Players by average rating

[Albert]

I don't really know what to do with this exactly, so here it is, no analysis or discussion beyond the description:

I have rated players by their points per game for games they have started in under Nigel Clough, players who have less than 10 starts have been discounted, whilst those with under 25 starts have been calculated but not used for any kind of ranking below. Rather than talking about every position the players have been sorted into 4 groups; Keepers, Defenders, Midfielders, Forwards. Please note that all games are taken into account including cup games, which for the sake of calculation are given a points scored based on the outcome of the match, which may be different to the final score (that is, a win on penalties is counted as 3 points, a loss 0). For each played on the ranked list there will be 4 numbers written in the form:

Nth: Captain Exampleman - 1.33±0.23 ppg (30 starts)

Here the first number (Nth in this case) is the rank of the player out of the list, with 1st being the highest or "best" in this case. The second (here 1.33) is the average points per game (ppg) of the player. After the points per game is another number after a plusminus symbol (in this case 0.23), this is the standard error of the value. Finally, in the brackets is the number of games started as used in the calculation (in this case 30). So, here are the lists:

Goalkeepers:

1st: Frank Fielding - 1.36±0.16 ppg (72 starts)

2nd Stephen Bywater - 1.14±0.13 ppg (93 starts)

Players below the 25 start cutoff: Adam Legzdins (14 starts)

Defenders:

1st: Jay McEveley - 1.40±0.21 ppg (40 starts)

2nd: Jason Shackell - 1.38±0.20 ppg (48 starts)

3rd: Jake Buxton - 1.27±0.19 ppg (49 starts)

4th: John Brayford - 1.26±0.14 ppg (95 starts)

5th: Dean Moxey - 1.21±0.19 ppg (52 starts)

6th: Gareth Roberts - 1.20±0.14 ppg (83 starts)

7th: Shaun Barker - 1.17±0.13 ppg (100 starts)

-th: Dean Leacock - 1.17±0.22 ppg (36 starts)

9th: Paul Connolly - 1.07±0.20 ppg (42 starts)

10th: Miles Addison - 0.84±0.21 ppg (32 starts)

Players below the 25 start cutoff: Kevin Kilbane (10 starts), James O'Connor (13 starts), Richard Keogh (23 starts), Mark O'Brien (17 starts), Fredrik Stoor (10 starts), Martin Albrechtsen (23 starts), Nicky Hunt (22 starts), Russell Anderson (18 starts), Lewin Nyatanga (16 starts) and Daniel Ayala (16 starts).

Midfielders:

1st: Craig Bryson - 1.48±0.17 ppg (65 starts)

2nd: Ben Davies - 1.32±0.21 ppg (41 starts)

3rd: Paul Green - 1.31±0.13 ppg (111 starts)

4th: James Bailey - 1.30±0.19 ppg (53 starts)

5th: Jeff Hendrick - 1.23±0.17 ppg (57 starts)

6th: Robbie Savage - 1.19±1.13 ppg (108 starts)

7th: Stephen Pearson - 1.16±0.16 ppg (64 starts)

8th: Gary Teale - 1.04±0.19 ppg (45 starts)

Players below the 25 start cutoff: Nacer Barazite (12 starts), Paul Coutts(22 starts), Will Hughes (22 starts), Michael Tonge (19 starts) and Jake Livermore (11 starts).

Forwards:

1st: Theo Robinson - 1.37±0.17 ppg (65 starts)

2nd: Kris Commons - 1.34±0.18 ppg (56 starts)

3rd: Tomasz Cywka - 1.24±0.25 ppg (29 starts)

4th: Jamie Ward - 1.22±0.17 ppg (58 starts)

5th: Chris Porter - 1.20±0.26 ppg (25 starts)

6th: Rob Hulse - 1.19±0.17 ppg (57 starts)

7th: Steve Davies - 1.18±0.16 ppg (61 starts)

8th: Alberto Bueno - 1.04±0.26 ppg (25 starts)

Players below the 25 start cutoff: Conor Sammon (20 starts), Callum Ball (14 starts), Paul Dickov (10 starts), Nathan Tyson (16 starts) and Lee Croft (21 starts).

Take from that what you will. If anyone spots any errors could they please point them out. Also, when I say errors, I mean spelling mistakes, potential issues with counts etc.

[Ghost of Clough]

I would have thought of Shackell to be the no1 defender?

[randombc]

Interesting so the 'best team' each position would be:

Bywater

Brayford Buxton Shackell McEveley

Davies Bryson Green Pearson

Robinson Commons

Given out fully fit team, the only player I'd have at Derby would be Commons, purely for his match winning ability, bu his commitment is questionable.

