Ratings Surveys : Bristol City Survey Open

[SaintRam]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

It's interesting that our defenders have the best ratings and that the highest mark is only 6.68. Those stats would suggest we have been fighting relegation not battling for promotion.

I think it mirrors the general negativity that has been flooding the forum since the turn of the year, though. Not unexpected at all.

[sage]

5 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

I think it mirrors the general negativity that has been flooding the forum since the turn of the year, though. Not unexpected at all.

I wonder if next season there ought to be a guide to ratings. Certainly a definition of what score merits an average performance. If different people think 5.6 or 7 represents and average score then it will never truly represent the team's performance, just set up an hierarchical points difference between players.

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

I wonder if next season there ought to be a guide to ratings. Certainly a definition of what score merits an average performance. If different people think 5.6 or 7 represents and average score then it will never truly represent the team's performance, just set up an hierarchical points difference between players.

I think we should have that, yeah.

Personally I put 6 as the default

[Boycie]

Well done Dav

just remember to save it on a floppy disk??

[sage]

2 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

I think we should have that, yeah.

Personally I put 6 as the default

I think it would help. I'm not sure if a full guide would work but it could stop or cut down the ridiculous extreme scores.

I don't think I've given anyone below a 3 and even a 3 was maybe just once.

[davenportram]

25 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Well done Dav

just remember to save it on a floppy disk??

I prefer hard ones

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, davenportram said:

I prefer hard ones

Beggars can't be mate, beggars can't be.

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, SaintRam said:

I think we should have that, yeah.

Personally I put 6 as the default

I'd leave it as it was this season. The general trend will be up or down. It's very much about how people's personal perceptions are rather than for anyone to try to guide anyone else.

[SaintRam]

Just now, GboroRam said:

I'd leave it as it was this season. The general trend will be up or down. It's very much about how people's personal perceptions are rather than for anyone to try to guide anyone else.

Yeah, of course, but the idea is the overall average we get is pretty meaningless because we don't know where everyone's minds are on what is a good, average or bad score.

For example if I were to give 7s (just to make things more clear) to people I thought had done decidedly average. What I thought was expected of them, no more, no less; But the majority of people score 5 for that. I'm going to see a forum average close to 5 and my perception of that is that everyone else thinks they were ****.

You see what I mean?

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, SaintRam said:

Yeah, of course, but the idea is the overall average we get is pretty meaningless because we don't know where everyone's minds are on what is a good, average or bad score.

For example if I were to give 7s (just to make things more clear) to people I thought had done decidedly average. What I thought was expected of them, no more, no less; But the majority of people score 5 for that. I'm going to see a forum average close to 5 and my perception of that is that everyone else thinks they were ****.

You see what I mean?

I do, but your idea of average will be different from my idea of average.

As long as you are consistent in what approach you take, it doesn't matter. There's no benchmark of a "decent" game or SI unit of decent football - it's 100% opinion driven anyway. For every time someone over scores a rating someone will under score it. The average over time will tell a tale, and the general trend. There's no line that marks performing satisfactorily.

[Boycie]

Shall we have guide lines on max scores for various players, like max of 6 for christie?

or the Weimann selection not working and only puts a 2 no matter what?

[SaintRam]

7 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Shall we have guide lines on max scores for various players, like max of 6 for christie?

or the Weimann selection not working and only puts a 2 no matter what?

I just think we should set a number for what people put if they think a player is entirely average. No more or no less than expected. 5, 6, whatever.

It's still peoples opinion on whether or not that player was average, above average, below average, but at least that way we'd be sure that if EVERYONE thought a player was bang average, they'd all put the same number. We don't have that at the moment. 

[sage]

10 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Shall we have guide lines on max scores for various players, like max of 6 for christie?

or the Weimann selection not working and only puts a 2 no matter what?

I think Christie averages around 6.5 from me and Weimann around 5.5. Not far from their scores on the averages.

I might be sad and keep my own personal ratings and see how they compare over time. To see if different people see different things in different players.

 

[davenportram]

People ratings should go from 1 being put his boots on the right feet but did nothing else right up to 10 being outstanding fulfilled his role totally and showed himself to be the best he could be.

