Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[JackWard33]

The tone is skeptical, because the post is skeptical.

It's disengenious in the extreme

Do you seriously expect people to believe that you don't think creating shots for others isn't a valuable skill?

I'm sure you get this because it's pretty obvious and you're just trying to make some kind of argument but obviously the ball ..and data model... don't care how the shot is created.. because sparkling play and obvious 5 yard pass a) both still create a shot and b) even out over time across the model .. ie if one player could only do b in easy situations then they'd be out produced by a player that could do a and b

As Knight has said you either accept reversion to the mean on a proven data model or you deny it / don't accept the model
You can't be into it when it suits your argument and not into it when it doesn't

Based on this season in the league only (which people keep doing for some reason) yes you'd expect his assists to drop a bit next season per 90 and his goals to go up a bit per 90 next season .. but who really cares - they're all elite numbers however you slice it

As for fluffing Darwin (?!) ... this is going round and round.. the problem with trying to unpick his production for people that don't rate him is he's really really good / productive at everything you'd want a forward to do .. whether it's top line (actual goals and assists) or underlying shots/goals/shot creation/assists .. or just goals.. or whatever the fuck you like 
I mean maybe if you did one for a scatter plot for scruffy vs stylish he'd do badly but other than tha.t...

[Eeyore]

Again, placement isn't "luck". Nunez deliberately opts for power over placement almost every time he shoots at goal. When you prioritise power, you are more likely to hit the middle of the goal, making it more likely the goalkeeper saves it. Think how many times we have seen him blast the ball down the goalkeeper's throat this often when in a decent position. Too often.

His finish against Norwich in the FA Cup is something we need to see much more often from him. Placement, composure, and using a different part of his foot rather than lacing it every time.

Rodrygo against City would be a good example of luck. He completely mishits his shot, hits the keeper and rebounds perfectly to him. De Bruyne puts his laces through two shots last night first one ends up straight at the keeper but goes in above his head. The second he balloons over the bar. Knowing Darwin's luck the first would have hit the keeper in the face the second would have cannoned off the bar.

If you don't think it is bad luck on Nunez's part then please explain how he can be hitting both the Keeper AND the woodwork too much?

[Eeyore]

I'd agree, but from 100+ shots, it's pretty average at best.

From the piece I posted last night in March 2012 Suarez had 6 League goals from 100 shots. IIRC 15.4 shots per goal.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

The probability for me is that Nunez is creating the kind of chances his team mates are really good at taking. He has created 10 assists for Salah. Quite a lot of those have been when he as been very unselfish and the keeper and defenders expect him to shoot. Probably the clearest example of that would be the 2nd goal versus Everton in the Derby.

He has drawn the defenders and the keeper and rolled a perfectly weighted pass onto Salah's favoured foot. You have a combination of Salah who is exceptional at taking those kinds of chances and a midget keeper who hasn't got the reach to get near the shot. That is Nunez creating an opportunity that is better than its xG because of who is involved and the work Nunez has done.

Yes, I agree with this. Nunez is a magnet. He makes things happen and draws defenders to him. There's no doubting that.

However, I do have some concerns about him as a conventional centre forward. If you watch most of his assists this season, they've usually come from running into the left channel and playing a decent ball across goal. Some are near-post flick-ons at corners, and then there's a few from nice interplay with Salah towards the right.

But there's no doubt he's always liked that left channel. His hold-up play seemed to have improved for a few months, but it's dropped off a cliff again lately. He's creative in his own way, but he's never going to be a Harry Kane type who can consistently drop into pockets and play other players in. I'm not even sure we can expect the ball to stick with him as consistently as it needs to.

So the new manager needs to make a decision on how we format the attack. Do we play with more of a #10, do we move Nunez to the left and try to sign a Bobby type of central forward, or do we use him as a Haaland type of striker who is less involved in general play?

[LallanaInPyjamas]

From the piece I posted last night in March 2012 Suarez had 6 League goals from 100 shots. IIRC 15.4 shots per goal.

