Wimb Snowball I couldn't care less how a player scores, and neither do the record books.
You should seriously look back at your posts and see what you did. You repeat this trick time and again.
1. Snowball posts stats and make argument
2. Poster argues against those stats
3. Snowball posts different stats to prove a different point.
Try reading "Reasoning and Argument in Psychology"
Say you produce an argument and support that argument with statistical or other evidence
Say I respond nah-mah-mah-mah-nah, SNOT TRUE
I could post the same stats and say TIS TIS TIS! (the normal HNA method)
or I could post another view, a different angle, reflecting on the same matter
A "point" might be a truth, a large mountain. To reach that truth might require illustrating small parts of the landscape at a time.
For example, if we are to fairly and accurately discuss goal-scoring abilities WE NEED TO DEFINE AND AGREE CRITERIA.
Do we choose "Appearances"? That would be extremely unfair to players getting bit parts. Antonio has had 10 appearances this year, Long has only had 15, but their minutes played are massively different.
Do we choose STARTS?It's a fair statistic (most of the time) except that some players are usually played for the whole 90 or at least 85 whereas others (like Hunt) have often been subbed at 60 minutes. Over a season that could mean 46 x 30 minutes NOT played.
But if we DID choose only starts, what about goals scored as a sub? Use them or ignore them?
Or Do We Use Starts with Sub Appearances?Obviously fairer, but even then not completely fair. Do we think it's easier to score as a sub (fresh legs v tired legs, more goals scored in the last 20), or might we argue that some players need to work themselves into a game and don't "suit" being a sub? Vice-Versa, maybe some people are natural subs, impact players but poor when starting.
And if we DO use 80 (56) as our best-measure, what is a fair formula for approximating overall time on the pitch? Doyle, for example, started 90% of his RFC games, his few sub appearances weren't crucial. Long, or Church OTOH have started as a sub as often (or more often) than an actual start.
I have used the formula Starts = 1, subs = .166r and shown that this comes out to within a couple of per cent of actual minutes. Now for some bizarre reason that's poo-hooed.
So Should We Use Minutes Played?What could possibly be wrong with that? I'm sure the list will come up with SOMEthing.
But the point is, you can argue in great circles about goal-scoring (and I'm ONLY talking goal-scoring at this moment) but you need a reasonably universal method for calculating. Do you downgrade penalties (I wouldn't, they are goals and not everyone scores them) do you downgrade tap-ins from four yards (why?)... Do you downgrade headers or shots that came from getting on the end of a free-kick (as if this isn't REALLY "open play", and do we UPgrade shots from 35 yards cos they LOOK good?
IMO a goal is a goal is a goal, from whatever distance, and however scored, and the best measure of goals-per is goals-per-minute.