Indy_Bones 441 Posted May 30, 2011 Fora long time I''ve hated the base goal to game ratio that gets trottedout all the time as a yardstick for a players ability (goalscoring atleast), and the reason is that it doesn''t take into account theamount of actual time the player has had in each game. You could seea player with a 1 in 38 goal ratio and think he''s the biggest pile o''crap on the planet, but if you then see that he''s had a single minutein each game, then you realise it''s a far different story.ThereforeI use an adjusted ratio based on minutes played, which can then beconverted into full games to give an approximation of theirtheoretical ratio. This is by no means an exact science, it''s justbasic number crunching, but the picture you get can be far morerepresentative than the normal method.Iapplied this formula recently on here as part of the Vaughan threadto demonstrate that his record is much better than the basic goal togame ratio would suggest, and following other comments on theMackail-Smith thread, I decided that just out of interest I''d run thestats for the Prem''s strikers and midfielders this season to see whatcomes out - the results are very interesting in places.Takefor example Van Persie vs Darren Bent:RVPplayed for a total of 1770 minutes compared to Bent''s 3142RVPscored 18 in 25 games to Bent''s 17 in 35, giving a goal ratio of 1.39for RVP vs 2.06 for Bent.Takingthis theoretically, we could then suggest that if we took this resultover a full season, then RVP would get 27 goals to Bent''s 18.Usingthe adjusted ratio however we get RVP with 1.09 vs Bent on 2.05 (note the similarlity here to previous goal ratio due to Bent playing virtually a full season), which gives RVP on 35 to Bent on 19 - nearly 7goals more than on the base game ratio.Similarlylook at Elmander vs Fletcher:Elmanderplayed 3095 mins to Fletcher''s 1395Elmanderscored 10 in 36 to Fletcher''s 10 in 27, giving a goal ratio of 3.6for Elmander vs 2.7 for FletcherOverthe season we see Elmander ending on 10 goals to Fletcher''s 14Usingthe adjusted ratio we get Elmander with 3.44 vs 1.55 for Fletcher, giving Elmander 11 and Fletcher 25 - a 14goal difference this time!Another good example is Sammon at Wigan, a base goal ratio of 1 in 6, but using the adjusted method you get 2.4...Thelogic behind this argument is simple, a player who can do more withless time on the pitch is theoretically better than the guy who getsthe same results with more time - quality over quantity.Nowlet''s look at the top 20 (includes strikers and midfielders):Player Mins Played Goals Scored Total Games (based on mins played) Adjusted GTG Ratio Theoretical GoalsBlake 47 1 0.5 0.52 73Klasnic 339 4 3.8 0.94 40Van Persie 1770 18 19.7 1.09 35Berbatov 2208 21 24.5 1.17 33Hernandez 1491 13 16.6 1.27 30Owen 238 2 2.6 1.32 29Tevez 2513 21 27.9 1.33 29Best 742 6 8.2 1.37 28Vela 386 3 4.3 1.43 27Harewood 661 5 7.3 1.47 26Ba 933 7 10.4 1.48 26Tchoyi 830 6 9.2 1.54 25Fletcher 1395 10 15.5 1.55 25Sturridge 1131 8 12.6 1.57 24Zamora 757 5 8.4 1.68 23Kalou 1570 10 17.4 1.74 22Pavlyuchenko 1589 10 17.7 1.77 22Carroll 2071 13 23.0 1.77 21Beckford 1327 8 14.7 1.84 21Ben Arfa 168 1 1.9 1.87 20Van der Vaart 2222 13 24.7 1.9 20Odemwingie 2680 15 29.8 1.99 19(apols for the poor alignment, cba to mess with it)Pleasenote that Robbie Blake with only 47 mins played in a single gameleads to a skewed result however you look at it.Also, despite theory, I can''t see many ''lesser'' players hitting 25+ goals, although I do feel that the logic is still fairly sound.Itmakes we wonder if should be looking at younger players like Vela andBest, who have their best to come (no pun intended), wouldn''t coststupid amounts, and are likely to relish the chance of regular gamesat this level. Damn shame that players like Sturridge and Macheda(2.44 ratio) aren''t possible options as well...Ona side note it also shows what an incredible bargain Man Utd got inHernandez for 6 mil...Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mahogany 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Interesting, but maybe put a minimum number of minutes played to get a better idea of who really has done well. Say something around 360 minutes (4 games worth). You can''t really read a lot in to someone who hasn''t played much of the season at all ,even if they have scored a couple of goals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Essexiled Canary 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Interesting. Generally speaking, it''s difficult to really assess players on goals alone, as this doesn''t tell you how many misses, assists, tackles from the front, mistakes they have caused in opposition boxes, corners won at key times of the game, etc, etc. I think the point I''m making is that unless you watch/scout players regularly, you can''t really tell what they have to offer and you can''t assess players by one statistic, which is a bigger floor in people''s arguments - even though I note strikers are expected to score goals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 261 Posted May 30, 2011 as well as minutes the state of the game is key; we all know players who when starting cant score that crucial break through goal but can score the second or third. So coming on as a sub is easier when the lead is there/secure and more inspired when level or behind.The whole assists passing bit is where the opta stats arise; but as with any stat, whether a weighted mix, goal/game or goal/min all have a merits as well as disadvantages - its teh same with any stat - a number is meaningless without a context.The reason goal/game is popular is that its easy to calculate and understand.... Not perfect but it works on a core level for most fans Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Wal 314 Posted May 30, 2011 Stats are wonderful things but can be very misleading, especially assists.Is it an assist if a cross falls behind the striker who miraculously gets in an overhead kick to score?But not an assist if a cross leaves the striker with a tap in from two yards which he cocks up?This is why stats are used only to reinforce opinions of players not to be the ''be all and end all'' of a player.I was told many years ago by my old sports master that you could be the best player on the pitch but never touch the ball. That would throw the stats out of the window! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted May 30, 2011 Goals scored need to be weighted:1: Is it a substitute that comes on for the last 10 minutes..... ie: it is easier for him to score as he is fresh against tired defenders2: Is he playing in a usually attacking team..... easier to score3: Is he playing in a usually defensive team.... harder to score4: Is he playing against a usually attacking team.... easier to score5: Is he playing against a usually defensive team.... harder to score 5: Is it from a penalty..... very easier to score6: Is the goal from open play.... harder to score7: Is the goal from a set piece... easier to score8: How hard was the goal to score..... ie: a tap in from one yard is far easier than a volley from 30 yards, a diving header, or where a player has dribbled 50 yards to score beating 5 players on the way. 9: Perhaps also where a player provides an unselfish assist where he could have scored himself should also receive a weighting such as half a goal. 10: Goals should also be weighted according to whether they are in a Cup competition(ie are the teams from the same division) or which League they are scored in. So, of course just using goals scored is misleading, and this is why I also like to analyse how goals are scored before passing a proper opinion. I would also award a player extra points for versatility, as a goalscorer that can score with all attributes (head, left foot, right foot, volleys, dribbles, from short and long distance) is a far more complete player than one that only ever scores with just his right foot with a first touch from 2 yards. Number of bad misses as a ratio to goals scored of course should also be taken into account. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy_Bones 441 Posted May 30, 2011 Some fair points made, and I fully agree that you can only really judge a player if you''ve regularly seen them play - especially against opponents of differing quality e.g. Man Utd one week, West Ham the next...The point I was trying to make however is that without this sort of view, we can only really make a judgment based on the stats, and that the goal to game ratio stat is often misleading.I would say that without any form of in-depth analysis, this method provides arguably the best yardstick for judging an attackers goalscoring ability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptnCanary 0 Posted May 30, 2011 I reckon that you should probably discount players from the chart until they have either 1000 mins playing time or 10 goals. That should remove a lot of the statistical anomolies. Those discounted players could be shown in a seperate chart to show achievement but without sufficient data to be rated as actual ratings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites