Match ratings

[rigsby]

Isn't average relating to the performance and not the score? Otherwise the other descriptions would be "above average " and "below average".

When I used to do my "The fbm view and ratings" several seasons ago, I always used 6 as a yardstick of average, or maybe I should say unspectacular. Didn't do anything wrong, didn't do anything exceptional.

I have occasionally given 9.5 if the performance has been a wordly. 10 implies that nothing can be improved upon at all, which is never the case, so I don't think I've ever given one. Although no doubt someone will trawl back through the threads and come up with a few occasions when I have given a 10...

Agree, the only time I have awarded anyone with a 10 are on the beaches of Brazil......Slightly different passion of mine to football of course but equally to save any confusion the same marking guidelines should be used with 6 being the average.

 

[AndyT]

So you are actually using a 4-10 scale?

That's the rating system that's used for football players, generally, and has been over the years.

Hence why old soccerloons.com, above, could only muster 0.03% as a figure for 3.9 or less as a rating.

That equates to 3 performances per 10,000 ratings. Way too low a figure for inclusion, IMHO.

Isn't average relating to the performance and not the score? Otherwise the other descriptions would be "above average " and "below average".

When I used to do my "The fbm view and ratings" several seasons ago, I always used 6 as a yardstick of average, or maybe I should say unspectacular. Didn't do anything wrong, didn't do anything exceptional.

I have occasionally given 9.5 if the performance has been a wordly. 10 implies that nothing can be improved upon at all, which is never the case, so I don't think I've ever given one. Although no doubt someone will trawl back through the threads and come up with a few occasions when I have given a 10...

I think, on their system, they've taken the highest percentage batch 55% and called that average, so it's a combination of statistics built up over several matches.

On our ratings, we only need to consider for that match whether player A performed better than expected or worse than expected, taking everything into consideration, so you need a mean/average figure to rate up or down from.

The debate is whether it should be 6 or 7 as your starting point and my view is that it is 7, because you are rating between 4 and 10 normally, with regards to football match performance.

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

Although no doubt someone will trawl back through the threads and come up with a few occasions when I have given a 10...

Anyone up for the challenge?:smile:

 

[fbm]

That's the rating system that's used for football players, generally, and has been over the years.

Hence why old soccerloons.com, above, could only muster 0.03% as a figure for 3.9 or less as a rating.

That equates to 3 performances per 10,000 ratings. Way too low a figure for inclusion, IMHO.



I think, on their system, they've taken the highest percentage batch 55% and called that average, so it's a combination of statistics built up over several matches.

On our ratings, we only need to consider for that match whether player A performed better than expected or worse than expected, taking everything into consideration, so you need a mean/average figure to rate up or down from.

The debate is whether it should be 6 or 7 as your starting point and my view is that it is 7, because you are rating between 4 and 10 normally, with regards to football match performance.

Not me mate, that was someone else. I use almost the full spectrum and have happily given 2's and 3's in the past!

 

[Barry.C]

Personally I enjoy the wonders of our free for all chaos ratings, great fun, I wouldnt like to see a conforming system. Great when folks let off steam in any direction. A nice bunch of ones or tens is funny if nothing else

 

[AndyT]

Fair enough 'fbm', but statistically that's not generally how player ratings are normally done.

They are a span between 4 and 10, but if we adopt a 0 to 10 on here, then I'm not really bothered, but we would have to agree what an average score is, because if it's 5 or 6 then I'll just reduce all my player ratings by 1 or 2, so it's easy enough.

The reason this whole debate started was that 'Napster' couldn't understand how so many players got 8 or above, but that's quite normal using the regular 4 to 10 span.

 

[Napster]

The reason this whole debate started was that 'Napster' couldn't understand how so many players got 8 or above, but that's quite normal using the regular 4 to 10 span.

it's not normal. It's way above average.

 

[AndyT]

Nope, it's normal using a 4 to 10 span.

8 isn't "way above average" if 7 is the average. It's just above average. 10 is "way above average".

 

[Ricky Otto]

it's a 1-10 scale so quite simply 5 is not good or bad and then marks either side of that are levels of good performance and bad performance. 5 being bang in the middle of the scale would have to be average wouldn't it? In practice this does not happen though, if you look at ratings from newspapers to championship manager/football manager the game 6/7 seems to be your average performance. If somebody scores a 5 they have had a bad game but if we were truly using a 1-10 scale then that would be your average.

