How can you really measure good players? >Goals/assists Depends

You just listen to the managers' opinions

>>75982166
Half objective (i.e. goals scored), half subvective.
But now we get more metadatas (thanks to companies like opta) to analyze a player's performance.
However, you can't really analyze the social aspect of football, the chemistry between the players, their instinctive and spontaneous human relations on the field, which depend immensely of their relations out of the field. It's very hard to do, unlike in others games like handegg or boreball, where a player can be summed up to a number of absolute numbers and statistics.

File: 20160724200204_368d6d6a00000578_3705620_image_a_31_1469363584921.jpg (247KB, 608x619px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 608x619px

Hairstyle

>>75982258
le

>>75982166
It's simple you go to /sp/ and ask "Does /sp/ rate X player?"

If yes, he's the GOAT.
If not, he's worthless and we're actually all better than him he just steals a living.

you watch them play

>>75982273
I suppose that's what I meant

>Can judging who is/was a good player only be 100% based on your personal opinion from watching them play?

You stop individualising the sport so much and realise you should be focusing on the teams instead

>>75982215
Can they though? I don't know the rules in those sports, but could it be that it is just americans that are obsessed with statistics? They do the same in soccer, without success.
Could it be that other countries would dominate the american sports with a more intuitive approach to the game?

>>75982166
A mix of all of this.

>>75982270
So no one is good then

Some things are impossible to judge by numbers. For example Otamendi is given a high rating because he fucks up and so jumps in for a tackle and sometimes wins, when he wouldn't have to if he had good positioning, but positioning is something that's basically impossible to quantify in football

>>75982296
True, but what makes the team? Is individual quality irrelevant?

>>75982441
No quite, but if it was 100% that then you could predict every single game winner. Sometimes an inferior team wins because of their heart and determination/management, and sometimes good players under perform.

Soccer needs some advanced analytics like baseball. You wouldn't imagine how many objective stats to measure a player's worth and performances there are in baseball.

>>75982392
Football manager is able to decently simulate the attributes and variables of football.

>>75982451
Baseball is very much a stop-start game like NFL, very easy to analyse, in Football not so much, some things are subjective as well because plays can be so long thought out and take so long to execute that you have to ask which player deserves the credit
>>75982453
Well, that's because the game is basically God. It knows the advanced stats because it planned out the entire game second by second

>>75982368
Baseball started the trend of statistics. It's pretty easy to break down Mike Trout as a series of numbers to see his greatness, because the way he interacts in the game can be summed up that way: at bat %, number of X, number of Y, etc. And compare them to non-Mike Trout players and note that they are inferior to him.
In handegg, players are also summed up as numbers, in the infamous NFL scouting combine. Because the fractional nature of the game makes this approach pertinent: if RB Laquesha Bradshaw can run 40 yds in 4.3 s at the combine he will be able to do it in a game.
Our football is different. It's not fractional. It's persistent, the game is free flowing, it doesn't reset to a state of restart (be at "zero"), players must improvise while acting according to plan, etc.
I don't know if we could transpose our football approach to American sports. However I know that we could take some things from them, to improve set pieces (which are really moments where the game is stopped, at a certain state of "zero") in our football.

>>75982215
>However, you can't really analyze the social aspect of football
It all comes down to if football is a chaotic system, as in chaos theory definition, or not. I don't think it is, and as such we should be able to simulate a simplified version of such a system to obtain meaningful simulations, at least on paper. Once we accept that we can simulate it, it follows we can describe it in a good enough way with simplified numbers.

It's all a matter of getting good at it, but we are getting there.

>>75982570
I wish more euros would at least just watch Angels games because mike trout is honestly one of the best all time and he hasn't even hit his prime yet.

>>75982570
I get baseball, but even in handegg it seems that they overvalue statistics. Even there things like timing, vision etc must be more important than speed, strength etc, and you'd probably understand more about who's the better player if you watched 5 games than if you saw all the numbers over the season, given that you understand the game?

Basketball and hockey is the same wrt statistics, right?

