So when your strawman argument gets picked apart in 2 posts, you resort to personal attacks. GG gl.

Are you being ironic on purpose or just obtuse unintentionally?

Please explain to me how you think my post and DS fit together. Please. Elaborate. It is something you are not very good at, but I will give you a perfect opportunity for you to elaborate how you think that Ducksauce is advocating against watching football games to form an opinion on teams/players and their performances. Please, I would love nothing more.

Also, since when is "embarrassing" a personal attack? I'll change my avatar to Dembele if anyone can show me where I personally attacked you on the last page.

There is a subset of fans who don't enjoy a more in depth discussion of the game/players, especially in a statistical context. Just ignore these discussions if this description applies to you, rather than throwing a fit about how not every stat is the holy grail for solving the game every time.

Jesus. He didn't even make the argument about himself. Quote:

Anyway, when you're done scrambling around editing your posts to make it look like you addressed points in previous posts based on my response, I'll come back and see you've added anything useful.

Wait, you think someone actually has time to ??

Do you really? That's the reply you're actually going to make? That's the elaboration we get from you? Really, it's that ****ing weak?

I'd love for you to show me where the personal attack I made on you occurred though, I'm watching Kendrick live @Coachella but the worst thing I've said to you is softer than the softest Drake verse.

The alternatives are any other kind of statistic or your eyetest.

To be clear, nobody is saying what Marty has suggested, that you shouldn't bother watching games and that football is solved. If you listen to Caley's podcast he frequently says "this is an example of where xg doesn't tell the whole story" or words to that effect. An anomaly does not disprove a method of investigation, it just shows it isn't perfect - which again, nobody has claimed it is.

ao, are you actually at coachella? gtfo 2p2 and enjoy yourself if so.

lol, just the live steam (why is it censored as one word?) obviously. Doing Osheaga I think this year cause the gf doesn't like doing the same festival 2 years in a row. Did Lolla last year, housed Chris from DGZ before we flew out as well! Radiohead were amazing, LCD and RHCP not bad either.

I just don't get why we get the same stupid "stat nerds don't even watch games" argument 5 times a year in this thread. In all my years following NBA, NHL, MLB, EPL...not one stat person has ever said to not watch games, or said they don't watch them. Most watch way, way more then the average person actually being paid by teams to scout/evaluate. Every "Stat nerd" is just looking to improve on the precision of scouting/identifying talent, disparities in how talent is evaluated and looking for more avenues to evaluate this talent. I don't know why this simple fact faces a huge hurdle among more traditional fans in literally every single sport.

But, if you don't want to discuss stats or talking about OPS, xG, Corsi or whatever makes you enjoy sports less you don't have to take part in those conversations. That's ok! No one is going to dictate how Marty or anyone else enjoys their sport, but these same lame arguments just get so redundant by the 3rd time.

At least you won't have to worry about FC Midtjylland coming in for him then

Seems xG would be by far the most valuable in England, where watching all the games is literally illegal

I know everyone wants to read and talk more about xG so sorry to interrupt...

What is the GTO play if you are going to a stag party in Prague regarding pub/club/stripclub etc? Would be nice to find/book a place where they dont scam you for your last euro



Sent from my LG-K420 using Tapatalk

Nice. Going to Glasto with him this year. Radiohead again!

To be clear, I'm not saying that stats shouldn't be used to supplement decision making.

Let's say you employ 2 scouts. One of them you just send to a game without a list of players to watch, and to report back with his observations.

The other game you tell your scout "hey take a look at this player who is over .7 xG+xA per 90".

Who are you going to get the least-biased data from?

No, and I never said that. Quit strawmanning.

Winner

If I've understood you right this is the situation:

Scout 1: Has gone to a game without a specific player to watch and at that game is subject to the litany of biases that all humans, even experts, have.

Scout 2: Has either found this one specific player from a large database and those stats have looked appealing, or has just seen a player he likes and then looked up his numbers post-hoc.

If it's the former then the least biased data comes from the database. If it's the latter then the bias is human anyway and a good boss will be doing anything they can to minimise that.

To be sure, there is no data which is bias free, and even if there was, there is no human that can interpret it without bias. However, that doesn't mean that some things aren't intrinsically less biased than others, such as a robust, yet imperfect, statistic such as xg.

Just in case this was running the risk of getting too serious, it's never a bad time to post this clip:

I have to believe that clubs send out scouts with the instruction to watch one or a few specific players all the time. So wether they've been identified by xG or by scoring a bunch of actual goals shouldn't make a difference to what the report looks like. Just maybe you identify a player as a potential target before others do.

I would agree with this. I would imagine that scouting teams do a lot of work 'in office' with databases looking for players with outstanding numbers and then send scouts out specifically for them for a qualitative judgement.

So a good boss can minimise human biases in scout 2, but not scout 1?

Good analytics are a great way to minimise human bias. It's not impossible to do so without, but I would be very weary of sending one human to a football match and trusting his opinions, even if he was an expert, with no data backing it up.

Yes, but I'm clearly NOT saying don't use analytics.

In both scenarios, you have access to data. The only difference is whether you tell the scout to watch a specific player or not - i.e. you are using data to drive your decision. This is what DS was advocating as a method for using analytics.

Once you do that, you introduce bias.

Ok. I'm still not all that sure what you're driving at here. But in your scenario, if the second scout has found this player through a big database then that is the position with less bias.

Midget pr0n baron > xG > some scout.

That's that settled.

Can't remember saying Caley doesnt watch games.

If you want to quote it to refresh my mind that'd be great.

Think my main issue with xG is being told what I'm supposed to be seeing by some **** that has no idea about football, all in colourful charts.

You're last paragraph nothing but a lie btw as I'm an avid reader and click through almost every link posted here.

Lol not my suggestion at all.

You going to deny there are some just looking at xG (box scores basically) then coming in here and waffling ****e about games/teams they haven't watched?

We kick off against Bradford in a minute from Sky if you're bored of this xG bollocks, the previous game vs them finished 3-3 in aG so it should be a good one