Canada vs Japan - Thursday, November 17th - 8:40am EST / 5:40am Pacific - Al Maktoum Stadium, Dubai, The United Arab Emirates

[jonovision]

52 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

Has anybody here had a chance to read The Eye Test: a Case for Human Creativity in the Age of Analytics by Chris Jones?

I think every single analytics person would agree with the message of this book. Statistics inform decision making. No team is simply replacing traditional approaches with straight up statistical decision making.

[kacbru]

4 hours ago, costarg said:

5 hours ago, Kadenge said:

The thing about Henry is his game is solely based on his crunching tackles (which generate fouls, cards and penalties), its always on the limit.  Take that away and you don't have a very balanced or complete player

Strongly disagree. 

[BearcatSA]

2 hours ago, jonovision said:

I think every single analytics person would agree with the message of this book. Statistics inform decision making. No team is simply replacing traditional approaches with straight up statistical decision making.

I think in our age of information/disinformation, the statistics go far deeper than just inform decision making.  They get manipulated almost exponentially to support a given narrative. This isn't anything new in world history:  it's just that so much more out there from so many more sources, many with an axe to grind.

But enough of my half assed, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious attempt at being a a pop philosopher.  Speaking of which, I did like the part in the book where Malcolm Gladwell gets called out about the high suicidal tendencies of poets (not because of the topic, if course, but because of how he interpreted data to get there).

You scrutinize all facets of the situation, whether its the intangibles, the numbers, or the combination of both.  

 

 

[El Hombre]

7 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

I think in our age of information/disinformation, the statistics go far deeper than just inform decision making.  They get manipulated almost exponentially to support a given narrative. This isn't anything new in world history:  it's just that so much more out there from so many more sources, many with an axe to grind.

But enough of my half assed, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious attempt at being a a pop philosopher.  Speaking of which, I did like the part in the book where Malcolm Gladwell gets called out about the high suicidal tendencies of poets (not because of the topic, if course, but because of how he interpreted data to get there).

You scrutinize all facets of the situation, whether its the intangibles, the numbers, or the combination of both.  

 

 

I think I would agree with this (if I understood it correctly).  I find that perceptions of players' ability can be heavily influenced by things outside of what is happening on the pitch at a certain time.  I think Henry would be the best example of this.  He's had a "Walking Red Card" chain around his neck around here since his time with TFC.  However, if there were advanced stats on that sort of thing (ie. xBA/T - expected broken ankles per tackle), they might indicate that maybe he's improved significantly in that area recently and might change a few people's perception about him.

Sometimes past experience over-influences present evaluation but advanced stats can help you potentially see another side. 

[The Beaver 2.0]

(ie. xBA/T - expected broken ankles per tackle)!!!

Pure fire!

[Lansdude]

31 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

I think in our age of information/disinformation, the statistics go far deeper than just inform decision making.  They get manipulated almost exponentially to support a given narrative. This isn't anything new in world history:  it's just that so much more out there from so many more sources, many with an axe to grind.

But enough of my half assed, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious attempt at being a a pop philosopher.  Speaking of which, I did like the part in the book where Malcolm Gladwell gets called out about the high suicidal tendencies of poets (not because of the topic, if course, but because of how he interpreted data to get there).

You scrutinize all facets of the situation, whether its the intangibles, the numbers, or the combination of both.  

 

 

Gladwell is the master at selectively taking from research and stats and baking it into a bullet point, simplistic yet plausible theory. Everyone wants that silver bullet shortcut to understanding the infinite complexity in the world, especially when it comes to anything involving people. Advanced stats can definitely be a form of dogma, not least because they have a veneer of impartial rationalism and we live in age of overconfident technocrats.

[Shway]

6 hours ago, RS said:

Why is it the people who dislike advanced stats always seem to go to the "you must have never played the game" line towards those who see value in them?

Advanced stats are just another tool to help analyze the game. Nothing more, nothing less. They've become so mainstream now that every big professional team and league on the planet have employed analytics departments, but I'm sure no one in any of those places have played the game either.

 

I was specifically speaking to fans. 
As a fan, I’m not watching the game saying oh this guys has an xG %….I’m watching the game and saying does he score goals yes or no - I can’t get with the shoulda, woulda, coulda which is exactly that. Do they do something or not - it’s straight cut. Nothing more or nothing less. 

From a fans POV these stats are purely fantasy game playing, which is heavily North American influenced from sports (basketball, football) that imo aren’t comparable. These stats are for guys who just started watching the game, and can make mention of it as if they know the game because they can’t talk about what a player is expected to do. It sounds cool to talk about. It shows you’re a gReAt analyzer of the game, and everybody seems to be one just solely off reading stats but not actually watching players in you know the minutes they play. 

Reason why I make reference to “probably never played the game” it’s because it’s the simple stuff in the game like how a guy controls the ball, how he uses his first touch, decision making etc that aren’t quantified. I know that’s how I watch and analyze the game. I know that’s what coaches tell aspiring footballers to look at, and I know guys who’ve played the game at levels look at.

The best manager in the world says “it’s not all about stats”, so talk about the  “expected” ones is just nonsense. 

This is obviously my opinion/sentiments, and a growing pet peeve. 

My bad if the “not playing the game” part triggered you. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Shway

[jhoops__]

I think xG is a pretty useful stat.  Not game by game but over the course of the year.

[Shway]

1 minute ago, jhoops__ said:

I think xG is a pretty useful stat.  Not game by game but over the course of the year.

Agreed. But people bring this up game after game. 

