In the sense that a 20-year total solitary confinement sentence might be interesting.Interesting
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
All this thread highlights is that looking around at other ratings is a waste of time as the differences are negligible.
Means admin's system works perfectly well at giving a fair assessment of performances.
Means admin's system works perfectly well at giving a fair assessment of performances.
To kick off
Vicario across 28 games.
Averages 6.93 with my wider sourced ratings system. Pure forum 7.49.
Vicario across 28 games.
Averages 6.93 with my wider sourced ratings system. Pure forum 7.49.
Vdv across 19 games 7.24 compared to pure forum 7.64.
Romero across 21 starts 6.87, pure forum 7.20 across 22 games, one may be as a sub?
TBH I've changed my mind. If The Dealer wants to do this kind of thing, unless he's breaking forum rules (which he isn't) then he's entitled to do it.
I guess those who aren't interested can just ignore the thread?
I'm not particularly bothered on it, but live and let live.
Royal across 9 starts in games 5.83 compared to the pure forum of 6.16, 11 of which will be sub appearances so not a like for like comparison.
What are you going to do, send your data to Ange Postecoglou?
Don't be ridiculous, it's just a comparison of opinion. Plenty of people participate in ratings both on here and other platforms. Admin considered it worthwhile and significant numbers contribute. There is no point to it unless a final table is produced to indicate who our best player was, the forum system does that ongoing, I just produced mine and compared it. There are factors which may affect accuracy like sub appearances ( which I don't include ) and rogue ratings such as all 10s or 1s which I also don't include but admin may let a few slip through, I don't know.
Other factors are anger and euphoria affecting ratings which I try to minimise by combining neutral ratings from other sources.
Why not criticise the admin system ongoing when the accumulative season ratings change each week. ?
I've wasted enough time on you already.
Deleted member 13260
Guest
Still failing to acknowledge the relative differences between players as relevant.
There's nothing statistically interesting to be found in the way you go about the comparisons.
Combined with your self proclaimed ability to disregard some posters ratings based on what newspapers use as a base line even though the ratings would be essentially incredibly similar (e.g. newspapers give all 6's, after a loss poster gives all 4's, after a win poster gives all 8's) - it makes this nothing more than your own project you are trying to pass off as a community thing.
It's not a community thing because of how you deal with the data.
There's nothing statistically interesting to be found in the way you go about the comparisons.
Combined with your self proclaimed ability to disregard some posters ratings based on what newspapers use as a base line even though the ratings would be essentially incredibly similar (e.g. newspapers give all 6's, after a loss poster gives all 4's, after a win poster gives all 8's) - it makes this nothing more than your own project you are trying to pass off as a community thing.
It's not a community thing because of how you deal with the data.
Sorry,
The Dealer
I like that we have a resident stats-nerd, I just don't know what to make of the stats. Are you saying that our stats and stats elsewhere differ?
I've recapped this thread... was the post above about it not mattering just saying they are so close as to make no difference?
Maybe it would help to explain a few things:
1. The order of merit and how we might use that mentally or practically.
2. Who the 'other' stats are.
3. Why opinion-based stats matter.
4. Who are you and what is your special relationship with the admin?
5. How much for a gram of gianluca?
I've recapped this thread... was the post above about it not mattering just saying they are so close as to make no difference?
Maybe it would help to explain a few things:
1. The order of merit and how we might use that mentally or practically.
2. Who the 'other' stats are.
3. Why opinion-based stats matter.
4. Who are you and what is your special relationship with the admin?
5. How much for a gram of gianluca?
Small margins make a big difference across the season for the order of merit
1. It's ok rating the players each game and producing an indicator on who performed best and worst but the order of merit can give a season long result. Player of the season if you like ?
2. The stats I compile are from newspapers, Spurs websites, neutral websites , podcasts, TV.
3. My own ratings method involves noting down good play and bad per player. So each one has a scoresheet. That's just my way of doing it. I watch and re- watch passages of play on Spurplay if I need to. For me it's not oh a 7 will do, it's a bit more in depth. It's up to the poster how they rate. I pushed for 0.50 increments to allow a bit more accuracy and fine tuning. It will never be an exact science but its early days and I think the quality of ratings is improving.
4. I don't have a relationship with admin, he hates me and wants to ban me.
5. I'm an antiques dealer.
It's early days, not even a full season of comparisons yet. The two systems order of merits don't match so my first thought is why ?
I'm not sure yet, I haven't looked into it.
Thankyou, that was useful.
I agree that regularly-submitted opinions that form a body of empirical evidence is a much better metric than an end of season "who do recall being the most impressive the most often?". Expecting anyone to recall all players over 9 months is obviously going to give in to recency bias, or at least the 'first and last' memory filter.
Personally, I do find it interesting that there is any resemblance between local and remote ratings, but I guess that's averages for you!
Oh dear. Are you stepping on each other's toes? I did wonder the other day why we don't have a widget/plugin that makes choosing ratings easier. The whole text-based thing is a bit of a mess. I'd help but I'm pretty sure Xenforo is written in PHP, which I would rather avoid.
A stats-nerd antiques dealer... interesting.
I started the ratings thread but Admin took over with his forum only based system which was more appealing to the majority who wanted to keep it local and more fun.