Week 22: AC Milan 3-0 F.C. Internazionale Milano 31/01/2016 20.45 CET
- Thread starter Jasper
- Start date
Casualista
Monsieur
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,541
- Reaction score
- 7,672
Twat trying to educate the forum with his Econometrics textbook
Fengxiao correctly pointed out that initially I took a confusing example and that was incorrect framing. But I shouldnt have bothered.
You pretty much pointed it out earlier when you replied to the previous post:
That's subjectivity squared.
Molto subjective and full of measurement error that creates (statistical) bias.
1) There is an implicit judgement made on the tactics of the coach (which determines both movements). Ex: Guardiola's high line was broken by CR9 and Bale and post that it becomes totally subjective on whether you blame defenders for their position when their coach demanded them to move that way.
2) Then there is a judgement made on the quality of movement of a player within the context of the tactic.
3) And I'm being told this is done throughout 90 minutes for 11 players simultaneously by just looking at a tv when the camera isnt even on all of them.
--------
So it's a million miles away from anything objective and unbiased.
Milan10
Milan Legend
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 18,012
- Reaction score
- 27,129
"But for the Goal and Assist that put the biggest match in recent memory away for AC Milan, he was not that good"
Also, Niang was not great outside of the goal/assist (lol), but he was not calamitous by any means. He did some good work, particularly helping defensively at times... There is a pretty serious bias against him on here.
Also, Niang was not great outside of the goal/assist (lol), but he was not calamitous by any means. He did some good work, particularly helping defensively at times... There is a pretty serious bias against him on here.
Galliani
Grand Master
No thanks, I don't need help but I'll provide you with the help you need to find the sense you've been lacking.
Whoscored.com claim to have 200+ indicators right? Okay cool, let's have a look at their Serie A team of the week based on their ratings from those 200+ indicators:
Whoscored Serie A team of the week
Let's try to analyze the statistics given to us for once (I know you've been taught not to do that, but for once stop being so lazy and let's challenge the system shall we?)
Donnarumma- clean sheet
Konko- clean sheet
Alex- clean sheet + goal scored
munoz- clean sheet
hysaj-
sandro - goal
pogba - goal + assist
donsah - goal + assist
callejon - 2 goals
morata - 2 goals
niang - goal + assist
As you can see, their rating system is highly dependant on what a player contibuted to the final result rather than what a player performed during the full performance. Niang had an awful game for me but just because he contributed to 2 goals he's on the team of the week.
I also saw Napoli's game and thought Callejon wasn't even one of the top 3 Napoli players in that game but guess what? He scored 2 goals at the end of the game and that was enough for the whoscored system to rank him above the rest of his team mates. The lowest ranked players of the team of the week are Konko + Hysaj who neither had an assist/goal.
Point I'm making here is that whoscored will rarely give a higher rating to a player who has an amazing performance without an assist/goal (Kucka this week for example) than to a player who has a goal/assist and an okay performance. I'm showing you that whoscored's rating isn't the most accurate when trying to analyze a players full performance than than contribution to a result (if that makes sense).
Now for the function that I use to rate a performance... here's what you and whoscored and 90% of ratings use:
Rating = X1(goals scored) + X2(assists) - X3(balls lost) - X4(shots wide) + X5 (work load) + x6(movement when ball is with us) + x7(movement when ball is not with us) + (there are more, but that'll do for now).
where X1 and X2 = 10 and all the other X's = 1... most ratings actually have X7 = 0.
my ratings would be something like:
X1 = X2 = 5
X3 = X4 = 2
X5 = 3
X6 = X7 = 3
I can go into further detail.... but this should get my point across to you. Let me know if you need any help with understanding how to combine mathematics and football
Here is a fact for you hitman; EVERYONE in here believe they are forecasters and semi good managers, none of us are.
You know why not? Because the world of football is way to advanced and commercial to miss out on people with these caracteristics.
Moreover, if someone truely has a talent, they have no need to promote this gift themselves. Doing so is the first sign of fraud/joke.
So here is my advice for you; make a forecast for all the players in our squad, make the forecast on measureable basis, ie goals assists etc. Then let it speak for itself.
If the result is good, nobody really cares if you use only seven variables.
Godspeed
oh boy oh boy. while Tfat does add great value to the conversation, the cheerleaders on the side do the typical work you'd expect them to do... again, precisely what anyone would expect on a forum that has an avg age of 16.
so i ended yesterday by supplying you with a simple example of what my model would look like, but that wasn't enough because you wanted a full detailed one... probably expecting equations, numbers, and analysis. I won't provide all that as it's not worth the time but I'll do my best in trying to get my message over to why is it important for you to start doing your own ratings instead of following the ratings forced upon you by journalists.