 

how people rate in between is personal judgement. One persons average performance could be another persons below average.

 

I'm with the leave it as is choice, but that relies on people not being numpties and deliberately voting players down.

at the end of the day this seasons averages seem to show that while results were good at times noone has been super impressed with performances on a whole. Seems pretty accurate to me.

[sage]

Our players in ratings order are                                                   Whereas our voting for POTS goes

Keogh                                                                                            Keogh

Thorne and Butterfield                                                                   Carson

Warnock and Shackell                                                                   Martin

Shackell                                                                                         Christie                                 

Forsyth                                                                                           Shackell

Carson                                                                                            Ince

Christie                                                                                           Butterfield

Martin                                                                                             Russell and Thorne

Grant

Olsson

Ince

Johnson

Bryson

Hanson

Hendrick

Russell

Baird

Weimann

Bent

Blackman

 

This seems to confirm Keogh's position, suggest Thorne and Butterfield are consistent and Martin and to some extent Christie and Ince split opinions. 

[davenportram]

7 minutes ago, sage said:

Our players in ratings order are                                                   Whereas our voting for POTS goes

Keogh                                                                                            Keogh

Thorne and Butterfield                                                                   Carson

Warnock and Shackell                                                                   Martin

Shackell                                                                                         Christie                                 

Forsyth                                                                                           Shackell

Carson                                                                                            Ince

Christie                                                                                           Butterfield

Martin                                                                                             Russell and Thorne

Grant

Olsson

Ince

Johnson

Bryson

Hanson

Hendrick

Russell

Baird

Weimann

Bent

Blackman

 

This seems to confirm Keogh's position, suggest Thorne and Butterfield are consistent and Martin and to some extent Christie and Ince split opinions. 

Some players appear out of order in the rating compared to player of the year voting because they haven't played enough games to get into the running for POTY

[davenportram]

Just had a thought about voting for next season that may work. I could give written descriptions of performance and then use a weighted average to convert it into a numerical rating.

 

ie

DogShit = 1

Was he playing? (ie never noticed good or bad) = 2  

Not good enough = 3

Okay(ish) = 4

What I expect = 5

As expected plus an amazing tackle  = 6 

Not great but I like him = 7

He scored a goal = 8

He scored two goals = 9

Jake Buxtonesque  = 10

 

Seriously though this could work if you could make the descriptions short enough to go on the survey.

 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, davenportram said:

Some players appear out of order in the rating compared to player of the year voting because they haven't played enough games to get into the running for POTY

Yes. I didn't mention them. It's interesting that Martin is 7th in the regular players and almost  equal 2nd in the POTS

[davenportram]

26 minutes ago, sage said:

Yes. I didn't mention them. It's interesting that Martin is 7th in the regular players and almost  equal 2nd in the POTS

 

The tables above show the ratings for players with over 30 appearances (to eliminate the players with high ratings but low appearances that would never feature in the POTS voting) and the POTS voting.

As you can see the list of players is similar and the players out of position are Hendrick, Butterfield, Thorne, Carson and Johnson. 

 

I think Butterfield benefits from scoring a few goals and not playing in some of the dross performances.

Martins ratings faultered because of his dry spell.

Carson, well keepers never get high ratings unless they make 24 saves and keep a clean sheet week in week out.

Hendrick is high on the ratings because he kept on doing what he does. Average at Best

Russell is so low because he had some amres early on and is only just getting his form back, plus he was a sub a lot and subs never get high ratings. (12 sub appearances and 30 starts)

Thorne has high rating but not in the POTS running because of injury

[Boycie]

Trouble is, everyone sees the game different to each other, some players may not shine to one supporter because they didn't score, but maybe they did the basics very well and possibly set up two goals?  Some may forget the assists, some may forget a last minute saving tackle.

i think letting the individual pick their own rating from 1-10 depending on their personal view is the only way to go.  Giving examples of a 6 score is fine, but what if the member sees the players input different? It'll still be lower or higher than the person who sets the level.

i can see what you're trying to do, but everyone's opinion is different isn't it?