2007-2008 Matchday Player Ratings

[MDGoonah41]

wow, ok, I was just tossing out ideas. If everyone really loves the 1-10 system, I'll just track those numbers. From a statistical standpoint, that scale seems pointless, all things considered, since the high and low end are never even used. Hleb was MOTM yesterday and most people gave him a 7.5. If he'd scored 5 goals, would he have been a 10?

I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just trying to figure out why the wheel is square and not round. This was only a suggestion, but since it seems that a lot of people aren't even interested in finding a cumulative rating, I won't bother tracking it and we don't have to change anything.

 

[USArsenal]

wow, ok, I was just tossing out ideas. If everyone really loves the 1-10 system, I'll just track those numbers. From a statistical standpoint, that scale seems pointless, all things considered, since the high and low end are never even used. Hleb was MOTM yesterday and most people gave him a 7.5. If he'd scored 5 goals, would he have been a 10?

I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just trying to figure out why the wheel is square and not round. This was only a suggestion, but since it seems that a lot of people aren't even interested in finding a cumulative rating, I won't bother tracking it and we don't have to change anything.

hey, there's nothing wrong with tossing out ideas... i actually think the 5 point scale is too limiting, but that is me... and there are a few times that the low end gets used (lets face it, no one at Arsenal typically plays THAT horrendous to really deserve lower than a 3).. but the high end gets used more than you would think... lets say we beat ManU or Chelski, someone will always get a 8-9 rating... and to answer your questions, yes, if Hleb scored 2 or 3 goals, he certainly would have been given an 8 or 9 or even 10 rating.. kinda just the way it works on here...


these are, of course, just my opinions.. if you want to give it a shot, go ahead, and we will see what happens... maybe it will stick, maybe it wont... never can really tell

 

[dutchMasta]

wow, ok, I was just tossing out ideas. If everyone really loves the 1-10 system, I'll just track those numbers. From a statistical standpoint, that scale seems pointless, all things considered, since the high and low end are never even used. Hleb was MOTM yesterday and most people gave him a 7.5. If he'd scored 5 goals, would he have been a 10?

I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just trying to figure out why the wheel is square and not round. This was only a suggestion, but since it seems that a lot of people aren't even interested in finding a cumulative rating, I won't bother tracking it and we don't have to change anything.

MOTM doesn't matter! Did you not see pretty much every person rating Hleb saying that he could've scored more? They were right too, if he had scored the cut-back from Eboue, the pass from RVP, and had Fabregas latched onto his pass and had he won the penalty, his score would've shot up. If we gave him a near 10 based on scoring 1 goal when he had more clear chances, then yeah, we could use your rating system. A near 10 rating means a near perfect performance, which Hleb didn't do. I don't see why it's so hard to understand. He doesn't even need to score 5 goals to get a 10 rating. Scoring those 3 goals, winning the peno would've been pretty close to a 10 for me, if not a 10.

I understand how you feel about 1-3 ratings hardly being used, but whether it's 1/5 or 1/10, naturally one would think it's an awful performance, worthy of an immediate transfer out the club. Skysports uses 1-10, but only uses 4-10 to rate the players. You can just do it like that. I don't see why you can't just ignore it since it really doesn't affect anything. Standards are high at Arsenal, so it's going to be rare that Wenger's picked someone that can play that bad a match. The likes of Woodgate's debut for Real Madrid, own goal+red card after subbing on, or Kitson against Man U are the few worthy of those 1-3 ratings. They are going to be rare, as are 9-10, but they are always there reserved for those exceptionally bad or good performances. That's pretty much how it's always been and probably how it always will be.

I don't see why you can't just use the 1-10 rating system and collect data from the threads that already exist, since it makes no real difference. Makes it easier if anything, since you'll end up with a thread with tons of pages in the end.

But anyway, if you're not up to it, don't worry about it. It is a pretty big task and requires time and effort, so no one is expected to have to do that sort of thing.

 

[MDGoonah41]

I'll just collect the info in the normal threads. I still don't agree with the 1-10 scale, I understand it though. This thread can be locked or moved or wherever it needs to go to save bandwidth.

 

[Privetbenjamin]

Yeah, I think those of us who are familiar with the Football Manager/Championship Manager games are used to the 10 pt rating system anyhow.

 

[Shredder]

The official Inter website has an automated poll for every game. It seems to work pretty well. Beside ratings for each player, the squad average is also calculated.

Example

 

[MDGoonah41]

That's awesome. I don't have the internet skills to pull something like that off though.

