is there any evidence that shooting from 25+ is a good idea?

you're dismissing the data because of one messenger but I've never seen any evidence that would refute the data

All I'm saying is that the data that's being presented is ignoring everything beyond the event horizon. It's looking for a binary value. Works in BaseLÖL, which is a highly binary game (base-hit/no-base-hit, strike/ball etc.). Not in football, though.

sugarnut is just saying that the general statement doesn't make much sense because there are so many other variables to consider.
i agree

Michael Caley would present THIS SITUATION as two independent events. Two dots on his g4rf. One really small, the other one extremely large. He wouldn't indicate that one resulted from the other. He would treat them like pitches in a Baseball game. Maybe not even that, as I'm sure that (correct me if I'm wrong, as I obviously have not much clue about the sport) Sabermetrics take strike/ball count, loaded bases, etc. into account, which is more information than we would get in the example above. We'd get two dots. Two dots which would then be used to conclude that "It's generally bad to shoot from a distance".

lol khan

Update - you should shoot from distance if the GK is a German choker

lol rivaldo not playing ronaldo in, german cb back turned to ronaldo won't catch him, rivaldo top 5 player in world can make that pass - germany run bad because he took the shot and got there.

sure, that's a valid point... if the argument is that we can't be 100% certain that shooting from distance is always bad since teams might use for tactical reasons or whatever.

But if someone wants to argue that the traditional approach (have a whack son) is correct, "too many variables" is a pretty weak point.

Well yeah, that was to be expected. I set myself up for that one, and I knew it, too. Was the first situation I could think of, though.

And it's Kahn, not Khan.

ORLY?

Unacceptable mistake there, but think the video highlights more that of the limited options, there was a better one than shooting, and even high level player misses that spot with little time for decision making. But if you make a general point about shooting from long range being sub optimal it forces players to think of better options in general, maybe improving decisions over a period of time because they are aware of this fact. I don't know, I made that up but this example shows that rivaldo could've picked a better option so in the future he learns from mistakes.

Wasn't Pep one of the first proponents of the 'shooting from distance is lol' viewpoint?

If it wasn't Khan, it is now.

Yes please

Make that point all you want. That's a base for discussion. But when people use Xg g4rfs, who view situations as the one above as two independent events, to make that point, then I'm going to be dismissive.

That's the general problem in internet debates. It's oddly similar to the ongoing atheists vs. theists debate, where both sides are basically equally ******ed and (most of all) dogmatic.

"It's all about momentum, heart, and bravery."

is obviously equally stupid as:

"The numbers don't lie. Ever. Not even if misrepresented or misinterpreted."

Way I think about it is like this:

Say someone bumps into you on accident and you spill your drink.

If they apologize profusely and offer to buy you another drink. Most people will generally say it's okay and don't worry about it.

Now imagine that person who bumped into you and spilled your drink gets an attitude and tells you to watch where you are going. You'll most likely react in a more aggressive manner, telling them to **** off or possibly getting physical.

Now you'll always have people who are just inherently dicks and nothing you do will change that, however I subscribe to the ideal that if you are nice and cordial the reaction you will get will usually mirror that sentiment.

The other issue that fuels this in sports is that team people support is often a part of their identity as a person. So saying something however nicely put that discredits (rightfully or not) their team becomes an attack on them personally. (Look up how identity and unconsciousness works for why this happens.). This causes them to lash out at stats guys which in turn elicits a similar response, then we enter a vicious cycle where no one will talk about anything in a civil manner.



Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

Crossing in general does suck.

And bringing up Bayern as a counterpoint doesn't work at all for me.

Just take a screenshot when Bayern are crossing the ball - the box is flooded with players.

The opposition sits so deep that they can have multiple guys going after the ball in the air, plus midfielders running in behind to pick up a knock down, deflection, rebound, etc. Back when they had Gomez they would also hit these devastating crosses which were more on a 45 degree angle than your traditional cross from the sideline

It's because they're so good in general and so territoriality dominant that crossing is effective for them.

Conversely rewatch that Moyes United vs Fulham match .... 90 crosses or whatever and most of the time it was a cross against a set defense that had a huge numbers advantage. It was pointless.

+1

Found one:

Suarez in 15th place, 10 places behind Falcao and 4 behind Cavani in 5 year dynasty draft (from 2013).

DS I think more people would be willing to talk to you in a civil manner if you turned off your phone signature

---

I'm not sure if the Rivaldo-Kahn-Ronaldo sequence would actually be counted as two independent events at least by Caley's model. IIRC when there's chances with one or several follow-up attempts, that particular model doesn't add up the xG values from each shot, but only takes the single shot with the highest xG value. I'm not entirely sure how to make sense of that but felt like bringing it up.

People complain about smugness of analytics types, but there's often a certain arrogance about the "sceptics" too. If some stat person says "here's the numbers, shots from distance are -EV" and some traditionalist replies "but what about rebounds", that implies that it has never occured to the researcher that rebounds exist. That's obviously annoying af and basically like asking "but how much did you lose"

grand langering of megawrong opinions, april 1st-8th 2012

arfal calls

andre: ben arfa gonna crush next Euro
consty: Ben Arfa to Arsenal is going to gather momentum pretty soon I think.
andre: SAF was high on him too iirc
deezy: As a member of the Ben Afra bandwagon, I'm very happy and hope this is true.

outcome: hull's reserves

ade you avin a laff

me: spurs need someone of [adebayor's] quality up front if they want to compete for 4th next year, makes sense to re-sign him for £130k/wk or whatever

outcome: spuds' reserves

biting analysis

kingweed: Is Suarez really an upgrade [over adebayor]? Suarez although he's a good player he's not a goal scorer and is very wasteful.

outcome: top 3 player itw

stopped here, maybe someone else would like to grasp the mantle and continue the grand langering into the following week, i'm sure there's plenty more solid gold waiting to be discovered.

The joined work of lolblanc and lolpardew worked their magic on Hatem, thank god he's cured.

It was predictable tho so i take full responsibility for this lack of foresight.

think mr bentos and mr kipling had more to do with it tbh