Of course not. How can you measure someone's work load in a number? You can't. This is a very relative measure that only you can measure. Everyone has his own way of measuring but it doesn't matter if I'm harsher or more lenient than you are, all that matters here is consistency when measuring this parameter for every player. This consistency is lacking in almost ALL of newspaper ratings because there are certain players like Bonaventura that automatically get praised for average performances and others who get awful ratings despite putting in a good shift.
The whole reason I have even begun to do my own ratings is precisely because I was in total disagreement with all the ratings out there. Journalists seem to lack the understanding of the sport to properly assess certain variables - such as movement off the ball for example. That is something so important but your average fan will not take that into account and especially a statistical-only rating website like whoscored will not take that into account because that's a script and algorithm and that takes out the human factor when rating performances.
You used whoscored as your prime example and then provided a link to show they have 200+ variables, and all I had to do was show you the ratings of how they selected their top 11 rated players from 20 different teams and I proved to you that their rating is heavily and hugely affected by goals + assists. What I'm trying to tell you is that when I do my ratings, of course the goal + assist must have the heaviest weight but not by the same margin as whoscored or journalists rating systems have. I tried to show you that by providing you with that function and listed all the X's and how much I weighted them (as an example).
Of course there is. You are too lazy to provide a proper model of your own so you asked me to provide mine and I tried to explain it as much as I can to get the message across. The only way you can check if they're correct or not is if you continue to review the same players I will review over the full game and you'll see for yourself that I'll always be consistent with how I rate a player.
A goal/assist are important for me too, but they absolutely do not erase the rest of a players performance if they have a bad game. This for me is by far the biggest issue. I am yet to see any paper ever label anyone a flop of the match if they scored a goal. Why the hell not? Can't someone have an absolutely awful game yet contribute to a tap-in like Pazzini? That's why Pazzini used to be rated by the average fan, all they saw in Pazzini was the goals but if you see the contribution he has during the full 95 minutes it would not be very difficult to know that this player would've failed at every club he's been at. I've been saying that since the beginning of his career. He had only a good spell at Sampdoria but if you look at every season in every other club he's been abysmal - and that's because I look at far more parameters than the rating system you and others use.
What I had intended to say but you misunderstood me was that in the way I rate a player, I would equate a goal line clearance by a defender, or an unstoppable save by the GK equal to a goal scored by an attacker. There's a reason why defenders don't win Balon d'Ors historically and it is because the rating system historically always favors strikers. The strikers are the players who contribute to the goals and win and this system is so very unfair to the Baresi's and Maldini's of the world who are as important if not more important than the strikers who played with them but...ratings will never give them a higher rating than a player who would score a goal and an assist in the same game. I would though in my rating. It is no secret that the ratings have always heavily favored the attacking players over the defensive players. It's because these ratings aren't formed by people who truly understand what a player is supposed to do in the game - on and off the ball. They're formed by journalists and organizations who try to make a profit from the world of football.
My whole argument is that there are other things that need to be included when rating a performance and the current parameters aren't good enough. If all it takes for a player to have a good game is to score a goal then what's the point of keeping him on the pitch after getting that goal? He's done his part and no matter what he does for the rest of the game - he'll have a good game according to your ratings and that should be absolutely unacceptable.
Then why didn't you provide that evidence if it was so easy to check? I brought up an example from yesterday and provided the link. If you wish for me to engage with a conversation with you too, don't be lazy about it. I don't know what the ratings are from last season so I can't comment on whatever point you're trying to make.
Niang contributed to the result more than Kucka, but did he have a better game than Kucka? Absolutely not. If you want a rating about who contributed more to the result then yes, you should continue using the journalists ratings. I have always said my ratings are NOT that.... I rate a FULL performance and not just the statistics of a performance. Your rating system will always be flawed cause you will continue to praise the wrong players and the players that do the dirty real hard work will go unnoticed - like Honda in most games.
so i ended yesterday by supplying you with a simple example of what my model would look like, but that wasn't enough because you wanted a full detailed one... probably expecting equations, numbers, and analysis. I won't provide all that as it's not worth the time but I'll do my best in trying to get my message over to why is it important for you to start doing your own ratings instead of following the ratings forced upon you by journalists.
Awesome. You have given me the parameters which is excellent.
Now just give me the definition of the few things I find vague and the numbers for those.
I shall await eagerly.
Dont forget. I'll hold you to it before you critique someone next
What? What? What????