Well, like Nunez, he scored 11 goals in 30ish games, so let's compare apples with apples. And that was an average return for sure, but in a far inferior team. Nunez creates plenty for himself, but he's also played through on goal plenty too. Suarez would have returned more than 11 goals in this team, I think we all know that from what we saw under Rodgers.

[JackWard33]

Well, like Nunez, he scored 11 goals in 30ish games,

Nope
I mean this takes 5 bloody seconds to check
If this is the league he's played 20.8 90s

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Nope
I mean this takes 5 bloody seconds to check
If this is the league he's played 20.8 90s

2011/2012    Liverpool   EPL   29(2)   2557            11   goals

[deano2727]

Well, like Nunez, he scored 11 goals in 30ish games, so let's compare apples with apples. And that was an average return for sure, but in a far inferior team. Nunez creates plenty for himself, but he's also played through on goal plenty too. Suarez would have returned more than 11 goals in this team, I think we all know that from what we saw under Rodgers.

Nunez, as exciting as he is and with the potential he has, isn't on the level of Suarez and almost certainly never will be. No shame in that, mind.

[Knight]

If you're constantly hitting the ball at the middle of the goal, that's not variance. It's bad placement. I don't mind when I see him hit the crossbar. Like Suarez in 2011-12, that can be put down much more to variance and bad luck. But you're never going to consistently find the back of the net when hitting the ball within reach of a professional goalkeeper. Just ask Bernardo Silva.

Good to hear given he's hit the woodwork a (potentially, I don't have the exact numbers) unprecedented amount this season. Half of those go in and it's a totally different conversation. The, 'he needs to improve his finishing' posters probably wouldn't even exist.

Re 'hitting it at the GK'... the thing is GKs move, both toward and away from the ball (sometimes their weight is taking them left as the ball heads back to the right and they don't have time to adjust). Often (not always) it's only hindsight that tells you that a player 'hit the ball at the GK'.

Here's a thesis. Football is a simple game when it comes to scoring goals. You need to be good at getting the ball in places where a high value shot is possible and be good enough to actually be able to take the high value shot when you get it there. After that you'll maybe gain a couple of goals a season if you're a 'good' finisher, and miss out on a couple of goals a season if you're a bad finisher. But that's it and variance will probably obscure whether you're a 'good' or 'bad' finisher anyway. That is, the poor finisher might get lucky. The good finisher might be unlucky.

[Redley]

I'd agree, but from 100+ shots, it's pretty average at best.

And I guess this is where we go back around in the circle, because I'd look more at the fact he's getting that many shots in the first place and expect that if he gets that many shots consistently the chances are he'll be scoring more than he is currently in the future.

[JackWard33]

2011/2012    Liverpool   EPL   29(2)   2557            11   goals

My bad apologies .. thought you meant Nunez this season (who has 11 goals from 30 appearances which has been consistently misrepped as '1 in 3' when he's actually at 1 in 2)

PTSD from seeing too much utter chutney in this thread

[LallanaInPyjamas]

And I guess this is where we go back around in the circle, because I'd look more at the fact he's getting that many shots in the first place and expect that if he gets that many shots consistently the chances are he'll be scoring more than he is currently in the future.

Well, I don't disagree. He'll definitely do better than this season *some* seasons. He's better than 10% conversion rate.

I guess what Nunez's biggest detractors would ask is, how confident would you be that he consistently does? That's what it all comes down to. How much faith do you have in him firing us to glory. I really like him, he's fucking fantastic to watch and we should definitely be keeping him around, but if I was being paid to manage this football club I certainly wouldn't be "building a team around him" in hope that bad luck and variance turns around.

[Eeyore]

Well, like Nunez, he scored 11 goals in 30ish games, so let's compare apples with apples. And that was an average return for sure, but in a far inferior team. Nunez creates plenty for himself, but he's also played through on goal plenty too. Suarez would have returned more than 11 goals in this team, I think we all know that from what we saw under Rodgers.

