Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[Mr Dilkington]

For what it's worth I wrote this article on Darwin nearly 2 years ago when it became clear we were going to sign him: https://dilksmused.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-darwin-nunez

The following is a paragraph from that article:

When a player overperforms their xG by as much as Núñez did last season, it’s tempting to put it down to the player just being a great finisher, however using single season samples to draw sweeping conclusions about a player’s finishing skill is a fool’s game. The truth is, you need multiple seasons worth of data to be confident about finishing skill. Which players would I confidently describe as great finishers? Son Hueng-Min? definitely. Harry Kane? yes. Lionel Messi? obviously. Núñez? maybe.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

Well, I was trying to say that his xG stats bear out what we see on the pitch (I had no knowledge of his xG stats until I checked just now): that he's missing lots of chances we'd expect him to finish. Isn't that what xG gives us an indication of? And he's been missing lots of chances across 2 seasons - we can see that without stats, and that is what many people will be judging him on, particularly when we really need clinical finishing right now.

[Kop Kings]

For what it's worth I wrote this article on Darwin nearly 2 years ago when it became clear we were going to sign him: https://dilksmused.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-darwin-nunez

The following is a paragraph from that article:

When a player overperforms their xG by as much as Núñez did last season, it’s tempting to put it down to the player just being a great finisher, however using single season samples to draw sweeping conclusions about a player’s finishing skill is a fool’s game. The truth is, you need multiple seasons worth of data to be confident about finishing skill. Which players would I confidently describe as great finishers? Son Hueng-Min? definitely. Harry Kane? yes. Lionel Messi? obviously. Núñez? maybe.

and since that article he has proven himself to be an inconsistent finisher and maybe not the long term 9 who we can build our attack around. Sorted.

[Cpt_Reina]

How much does assessing potential replacements for any player looking solely at their numbers take in to consideration the coaching element of football?

Seems to me as a layman on the subject that this methodology sacrifices if not entirely throws away a significant element of the sport.

How much in the data is it drawn out if a player is playing in especially unfavourable conditions? Poor coaching, playing out of position, being used in ways which don't benefit their skills, team has had an especially bad run of injuries which is affecting output, team sold its most creative player and never replaced them etc.

Seems like looking at output, even underlying output, doesn't take these things in to consideration much if at all?

Is it not a great recipe for overlooking talent that's being wasted if you're approaching recruitment *only* from looking at their numbers?

Unless I'm mistaken.

Not Darwin related especially I don't think he'll be moved on, nor do I want him to be, just trying to understand this 'look at the numbers across Europe who could possibly replace him? ' stance.

[RyanBabel19]

For what it's worth I wrote this article on Darwin nearly 2 years ago when it became clear we were going to sign him: https://dilksmused.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-darwin-nunez

The following is a paragraph from that article:

When a player overperforms their xG by as much as Núñez did last season, it’s tempting to put it down to the player just being a great finisher, however using single season samples to draw sweeping conclusions about a player’s finishing skill is a fool’s game. The truth is, you need multiple seasons worth of data to be confident about finishing skill. Which players would I confidently describe as great finishers? Son Hueng-Min? definitely. Harry Kane? yes. Lionel Messi? obviously. Núñez? maybe.

Is confidently describing players as great finishers that much different from some of the stuff that’s been shot down in this very thread?

[Sonofthewind]

Christ it's like banging your head against the wall with the Nunez thing.

People who think he isn't elite or good enough to be here, who are you replacing him with? Someone who presumably has better output in terms of goals and assists and is attainable.

I wait with baited breath because so far no one has come up with a name.

Isak was shouted yesterday but as is clear by their numbers, he would likely be a downgrade.

So I will continue to wait for all these players we can sign to replace Nunez.

Completely agree on the point regarding the numbers. There are few proposed replacements that have convincing numbers which make a credible case for an upgrade.

