Rating the players: 5 level scale

[lmorin]

The Tobias Lopez column http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/464573.html
proposes a 5 level assessment scale: 1) Technique, 2) Tactical awareness, 3) Speed, 4) Defending and 5) Fitness. He gives examples, rating players in each category on a 10 pt scale - LD (8,7,7,6,8), EJ (7,7,8,6,8) and Pablo (6,6,6,8,7). Do you agree? What about other players? Is this set of categories adequate?

[sidefootsitter]

The Tobias Lopez column http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/464573.html
proposes a 5 level assessment scale: 1) Technique, 2) Tactical awareness, 3) Speed, 4) Defending and 5) Fitness. He gives examples, rating players in each category on a 10 pt scale - LD (8,7,7,6,8), EJ (7,7,8,6,8) and Pablo (6,6,6,8,7). Do you agree? What about other players? Is this set of categories adequate? What would he give Ronaldinho? Technique -20? Tactial Awareness - 20? Speed - 7? Defending - are you out of your friggin' mind?

[CbR]

damn,,we over rate our players big time. Its also due to the fact that we often dont see the worlds best perform against us on a consistant basis. Beating up on T&T, Jamiaca, HOndorus etc.... has given alot of us a false perception of our team.

Donovan has Trezguet type of stats IMO,EJ apparently is the second comming of marco vanbasten,,and Pablo's stats on that site probably rank up there with someone like Riise.

[JohnR]

The Tobias Lopez column http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/464573.html
proposes a 5 level assessment scale: 1) Technique, 2) Tactical awareness, 3) Speed, 4) Defending and 5) Fitness. He gives examples, rating players in each category on a 10 pt scale - LD (8,7,7,6,8), EJ (7,7,8,6,8) and Pablo (6,6,6,8,7). Do you agree? What about other players? Is this set of categories adequate?

Perhaps this scale would be more useful with a broader range of abilities. So that we could see some 2s, 4,s, and 10s.

Right now, I gotta say Ick. I could see how those numbers might be useful in quickly summarizing the difference between say, Landon and some Division 2 college player, but once the players hit a certain level the numbers all seem to blur together. Plus, they simplify too much. Landon's tactical awareness is a 7? Although he's the best one-touch passer in the U.S. and among the best at running without the ball?

[strider026]

Donovan has an 8 for fitness?????

A 7 for speed??????

[ChrisE]

Without a larger pool to compare these guys to, whether that be Trezeguet and Henry or Bobby Rhine and Mike Nugent, these numbers are entirely arbitrary. Donovan's technique is an eight compared to my three or compared to Jeff Agoos's three? etc. etc.

The fact that people have already both said the players are underrated and vastly overrated should make this clear.

[lmorin]

Donovan has an 8 for fitness?????

A 7 for speed??????
From what I've heard, his fitness should be closer to 10 and from what I seen, his speed should be closer to 8/9.

[clashcityrocker]

Brad Friedel's got mad hit points, plus at least 25 in charisma.

[Calexico77]

Not to mention Cherundolo's Magical Sack of Holding (+3)




I think there is an easier way to solve this. Can't we just turn on something like FIFA World Cup 2005 for Playstation and see what stats they give people?

[voros]

It is interesting he suggests adopting Baseball's 5 tool model especially considering the extent to which said model has been villified in baseball recently. (Plate discipline, for example, is not considered a tool despite being infinitely more important than throwing arm which is).

Just for further info though, the baseball model rates players on the tools based on a scale from 20 to 80 with 20 being the worst and 80 being the best, and the scale works at intervals of 5. So really it's like rating guys from 1 to 13.

The same problems plague this guy's proposal as it does in baseball. One, some of these "tools" are more important than others. In baseball, hitting for power is more important than baserunning. How exactly should you weight the two? In soccer is "fitness" really equivalent to speed or especially technique? Does defending matter much at all for forwards?

Two, some are clearly different types of things. "Tactical awareness" is a learned soccer specific skill, "Speed" is an athletic ability. Clearly they are different animals that should be evaluated differently, particularly when it comes to youth players.

Three, the ratings in one are much easier to calculate than the ratings in others. To rate "speed," all you need is a stopwatch. Rating something like "defending" is a bit more subjective.

Fourth and finally, athletic ability and soccer skill work in a combinatorial manner, not additively. IOW, a World Class athlete who has never played soccer a day in his life is a worse soccer player than an average athlete for an average NCAA team, and Pele (currently) is worse than that College player as well. So the World Class athlete might be an 80 in speed and a 20 in technique for a total of 100, while the college kid might be a 40 in speed and a 40 in technique for a total of 80, but is the better player nevertheless. Similarly Pele might be an 80 in soccer skills and a 20 in athletic ability for 100, but he too is worse than the college kid.

In soccer, as in baseball, player evaluation should not be done based on arbitrary ratings based on presumedly important attributes, but rather the players should be evaluated based on their ability to help win games. Yes things like speed, technique, defense and fitness factor into that, but it would seem to me it's a better idea to think about how much the player contributes to the success of his club (when he plays) and what level that club's success or failure comes at. You can then look at those other factors for things such as development and the best spots on the field to play the player.

[Bob Morocco]

As to what helps a team win what about finishing rates, shots on goal/total shots, defenders beaten on the dribble, turnovers/balls won, pass completion %, goals per 90, assists per 90, points per 90, chances created per 90, challanges won/lost, headers won/lost.

