by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 13:21
by Wycombe Royal » 12 Nov 2010 17:41
Snowball I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.
The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.
He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg
Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.
Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 18:06
Wycombe RoyalSnowball I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.
The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.
He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg
Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.
Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games
Nice spin on it, but your extrapolation of Harte's points doesn't include exptrapolating the points of all the other players who have not played in every match, so I can say with 100% certainty that Harte would not be 20th.
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 18:09
by Wycombe Royal » 12 Nov 2010 18:19
SnowballWycombe RoyalSnowball I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.
The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.
He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg
Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.
Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games
Nice spin on it, but your extrapolation of Harte's points doesn't include exptrapolating the points of all the other players who have not played in every match, so I can say with 100% certainty that Harte would not be 20th.
Unfair Wyck, cos you get marks for playing every game
Harte HAS played every game, but 4 of his were in League 1
Those other guys you mention weren't picked either because they were injured or consider not-so-good.
get it?
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 18:24
Wycombe Royal
LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?
Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 18:27
Wycombe Royal
LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?
Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.
by Wycombe Royal » 12 Nov 2010 20:08
SnowballWycombe Royal
LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?
And why did CUMMINGS not play when Griffin was fit?
Because he was --------- (Something rhyming with SNAP or RASH)
SnowballWycombe Royal Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.
Sounds like fun.
Would you like to put some money on the result? Will you give me odds of 33-1?
After all he has zero chance...
by Wycombe Royal » 12 Nov 2010 20:13
Snowball I would argue, like you that an average mark might seem fairer, but then we both know that can cause
anomalies. A player might play one game in a season, score a hat-trick, DIE, but still win Player of the Year.
But Actim argues that playing every week is an important part of "how good you are"
(doesn't matter if we agree or not with that, that is how they do it, end)
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 22:36
Wycombe Royal
As for the actim stats doing it the way they do, does that mean we have to accept it as right and the best way to do it? You seem to imply it does/ maybe that is why most of your stats are innacurate.
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 22:38
Wycombe Royal
OK for the umpteenth +1 time I will say it again. I couldn't care less whether this shows him in a better or worse light. I just want accurate and fair stats, which is something you seem unable to do.
by Snowball » 12 Nov 2010 22:45
by Snowball » 13 Nov 2010 12:00
Wycombe Royal The reason is irrelevant because a player should be judged only on the games he has played and not on the ones he hasn't. The actim index basically says a player who doesn't play has a performance rating of zero. Is that fair? No of course it isn't.
by cmonurz » 13 Nov 2010 13:57
by Wycombe Royal » 13 Nov 2010 15:33
by Victor Meldrew » 13 Nov 2010 16:11
Wycombe Royal This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.
You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.
by Snowball » 13 Nov 2010 20:56
Wycombe Royal This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.
You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.
by Snowball » 13 Nov 2010 20:58
by Snowball » 13 Nov 2010 21:00
cmonurz Simply, no.
Actim is a statistical analysis of performance, you can't then bring qualitative reasoning into the debate to justify elevating one player's scores and not another's.
You can't pre-judge the impact that a player would have in a game in which they didn't play, simple as that.
by Snowball » 13 Nov 2010 21:02
Wycombe Royal This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.
You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.
Users browsing this forum: bcubed, Jammy Dodger and 201 guests