cmonurz When much of the debate around Harte has centred on whether he is a good enough defender, outside of the goals he scores, what is the use of referencing Actim stats, which have been shown to favour goalscorers?
How is Long doing, Actim-wise?
cmonurz When much of the debate around Harte has centred on whether he is a good enough defender, outside of the goals he scores, what is the use of referencing Actim stats, which have been shown to favour goalscorers?
cmonurz Can't be proven, as Actim won't release their precise methodology, which presumably you knew, however the majority of top actim scorers in recent seasons have been strikers, which suggests the data may be unreliable in judging the overall performance of players, given that you wouldn't expect that trend from a system that weighted individual contributions against an expected profile for the position that person plays in.
I don't have to prove anything, I'm just giving my opinion, the Actim stats are devalued as a) Actim won't release how they are calculated, b) the framework they have released shows it to be skewed towards attacking and c) evidence suggests that indeed attacking players are favoured by the calculations.
cmonurz Can't be proven, as Actim won't release their precise methodology, which presumably you knew, however the majority of top actim scorers in recent seasons have been strikers, which suggests the data may be unreliable in judging the overall performance of players, given that you wouldn't expect that trend from a system that weighted individual contributions against an expected profile for the position that person plays in.
I don't have to prove anything, I'm just giving my opinion, the Actim stats are devalued as a) Actim won't release how they are calculated, b) the framework they have released shows it to be skewed towards attacking and c) evidence suggests that indeed attacking players are favoured by the calculations.
Now to use the argument you just did - you prove the Actim stats are reliable. Of course, you can't.
In what respect is Shane Long 4th on the Actim list you posted on the previous page?
cmonurz
In what respect is Shane Long 4th on the Actim list you posted on the previous page?
Snowballcmonurz
In what respect is Shane Long 4th on the Actim list you posted on the previous page?
Just LOOK!
01 Jay Bothroyd, Cardiff 317
02 Ben Turner, Coventry 313
03 Adele Taarabt, QPR 285
04 Shane Long, Reading 263
05 Jonathan Howson, Leeds 262
06 Adie Mackie, QPR 261
Wimb On urz point, I seem to remember Stephen Hunt remained in the top 10 throughout the season purely on the basis of his first half form in 08/09. The fact he was overlooked for Simon Church in the biggest game of the season should have set alarm bells ringing...
cmonurz
Snowball, there's no 'covering my ass'. If you took five seconds to take your head out of your stats you'd know that the Actim index has long been criticised firstly for appearing to favour attacking players, and secondly for failing to reveal methodology in the face of that criticism.
Now are you going to prove that the Actim stats are reliable?
SnowballWimb On urz point, I seem to remember Stephen Hunt remained in the top 10 throughout the season purely on the basis of his first half form in 08/09. The fact he was overlooked for Simon Church in the biggest game of the season should have set alarm bells ringing...
That's the Stephen Hunt who has since played for Hull and Wolves in the Premiership,
the won we got a few million for? That Hunt?
Snowballcmonurz
Snowball, there's no 'covering my ass'. If you took five seconds to take your head out of your stats you'd know that the Actim index has long been criticised firstly for appearing to favour attacking players, and secondly for failing to reveal methodology in the face of that criticism.
Now are you going to prove that the Actim stats are reliable?
You covered the donkey. END
Harte is Rubbish, not good enough for the Championship
Wimb
Not disputing he was a good player, it was to dispute the fact that the actim index isn't always accurate
SnowballWimb
Not disputing he was a good player, it was to dispute the fact that the actim index isn't always accurate
The Actim index WAS accurate and got Hunt right. I said so at the time.
That's why we got a lot of money for him. That's why we paid him so much money.
cmonurz
As you've no reason to question its validity, you won't mind my conclusion that as Long doesn't even feature, then he is quite obviously not pulling his weight, in terms of either his scoring, or the all-round game you believe to be equally represented by Actim.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 171 guests