However, I do assume that the club ( who have access to a thousand more stats than we probably do when looking at projections) are also considering potential. Would Roma's Salah, or Southampton's Mane have had the same numbers as Kane or Alexis Sanchez. I honestly don't know, but would be inclined to guess not. Happy to be proved wrong.

So I do think something gets lost looking at the raw numbers that are not just goals and project out how good someone can be. But the projection idea also applies to Nunez. So the club may be looking at his already high base and think theres even more to come. Which can be really exciting.

[Mr Dilkington]

Is confidently describing players as great finishers that much different from some of the stuff that’s been shot down in this very thread?

Yeah when I read that back I wasn't sure. Wouldn't be as sure if I wrote the same piece today.

[Caligula?]

He has the worst big chance conversion rate (19.4%) across Europe's top 5 leagues this season.

Whichever way you want to look at it, that's really poor.

[Mr Dilkington]

How much does assessing potential replacements for any player looking solely at their numbers take in to consideration the coaching element of football?

Seems to me as a layman on the subject that this methodology sacrifices if not entirely throws away a significant element of the sport.

How much in the data is it drawn out if a player is playing in especially unfavourable conditions? Poor coaching, playing out of position, being used in ways which don't benefit their skills, team has had an especially bad run of injuries which is affecting output, team sold its most creative player and never replaced them etc.

Seems like looking at output, even underlying output, doesn't take these things in to consideration much if at all?

Is it not a great recipe for overlooking talent that's being wasted if you're approaching recruitment *only* from looking at their numbers?

Unless I'm mistaken.

Not Darwin related especially I don't think he'll be moved on, nor do I want him to be, just trying to understand this 'look at the numbers across Europe who could possibly replace him? ' stance.

All that stuff matters and can of course have an effect on a player's output, that's where you need to watch the player within a system, see how they're being used etc. but typically the numbers will be there. For example Salah mostly played in a front 2 at Roma and we obviously never had any intention of playing him in a front two for the most part, but all the numbers were there in terms of shots, shot assists, high quality shots, the speed and ability to be an outlet etc.

In general though this idea that people who are into analytics only care about the numbers is wrong. Most analytically inclined people still think you need to pair the data with the eye-test.

[Mr Dilkington]

and since that article he has proven himself to be an inconsistent finisher and maybe not the long term 9 who we can build our attack around. Sorted.

Genius.

[Cpt_Reina]

All that stuff matters and can of course have an effect on a player's output, that's where you need to watch the player within a system, see how they're being used etc. but typically the numbers will be there. For example Salah mostly played in a front 2 at Roma and we obviously never had any intention of playing him in a front two for the most part, but all the numbers were there in terms of shots, shot assists, high quality shots, the speed and ability to be an outlet etc.

In general though this idea that people who are into analytics only care about the numbers is wrong. Most analytically inclined people still think you need to pair the data with the eye-test.

Right. That's when the numbers are there, the Salah case. But what about when they're not necessarily? I mean roma in the Salah years were pretty good, Spaletti coached, finished 3rd and 2nd. But bad teams have good players on them too.

So a player with sub Darwin numbers could absolutely match his productivity? Should they step in to a more favourable situation, better teammates, better system, better coaching?

Then is it not kind of a bad faith argument to only be presenting players with similar numbers as those who might step in? Where's the eye test?

[Kop Kings]

Genius.

where's the wrong?

[Mr Dilkington]

Right. That's when the numbers are there, the Salah case. But what about when they're not necessarily? I mean roma in the Salah years were pretty good, Spaletti coached, finished 3rd and 2nd. But bad teams have good players on them too.

So a player with sub Darwin numbers could absolutely match his productivity? Should they step in to a more favourable situation, better teammates, better system, better coaching?

Then is it not kind of a bad faith argument to only be presenting players with similar numbers as those who might step in? Where's the eye test?

It's a question that has been posed before. I know Michael Caley is going to do some work on the effect (if any) team quality has on an individual's numbers.

On an intuitive level I am sceptical is has anything more than a negligible difference on player output but obviously willing to be proved wrong if Caley/other people have done studies that show otherwise.