I think the 11/12 team is a really good example they got to 2 domestic cup finals that season. The issue though for Suarez was that the team was setup to play to the strengths of Carroll. Henderson played 37 League games. Downing 36 and FordyAdam 28. It was all about swinging in crosses for Carroll.

Suarez came into his own when Carroll was packed off to West Ham. Gerrard returned to fitness and we bought the likes of Coutinho and Sturridge and Sterling and it was a completely different style of play.

Benfica would be a good comparison. In his first season there Darwin struggled for goals but created a lot of assists mainly starting out wide. In his second season he became the focal point of the attack and banged in 26 League goals in 28 games.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Here's a thesis. Football is a simple game when it comes to scoring goals. You need to be good at getting the ball in places where a high value shot is possible and be good enough to actually be able to take the high value shot when you get it there. After that you'll maybe gain a couple of goals a season if you're a 'good' finisher, and miss out on a couple of goals a season if you're a bad finisher. But that's it and variance will probably obscure whether you're a 'good' or 'bad' finisher anyway. That is, the poor finisher might get lucky. The good finisher might be unlucky.

Here's my thesis: this is Liverpool FC, and we should be able to attract the "outliers" that you and other data-crunchers admit do exist. As such, your thesis is completely debunked, because we know there are players out there who will gain more than the couple of goals you refer to in this post.

Like I said when discussing Watkins, Liverpool are never going to be as patient as a club like Villa. You can scream about high value, variance, and luck all you want, but Nunez is never going to have a team built around him if he is only putting away 10% of his shots and missing around 75% of his "big chances". That's more than losing out on a couple of goals. This stuff costs titles, and he's not alone this season in that regard.

I would also question the validity of the data if you are looking at Nunez's numbers and simply concluding that lots of shots = high value. Does it not piss you off when Joe Gomez shoots from 30 yards? Well that's how I feel when I see Nunez shooting early, albeit to a lesser extent because he can actually shoot unlike our utility man. That costs us creating a better chance.

[Eeyore]

Nunez, as exciting as he is and with the potential he has, isn't on the level of Suarez and almost certainly never will be. No shame in that, mind.

How about comparing them at similar ages though?

Instead of judging them with the benefit of hindsight in Suarez's case.

[JackWard33]

Well, I don't disagree. He'll definitely do better than this season *some* seasons. He's better than 10% conversion rate.

I guess what Nunez's biggest detractors would ask is, how confident would you be that he consistently does? That's what it all comes down to. How much faith do you have in him firing us to glory. I really like him, he's fucking fantastic to watch and we should definitely be keeping him around, but if I was being paid to manage this football club I certainly wouldn't be "building a team around him" in hope that bad luck and variance turns around.

If he didn't play for Liverpool .. so there's no emotion in it.. you'd be looking at a forward whose consistently put up elite numbers.. top line and underlying and it would really be that simple - he's not an interesting player to debate really - he's just a top class 9

If I was parachuted into Liverpool and wasn't a fan and my remit was 'build a team that can challenge from here' .. I'd write down Alisson .. VVD.. .Macallister .. Nunez
Everything else would be up for grabs but I'd have total certainty I had an elite forward whose almost impossible to go out and replace because I've got 4 years of evidence that tells me I can be sure

[Eeyore]

Here's my thesis: this is Liverpool FC, and we should be able to attract the "outliers" that you and other data-crunchers admit do exist. As such, your thesis is completely debunked, because we know there are players out there who will gain more than the couple of goals you refer to in this post.

Like I said when discussing Watkins, Liverpool are never going to be as patient as a club like Villa. You can scream about high value, variance, and luck all you want, but Nunez is never going to have a team built around him if he is only putting away 10% of his shots and missing around 75% of his "big chances". That's more than losing out on a couple of goals. This stuff costs titles, and he's not alone this season in that regard.