Be interesting to see the this at the end of the season, I.e are the players we bought better then the ones that have left.

[RamNut]

Sometimes i worry about poor Albert.

He probably ranked all the girl in his class by tit size.

[Albert]

Additionally, the best team by points per game based on the above lists:

===============Fielding=============

Brayford===Shackell==Buxton===McEveley

===============Bailey==============

B.Davies===Bryson===Green===Commons

===============Theo===============

Oh yeah, Theo on his own up top, that'll do...

[CumbrianRam]

Jay McEveley number 1 defender, should be the worst.

[ramsbottom]

Defenders:

1st: Jay McEveley - 1.40±0.21 ppg (40 starts)

2nd: Jason Shackell - 1.38±0.20 ppg (48 starts)

3rd: Jake Buxton - 1.27±0.19 ppg (49 starts)

4th: John Brayford - 1.26±0.14 ppg (95 starts)

5th: Dean Moxey - 1.21±0.19 ppg (52 starts)

6th: Gareth Roberts - 1.20±0.14 ppg (83 starts)

7th: Shaun Barker - 1.17±0.13 ppg (100 starts)

-th: Dean Leacock - 1.17±0.22 ppg (36 starts)

9th: Paul Connolly - 1.07±0.20 ppg (42 starts)

10th: Miles Addison - 0.84±0.21 ppg (32 starts)

Players below the 25 start cutoff: Kevin Kilbane (10 starts), James O'Connor (13 starts), Richard Keogh (23 starts), Mark O'Brien (17 starts), Fredrik Stoor (10 starts), Martin Albrechtsen (23 starts), Nicky Hunt (22 starts), Russell Anderson (18 starts), Lewin Nyatanga (16 starts) and Daniel Ayala (16 starts).

Additionally, the best team by points per game based on the above lists:

===============Fielding=============

Brayford===Shackell==Buxton===McEveley

===============Bailey==============

B.Davies===Bryson===Green===Commons

===============Theo===============

Oh yeah, Theo on his own up top, that'll do...

Pretty much stalemate between Captain Couragous Barker & Ponytail Leacock. Can we leave that argument alone now Bris?

[Guest]

Think I prefer watching them to determine if they are a good player or not.

If we signed Messi, Rooney and Ronaldo in Jan it would improve the ppp for anybody who played with them.

[Albert]

Jay McEveley number 1 defender, should be the worst.

I just got the data and set up a system to calculate the values, I was as surprised as I'd expect everyone else to be. To be fair, he wasn't that bad of a player, he just had off moments. Still... I have no idea that he managed to be the best defender on that list and second best overall. Keep in mind the error margins though. I'd think that if he's played a Barker/Brayford/Green type number of games he'd not be so high up there.

[EastKentRam]

You've got way too much time on your hands. Hopefully someone else has got has got an equal amount of free time to error check the post.

I'd rather rate players based on what i see them do, rather than what statistics tell me.

It seems rather pointless.

[Duracell]

You've got way too much time on your hands. Hopefully someone else has got has got an equal amount of free time to error check the post.

I'd rather rate players based on what i see them do, rather than what statistics tell me.

It seems rather pointless.

I agree. The fact Jay McEveley comes out on top shows that you can't tell anything from these stats.

Stats can only tell you so much.

10 of us went on holiday to Zante in the summer, but only one of us had sex. You'd think from that that we're all ugly and nervous with women.

Well, if Albert was looking at those figures he'd probably fail to look into the fact that four of us had girlfriends at the time - therefore, only six were free agents. On top of this, some of us ate a meal at a dodgy restauraunt, meaning about half of the free agents missed two nights out, roughly 20% of the total "pulling time" available.

And finally, our hotel was a while from the main strip. The singletons of our group just accepted that the chances of persuading anyone to walk 15 minutes for a dissapointing attempt at love making in a sweaty room full of ants were slim.

Albert, there was so much more to my holiday than the stats suggest.

[sage]

Sometimes i worry about poor Albert.

He probably ranked all the girl in his class by tit size.

And this is a problem because...

[Ghost of Clough]

Sometimes i worry about poor Albert.

He probably ranked all the girl in his class by tit size.

Or he drew a graph comparing tit size and how attractive they are?

[sage]

I agree. The fact Jay McEveley comes out on top shows that you can't tell anything from these stats.

Stats can only tell you so much.

10 of us went on holiday to Zante in the summer, but only one of us had sex. You'd think from that that we're all ugly and nervous with women.

Well, if Albert was looking at those figures he'd probably fail to look into the fact that four of us had girlfriends at the time - therefore, only six were free agents. On top of this, some of us ate a meal at a dodgy restauraunt, meaning about half of the free agents missed two nights out, roughly 20% of the total "pulling time" available.