[RS]

16 minutes ago, Shway said:

My bad if the “not playing the game” part triggered you. 

🙄

[jonovision]

9 minutes ago, Shway said:

Agreed. But people bring this up game after game. 

It also does a good job of describing the quality of chances both teams got in a single game. If you care more about the goals, because goals change games in soccer, you already have a stat for that: the final score.

[RS]

1 minute ago, jonovision said:

It also does a good job of describing the quality of chances both teams got in a single game. If you care more about the goals, because goals change games in soccer, you already have a stat for that: the final score.

Stats are for nerds, didn't you know?

[BearcatSA]

16 minutes ago, Shway said:

From a fans POV these stats are purely fantasy game playing, which is heavily North American influenced from sports (basketball, football) that imo aren’t comparable.

If you mean (or also mean) betting, then they are a big driver.

[Shway]

1 minute ago, BearcatSA said:

If you mean (or also mean) betting, then they are a big driver.

Yes that too....very massive. 
But again, people can bet on sports they aren't a fan of because of these said stats. 

I bet on Chinese basketball and won big, and never watched a game in my life.
Just because you know those stats, doesn't mean you actually know the game.

I say this with the least amount of offence, this is just a personally experience I have with a friend who doesn't watch games but will tell you about the stats of it, and I'm realizing A LOT of people do this and write, and record content based on this.

[jonovision]

3 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

If you mean (or also mean) betting, then they are a big driver.

A lot of the advanced stats originate from the world of sports betting, because they have been proven to be effective at predicting future results. Which means they should also be useful information for anyone preparing a team for competition.

[El Diego]

30 minutes ago, Shway said:

Yes that too....very massive. 
But again, people can bet on sports they aren't a fan of because of these said stats. 

I bet on Chinese basketball and won big, and never watched a game in my life.
Just because you know those stats, doesn't mean you actually know the game.

I say this with the least amount of offence, this is just a personally experience I have with a friend who doesn't watch games but will tell you about the stats of it, and I'm realizing A LOT of people do this and write, and record content based on this.

A lot of people who watch a lot of a sport don't know actually know the game, either

[Lansdude]

People can bet and predictions on the eye test or on stats, and they can win and go on a run, but people have trouble separating knowledge from a "true belief" when they're correct about something - i.e. something that turns out to be true that corresponds with the prediction of a theory/model doesn't necessarily verify the prediction method. You see this a lot in sports betting when people dig up some weird X-factor like Team A always beats Team B on Fridays in November or something. It is possible to find some plausible mini-model with stats and win ten in a row, but that doesn't make it any better than flipping ten heads in a row. People making money on sports betting are more likely crunching numbers on line movements and doing arbitrage to eke out a tiny margin on massive bankrolls. That said, if something like xG seems way off but one goes back and looks at the chances, the contexts, and the player's history, there may be a way to "find value" that turns out to be useful, but, again whether that is a ratification of the theory is an easy inference to make but extremely difficult to prove on an honest epistemological level.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Lansdude

[Kadenge]

With the positive performances of Atiba, Kaye, Oso and Kone in the Japan game, got to think JH is leaning towards 3 central mids. Staq is going to play 270+ mins if fit, and we have 7 more CMs (above 4 plus Spoony, Liam & Piette) to fill one spot in a 2 CM set up. 

[vancanman]

23 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

As Panenka's go, it was hardly worthy of a place in the Louvre, was it?

It's on its way to The Prado, but it might be more worthy of the Cubist gallery at the Picasso Museum.

[Lansdude]

Just now, vancanman said:

It's on its way to The Prado, but it might be more worthy of the Cubist gallery at the Picasso Museum.

Is there a Canadian Outsider Art museum?

[vancanman]

On 11/18/2022 at 6:59 AM, Gian-Luca said:

One minor gripe - when we do have a distinct advantage over a team on set pieces (which, admittedly, is rare), I would rather see us pump balls into the box on a free kick to try and capitalize on this rather than have Sam Adekugbe try for a wonder strike from 35 yards out. The percentages on scoring on the former was probably significantly greater.

You've seen our attempts at set pieces before without Eustaquio?  Maybe that was meant to be a cross into the box.

[vancanman]

9 hours ago, vancanman said:

It's on its way to The Prado, but it might be more worthy of the Cubist gallery at the Picasso Museum.

It could be hung up at Emily Carr College.  I knew of an "art" project there that consisted of a pair of pickled runners.

Edited November 19, 2022 by vancanman

[rydermike]

Advanced Statistics are good for long term analysis and planning. Obviously in a short term one game/one play, they can basically be throw out the window, but long term the law of averages tends to hold. 

But even in short term they are useful to show if you were making good plays/were lucky/unlucky/have a really bad teammate who can't convert your chances/etc. 

I'm not a big user of advanced stats, but I recognize their value 

Edited November 19, 2022 by rydermike

[RJB]

You know, I really like the Japan shirts with the yellow names and numbers.  I struggle with colours sometimes, and that was some fantastic contrast that was easy to see!

[BearcatSA]

3 hours ago, rydermike said:

Advanced Statistics are good for long term analysis and planning. Obviously in a short term one game/one play, they can basically be throw out the window, but long term the law of averages tends to hold. 

But even in short term they are useful to show if you were making good plays/were lucky/unlucky/have a really bad teammate who can't convert your chances/etc. 

I'm not a big user of advanced stats, but I recognize their value 

I value those stats, as well, but I like to view them within the context of what I have seen from a player in a match as well as other intangibles.  Often I agree, sometimes I question, and sometimes I get annoyed when a particular metric gets cherry picked to support a narrative.