[Mr Dilkington]

where's the wrong?

Read the last 5-10 pages.

[Kop Kings]

Read the last 5-10 pages.

Yeah I have, and absolutely no metric or stat you have posted has changed my opinion on him being an inconsistent finisher and lacking composure. I mean, for god sake, you have been watching him for the last 2 years, too, how on earth could you come to any other conclusion?

[Sonofthewind]

It's a question that has been posed before. I know Michael Caley is going to do some work on the effect (if any) team quality has on an individual's numbers.

On an intuitive level I am sceptical is has anything more than a negligible difference on player output but obviously willing to be proved wrong if Caley/other people have done studies that show otherwise.

Is that the football parlance of "More than the sum of it's parts"? As that always struck me as one of Jurgen's massive strengths.

[RyanBabel19]

Yeah when I read that back I wasn't sure. Wouldn't be as sure if I wrote the same piece today.

Wasn’t sure on what and wouldn’t be as sure of what?

[Mr Dilkington]

Yeah I have, and absolutely no metric or stat you have posted has changed my opinion on him being an inconsistent finisher and lacking composure. I mean, for god sake, you have been watching him for the last 2 years, too, how on earth could you come to any other conclusion?

Good luck to you.

[PaleBlueDot]

Yeah I have, and absolutely no metric or stat you have posted has changed my opinion on him being an inconsistent finisher and lacking composure. I mean, for god sake, you have been watching him for the last 2 years, too, how on earth could you come to any other conclusion?

Some watch with their eyes. Some watch the numbers. That's just how it is.

I use my eyes and feel there's more wrong with him than the potential his numbers are showing. Lack of football IQ, overall play, shot selection etc. I'm of the opinion that whilst he can improve it is likely he is not and never will be no.9 for LFC level.

Wouldn't be mad at giving him one more chance under another manager but that's where I'm still at.

Some people genuinely think he is elite and will be because of certain stats. Opinions are opinions. Fanbase is very divided regarding him.

[Mr Dilkington]

Wasn’t sure on what and wouldn’t be as sure of what?

Wouldn't be so confident in saying X player is a great finisher. The players I mentioned are but there are only a handful I'd feel confident saying that about.

And in any case I don't think it's that important relative to other things.

[Knight]

Yeah I have, and absolutely no metric or stat you have posted has changed my opinion on him being an inconsistent finisher and lacking composure. I mean, for god sake, you have been watching him for the last 2 years, too, how on earth could you come to any other conclusion?

Because over his career he basically scores the amount of goals he's meant to? Because he's finished superbly plenty of times for us? Because he's been insanely unlucky this season and still put up really good numbers? Because you should trust your eyes less about finishing skill given we can be pretty sure now that it's much less important than people make it out to be?

[Mr Dilkington]

Some watch with their eyes. Some watch the numbers. That's just how it is.

I use my eyes and feel there's more wrong with him than the potential his numbers are showing. Lack of football IQ, overall play, shot selection etc. I'm of the opinion that whilst he can improve it is likely he is not and never will be no.9 for LFC level.

Wouldn't be mad at giving him one more chance under another manager but that's where I'm still at.

Some people genuinely think he is elite and will be because of certain stats. Opinions are opinions. Fanbase is very divided regarding him.

I literally just posted a link to an article I wrote (not that you need to read it) which was a blend of stats and eye-test stuff - in fact more eye-test than stats.

[PaleBlueDot]

I literally just posted a link to an article I wrote (not that you need to read it) which was a blend of stats and eye-test stuff - in fact more eye-test than stats.

Sure, I read it and thought it was a good read. Post wasn't aimed at you but it's a bit like that in general in here.

[CowboyKangaroo]

Yeah when I read that back I wasn't sure. Wouldn't be as sure if I wrote the same piece today.