Here, I thought we were having a real conversation about your objective and unbiased rating system and now you are telling me it's based on subjective non-statistical things I cant measure?
Of course not. How can you measure someone's work load in a number? You can't. This is a very relative measure that only you can measure. Everyone has his own way of measuring but it doesn't matter if I'm harsher or more lenient than you are, all that matters here is consistency when measuring this parameter for every player. This consistency is lacking in almost ALL of newspaper ratings because there are certain players like Bonaventura that automatically get praised for average performances and others who get awful ratings despite putting in a good shift.
The whole reason I have even begun to do my own ratings is precisely because I was in total disagreement with all the ratings out there. Journalists seem to lack the understanding of the sport to properly assess certain variables - such as movement off the ball for example. That is something so important but your average fan will not take that into account and especially a statistical-only rating website like whoscored will not take that into account because that's a script and algorithm and that takes out the human factor when rating performances.
You used whoscored as your prime example and then provided a link to show they have 200+ variables, and all I had to do was show you the ratings of how they selected their top 11 rated players from 20 different teams and I proved to you that their rating is heavily and hugely affected by goals + assists. What I'm trying to tell you is that when I do my ratings, of course the goal + assist must have the heaviest weight but not by the same margin as whoscored or journalists rating systems have. I tried to show you that by providing you with that function and listed all the X's and how much I weighted them (as an example).
So basically there is no way I can put whatever you are saying to any rigor of scrutiny if I wanted to and no way for me to test if your parameters are correct or bogus.
Yeah, and I wanted to see how your rating system compared to the anti-balo journalists and emotionally driven teenagers of this forum. So far I am not able to test your claim that your system is better than anyone else'.
Of course there is. You are too lazy to provide a proper model of your own so you asked me to provide mine and I tried to explain it as much as I can to get the message across. The only way you can check if they're correct or not is if you continue to review the same players I will review over the full game and you'll see for yourself that I'll always be consistent with how I rate a player.
A goal/assist are important for me too, but they absolutely do not erase the rest of a players performance if they have a bad game. This for me is by far the biggest issue. I am yet to see any paper ever label anyone a flop of the match if they scored a goal. Why the hell not? Can't someone have an absolutely awful game yet contribute to a tap-in like Pazzini? That's why Pazzini used to be rated by the average fan, all they saw in Pazzini was the goals but if you see the contribution he has during the full 95 minutes it would not be very difficult to know that this player would've failed at every club he's been at. I've been saying that since the beginning of his career. He had only a good spell at Sampdoria but if you look at every season in every other club he's been abysmal - and that's because I look at far more parameters than the rating system you and others use.
What I had intended to say but you misunderstood me was that in the way I rate a player, I would equate a goal line clearance by a defender, or an unstoppable save by the GK equal to a goal scored by an attacker. There's a reason why defenders don't win Balon d'Ors historically and it is because the rating system historically always favors strikers. The strikers are the players who contribute to the goals and win and this system is so very unfair to the Baresi's and Maldini's of the world who are as important if not more important than the strikers who played with them but...ratings will never give them a higher rating than a player who would score a goal and an assist in the same game. I would though in my rating. It is no secret that the ratings have always heavily favored the attacking players over the defensive players. It's because these ratings aren't formed by people who truly understand what a player is supposed to do in the game - on and off the ball. They're formed by journalists and organizations who try to make a profit from the world of football.
My whole argument is that there are other things that need to be included when rating a performance and the current parameters aren't good enough. If all it takes for a player to have a good game is to score a goal then what's the point of keeping him on the pitch after getting that goal? He's done his part and no matter what he does for the rest of the game - he'll have a good game according to your ratings and that should be absolutely unacceptable.
Then why didn't you provide that evidence if it was so easy to check? I brought up an example from yesterday and provided the link. If you wish for me to engage with a conversation with you too, don't be lazy about it. I don't know what the ratings are from last season so I can't comment on whatever point you're trying to make.
Niang contributed to the result more than Kucka, but did he have a better game than Kucka? Absolutely not. If you want a rating about who contributed more to the result then yes, you should continue using the journalists ratings. I have always said my ratings are NOT that.... I rate a FULL performance and not just the statistics of a performance. Your rating system will always be flawed cause you will continue to praise the wrong players and the players that do the dirty real hard work will go unnoticed - like Honda in most games.