I would also question the validity of the data if you are looking at Nunez's numbers and simply concluding that lots of shots = high value. Does it not piss you off when Joe Gomez shoots from 30 yards? Well that's how I feel when I see Nunez shooting early a lot of the time. That costs us creating a better chance.

You could have said all of that about players like Henry, Drogba and even Rushie though.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

If he didn't play for Liverpool .. so there's no emotion in it.. you'd be looking at a forward whose consistently put up elite numbers.. top line and underlying and it would really be that simple - he's not an interesting player to debate really - he's just a top class 9

If I was parachuted into Liverpool and wasn't a fan and my remit was 'build a team that can challenge from here' .. I'd write down Alisson .. VVD.. .Macallister .. Nunez
Everything else would be up for grabs but I'd have total certainty I had an elite forward whose almost impossible to go out and replace because I've got 4 years of evidence that tells me I can be sure

You'd have more certainty in Nunez than Trent Alexander-Arnold? Yeah, we definitely see football very differently.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

You could have said all of that about players like Henry, Drogba and even Rushie though.

All of what and how? You should be more specific and give more thought to your posts.

[Knight]

Here's my thesis: this is Liverpool FC, and we should be able to attract the "outliers" that you and other data-crunchers admit do exist. As such, your thesis is completely debunked, because we know there are players out there who will gain more than the couple of goals you refer to in this post.

Like I said when discussing Watkins, Liverpool are never going to be as patient as a club like Villa. You can scream about high value, variance, and luck all you want, but Nunez is never going to have a team built around him if he is only putting away 10% of his shots and missing around 75% of his "big chances". That's more than losing out on a couple of goals. This stuff costs titles, and he's not alone this season in that regard.

I would also question the validity of the data if you are looking at Nunez's numbers and simply concluding that lots of shots = high value. Does it not piss you off when Joe Gomez shoots from 30 yards? Well that's how I feel when I see Nunez shooting early, albeit to a lesser extent because he can actually shoot unlike our utility man. That costs us creating a better chance.

Why would you care that much about a couple of goals either way though? Goals which might be gained by good finishing or good luck, or might be lost by bad finishing or bad luck? You look for the elite stat that matters, which is the ability to take lots of high value shots. 'Nothing else matters' (to quote Ian Graham), that's the elite skill that'll win you titles. Not finishing ability. That. And that really, really matters. So much more so than 'finishing ability' that it's utterly bizarre that people are so hung up on it.

Re the high value shots - yes this is why xG exists. We've never been talking about 'lots of shots' in isolation and I don't know why you're bringing it up, unless you've misunderstood the claim being made up until now.

[Redley]

Well, I don't disagree. He'll definitely do better than this season *some* seasons. He's better than 10% conversion rate.

I guess what Nunez's biggest detractors would ask is, how confident would you be that he consistently does? That's what it all comes down to. How much faith do you have in him firing us to glory. I really like him, he's fucking fantastic to watch and we should definitely be keeping him around, but if I was being paid to manage this football club I certainly wouldn't be "building a team around him" in hope that bad luck and variance turns around.

I dont really care if he doesn't improve a jot and stays at his current level, to be honest.

Our figures this season:

Mo - 36 G/A in 37 games
Darwin - 31 G/A in 47 games
Cody -  18 G/A in 47 games
Diogo - 18 G/A in 30 games
Luis - 17 G/A in 44 games

120 goals in total our five attackers have been involved in this season in all comps.

Its pretty boring seeing certain player threads bumped to the top of the forum when we're scoring a lot of goals. We can't keep expecting the attack to bail the defence out as much as they have this season....and then criticise them because they haven't managed to do it even more often. We scored five goals in two games at Old Trafford, didn't win one of them and it was the attackers getting shit because....if we'd scored 5 goals instead of three then we'd have won 5-4? Its bonkers. If Darwin had squared it better in the league we'd have won 3-2? Well sure great, but if we'd defended properly we'd have won 2/3-0 and it would have been utterly irrelevant.