I think your comments were correct. The players listed perform above their expected goals consistently such that there is reasonable confidence that they are good finishers. The concept of being a good or bad finisher isn't obsolete. The proposition is instead that them being good finishers has only a very small effect on their goal-scoring ability, and being a good or bad finisher is far less important than other factors. The issue is that people look at Nunez and say he is a bad finisher. He may well be (though the numbers do not back this up - his career average is very close to his xG), but in the long run he will likely only lose a few goals over the course of many seasons by being a bad finisher and people focusing on his 'finishing' ability are spectacularly missing the point. Further to this, his 'poor finishing' in one competition and one competition alone is far more likely to be variance than actual finishing ability.

[Cpt_Reina]

It's a question that has been posed before. I know Michael Caley is going to do some work on the effect (if any) team quality has on an individual's numbers.

On an intuitive level I am sceptical is has anything more than a negligible difference on player output but obviously willing to be proved wrong if Caley/other people have done studies that show otherwise.

Do we really need a study to tell us that environmental factors can impact player output?

What is coaching/management if not the adjustment and cultivating of an environment to either favourably or adversely affect a players output?

Seems absolutely incredibly to me you'd claim such things were negligible.

Am I understanding right? Is this to say that the difference in a strikers impact, and output at Everton under Dyche and Liverpool under Klopp would be negligible?

[Knight]

I think your comments were correct. The players listed perform above their expected goals consistently such that there is reasonable confidence that they are good finishers. The concept of being a good or bad finisher isn't obsolete. The proposition is instead that them being good finishers has only a very small effect on their goal-scoring ability, and being a good or bad finisher is far less important than other factors. The issue is that people look at Nunez and say he is a bad finisher. He may well be (though the numbers do not back this up - his career average is very close to his xG), but in the long run he will likely only lose a few goals over the course of many seasons by being a bad finisher and people focusing on his 'finishing' ability are spectacularly missing the point. Further to this, his 'poor finishing' in one competition and one competition alone is far more likely to be variance than actual finishing ability.

I think this has been said, or a variation of, on every page for about 20 pages and people just ignore it. Great explanation mind.

[PaleBlueDot]

Because over his career he basically scores the amount of goals he's meant to? Because he's finished superbly plenty of times for us? Because he's been insanely unlucky this season and still put up really good numbers? Because you should trust your eyes less about finishing skill given we can be pretty sure now that it's much less important than people make it out to be?

You're stating thing that are subjective again.

Insanely unlucky - A lot would disagree and think at some point its not unlucky just the norm.
Still put up really good numbers - I don't think 11 Premier League Goals from 103 shots is really good.

Lastly - "you shouldn't trust your eyes" is the most wild thing I have read on these forums.

[Mr Dilkington]

Sure, I read it and thought it was a good read. Post wasn't aimed at you but it's a bit like that in general in here.

Fair enough add thanks. Even still I think it's unfair to say Liverpool fans on here who like stats don't watch the game. We all watch most/all the games I think.

[Redley]

 

Even if you're just going by the 'eye test' then you can still see he's creating and getting a shit tonne of chances. He's hit the woodwork 9 times just in the league this season. Just at his current level with a smidge more luck he'd be sitting on like 15-20 league goals. Thats not someone you decide isn't working, and sell so you can 'sign someone more clinical'.

[Knight]

You're stating thing that are subjective again.

Insanely unlucky - A lot would disagree and think at some point its not unlucky just the norm.
Still put up really good numbers - I don't think 11 Premier League Goals from 103 shots is really good.

Lastly - "you shouldn't trust your eyes" is the most wild thing I have read on these forums.

You on the other hand are the bastion of dispassionate objectivity calling players with elite level production donkeys.
Re scored the number of goals he's supposed to - that's his career xG. Objective.
Re unlucky - do you know how often he's hit the woodwork? He's been very unlucky.
Re good numbers - having lots of high value shots is a GOOD THING and until you realise this you're always going to struggle to understand the game of football properly. But it should be easy to find a replacement for Nunez putting up better non pen goals per 90 and better assists per 90 than Nunez give he's not putting up good numbers so I look forward to hearing your suggestions. So yes, again, objective.
Re eyes - yeah it's the reason people have such wildly different takes on a game of football. If people went back after the fact and rewatched after the stress and adrenaline had calmed down it'd be better but this thread is an object lesson in a player bearing the brunt of an overspill of frustration from a fan base who've just seen their hopes of a title probably go down the drain.

