the one with just personal judgement. But you've done your best to strawman that position.

The stats you quoted has this as their header:
The ultimate form tracker for UEFA EURO 2016 players

So forgive me when I say your conclusion that those stats show Milner is the 5rh best player in the Euros is wrong.

Anyway, go ahead have the last word, so we can get back to Stones and stop annoying the good folks here :)