[lmorin]

As to what helps a team win what about finishing rates, shots on goal/total shots, defenders beaten on the dribble, turnovers/balls won, pass completion %, goals per 90, assists per 90, points per 90, chances created per 90, challanges won/lost, headers won/lost.
In all sorts of analytical endeavors, there are "lumpers" and there are "splitters." You have raised the issue and, as I see it, have split the technique category somewhat. But, some of your categories also transcend those supplied by Lopez. For example, defenders beaten on the dribble is surely correlated with speed; likewise, chances created per 90. Part of Voros' point as well, I believe.

[_Wheels_]

I was slightly interested until he said that Reyna was our best player. Maybe if this was written 3 years ago.

[voros]

As to what helps a team win what about finishing rates, shots on goal/total shots, defenders beaten on the dribble, turnovers/balls won, pass completion %, goals per 90, assists per 90, points per 90, chances created per 90, challanges won/lost, headers won/lost.
My point really wasn't to suggest alternative numbers, but rather to simply suggest the correct angle to attack the problem from. You can attack the problem using objective numbers or subjective evaluations or some combination of the two, but regardless you still should definitely make sure the focus remains on the player's contribution to winning soccer games regardless of what method you use to determine that.

You can stack up Ronaldinho's technique score, to Lampard's, to Totti's to Brian Mullan's, but in terms of evaluating them as players, none of that really is the issue. Are you more likely to win with Totti in your midfield or Ronaldinho or Lampard or Brian Mullan? How does the answer to that question change if you change the environment and circumstances? Does it change at all?

Once we begin to discuss the topic from that lens, then it becomes perfectly legitimate to discuss how the technique of the various players factor in to that discussion. It may seem like semantics or just a stupid philosophical point (and to an extent you'd be right), but player evaluation is hard and one of the things I believe is important is to organize your thought processes so that you can do a better job on focusing on the issues that matter and using the rest as background info.

That said, your mentioning of something like "goals per 90 minutes" is much more in the ballpark because at least we know how scoring goals relates to winning soccer games. The player's individual contribution to his goal scoring numbers is up for debate of course, much of that number probably has a lot to do with the quality of his teammates and opposition and of course the position he plays. But the number is at least a number with units that we can reference to winning soccer matches, so looking at such a number is probably not a bad idea, even if eventual further examination leads you to decide that it does not contain much useful information after all.

[sidefootsitter]

My point really wasn't to suggest alternative numbers, but rather to simply suggest the correct angle to attack the problem from. You can attack the problem using objective numbers or subjective evaluations or some combination of the two, but regardless you still should definitely make sure the focus remains on the player's contribution to winning soccer games regardless of what method you use to determine that... I think the NFL has done a pretty decent job of combining the numerical evaluations and pure performance for their drafts. Their test numbers (height, weight, speed, jump, agility, intelligence) are exclusively non-actual-performance related. Then they add the actual perfomance data - total yardage, yards per carry, QB rating, etc. - to comprise a totally subjective summary of each player.

The formula discussed in this topic combined both subjective and objective evaluations but then pretended that it was purely objective.

A very thorough evaluation would include both. What "Bob Morocco" brought up is a currently in vogue tool that attempts to take some of the most subjective components and turn them into the objective ones. In other words, instead of placing a subjective value on one's dribbling skills, a statistical measurement of "tackles avoided" would become more or less objective; the remaining error roughly equal to baseball's official scorer deciding the difference between a wild pitch and a passed ball.

One could hypothetically keep adding up the various measuring performance related criteria. "The number of times a player is double-teamed" could be one. "Percentage of crosses that landed between the keeper's box and the penalty spot" could be another. "A number of defensive runs over 40 yards"... et cetera, et cetera.

At a certain point, this would begin having diminishing significance but one could probably pick a handful of the most important stats, calculate the deviations for them and rate players accordingly.

Or one could just go to Kicker.de and have it told to him.

[lmorin]

The fact is, many of the "measurements" in soccer are highly correlated. That means, knowing one you know a lot about the other. One thing that I tell parents who wish to know how their child is doing as a developing player is to count the number of times the child successfully interact with the ball the ball (good tackle, pass interception, pass reception, etc.). While it varies from position to position, this simple number gives a very good idea about the motivational and speed factors in the player's repertoire. For young kids, it can be a real eye opener. A more sophisticated number can also be obtained by simple counting. This is the number of successful uses of the ball and includes such things as a good clearance or an appropriately directed pass with any part of the body or a well-conceived dribbling run. Then, the two can be merged to yield a percentage success. I had a 10 yr old with a 90+ percent success while his next best teammate was around 35-50%. But the motivational factor won out despite the quality of his play - he quit the game when he reached 13. The point is, these numbers are simple and only rely on consistency of the person doing the counting in order to be reasonably accurate. They provided substantial information to otherwise ignorant observers. But, they are totally unnecessary for a decent coach who can assess most players very quickly. Of course, as the total number of quality players goes up, so does the relative difficulty of assessment and the need for a really good coach.

[Haole]

Wack stuff. Numbers are rubbish.

Rate this:

Felix, Carlos Alberto, Brito, Piazza, Everaldo, Clodoaldo, Gerson, Rivelino, Jairzinho, Tostao, Pele

[wsmaugham]

Brad Friedel's got mad hit points, plus at least 25 in charisma.

repped. :D

[ugaaccountant]

When you see the reaction a simple comparison of 3 players gets with people surprised on both sides, it really makes you appreciate how good FIFA 2005 is with their ratings. You get very few shocks outside of rookies on that game.