MOTM thread

[bingobob]

Why not just sticky a thing like this instead of having to start another thread per match?

That would require the mods to do that I have asked them to PM me regarding the whole thread but as of yet nothing has came my way

p.s: can we try and keep the thread on topic I keep seeing it bumped and I am expecting a few more votes and I do appreciate all the feedback positive and negative

 

[RUS arsenal]

Liverpool:

1. Diaby - had complete control of the midfield.

2. Podolski - edges both Cazorla and Arteta due to his equally great contributions offensively as well as defensively.

3. Cazorla - was hard to choose between him and Arteta, but we finally put up goals and he was a big reason for it.


Honorable mention: Arteta

 

[AnthonyG]

Why not just sticky a thing like this instead of having to start another thread per match?

That would require the mods to do that I have asked them to PM me regarding the whole thread but as of yet nothing has came my way

A couple of things. First, earlier you said something about the title being changed - you, as the thread starter, can do that yourself. Second, in this instance it would have been better to PM us, not the other way around. Third, regardless of which format you choose to do this (e.g. one big thread, bumped as needed, and with updates, or single post-match threads kind of like we used to have but slightly different), I see no harm in it just so long as you are willing to keep the momentum going. Those who don't like it are free not to do so and can stay away from the thread. (I won't be sticky-ing it, however; sorry, but that real estate is precious-sss).

I hope that helps, but we can continue this via PM if you wish or, briefly, here.

 

[yuvken]

If what you want to do is follow peoples opinions through the season, isn't it a bit more accurate to let them just rate?

What I mean is - the most accurate would be letting people just do a full rating (old fashion, full squad). You get exactly what each one thinks of each player, up and down. Nothing missing - MOTM included, worst players too.

What could lead to favor the 3 best, 5-3-1 points system could be: simplicity/efficiency, both for you and the posters, and perhaps an added focus or incentive, as we're dealing with "who was the very best". But surely in terms of accuracy, this must be somewhat skewed (which does not mean it's a bad idea at all: it may be the best idea still; just mentioning it for your consideration). For example, if 3 players played more or less the same - 6.5ish game (even more so if 7 players did), and one gets 5 pts (randomly decided? somewhat arbitrarily, anyway), is very different from one being a clear outstanding choice (a 9 game, others max 6).

You could claim "it balances over the course of the season", which has an element of truth in it, but surely if accuracy in reflecting opinions is what you're looking for, this is not true.

I it'll be worth looking back on not to get a true idea of the players performances but more to see if opinions on players change over the season.

qs said it'll give us a good idea of who our most consistently good/bad players are.

huh?

 

[Taylor Gang Gunners]

@yuvken

If we keep this going on a match by match basis, players who receive consistent high ratings will have been our most consistently good performers and vice versa.

At the end of the season it will show us who our better players are and also who our least consistent are (yep, tip-toed around the word 'worst' ).

 

[yuvken]

Yes, TGG. I have acknowledged that possibility. Also left room for the thought it might be what we really want to do - like in some sport competitions, we can decide the rules according to the character we want the thing to have.

But that doesn't change much, does it? (not going to repeat what I've already said. Just ask yourself - do we want an accurate reflection above all, or do we have other considerations).

 

[qs]

Well we're already 3 games in, the thread is started and the parameters are set. I'm sure every member of the forum could come up with their own variation on how best the idea could be implemented but bingobob set up the thread with his version so lets just stick with it, see how it turns out and if we keep it up all year maybe then during pre-season next year we can tweak it a little.

Top 3 players is nice and simple anyway. The overall player ratings threads tended to be a bit ridiculous anyway.

 

[RUS arsenal]

@yuvken: I don't think your idea is more accurate, it'll just offer a slightly different perspective. The way it is set up now is cleaner and will show who consistently stands out. It is like the 3 stars in hockey, so it is not like it is a new system.

 

[yuvken]

You don't think it's more accurate, RUS? my example above doesn't show that? oh, well.

Anyway, qs makes sense - it's on, it's simple, let's go with it (to be honest, I thought so anyway. It just seemed a bit of a confused logic/reasoning, as accuracy was somehow the aim, and it is NOT reflected by this system. Simplicity, comfort, elegance - that's another story. And good enough reason for me )

 

[RUS arsenal]

You don't think it's more accurate, RUS? my example above doesn't show that? oh, well.

Anyway, qs makes sense - it's on, it's simple, let's go with it (to be honest, I thought so anyway. It just seemed a bit of a confused logic/reasoning, as accuracy was somehow the aim, and it is NOT reflected by this system. Simplicity, comfort, elegance - that's another story. And good enough reason for me )

Your system would flesh out those who perform consistently well, but not necessarily those who consistently stand out the most. Then there will also be issues with tied scores etc. Like I said, your system will show a different perspective, I don't think it will add accuracy in terms of the purpose of this thread.

 

[yuvken]

Don't keep dragging me back into this, RUS . If you're happy with your conclusions - fine, I don't mind.
I stated from the start this might be the best way - depends what you want to have ("the purpose of this thread") . As for accuracy - here we go again. Don't have anything to add, really.

 

[bingobob]

If what you want to do is follow peoples opinions through the season, isn't it a bit more accurate to let them just rate?

What I mean is - the most accurate would be letting people just do a full rating (old fashion, full squad). You get exactly what each one thinks of each player, up and down. Nothing missing - MOTM included, worst players too.

What could lead to favor the 3 best, 5-3-1 points system could be: simplicity/efficiency, both for you and the posters, and perhaps an added focus or incentive, as we're dealing with "who was the very best". But surely in terms of accuracy, this must be somewhat skewed (which does not mean it's a bad idea at all: it may be the best idea still; just mentioning it for your consideration). For example, if 3 players played more or less the same - 6.5ish game (even more so if 7 players did), and one gets 5 pts (randomly decided? somewhat arbitrarily, anyway), is very different from one being a clear outstanding choice (a 9 game, others max 6).

You could claim "it balances over the course of the season", which has an element of truth in it, but surely if accuracy in reflecting opinions is what you're looking for, this is not true.

I it'll be worth looking back on not to get a true idea of the players performances but more to see if opinions on players change over the season.

qs said it'll give us a good idea of who our most consistently good/bad players are.

huh?

Players who are ranked between 4 - 8 receive 0 points therefore neither moving up or down on the scale holding them as decent but not outstanding in either direction. While this system could be prone to conflicts with someone ranking a player constantly as a top performer while not deserving it the 0 points from other voters should balance this out over the course of a season. I understand its limitations and if I was planning on doing my dissertation on it I could and can discuss its flaws and weaknesses which may lead to skews in the data but I think the 0 points tries to take this into account.

I understand what you are saying and rating all the players is a good idea but for me personally it is a more time consuming process which will bring about more or less the same outcome. That and I work full time and am in the middle of my part time masters so I dont have a lot of time to take a more detailed approach. This model gives me a basic amount of data to be able to draw some conclusions but while also understanding the limitations of the approach number one being the small sample involved.

Anthony G thanks for replying and I understand the value of the real estate

 

[musicmonkey]

Gervinho today for me, was everywhere, LW, RW, CF even got back and covered Gibbs too. Cropped up deep and behind the defense, made some great runs and poached a goal. Looking more and more like a player who will find himself the most important stats and win us points.