2007-2008 Matchday Player Ratings

[giuliob]

These comments have probably been said, but I'll take a shot anyway. ops:

-----Set some guidelines like criteria to be considered when making a rating, i.e., stature on team, experience, game day play etc. A simplistic example, Denilson/Gilberto....In a game where they both played equally well, I might give Denilson a slightly higher rating due to the experience/lack of experience factor.....Kind of like in golf with handicaps, except you would not be actually handicapping individual players....It would simply be a consideration in the overall score that you give .......Or maybe that will just complicate matters..... :?

-----Values need to be explained.....Let's say the 1-10 scale...What does 9 mean? What does 8 mean? Let's take 5.....Is it average, and what does average mean.....Or does 5 mean below average, etc......

-----Ask posters to explain their ratings....

I like doing the ratings, but I find that my own rating system is at odds with other posters.....So, if there is agreement on the rating system, then go for it.....

The more we discuss it, the more we'll get it right

 

[MDGoonah41]

As far as it being silly, or over analytical, I don't believe in stuff like that. The sports I tend to follow, if you understand the numbers and how to evaluate performance, you can see the guys who are undervalued, overvalued, etc etc, and it also helps you to maybe see things you might not have originally seen.

We're Arsenal supporters, obviously, and we take the time to register for an internet forum and post (some more than others), so obviously most of us "care" more than your average supporter. I don't think it's far fetched to imagine some people really like rating a player's performance and seeing how others feel.

Again, that's the part I love the most. You can take 5 people, sit them in isolated booths, have them watch the same match, focusing on the same player, and you might get 5 different scores. Each person watched the same player, for the same amount of time, but came away with 5 different conclusions. That's why these match rating threads are interesting to me at least.

As I've already said, there's no use in trying to implement a new system right now, since the season already started, but I'm more than willing to work at something for next year. If a system were created, it would be easy to administer every week. You'd just have to start the Matchday Rating thread for that particular game before the match, then have a moderator who is here after the match ends move it right away to this forum. At the top of the first post in the thread would simply be a chart defining the ratings being used and what to consider.

I still contend that a 1-5 scale, using half points, could work, but I'm not as sure as I was before. Here in the states, baseball scouts use a 20-80 scale to rate aspects of a player's ability. For example, someone who has immense home run power would get an 80 for their power ability. The design of this scale is that 50 is considered average, 20 the lowest, 80 the highest, and each are 30 away from the center. 3 standard deviations from the mean works in that respect. If you were going to apply that here, a 1-7 scale would seem to be the most realistic, with a 4 being considered average, and that's the main reason why I think the 1-10 scale is flawed. A 5 is 5 deviations from the top and 4 deviations from the bottom, which creates an inequality.

But anyway, I'm rambling again I didn't do the match ratings from the Sparta Prague match because I only saw a few replies, but I'll add them to the sheet and post them if anyone wants the info.

 

[MDGoonah41]

This is my plan, for the week to week comparison

I may tweak it, but for now, this is how I have things laid out. I think it's fairly self explanatory. Obviously with 2 league matches in the books, it's pretty pointless to draw any conclusions, but after we have a bigger data set to look at, it should be interesting. Interesting to note that the Flamster has had an identical average rating in the first two matches, the only player to do so

Also to note, Van Persie is given the 90 minutes label in week 1 because he was subbed out in injury time, and Song played all of 3 seconds. Players subbed out in injury time will be coded as having played the 90 minutes like those who also play 90 minutes and don't come off.

 

[Viper]

Thats an excellent idea MDGoonah.

 

[YeahBee]

But you have to admit, it tells you alot in 2 lines eh? I think I'll do all my ratings that way from now on.

please do it was great, even non english speakers would understand our feelings then

 

[YeahBee]

Btw I had a lenghty post (like over a year ago, may be hard to dig up but maybe a mod can see all the threads I have created?)
and some nice discussions about a cahnge to the rating system,

IIRC I got a vague promise about some new feature to be implemented, basically a voting system(on the site) we are sorts of stats could have been drawn from. What happend to that?

