Eyeballs v stats

[Andrew - North Hill]

In the hope this kills the Grimes thread, putting him aside and talking in general.

I believe that stats have a place in the game. They can be a useful performance indicator, sometimes. Goals, assists, interceptions, tackles won, shot conversion rates etc. These are solid indicators that someone is or isn't playing well. You can point at them with confidence.

However, I also think you have to be very careful with stats. Just because Joe Bloggs has a 90% pass completion rate over a season or is, say, third best in the division for progressive passes or passes into the final third, it means nothing without context. How much did those passes really advance you towards the other goal? How much did they actually hurt the opposition? What did these things achieve?

For me, you cannot endlessly spew figures to prove a point; but, you should probably be receptive to them, especially if they challenge your initial thinking based on the eyeball test.

Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts.

 

[bakajack]

The thing about eyeballs is that recollections are infamously inaccurate, people will more consistently remember what annoys them and forget what goes their way. It takes more training than people realise to properly scout and analyse just based off of what you see, almost like watching a highlights reel of a player and using that to form the basis of your scouting report.

Stats likewise can also be infamous, but in this case not about accuracy but about context and the ability to apply them to meet almost any agenda. On their own they are very much a neutral party, but it takes skill to sift through the sea of stats to find the context and the relevance rather than seeing what you want to see to support your own position.

The best results would always come from a combination of the two, no one in their right mind would recruit someone based only on the stats that someone dropped on their desk without doing any scouting. Similarly no one should recruit someone based only on what someone tells them - Alex Ferguson used to go to watch players himself even after getting reports from his scouts.

 

[monmouth]

Oh f**k, you really did it

10,000 pager

 

[Jackareme]

Yes all about balance - I think the stats are thought provoking and can/should be used to challenge your own views/prejudices.
Thank god the Grimes thread is behind us - but it was the perfect example of a polarizing figure. It wouldn't matter what stats were recorded - some people will ignore them completely and still call him gnome face etc. Whereas stat guys should really be forced to think about whether the stats tell a story that matches the eyeball test.
Another really good example are the highlight reels. I am sure that over his career Grimes would have a sensational highlight reel allied with way above average stats and durability - meanwhile we all know that he is a championship level player with no pace and a tendency to play too slowly for a lot of attacking systems.

 

[CygnusX1]

In the hope this kills the Grimes thread, putting him aside and talking in general.

I believe that stats have a place in the game. They can be a useful performance indicator, sometimes. Goals, assists, interceptions, tackles won, shot conversion rates etc. These are solid indicators that someone is or isn't playing well. You can point at them with confidence.

However, I also think you have to be very careful with stats. Just because Joe Bloggs has a 90% pass completion rate over a season or is, say, third best in the division for progressive passes or passes into the final third, it means nothing without context. How much did those passes really advance you towards the other goal? How much did they actually hurt the opposition? What did these things achieve?

For me, you cannot endlessly spew figures to prove a point; but, you should probably be receptive to them, especially if they challenge your initial thinking based on the eyeball test.

Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts.

Also a successful pass doesn’t mean that was the right pass to make.
For example, a player can constantly make a pass to the right wing. But if the right wing always loses possession, that successful pass would ultimately be giving possession away, so it’s the wrong choice of pass but the stat shows it as a positive.

 

[Jackareme]

Freudian right wing slip given Ronald's propensity for being offside and crossing the ball into the stands

 

[bakajack]

Freudian right wing slip given Ronald's propensity for being offside and crossing the ball into the stands

This is a case where stats are useful.

They prove that the latter tends to be true with his very low successful cross percentage.
They also prove the former to be nonsense with less than 2 offsides per game

 

[CygnusX1]

Freudian right wing slip given Ronald's propensity for being offside and crossing the ball into the stands

Let’s just say my choice of that position wasn’t entirely accidental

 

[Dr. Winston]

The issue I mostly have is with people who quote, tweet, repost, whatever stats without having the first inkling of what went into generating them.

The one that springs immediately to mind is the recent one with Tymon, where he apparently created the most chances of any player in the division. This was immediately used by some as a stick to beat Vipotnik with.

Ask these people what actually constitutes a chance, what methodology was used in the collation of these stats or where these chances were and they have no idea. None whatsoever. It's a bright shiny number that they think backs up their argument so they throw it in there. Without context it's a completely meaningless number, and football is chock full of those these days.

 

[Cooperman]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[Darran]

Most stars are a load of bollocx, I always think of shots on target.
Player hits a thunderbolt and the ball is going in until the keeper makes a world class save.
Five minutes later player stubs his toe taking a shot and the ball trickles up to the keeper which he stops with his little finger.
Both go into the shots on target category.
It’s utter nonsense.

 

[monmouth]

Most stars are a load of bollocx, I always think of shots on target.
Player hits a thunderbolt and the ball is going in until the keeper makes a world class save.
Five minutes later player stubs his toe taking a shot and the ball trickles up to the keeper which he stops with his little finger.
Both go into the shots on target category.
It’s utter nonsense.

Meanwhile a shot that hits the underside of the bar and bounces down and spins out is not on target so not worth a light, unless you are Geoffrey Hurst.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Most stars are a load of bollocx, I always think of shots on target.
Player hits a thunderbolt and the ball is going in until the keeper makes a world class save.
Five minutes later player stubs his toe taking a shot and the ball trickles up to the keeper which he stops with his little finger.
Both go into the shots on target category.
It’s utter nonsense.

Especially when you factor in when a player lets rip with a rocket that the goalkeeper gets nowhere near, but it smacks the post or bar. That's regarded as "off target", but was arguably a much more dangerous effort then the sort of trickler you were just referring to.

 

[CygnusX1]

Most stars are a load of bollocx, I always think of shots on target.
Player hits a thunderbolt and the ball is going in until the keeper makes a world class save.
Five minutes later player stubs his toe taking a shot and the ball trickles up to the keeper which he stops with his little finger.
Both go into the shots on target category.
It’s utter nonsense.

I particularly enjoy a ‘shots off-target’ stat being taken as a positive.
Can we just call them ‘shit shots’, so we are in no doubt as to what they are?

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

I particularly enjoy a ‘shots off-target’ stat being taken as a positive.
Can we just call them ‘shit shots’, so we are in no doubt as to what they are?

Shits on target?