There are a handful of games this season where I can look back and blame the attack for not winning the game, and a fair few more where I'd portion it squarely at how poor we were defensively. Its very disproportionate at the moment.

[JackWard33]

You'd have more certainty in Nunez than Trent Alexander-Arnold? Yeah, we definitely see football very differently.

Hah... we see debating very differently I know that from many of these
Trent is world class just to be clear before you strawman me into oblivion  .. you can put him in the list ...but uncertainty about his role makes it trickier and he has his own thread for these conversations

You asked about Nunez and level of certainty around him

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Why would you care that much about a couple of goals either way though? Goals which might be gained by good finishing or good luck, or might be lost by bad finishing or bad luck? You look for the elite stat that matters, which is the ability to take lots of high value shots. 'Nothing else matters' (to quote Ian Graham), that's the elite skill that'll win you titles. Not finishing ability. That. Re the high value shots - yes this is why xG exists. We've never been talking about 'lots of shots' in isolation and I don't know why you're bringing it up, unless you've misunderstood the claim being made up until now.

If you are using xG over a long period of time, all shots add up to that total value. So a player like Nunez who takes lots of shots automatically becomes "higher value" than a player like Isak who takes fewer, even though the latter is converting more chances from fewer shots. This is where applying xG in this manner massively fails.

[Knight]

If you are using xG over a long period of time, all shots add up to that total value. So a player like Nunez who takes lots of shots automatically becomes "higher value" than a player like Isak who takes fewer, even though the latter is converting more chances from fewer shots. This is where applying xG in this manner massively fails.

No. It doesn't. We know his shot numbers, and we know his xG. And so we know he takes lots of high value shots.

You know who isn't an outlier on finishing ability by the way? Salah. Pretty glad we didn't think to ourselves, 'should be able to find an elite finisher, not this guy' aren't we.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Hah... we see debating very differently I know that from many of these
Trent is world class just to be clear before you strawman me into oblivion  .. you can put him in the list ...but uncertainty about his role makes it trickier and he has his own thread for these conversations

You asked about Nunez and level of certainty around him

I think that is a weird way to view things. A player is a player, regardless of his role. You're certain on Nunez, fine, but his position and role isn't exactly as obvious as VVD's, is it? He could play from the left or through the middle, just like Trent could play from the right or through the middle.

But putting Nunez above Trent on that list is pretty laughable really. One has demonstrable, proven ability on the pitch over 4+ years. The other has demonstrable, proven ability on a spreadsheet, but on the pitch it has been a lot more sporadic.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

No. It doesn't. We know his shot numbers, and we know his xG. And so we know he takes lots of high value shots.

He also takes lots of low value ones, but that will be rewarded in how you are using the numbers.

[Knight]

He also takes lots of low value ones, but that will be rewarded in how you are using the numbers.

Does he?

[JackWard33]

I think that is a weird way to view things. A player is a player, regardless of his role. You're certain on Nunez, fine, but his position and role isn't exactly as obvious as VVD's, is it? He could play from the left or through the middle, just like Trent could play from the right or through the middle.

But putting Nunez above Trent on that list is pretty laughable really. One has demonstrable, proven ability on the pitch over 4+ years. The other has demonstrable, proven ability on a spreadsheet, but on the pitch it has been a lot more sporadic.

yeah I mean this is a debate you're having with yourself .
I wasn't asked to rank Nunez vs Trent and its not germain to our conversation

I'm certain Nunez is an elite forward and I'd build my attack round him - which is what you asked ..( as I'm pretty certain the nerds who now rule our club will) .

[LallanaInPyjamas]

yeah I mean this is a debate you're having with yourself .
I wasn't asked to rank Nunez vs Trent and its not germain to our conversation

I'm certain Nunez is an elite forward and I'd build my attack round him..( as I'm pretty certain the nerds who now rule our club will) .

