Player Ratings - the scores after 12 matches (1 Viewer)

[Gibbo]

The Wisdom of the Crowds
Last season a thought was triggered by the mismatch between how highly Bayliss was rated in comments compared with his less flattering numerical player ratings – the latter measures his actual impact on the game.
So this season I have collated all player ratings given on this forum for the first 12 games including Oxford. Only those starting a match are included except for Bayaoko at Blackpool and Davies against Sunderland. Players must appear in three games minimum to qualify. Those querying the methodology, that is all at the end

First off - Man of the Match / Dud of the Match
Who was awarded the most and least points by the contributors

Scunthorpe MOM Andreu DOM Sterling
Wimbledon Davies Hiwula
Oxford [C] Davies Sterling
Plymouth Doyle Andreu
Blackpool Hyam O’Brien
Gillingham JCH Grimmer
Rochdale Burge Shipley
Oxford Willis Thomas
Barnsley Burge Shipley
Bristol Rovers Hyam Sterling
Sunderland Burge Shipley

 

---

[Gibbo]

 

[Gibbo]

Headline conclusions

1. Robins has gradually worked towards a team made up of the most highly rated players on this forum! Against Rochdale and Gillingham had he picked Ogogo rather than Shipley, it would have been exactly the “best eleven” at that point. With the exception of Shipley, the team against Pompey was “the best available”.
2. Injuries have disrupted this, as has the decline in some players’ ratings – Andreu in particular
3. We have 8 new signings or loans. Only two are doing well, Chaplin and Mason. The jury is out on Ogogo, Brown and Thomas. The other three are vary between 13 and 20% below average, although Sterling has had three good outings in the last four games. Therefore the management’s rating is not that good so far.
4. There remains a gap between the high regard we have for Bayliss and what he is actually producing. He averages 6.1 only 2% above average and is the 8th ranked player. It could be that the more he plays the less value he is financially? Is he at risk of being ruined by lower league football?
5. The biases are obvious – if we lose then all ratings drop - so bad luck if a player appears mainly in those games (Brown) - conversely playing in a winning side helps (Chaplin) and goal scorers are disproportionately rewarded (Andreu). We like centre-backs. This is not science or Moneyball, merely a piece of focus group research, but it does pass a test of having enough data to provide plausible conclusions. There are over 1,600 pieces of data from 146 contributors. The lowest number of contributors was 5 (Wimbledon) the highest 22 (Oxford in the League).

 

[Gibbo]

The Wisdom of the Crowds
Last season a thought was triggered by the mismatch between how highly Bayliss was rated in comments compared with his less flattering numerical player ratings – the latter measures his actual impact on the game.
So this season I have collated all player ratings given on this forum for the first 12 games including Oxford. Only those starting a match are included except for Bayaoko at Blackpool and Davies against Sunderland. Players must appear in three games minimum to qualify. Those querying the methodology, that is all at the end

First off - Man of the Match / Dud of the Match
Who was awarded the most and least points by the contributors

Scunthorpe MOM Andreu DOM Sterling
Wimbledon Davies Hiwula
Oxford [C] Davies Sterling
Plymouth Doyle Andreu
Blackpool Hyam O’Brien
Gillingham JCH Grimmer
Rochdale Burge Shipley
Oxford Willis Thomas
Barnsley Burge Shipley
Bristol Rovers Hyam Sterling
Sunderland Burge Shipley

Oops typo Sunderland was JCH / Doyle

 

[Dimi_Konstantflapalot]

Headline conclusions

1. Robins has gradually worked towards a team made up of the most highly rated players on this forum! Against Rochdale and Gillingham had he picked Ogogo rather than Shipley, it would have been exactly the “best eleven” at that point. With the exception of Shipley, the team against Pompey was “the best available”.
2. Injuries have disrupted this, as has the decline in some players’ ratings – Andreu in particular
3. We have 8 new signings or loans. Only two are doing well, Chaplin and Mason. The jury is out on Ogogo, Brown and Thomas. The other three are vary between 13 and 20% below average, although Sterling has had three good outings in the last four games. Therefore the management’s rating is not that good so far.
4. There remains a gap between the high regard we have for Bayliss and what he is actually producing. He averages 6.1 only 2% above average and is the 8th ranked player. It could be that the more he plays the less value he is financially? Is he at risk of being ruined by lower league football?
5. The biases are obvious – if we lose then all ratings drop - so bad luck if a player appears mainly in those games (Brown) - conversely playing in a winning side helps (Chaplin) and goal scorers are disproportionately rewarded (Andreu). We like centre-backs. This is not science or Moneyball, merely a piece of focus group research, but it does pass a test of having enough data to provide plausible conclusions. There are over 1,600 pieces of data from 146 contributors. The lowest number of contributors was 5 (Wimbledon) the highest 22 (Oxford in the League).

"Join us after the break as we discuss all this with Matthew Upson and Liam Rosenior, right here, on The Debate"

 

[stevefloyd]

And also coming up the correct spelling of Bagayokel

 

[covcity4life]

great work. very interesting

shipley near bottom despite his fans saying how good he is every game....

 

[LilleSkyBlue]

Cheers, interesting work!

Regarding your fourth point about Bayliss: might expectations dashed lead to giving lower scores than maybe deserved? I rate him highly and enjoy watching him play but get frustrated at his losing the ball instead of laying it off, for example. His failings thus become more visible to me than would another nondescript Doyle performance, say.