>>75982166
Dick size number one factor

>>75982726
You're very right. NFL just started thinking about a new scouting method, taking more into account matches performance.
In basketball stats are important, you'll sure have some stats like rebounds etc. but not as essential/fundamental as baseball. There is this social aspect, and spontaneous collective organization (instinctive occupation of game space by the team) that can't be described by a synthetic number. How would you *rate* how Jordan marked other players? How he managed to feint a pass and fix opponents to finally pass and allow a 3-pts shot by a teammate? That can't be objectively quantified. Same for hockey but I'm not a big specialist.

File: Capture.png (375KB, 1050x581px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1050x581px

Example right here: top rated players XI this season (left: Whoscored, right:>Squawka). Only 3 players in common.

Is there ever any value in these ratings at all?

>>75982853
Can't talk about Squawka but whoscored rating's are garbage.

>>75982166
>Goals/assists
Depends on position, quality of teammates and competition.

Don't tell them. This will ruin /sp/.
>A player is shitte if he is not in stats top players.
>A player is shitte if he doesn't make at least 100 videos of wow things in the top trending youtube videos ever
>A player is shitte if he is not German/Italian/Spanish/Cristiano Ronaldo/Messi.
>Every league except *myfavoriteleague* is a pub league and every player with amazing stats is nothing unless he joins *myfavoriteleague* and has equal stats.

Obviously it depends on their position on the pitch, but you just have to judge their influence in the match and compare them to their teammates/opponents. For example, consistency is extremely necessary for a defender/goalkeeper but for a striker is more important to be resolutive, accurate and have the ability to create goal chances by yourself.

well it ain't that hard to rate offensive and defensive players based on stats but it is hard to rate midfielders like Modric without watching the game, he barely does assists or important passes (which are just passes that result in shots at goal) but he is the most important player in Real

>>75982873
Squawka is shitty too. You can't trust those ratings.

Trophies and only Trophies. That's why Toni Kroos will become the GOAT.

File: 52152151.png (198KB, 557x311px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 557x311px

>>75984891
>yfw you now realize Dani Alves is the player with more trophies in all history of football

>>75984989
>>75984891
Clarence Seedorf has to be elite as well then. 5 league title in 3 different countries and 4 Champions League winners with 3 different clubs.

You can really only do it by watching them. The likes of Iniesta don't look that good on paper because of low goals/assist stats. Forwards are the easiest to judge in this regard, but even then it's not clear cut. Oliver Bierhoff outscored Ronaldo in Serie A in the 97/98 season, but it was clear by watching both that R9 was on a completely different planet to the german.

>>75982686
No one cares about boreball

Team > Player
Comparing individual players is too subjective to name an overall GOAT, however rating a GOAT team is a lot easier and respected

>>75985472
Right. Rating single players is pertinent for players who achieve stuff individually, like forwards or goalkeepers. I think we should rate defenders by pairs (or trio is 3 CBs system), because they can't be in fact separated, they work as a duo.
For midfields I don't know, they are the glue that sticks everything else together. Somenguys like Kanté just make their team better, while not being flamboyant.

>>75982166

You watch the games and decide for yourself. Unless your a filthy casual it is painfully obvious who the top players are.

>>75982477
It isn't the stop start aspect. It is how many stats are able to correlate with winning. Baseball has many discrete actions that can be quantified. They hit, walk, strike, get on base, etc. 4 bases that indicate how close someone is to scoring. All of it directly correlates with performance. Soccer is a lot of passing until you score. It is hard to quantify due to the variety of tactics and indirect actions that leads to scoring. NFL may start and stop a lot, but it is similar to soccer in how many moving parts there are and such. The large variety of specialized positions also make it very difficult to measure.

Individual stats and trophies.
If youre a good player, you can sign with an elite team and once youre on a elite team, you should be scoring/assisting alot and helping your team win trophies.

File: 1324249571660.jpg (22KB, 185x253px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 185x253px

>How can you really measure good players?

how well they look

>>75986196
But it's still subjective, the wingers can't perform properly if they have shit wingback support, and a goalkeeper can't perform if theyre faced with a shite defence
That's why team ratings should be more important than a player, someone with massive potential could waste their career because they haven't got the recourses to thrive