And finally, our hotel was a while from the main strip. The singletons of our group just accepted that the chances of persuading anyone to walk 15 minutes for a dissapointing attempt at love making in a sweaty room full of ants were slim.

Albert, there was so much more to my holiday than the stats suggest.

It was nice that one of your mates had sex though.

[bcnram]

It was nice that one of your mates had sex though.

To walk 15 minutes to have sex in a sweaty room full of ants the girl must have been desperate or grossly ugly. She clearly wasn't Spanish, Brazilian or Mexican otherwise she would have been far more stylish about it. Great ball control and none of the pumping it forward and shooting as soon as you can like they do in the Championship..................... or am I mixing my threads up here? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' />

[RamNut]

Stats can only tell you so much.

10 of us went on holiday to Zante in the summer, but only one of us had sex. You'd think from that that we're all ugly and nervous with women.

Well, if Albert was looking at those figures he'd probably fail to look into the fact that four of us had girlfriends at the time - therefore, only six were free agents. On top of this, some of us ate a meal at a dodgy restauraunt, meaning about half of the free agents missed two nights out, roughly 20% of the total "pulling time" available.

And finally, our hotel was a while from the main strip. The singletons of our group just accepted that the chances of persuading anyone to walk 15 minutes for a dissapointing attempt at love making in a sweaty room full of ants were slim.

Albert, there was so much more to my holiday than the stats suggest.

Alternatively it could be that you really are all ugly and nervous with women.

[Albert]

I agree. The fact Jay McEveley comes out on top shows that you can't tell anything from these stats.

Stats can only tell you so much.

10 of us went on holiday to Zante in the summer, but only one of us had sex. You'd think from that that we're all ugly and nervous with women.

Well, if Albert was looking at those figures he'd probably fail to look into the fact that four of us had girlfriends at the time - therefore, only six were free agents. On top of this, some of us ate a meal at a dodgy restauraunt, meaning about half of the free agents missed two nights out, roughly 20% of the total "pulling time" available.

And finally, our hotel was a while from the main strip. The singletons of our group just accepted that the chances of persuading anyone to walk 15 minutes for a dissapointing attempt at love making in a sweaty room full of ants were slim.

Albert, there was so much more to my holiday than the stats suggest.

What a silly example.

A sample size of 10 isn't enough to draw any decent conclusion on. Also, what exactly would be analysed here? How does no sex go to "ugly and nervous with women". That's a pretty jump in logic without explanation. You could say that of the small sample size only 1 of the 10 had sex, but that's about it. No way to draw conclusions about anything on that.

The reason I had a look at the average points per game (and the reason I set a lower limit on those to be included) was that if I had any less than other factors would come into play. Over a sufficiently long period of time form, who they are playing with etc. should average out, at least roughly so. Of course, the effect of seasons is something that is hard to account for as they can have huge jumps in the quality of a squad overall and the assumption that over a sufficiently long time other factors cancels out mightn't hold. The question then becomes how to correct for such issues. I have a rough idea on how it could be done in a self consistent way, but it's a bit much for what is here.

Long story short though, it's not like 1 in 10 people having sex on a holiday followed by bizarre assumptions and jumps in logic. Maybe if there were 100 independent people and 10 did, then some kind of analysis might be able to be done. If you could couple that with statistics on people in relationships of any sort and people who would ignore such relationships it might be possible to come to a conclusion of the chances of sex, but that's about it.

[DCFCfranco]

Stats don't say everything Albert. You're telling me that's our best eleven since cough took charge? You may have to re-check your stats.

[-JW-]

Additionally, the best team by points per game based on the above lists:

===============Fielding=============

Brayford===Shackell==Buxton===McEveley

===============Bailey==============

B.Davies===Bryson===Green===Commons

===============Theo===============

Oh yeah, Theo on his own up top, that'll do...

Well that proves that stats often lie.

[Albert]

Stats don't say everything Albert. You're telling me that's our best eleven since cough took charge? You may have to re-check your stats.

It clearly doesn't give the best XI. I'm not saying they say everything, I'm just saying they are what they are.

What I do find interesting is that forgetting the whole McEveley thing, it's not actually that bad. Shackell, Theo and Bryson stand out as you'd expect. The best XI it gives, whilst clearly not the best, still isn't bad. Oddly enough I actually find the reaction to it more interesting than what it says though, as regardless of it being "just stats" or not, that is how these players have performed. That is their record, that is how well the side has done with them in it. You can argue with many things, but it's not as though this is complete rubbish, this does say something. Of course like anything you don't just look at it, decide McEveley was our second best player and go on with your day, but instead keep in context what it is.

Oh well...