You put him in the list and not Trent, not me buddy. If you're more certain about Darwin Nunez as a footballer than Trent, then you are definitely looking at numbers too much.

[JackWard33]

You put him in the list and not Trent, not me buddy.

snore

[Eeyore]

All of what and how? You should be more specific and give more thought to your posts.

Very simple you said we shouldnt build an attack around Nunez. I gave examples of players who blossomed when clubs showed faith in a players ability and did exactly that.

The really dumb thing is that Nunez has already shown what happens if you build an attack around him at Benfica. 26 League goal in 28 games. Nunez is a freak and totally unplayable when he is given the right service. That is what justifies building a team around him.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Does he?

Yes.

[Knight]

Yes.

He's at 4.77 shots per 90 and at 0.74 xG per 90. There's just no way of wracking up that much xG from 4.77 shots which are low value.

[Cpt_Reina]

It's disengenious in the extreme

Do you seriously expect people to believe that you don't think creating shots for others isn't a valuable skill?

I'm sure you get this because it's pretty obvious and you're just trying to make some kind of argument but obviously the ball ..and data model... don't care how the shot is created.. because sparkling play and obvious 5 yard pass a) both still create a shot and b) even out over time across the model .. ie if one player could only do b in easy situations then they'd be out produced by a player that could do a and b

As Knight has said you either accept reversion to the mean on a proven data model or you deny it / don't accept the model
You can't be into it when it suits your argument and not into it when it doesn't

Based on this season in the league only (which people keep doing for some reason) yes you'd expect his assists to drop a bit next season per 90 and his goals to go up a bit per 90 next season .. but who really cares - they're all elite numbers however you slice it

As for fluffing Darwin (?!) ... this is going round and round.. the problem with trying to unpick his production for people that don't rate him is he's really really good / productive at everything you'd want a forward to do .. whether it's top line (actual goals and assists) or underlying shots/goals/shot creation/assists .. or just goals.. or whatever the fuck you like 
I mean maybe if you did one for a scatter plot for scruffy vs stylish he'd do badly but other than tha.t...

Shot creating actions is not the same metric as assists, I was asking about assists and their value in assessing a players productivity.

I'm not coming to you from a position of eye test overrides analytics, it might be convenient for you to try and boil it down to that but its not what im trying to do. What I am trying to do is dig in to the analytics and assess their actual usefullness and application. As they're often presented as facts and inarguable, which i sometimes dont believe to be the case. If it irks you that I question how these metrics are applied, or undermine them then I'm sorry but your issue is with the metrics not being robust enough to stand up to scrutiny rather than with me for scrutinising them.

I dont care if he's scruffy or stylish, makes no odds to me.

But if someone is presenting goals + assists as a metric and calling them elite numbers, I'm within my rights to ask 'ok but how?' am I not?

Assists as a metric, is sub optimal for assessing a players creativity is it not? And optimal is what analytics is going for, cutting out noise, cutting out subjectivity and looking beneath the surface. Assist as a metric does none of that, it's a highly context dependant stat when it comes to saying "this player is adding value in attacking situations" because a final pass in a sequence which leads to a goal is not necessarily the most valuable action in that sequence. Right?

So when I see people provide G+A per 90 as a means of assessing Darwin (or any forward's) output it seems like 'bad' analytics, lazy analysis, metrics which are often applied when they align with a predetermined position that 'I think this player is good, so I'll overlook how shaky these metrics are and employ them regardless, because they support my view".....which kind of runs contrary to the entire point of analytics in football isn't it?

Bad data, or rather sub optimal or incomplete data, is just as bad as no data isnt it?

Just saying, there appears to be a lot of usage of sub optimal data presented as if it isnt.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Very simple you said we shouldnt build an attack around Nunez. I gave examples of players who blossomed when clubs showed faith in a players ability and did exactly that.