Last edited:
to points 1 and 2: yes, precisely. everything can be measured. Some players make their mistakes because they fked up, and some other players make mistakes because their team mates put them in awkward positions that forces them to make mistakes. Abate and Zapate have done this to their team mates many times...they pass them the ball even though they know that their team mate is going to struggle with the ball, but all they are concerned about it is that they did their part when the truth of the matter is that they absolutely did the opposite... they contributed in the fuckup of their team mates and of course, things like these are subjective because you never will be able to come up with the right formula to measure this statistically because EACH incident in each game is completely different. That's why you need to have played this game at a higher level to understand how to measure certain things.
If you think a goal line clearance by a defender is not equivalent to a goal scored by an attacker that is precisely where you and I will disagree. Another example would be like... any tackle won by a defender on a 1 on 1 situation would probably be equivalent to a key pass by an attacker... another important example: if Niang get's an assist for a Bacca goal - let's say he gets +5 points.... but if Niang does the same exact assist for Balotelli and Mario is in a good position to score but slips, then I would still give Niang that +5 points because Niang does not deserve to get deducted points for Mario's fuck up. These things you cannot include into a rigid equation no matter how many variables you include. Niang did what was required of him to get that +5 points for the assist and he'll get it. That is the only fair way I see it...
Of course it isn't just these 5 or 6 variables I use, but many. And I'm not going to be labeling every single one of them dude but I did put in an effort to explain it to you even though I didn't need to.
I have fore casted many times in the past and will continue to do so. I have correctly fore casted the downfalls of certain players and if you pay attention to my posts, you'll always see me commenting on whether I think a player is right or wrong for us. Right now in our squad De Sciglio is the one that is the most likely to fail, I've been saying this since his second season with us. He does not have anything required for a professional footballer. No talent, no heart, no skill, no intelligence, no determination, no leadership, no nothing. I see no point keeping him further in the squad. A second player that is hurting us badly is Bonaventura, I actually am shocked at how many people think he's good it makes no sense to me. I think he's talented and great to have for the squad but his performances this season are hurting us a lot more than they are benefiting us. This cannot be seen though because the rating systems will continually praise him because he comes up with a goal or an assist a game and that's all they care about. Even if we ended up the game drawing/losing but if Jack got his goal/assist he gets that rating...completely ignoring the other 3/4 chances that he should've buried and guaranteed us the three points.
JohnnyWunderboy
Milan Icon
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,393
- Reaction score
- 0
- Fav. Players
- Inzaghi, Kaka, Gattuso, Pazzini
Y'all care too much about sports.
Millionaires kicking a ball on grass
Millionaires kicking a ball on grass
Casualista
Monsieur
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,541
- Reaction score
- 7,672
@Hitman
Nothing you told me tells me why you are more objective or unbiased than anyone else even if you feel you are consistent. Especially since at the end of the day you use so many unmeasurable subjective parameters.
As far as points 1 and 2 go, the only ones that have an answer to that are the managers and no one else. You can discuss them but to say YOU know what they are is vanity.
Also, I perfectly accept whoscored ratings for players as the most consistent ratings out there. If only on the fact that they actually bother putting out proper 90 minute measures on each player that can be scrutinized.
You are free to change the weights they use in their index to your liking to spit out new numbers but when you include - work load, movement without the ball, movement with the ball etc.. you cant claim your ratings is more reliable when you have no way to accurately measure any of those things.
--------
In short, you maybe consistent but you are consistently subjective. If you don't agree then think long and hard about the replicability of your ratings. If you conclude it cant be replicated by others then maybe you arent a paragon of impartiality that you think you are.
-------
Nothing you told me tells me why you are more objective or unbiased than anyone else even if you feel you are consistent. Especially since at the end of the day you use so many unmeasurable subjective parameters.
As far as points 1 and 2 go, the only ones that have an answer to that are the managers and no one else. You can discuss them but to say YOU know what they are is vanity.
Also, I perfectly accept whoscored ratings for players as the most consistent ratings out there. If only on the fact that they actually bother putting out proper 90 minute measures on each player that can be scrutinized.
You are free to change the weights they use in their index to your liking to spit out new numbers but when you include - work load, movement without the ball, movement with the ball etc.. you cant claim your ratings is more reliable when you have no way to accurately measure any of those things.
--------
In short, you maybe consistent but you are consistently subjective. If you don't agree then think long and hard about the replicability of your ratings. If you conclude it cant be replicated by others then maybe you arent a paragon of impartiality that you think you are.
-------
Casualista
Monsieur
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,541
- Reaction score
- 7,672
One more point. Saying my rating system got xyz prediction right is not good enough reason to accept it. Neither is consistency.
Without others being able to replicate it it is meaningless.
I'll tell you why... Because according to your definition this was the most consistent and accurate prediction system in the world cup:
Without others being able to replicate it it is meaningless.
