After Bristol City

[pringlejon]

Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Here are the first published player ratings as an average taken from all ratings given on the zone.



edit: image doesnt seem to be very large. click on image to see it full size.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Can you clarify how it has been calculated?

Have you discounted the top and bottom 5 percent?

 

[pringlejon]

Can you clarify how it has been calculated?

Have you discounted the top and bottom 5 percent?

Not discounted extremes. Have not encountered any (bar a 0 given to zaaboub for spitting fiasco) and over the season if there are any, they should be cancelled out. Am hoping "the rationality of the mob" will win through. Though if everyone thinks extremes should be ignored i will consider, however i would hope all ratings are given in earnest and this need not happen.

 

[Pubey]

Looks awesome! Top work!

Regarding discounting outliers, I'd leave it and see how it goes. If people regularly give ridiculous scores then I'd look at truncating the end 5% or so, as suggested.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'm very much of the opinion that the top and bottom 5 or 10% should be discounted (and I say that despite awarding Morris a mark lower than everyone else - a 7 to a keeper who was arguably at fault for a goal and barely had a save to make - what was everyone thinking?).

I'd also consider standardising marks so everyone is awarding from the same scale.

10 out of 10 = an once in a life time display
9 out of 10 = sensational display
8 out of 10 = well above average performance for a league two player
7 out of 10 = above average
6 out of 10 = average performance for a league two player
5 out of 10 = below average performance
4 out of 10 = substantially below par performance; very poor
3 out of 10 = abysmal
2 out of 10 = Drewe
1 out of 10 = Drewe on a bad day

 

[Pubey]

I'm very much of the opinion that the top and bottom 5 or 10% should be discounted (and I say that despite awarding Morris a mark lower than everyone else - a 7 to a keeper who was arguably at fault for a goal and barely had a save to make - what was everyone thinking?).

I'd also consider standardising marks so everyone is awarding from the same scale.

10 out of 10 = an once in a life time display
9 out of 10 = sensational display
8 out of 10 = well above average performance for a league two player
7 out of 10 = above average
6 out of 10 = average performance for a league two player
5 out of 10 = below average performance
4 out of 10 = substantially below par performance; very poor
3 out of 10 = abysmal
2 out of 10 = Drewe
1 out of 10 = Drewe on a bad day

May we could see the spread of scores for a few players and see? I like to see the data before knowing whether to chuck some out! I guess that with quite a few people adding ratings it'll come out in the wash. Anyway, it's Pringlejon's call.

Good point about the standardised marking system though... My guess is that at the moment people tend to mark between 6-8 and so the data is skewed towards that end, hence why people tend to use half marks too.

 

[pringlejon]

I'd also consider standardising marks so everyone is awarding from the same scale.

10 out of 10 = an once in a life time display
9 out of 10 = sensational display
8 out of 10 = well above average performance for a league two player
7 out of 10 = above average
6 out of 10 = average performance for a league two player
5 out of 10 = below average performance
4 out of 10 = substantially below par performance; very poor
3 out of 10 = abysmal
2 out of 10 = Drewe
1 out of 10 = Drewe on a bad day

It's very late and i'm tired so this may sound stupid but if one zoner rated morris 7, grant 10 and corr 8 for example, would it not have the same relative result in relation to the overall standings of morris getting a 6.5, grant 9 and corr 8. For the time being, in regards to truncating, i'll let nature take its course and if we get a good show of ratings i anticipate it will cancel out.

 

[Pubey]

Yes it would. Truncating would eliminate anyone with a grudge or crush on a player who week in week out gives a 10 or zero

 

[southendkid]

Looking good so far! Who was the top player for the first game, too lazy to go through stockport match ratings!

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Looks good.

One question - the arrows on the season ratings, do they depict the movement in the players average, or in his position in the list of players.

 

[pringlejon]

Looking good so far! Who was the top player for the first game, too lazy to go through stockport match ratings!

Chris Barker by quite a margin, with zaaboub the worst again.

Looks good.

One question - the arrows on the season ratings, do they depict the movement in the players average, or in his position in the list of players.

It was suggested they were put on to show an increase or decrease in the season average rating although movement in position may be more appropriate.

 

[number11]

Chris Barker by quite a margin, with zaaboub the worst again.



It was suggested they were put on to show an increase or decrease in the season average rating although movement in position may be more appropriate.

I think movement in players rating is perhaps more indicative of their form so think it's a good idea as it is. Id vote for eliminating the top and bottom end vote as well.

 

[Harold Bishop Killer]

that is brillaint

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

In the season ratings would it be worth indicating the number of appearances made? For example Coughlan has made appearance, yet appears to be better than Prosser or Barker who have made more appearances. Just a thought.

Great work pringlejon

 

[fredheim_holm]

Great work Jon, top stuff.

 

[BrettieAngell]

In the season ratings would it be worth indicating the number of appearances made? For example Coughlan has made appearance, yet appears to be better than Prosser or Barker who have made more appearances. Just a thought.

Great work pringlejon

Yes good call, I thought the same thing.

 

[Tommy2holes]

Atleast mccormack wont be getting his 10 every week from OBL unless she is a wolf in sheeps clothing on the addicks site lol

Good work

 

[billy_bob_shrimper]

Great work!
The only thing I would like to add is that I think its a little harsh to point out a 'worst player' from each game. We all know players read these sorts of forums and if one persons name pops up often it could be very disheartening for them and given that the majority of the team is new I wouldnt want a player to see that and feel unwelcome so soon..
Is it possible to have a most improved rating from the last game, or point out another positive from the game?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It's very late and i'm tired so this may sound stupid but if one zoner rated morris 7, grant 10 and corr 8 for example, would it not have the same relative result in relation to the overall standings of morris getting a 6.5, grant 9 and corr 8. For the time being, in regards to truncating, i'll let nature take its course and if we get a good show of ratings i anticipate it will cancel out.

If the same people award the marks every week it doesn't become an issue, but not every one will attend every game.
You want the index to reflect the best performers, not who played in games that were attended by the more generous markers.

With regards truncating the marks, you've already said that you've left out one for Zaaboub, because someone gave him a 0. I agree this mark shouldn't count, but I don't think it should be an arbitrary decision as to what is an outrageous mark or not. It's far better to apply a filter (FWIW a good turnout of raters won't cancel it out, but rather lessen the impact).

The other area worth considering IMO, is how to treat subs. Not everyone ranks subs, and if someone only plays 5 minutes they may only get a 6 which may reflect more that they didn't have time to get into the game than their performance during the game. Making lots of sub appearances is therefore likely to drag someone's average rating down so that someone who'd started 20 games and come on as sub in 20 games is likely to have a worse rating than someone who just started 20 games. I'm not sure how best to deal with this, we could exclude sub appearances unless someone played for at least half a half (23 minutes) or just ignore them completely. Or have two overall ratings one including sub appearances and one excluding them.

I think this is a cracking initiative, so it would be a shame if a close-run battle was decided by a statistical anamoly which could easily be eradicated.

 

[Napster]

I say sub appearances only count if for more than 23 minutes.