 

[ThaSaltCracka]

1-5 is too narrow a scale. 1-10 is better overall. Remember that in this scale a 10 and 0 are for all intents and purposes impossible to get. 10 means your game was completely perfect and 0 means you did nothing right.

The 1-10 range also provides a view that logically makes more sense. How do you really distinguish between a 3 and 4? If this was a 1-10 score, that would correspond to 6 and 8. A two point gap is massive.

MDGoonah, you don't need the net skills to pull this off. An excel sheet would work fine.

Just ask people to post their official scores in the same format eveytime. You may have to do some formating or data entry, but if you really love Arsenal it shouldn't be too much work!!!!!

 

[phenn]

After a minute had passed in the last game I would have given Jens a 0...

 

[leongsh]

MDGoonah41, it's good that you have come up with a suggestion but you will have to think through the implementation and be ready to take on the task.

A few here have given constructive criticism, especially USArsenal. Take note of them and be open to their comments. You're too quick to write them off like the preference here for rating it 1-10, rather than your preferred 1-5. Since you are ready to accept the x.5 scores, it is nominally just like using 1-10.

I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just trying to figure out why the wheel is square and not round.

The remark does tell me that you tend to think that only your opinion is right. How are you so sure that the wheel here is square and not round? :roll:

This was only a suggestion, but since it seems that a lot of people aren't even interested in finding a cumulative rating, I won't bother tracking it and we don't have to change anything.

Now the pouting and throwing a hissy fit. Grow up.

 

[Christofaux]

As long as people don't vote 6.5 etc otherwise we may as well put it at a score out of 20.


If it is out of 10 people will need to get out of the mentality that 5 is a really bad score when really it is an Average score.

My Idea would be (and by my idea i mean i just made this up from general consensus, im sure it would be others idea as well)


1 - Aweful
2 - Very bad
3 - Bad
4 - Below Average
5 - Average
6 - Above Average
7 - Good
8 - Very Good
9 - Great
10 - Excellent

In this people can go what do you think of so and so's performance. They can go "he was x" and put in the corresponding number.

Also to stop people who dislike a certain player or favour a certain player and always give them bad/good results maybe peopel can get a trusted poller tag or something that means their Vote actually counts towards the A-M average. Hopefully would encourage realistic voting. Of course for very low or very high votes people would have to back up their score with a statement on why you think the player got what he got.

 

[MDGoonah41]

MDGoonah41, it's good that you have come up with a suggestion but you will have to think through the implementation and be ready to take on the task.

A few here have given constructive criticism, especially USArsenal. Take note of them and be open to their comments. You're too quick to write them off like the preference here for rating it 1-10, rather than your preferred 1-5. Since you are ready to accept the x.5 scores, it is nominally just like using 1-10.

I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just trying to figure out why the wheel is square and not round.

The remark does tell me that you tend to think that only your opinion is right. How are you so sure that the wheel here is square and not round? :roll:

This was only a suggestion, but since it seems that a lot of people aren't even interested in finding a cumulative rating, I won't bother tracking it and we don't have to change anything.

Now the pouting and throwing a hissy fit. Grow up.

whoa now. I appreciate the suggestions. I'm just going to take the ratings people give in the regular threads. We won't agree on a new method, so the old method will have to do.

As I said, I just don't see many players ever rated a 1 or a 10, so the scale itself isn't totally accurate. From memory, as I don't have the sheet with me at home, the lowest score given to any player by anyone in the Fulham thread was 3.0 and the highest was 8.0. Will there be 10's and 1's this season? Maybe. But I don't know that a 6.0 on a scale of 1-10 means a whole lot. If you think of it on a 100% scale, then a 60% is a D- and borderline failing, but players given a 6.0 rating were accompanied by positive things and people used that as a sign of having a good game.

The larger problem, one which I didn't think of until after starting this topic, is that you won't get everyone to use the same system, regardless of what you come up with, so I just decided it would be easier/less of a hassle to go with what everyone already does, even if the results are less telling or accurate.

 

[Christofaux]

5 or 50% is a borderline fail. 50% is a pass 60% is 10% better then a pass

 

[USArsenal]

As I said, I just don't see many players ever rated a 1 or a 10, so the scale itself isn't totally accurate. From memory, as I don't have the sheet with me at home, the lowest score given to any player by anyone in the Fulham thread was 3.0 and the highest was 8.0. Will there be 10's and 1's this season? Maybe. But I don't know that a 6.0 on a scale of 1-10 means a whole lot. If you think of it on a 100% scale, then a 60% is a D- and borderline failing, but players given a 6.0 rating were accompanied by positive things and people used that as a sign of having a good game.

see, i believe that you are thinking of this 1-10 scale as a school test.. percentages that schools use dont quite work the same way out in the world... 50% is "average" to me in terms of a rating... neither good nor bad.. just average... 6 to me would be slightly above average....

with the many variances and "shades" of above agerage or below average, that is why i think a 5 point scale would just be too constricting... 1 would be completely useless.. 2 would be below average, 3 would be average, 4 would be good/very good and 5 would be perfect.. i just dont think there is any room for things like "slightly above average" (6) of fantastic, but falls just short of perfect (9) or bad but didnt score on ourselves (3), etc... see the issue? again, my posts were in no way meant to discourage you from doing something.. i just think that if you are going to do it and be as accurate as you can be on THIS forum, you might as well use the format that most have already adopted as "standard"...

cheers

 

[DC Gunner]

I propose one pinned thread with ratings for each match from a panel of 5 elected members.

The existing ratings threads are fine for a general opinion. nobody takes them seriously anyway.

Honestly, the above would take the fun away from everyone feeling part of this forum.

I like the proposed idea for this thread, but think that :

1-Mods would need to close any thread once a new match is due.
2-A single thread for periodical update where the final votes [consensus] for each match are posted.
3-This is up to the starter of this thread, but he can post match by match votes as well as an overall and monthly trends.
4-From my research design experience [sound like a nerd now ] 5 point scale sounds restrictive while 10 point is too wide, I suggest a 7 POINT scale

1-Pretty Bad
2-Bad
3-Below Average
4-Average
5-Above Average
6-Good
7-Very good [or excellent]

I would support that

 

[gstew]

As much as I would like this type of rating system, I hope it does not get implemented. We seem to have a bit of a mob mentality here and certain players get undeservedly savaged. And once that player gets a reputation, it is almost impossible to shake. Cygan played far better than this board gave him credit for and he was blamed for things even when he wasn't on the field or subs bench. By the end of last season Senderos and Hleb were getting some of the same treatment. I would hate for a "blessed" rating system on a large fan site to provide something quantifiable that could be reported in the media. This would lead to a vicious cycle of villification.

But if this were less democratic and only members who can be trusted were allowed to participate, then I would be all for it. This may sound elitist, but otherwise there would be major abuse. People like me would be giving Cygan/Senderos/Hleb 10's every match to make up for the haters that would consistently score them below their true value.

 

[sesquioxide]

More importantly than a reform to the points system, I think, is for people to actually give reasons why they give such and such a rating.

Ratings like this from Mr. Kel:

"bendtner - 7,5. he's growing on me. physically, he's a beast and he makes things happen inside the box. he can change things around if needed. "

are interesting to read regardless of the number assigned. Ratings without reasons, however, are almost impossible to discuss or challenge. I think it would be better if we insist that posters who post ratings post reasons as well for their praise or criticism? Everyone can then have their own standard of "average" but then we still see why they like something or not.

 

[Shredder]

DC brings up another intersting little tid-bit (sort of). Do you go for an odd or even number of possible ratings? For example, a four would be exactly the midpoint in a scale of seven whereas it'd be above the average in a sixpoint scale. The four in the seven could also just mean "meh, I don't care, I'll give him a four" ...and so forth...

There are university courses for this stuff, you know.

 

[USArsenal]

i think we may be over-thinking this now, yeah?

 

[DC Gunner]

More importantly than a reform to the points system, I think, is for people to actually give reasons why they give such and such a rating.

Ratings like this from Mr. Kel:

"bendtner - 7,5. he's growing on me. physically, he's a beast and he makes things happen inside the box. he can change things around if needed. "

are interesting to read regardless of the number assigned. Ratings without reasons, however, are almost impossible to discuss or challenge. I think it would be better if we insist that posters who post ratings post reasons as well for their praise or criticism? Everyone can then have their own standard of "average" but then we still see why they like something or not.

I was about to suggest that, rating without elaboration is nothing much; we might as well insist on having the rater prove that they watched the match "sort of", otherwise it would be just plugging numbers

DC brings up another intersting little tid-bit (sort of). Do you go for an odd or even number of possible ratings? For example, a four would be exactly the midpoint in a scale of seven whereas it'd be above the average in a sixpoint scale. The four in the seven could also just mean "meh, I don't care, I'll give him a four" ...and so forth...

There are university courses for this stuff, you know.

I know, don't remind me of those courses even though they were fun of some kind.

The general rule is that scales are not too narrow [restrictive] or not too wide [diluting and can create a bunch of outliers]; the scale should fit what the goals behind the overall statistical are, are we going to use frequency, Average, or median.

I personally would favor a 7 point system [or any reasonable odd option poll] where each number has a pre-defined meaning