[Eeyore]

Yeah I have, and absolutely no metric or stat you have posted has changed my opinion on him being an inconsistent finisher and lacking composure. I mean, for god sake, you have been watching him for the last 2 years, too, how on earth could you come to any other conclusion?

Did you miss the bit where Suarez was an inconsistent finisher and was lacking composure?

Just before he turned into a goal machine. For a striker of his type then Nunez's best years are almost certainly ahead of him. Given that there are all kinds of things that are likely to improve in his game.

[Eeyore]

Even if you're just going by the 'eye test' then you can still see he's creating and getting a shit tonne of chances. He's hit the woodwork 9 times just in the league this season. Just at his current level with a smidge more luck he'd be sitting on like 15-20 league goals. Thats not someone you decide isn't working, and sell so you can 'sign someone more clinical'.

Put him on penalties and you can add three or four to that.

[RyanBabel19]

Wouldn't be so confident in saying X player is a great finisher. The players I mentioned are but there are only a handful I'd feel confident saying that about.

And in any case I don't think it's that important relative to other things.

Okay so out of interest, what has changed in the last 2 years?

[CowboyKangaroo]

I think this has been said, or a variation of, on every page for about 20 pages and people just ignore it. Great explanation mind.

Fair point. My work has conditioned me to repeat (what is in my view) a sound argument until rebutted or accepted.

[Mr Dilkington]

Do we really need a study to tell us that environmental factors can impact player output?

What is coaching/management if not the adjustment and cultivating of an environment to either favourably or adversely affect a players output?

Seems absolutely incredibly to me you'd claim such things were negligible.

Am I understanding right? Is this to say that the difference in a strikers impact, and output at Everton under Dyche and Liverpool under Klopp would be negligible?

Sure it can, I just said that. I just think the effect is negligible for the most part.

Depends how they were used. Some strikers might perform better at Everton - if their skillset was suited to attacking crosses, winning flick ons etc.

Out of interest, how many players can you think of that went to a big team and their own individual numbers went to a different level? And how confident can we be it's as a result of going to a stronger team vs natural improvement through age?

Again though I think you're falling into the trap Ian Graham talks about.

[Mr Dilkington]

Okay so out of interest, what has changed in the last 2 years?

I've learned more about the nature of finishing ability.

[Cpt_Reina]

Sure it can, I just said that. I just think the effect is negligible for the most part.

The why do we place any such importance on coaching?

If all you need to do to assemble a squad that's going to be successful is put players on the pitch who's underlying numbers add up to it why bother even having one?

[CowboyKangaroo]

Lastly - "you shouldn't trust your eyes" is the most wild thing I have read on these forums.

Is it? What we see is only a small part of the picture. We spot patterns where there are none, or miss valuable things all the time. Its subject to biases, irrationality and flawed memory. In any scientific endeavour, eye-witness testimony is always considered the worst form of evidence.

Numbers cut through that. If what is being measured can be measured effectively, and is the right measure, it is infinitely preferable to one's eyes.

[Mr Dilkington]

The why do we place any such importance on coaching?

If all you need to do to assemble a squad that's going to be successful is put players on the pitch who's underlying numbers add up to it why bother even having one?

It's a good question. There's a reason that wage bill correlates so strongly to success.

I think the effect of coaching is largely overrated, though the truly elite ones like Guardiola and Klopp of course make a difference.

In general though I think there's a huge cohort of managers in the middle that are largely interchangeable and all will achieve or fail based on the talent at their disposal.

[Bennett]

It's like the last 5 pages haven't happened. Utterly pointless.

Internet forums in a nutshell to be fair.