 

[xcdude24]

This is my plan, for the week to week comparison

I may tweak it, but for now, this is how I have things laid out. I think it's fairly self explanatory. Obviously with 2 league matches in the books, it's pretty pointless to draw any conclusions, but after we have a bigger data set to look at, it should be interesting. Interesting to note that the Flamster has had an identical average rating in the first two matches, the only player to do so

Also to note, Van Persie is given the 90 minutes label in week 1 because he was subbed out in injury time, and Song played all of 3 seconds. Players subbed out in injury time will be coded as having played the 90 minutes like those who also play 90 minutes and don't come off.

Would you mind making an average "team" rating combining every player's average for the day? And even a "season average" would be interesting, combining each "team" average rating.

 

[MDGoonah41]

I posted that in the Blackburn Player Ratings thread, the average player rating was 6.3. That's taking the averages for every player and averaging them together. When I update this particular graphic after the City match, I'll include the team average in the bottom line.

 

[MDGoonah41]

ljklnj

 

[MDGoonah41]

Didn't want to start a new thread, Mags had the idea to have one thread for all the ratings, so the first post has been updated. Enjoy.

 

[ThaSaltCracka]

MD, do you have an average for each player for the overall season?

btw, I have my chart for tracking Arsenals points, but I'll post it this weekend after the Derby game.

 

[MDGoonah41]

First post of the thread, the main graphic has each player's rating for each game. I plan on adding the raw points together at the end of the month and coming up with a chart showing the average score for the month.

 

[ThaSaltCracka]

I saw the first post, I just didn't want to calculate it myself

 

[MDGoonah41]

added the Sevilla and Derby matches.

 

[True Gooner]

Thanks alot MDGoonah41, really useful after the first 5 games or so to see whos performing and who is not

 

[MDGoonah41]

Updated with West Ham match ratings. I'm also working on the September Player of the Month ratings.

 

[Biggus]

These comments have probably been said, but I'll take a shot anyway. ops:

-----Set some guidelines like criteria to be considered when making a rating, i.e., stature on team, experience, game day play etc. A simplistic example, Denilson/Gilberto....In a game where they both played equally well, I might give Denilson a slightly higher rating due to the experience/lack of experience factor.....Kind of like in golf with handicaps, except you would not be actually handicapping individual players....It would simply be a consideration in the overall score that you give .......Or maybe that will just complicate matters..... :?

-----Values need to be explained.....Let's say the 1-10 scale...What does 9 mean? What does 8 mean? Let's take 5.....Is it average, and what does average mean.....Or does 5 mean below average, etc......

-----Ask posters to explain their ratings....

I like doing the ratings, but I find that my own rating system is at odds with other posters.....So, if there is agreement on the rating system, then go for it.....

The more we discuss it, the more we'll get it right

Okay Mags lets discuss it. Understand that we're not talking about golf, music, acting, But a highly competitive team sport where the winner takes all and the loser is nowhere.
In this atmosphere, there is no room for subjectivity or handicaps. If you merit a starting place, irregardless of your age/experiance, the manager is saying you are as good as the other starting players and you must take your share of the blame/responsibility/glory with your team mates.
Result's are the be all and end all. So if the teams loses but you play well- too bad- you're a loser. If the team wins but you don't do too much- you're a winner.
Thats the way it is in life Mags. Your boss doesn't care who's not performing as long as the side is winning/company is making money.

Football is not like the arts, where you might "get lucky", Everyone is given a chance and there is nowhere to hide, your performances speak for themselves.
This is borne out in MDGoonahs charts. When the team get's a mediocre result the team average score is well- average. But a winning performance, and everybody tends to share in the spoils. So as a rule of thumb.....if we win- everyones a winner even if its only Derby. :wink:
But if we lose be it to AC Milan or ManU- everyones a loser and the performance wasn't good enough.......Tough, but thats the way of the world.

 

[MDGoonah41]

Had to go digging to find this thread. I updated the main graphic, and here are the results from Reading and Wigan

Reading, Part 1

Click here for a larger image

Reading, Part 2

Click here for a larger image

Wigan, Part 1

Click here for a larger image

Wigan, Part 2

Click here for a larger image