 

[AndyT]

Spot on 'Ricky'.

It's all about the span you are using and you take your mean figure from there and rate up or down from it.

98.94% of player ratings are between 5 and 9, so your mean is 7, generally.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

I cant see how the rating can be decided based on average, surely the average is only truly known when all of the ratings are in.

Ratings wise, the starting ground for me would be a 5 with increases for good and decreases for errors.

Yes, that is how I see it.

1 - the player should not have bothered getting the shirt dirty
2 - the player looks like and plays like Barry Conlon
3 - very poor performance - perhaps an awful or game changing mistake
4 - the player was off their game
5 - a reasonable/average/okay performance
6 - player had a good game
7 - player had a good game with a couple of pieces of excellence
8 - a dynamic performance from a player that changed the game and the result
9 - this player is the new Collymore/Cadette/Eastwood/Spinner/Sansome/Butler/Leonard

Having typed all that in, I should point out that I don't usually give ratings! :smile: :tease: :smiles:

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

This from WhoScored.com. Totally off topic by the way so worth it's own thread maybe?

WhoScored Ratings Explained

WhoScored.com Ratings are considered to be the most accurate, respected and well-known performance indicators in the world of football. Our ratings are currently used among media giants, bookmakers and football clubs.

WhoScored.com Ratings are based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game. There are over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player'’s/team’'s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game. Every event of importance is taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.

Wow, so the same players went from Extremely Poor for weeks under PB to Very Good in the space of a week under CP

 

[AndyT]

Possibly, but most went from a 5 or 6 to a 7 or 8, based on an improved performance on the day, compared to a not so good performance against Fleetwood, IMHO.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

I am waiting for Mad Cyril's word on this before I come to a final decision!

 

[AndyT]

1 - the player should not have bothered getting the shirt dirty
2 - the player looks like and plays like Barry Conlon
3 - very poor performance - perhaps an awful or game changing mistake
4 - the player was off their game
5 - a reasonable/average/okay performance
6 - player had a good game
7 - player had a good game with a couple of pieces of excellence
8 - a dynamic performance from a player that changed the game and the result
9 - this player is the new Collymore/Cadette/Eastwood/Spinner/Sansome/Butler/Leonard

Fair points, but for me, player ratings are a lot more simplistic than that :-

5 - Had a poor game
6 - Performed slightly below average
7 - Performed as you would expect him to
8 - Performed slightly above average
9 - Had an excellent game

4 and 10 are back-ups for spectacular performances. Maybe scoring 4 or 5 goals or not bothering at all and giving up.

Most players fit between 5 and 9 and the majority between 6 and 8, with the odd half mark here and there, maybe just to shade them above a similar performance from someone else.

That said, no-one is tied to specific scales, hence why markings on here can vary quite a bit and why we all mark differently.

 

[fatgrandad]

I am Average. And so is my wife.

Oh wait...for a minute I thought I'd said that out loud.

 

[AndyT]

:smile:

I'm marking you 7 out of 10 for that post!

 

[Napster]

Nope, it's normal using a 4 to 10 span.

8 isn't "way above average" if 7 is the average. It's just above average. 10 is "way above average".

But 7 isn't the average. If anything it's the mode.

 

[rigsby]

I'm marking you 7 out of 10 for that post!

It was ok but certainly not worth more than a 6

 

[AndyT]

But 7 isn't the average. If anything it's the mode.

Apologies, 7 is the mean on a range of 4 to 10. There is no mode on an initial marking range.

Based on 98.94% of ratings being between 5 and 9, then 7 is also the average, so in essence it's the same figure and how I base my ratings for any match. In that respect, I agree, it's also most likely to be the mode, in that instance.

However, the mean is your starting point, so if we are using a range of 2 to 10, then the mean is 6 and on 0 to 10 it's 5.

It depends what range people are working with on here. Personally, I'm working with 4 to 10, because that's the span that most football matches have been historically rated on, but obviously people see things differently and use a different range to me.

No issue with that, of course.

However, it's then wrong to pick up on people rating with certain marks, if they are using a different marking range, which is more my point and the whole initial thrust of this thread.

Hope that makes sense.