criticalanalysis
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 6,197
And a 100% reason to remember the name.97% Beckham, 2% Sherringham, 1% Ole.
And a 100% reason to remember the name.97% Beckham, 2% Sherringham, 1% Ole.
No, I dont care what youre saying, because what youre talking about was never my point. You dragged me into this conversation by misunderstanding what I was saying. Which was that 1.9% conversation (or 4 goals from 208 corners)might look bad on paper. But the reality is that is the pretty much average. Any other topic has nothing to do with me.I know all of the above and have said as much in other posts. You've misunderstood what I was saying.
The issue I had was your contention that being awarded less corners was the reason for scoring a higher percentage of them which is nonsense. You specifically highlighted that part of my post and insinuated I didn't under basic maths.
Even now you're continuing to explain to me how percentages are calculated. Yes it's been discussed before and teams at the bottom of the table practice corners and set pieces a lot more than the top clubs.
No, I dont care what youre saying, because what youre talking about was never my point. You dragged me into this conversation by misunderstanding what I was saying. Which was that 1.9% conversation (or 4 goals from 208 corners)might look bad on paper. But the reality is that is the pretty much average. Any other topic has nothing to do with me.
Once again, I didnt assume any causality. Thats on you and the other guy determined to change my point from what it was. You can argue factors all you like, I didnt. I simply posted what the stats were for that year and how they lined up against us and the idea that WE ALONE are shit at converting corners. When in reality we are around the average.No issue with the numbers, just with the causality you assumed. And that causality is an attempt of an explanation, it is not math in itself.
Yup, dont admit you made a mistake. Just post a smily and keep on trucking. Welcome to the block.
Read the conversation again. I didn't make a mistake. G'd luck.Yup, dont admit you made a mistake. Just post a smily and keep on trucking. Welcome to the block.
from the linked github page, I'd like to point out:In another thread, @Classical Mechanic posted the Reddit post below - more fuel for the idea that pump-the-ball-into-the-box corners may not be the optimal way to use corner kicks.
That cut-off leaves out a lot of ways for that pump-the-ball-into-the-box corner to turn into a goal (or a penalty).Question: What is considered as a "goal from corner"?
Answer: In this project only "the second touch goals" is analysed.
That mean the simplest scheme: Cross from corner -> Shot. No 3rd touch. No intermediate passes. No direct goals from the corner spot. Why? Cause statszone represents data only in that manner.
Me too... How someone using the word "because" can deny that he talked about causalities is surely beyond me.I've tried explaining this about three times but he's sticking to the point that getting more corners means you score a lower % of them and that's somehow maths. I'm baffled.
Yeah, it's a fuzzy concept. You'd need to have a clear cut-off though, cause a short corner can also soon lead to a play in the box - so you have to been able to separate the two for meaningful statistics.from the linked github page, I'd like to point out:
That cut-off leaves out a lot of ways for that pump-the-ball-into-the-box corner to turn into a goal (or a penalty).
Yup indeed.Yeah, it's a fuzzy concept. You'd need to have a clear cut-off though, cause a short corner can also soon lead to a play in the box - so you have to been able to separate the two for meaningful statistics.