I'll tell you why... Because according to your definition this was the most consistent and accurate prediction system in the world cup:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 32,074
- Reaction score
- 51
- Location
- Johannesburg
- Fav. Players
- Nesta, Maldini, Buffon, Rino*Pirlo*Clarence, Sheva, Totti, Ibra, Pippo, Giacomo, Carlo, Il Dottore
This was such a joyous thread..
Casualista
Monsieur
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19,541
- Reaction score
- 7,672
leaf
Sack Pioli
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 28,229
- Reaction score
- 55,297
- Location
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Fav. Players
- Ronaldo, Kaká, Maldini, Nesta, CR7, Seedorf, Dwight Yorke, Quaresma
dude....a goal/assist (especially when it directly contributes to a win) should be the most heavily weighted statistic of all.
Players like Pippo Inzaghi and David Trezuget became legends by being completely invisible for 89 minutes and one moment of brilliance in one minute.
Then there were guys like zz and Dinho who often constantly lost the ball for the majority of the time and gave off that incredible assist/play that turned the match on it's head
"Brilliance" is not easily or even scientifically quantified. Stop trying to make art a science.
Forza AC Milan
Milan Icon
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 2,590
This is the first thread I can remember in a couple of seasons to get to 78 . We used to get to over 100 easily back in the day
. We used to get to over 100 easily back in the day
Alo88
Milan Legend
milanazkals
Basketball player
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,877
- Reaction score
- 1,592
- Location
- London-Manila
- Fav. Players
- Nesta, Maldini, Van Bommel, Donnarumma, Alaba, Grealish
Because the team played great and it lifts up the entire mood of the thread. Posting a rant about how Milan lost and who to blame will just make my day worse. Better not to post.
Congo Powers
⭐⭐
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 68,165
- Reaction score
- 30,236
- Location
- caroline celico
- Fav. Players
- B&G, RuiCosta, Pippo, Sheva, Stam, Kaka, Abbiati, Cassano, Mexes, TH19, RL10, KPB, 45, Krunic
I forgot that I wanted to make a point specifically to LOL at this
L O L
Most ******ed shit I ever heard
Reckon he should get banned for this
Soldier_of_god
Milan Legend
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 28,633
- Reaction score
- 8,205
- Location
- brisbane
- Fav. Players
- cr7, Kaka, sheva, zidane, pastore , zlatan ibra,T.silva, jovetic, Arjen robben, drogba, suarez
Gattuso not good enough??????
.
.
Allan_Sombrero
Milan Legend
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 11,422
- Reaction score
- 5,935
Gattuso was world class.
Honestly without him our midfield and defense would have been exposed greatly due to how many attacking players we fielded at one time.
Honestly without him our midfield and defense would have been exposed greatly due to how many attacking players we fielded at one time.
ikita
Milan Legend
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 19
- Location
- Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies.
- Fav. Players
- Paolo Maldini, Ricardo Kaka, Alessandro Nesta
You my nig....you know this. You've heard my actual voice on the phone....any more intimate and I'd be complaining that you burned my breakfast
i make killer pan-toast bro!...
ikita
Milan Legend
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 19
- Location
- Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies.
- Fav. Players
- Paolo Maldini, Ricardo Kaka, Alessandro Nesta
+1
van bommel was different but equally effective in his role.
since those two left, our midfield has been mounted and ridden more times than lisa ann...=\
Jasper
Maldini tier
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 47,247
- Reaction score
- 44
- Location
- Mt. Paektu
- Fav. Players
- 3; Marat Safin; Tiziano Crudeli; 2Pac; Christian Bale; Martin M??rsepp; Balotelli.
Milanchannel
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 32,074
- Reaction score
- 51
- Location
- Johannesburg
- Fav. Players
- Nesta, Maldini, Buffon, Rino*Pirlo*Clarence, Sheva, Totti, Ibra, Pippo, Giacomo, Carlo, Il Dottore
I know. That was my first thought too when I read that post. The guy is incorrigible.
Allan_Sombrero
Milan Legend
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 11,422
- Reaction score
- 5,935
But yeah van Bommel was also great.
I really miss having great defensive players in Milan after seeing Nesta, Maldini, Stam, and Gattuso.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 32,074
- Reaction score
- 51
- Location
- Johannesburg
- Fav. Players
- Nesta, Maldini, Buffon, Rino*Pirlo*Clarence, Sheva, Totti, Ibra, Pippo, Giacomo, Carlo, Il Dottore
Shame missing Ambro there. MvB gave us one season. Rino and Ambro gave us a decade.