The really dumb thing is that Nunez has already shown what happens if you build an attack around him at Benfica. 26 League goal in 28 games. Nunez is a freak and totally unplayable when he is given the right service. That is what justifies building a team around him.

I don't know that Nunez will ever be on the level of those three players you mention in terms of their defining strengths. But he certainly has aspects of each of them, sure, which does make him a bit of a freak.

It depends how you define "building a team" around someone. I definitely want Nunez in our team. I guess my view would be that I'd actually like to see him a little less involved in general play. Lately it feels like we have been playing through him too much and it has had a negative impact on our play. I think he lacks the sharpness of touch and speed of mind for this to be consistently effective. I think he is at his best occupying defenders and moving into channels to create space for others rather than dropping deep to receive the ball.

Bottom line is, though, he needs to put away more of his chances if he wants to be our #9. And that's why the discussion will always circle back there, because it really is that #simple.

[deano2727]

How about comparing them at similar ages though?

Instead of judging them with the benefit of hindsight in Suarez's case.

I mean, he did score 49 goals in 48 games in 2009-10 when he was in his early 20s if you want to look at it that way. 

[LallanaInPyjamas]

He's at 4.77 shots per 90 and at 0.74 xG per 90. There's just no way of wracking up that much xG from 4.77 shots which are low value.

Taking plenty of low value shots will inflate those numbers.

[Eeyore]

I mean, he did score 49 goals in 48 games in 2009-10 when he was in his early 20s if you want to look at it that way. 

Nunez scored 26 in 28 for Benfica. That is why it is an apt comparison.

[Eeyore]

Taking plenty of low value shots will inflate those numbers.

The comparison though is between taking shots and what the xG is. If Nunez was taking 10 shots per game and had an xG of .74 then you would have a case.

[JackWard33]

Shot creating actions is not the same metric as assists, I was asking about assists and their value in assessing a players productivity.

I'm not coming to you from a position of eye test overrides analytics, it might be convenient for you to try and boil it down to that but its not what im trying to do. What I am trying to do is dig in to the analytics and assess their actual usefullness and application. As they're often presented as facts and inarguable, which i sometimes dont believe to be the case. If it irks you that I question how these metrics are applied, or undermine them then I'm sorry but your issue is with the metrics not being robust enough to stand up to scrutiny rather than with me for scrutinising them.

I dont care if he's scruffy or stylish, makes no odds to me.

But if someone is presenting goals + assists as a metric and calling them elite numbers, I'm within my rights to ask 'ok but how?' am I not?

Assists as a metric, is sub optimal for assessing a players creativity is it not? And optimal is what analytics is going for, cutting out noise, cutting out subjectivity and looking beneath the surface. Assist as a metric does none of that, it's a highly context dependant stat when it comes to saying "this player is adding value in attacking situations" because a final pass in a sequence which leads to a goal is not necessarily the most valuable action in that sequence. Right?

So when I see people provide G+A per 90 as a means of assessing Darwin (or any forward's) output it seems like 'bad' analytics, lazy analysis, metrics which are often applied when they align with a predetermined position that 'I think this player is good, so I'll overlook how shaky these metrics are and employ them regardless, because they support my view".....which kind of runs contrary to the entire point of analytics in football isn't it?

Bad data, or rather sub optimal or incomplete data, is just as bad as no data isnt it?

Just saying, there appears to be a lot of usage of sub optimal data presented as if it isnt.

Yes assists is a flawed metric in predicting future performance in the short term (as is goals)

That's why very clever people invented expected assists and expected goals

Goals plus assists per 90 is going to work out over time obviously because that's the actual outcome we're after but expected goals or assist is going to be more predictive of future performance where there's a deviation

Assist numbers are more voliatle in a period of time - say a season - because there's less of them than goals (literally you get a smaller sample in the same time period)

I've written this out because you're pretending to not get it (I know you do ) .. and the thing with Darwin is he does really well whether its actual or expected so you can pick which one you argue about or have issues with?