It is simple. You are here shitting on GC% and NOT shitting on GA per game. I am not shitting on either or shitting on both, depends on how you look at it. GC% is not supposed to capture individual's value the way you are burdening it with. No one claims that either. GC% is not a player's rating, the same way percantage of successful dribbles is not player's rating. Answer me this, why when we talked about Mbappe, Yamal, Vinicius in dribbling, you had no problem using percantages of successful dribbles to make a point. You weren't vocal about "PER GAME, PER GAME".. You interchangably used per game stat and percantage stat. But when it comes to GC%, percantages are distortion all of a sudden. Do you see how when talking about dribbling you use both: per game and percantages stats, and you have no problems with that? You use them simultaniously for different reasons? They say different things? THe same way GA per game and GC% should be used. They are simply different. Case closed.
It’s amusing that the reflex is to talk about chatgpt rather than about the actual argument. That alone tells me the point landed harder than you’re comfortable admitting. Let’s be honest: if the logic was flawed, you could dismantle it directly. Instead, the focus shifts to where the words came from, as if that somehow changes whether the reasoning stands. That’s textbook ad hominem: dismiss the messenger because you can’t handle the message. And for the record, I don’t "outsource" critical thinking to any tool. I use it the way one might use a calculator: the calculator doesn’t think for you, but it makes it harder to fudge numbers when the arithmetic isn’t in your favor. If you really believe GC% is a uniquely indispensable metric, then demonstrate it by addressing the critique head-on. Show why it isolates individual value better than GA/90. Show why its dependence on team scoring output isn’t a fatal flaw. Until then, sneering about chatgpt is a deflection, and one that signals you don’t actually trust GC% to withstand scrutiny on its own
This freak doesn’t even know that Diego Maradona scored 2 non penalty goals in the European Cup UEFA Cup Copa libertadores That is 2 non penalty goals in 25 games 0.08 goals per game And there is no such a thing as GA There are goals and there are assists There’s is also no such thing as a clutch assist The pass only exists if someone else converts it, but the goal is the final, decisive act that actually changes the scoreboard As a goalscorer Diego Maradona was a categorical failure in the EC/UEFA Cup A categorical failure by the standards of his own era And it is the mother of all ironies that Maradona played 25 games in the EC/Uefa cup That is a larger sample size than the 22 games Cristiano played in the World Cup (and significantly larger than the measly 8 games he played in World Cup KO stages)
Let’s think this through step by step. You accept dribbling percentages for players like Mbappé or Vinicius because they show efficiency relative to opportunity, not absolute impact, correct? Now, GA per game is treated as absolute, but we’ve seen Ronaldo’s same-season numbers swing almost 300% between World Cup and UCL, hardly a fixed measure of individual ability. Isn’t that similar to how context affects dribbling efficiency? By that logic, shouldn’t we then accept that GC%, as a percentage of team goals, actually highlights the context-driven nature of contributions rather than pretending to be a pure, per-game talent metric? If we’re consistent, doesn’t that force the question: could your insistence on GA per game actually inflate the apparent credit for players like Maradona, compared to Pelé or Messi, just as GC% reveals?
I did dismantle it.. You use peracantages for dribbles all the time, and in every day life. Poker players win millions because they understand percantages. The betting industry and casinos, billion dollars business are based entirely on percantages. ChatGPT is based on understanding percantages so you can misunderstand and misrepresent percantges..
Are you dumb? By your own logic, Maradona’s GC% collapses he scored proportionally less in the EC/UEFA Cup than he did at the World Cup. As a goalscorer his direct share of Argentinas non penalty goals in the World Cup was significantly larger than his share of his club teams non penalty goals in the UEFA Cup/CL.
Yeah, but you could also consider that Napoli was a weaker team than Milan or Juventus, right?. I mean, I’d like to see Messi or Pelé in that context, for me it makes sense that Maradona didn’t ‘destroy’ his rivals, we’re talking about a collective game, I find it unrealistic to expect so much from a single player. I do think Maradona was better than Zico or Platini, but not by a huge margin, obviously, like I said, for me all those players are very close, or for example, I don’t think Neymar is any less than Cristiano. I share these stats because I find them valuable, but I’ve already said they’re not an absolute truth of anything.
If you put things in this way, I have nothing to object. My criticism was much about throwing numbers as stones. But don't underestimate Napoli in the late eighties. It was a strong team: Bruscolotti Ferrara Francini in the defense department (though it was surely not at Milan defense level), very verygood midfield (Bagni, De Napoli, Crippa, Alemao), wonderful attackers (Giordano, Carnevale, Careca aside of Maradona). Juventus endured a generational transition that took time to work and Milan was sometimes hampered by too strict tactical approach by Sacchi.
Juventus wasn’t even remotely special in the late 1980s(The majority of the time Diego Maradona played against a Platini/boniek less Juventus) And Napoli was definitely a stronger team than Juventus between 1987-1990(with better results in the league and in Europe it isn’t even up for dispute) Pelé scored more non penalty goals vs benfica 1962 (five goals in 2 games) than Diego Maradona did in 15 games vs juventus(3 goals) it gets deeper Pelé scored more goals against Napoli(7 goals in 5 games) Pele`s Santos vs. European Clubs - Statistical Overview | BigSoccer Forum Than Diego Maradona did for Napoli in European competitions(EC and UEFA)
Now you will start comparing LevYashin with Rene Higuita as huguita scored a few goals.you guys has an incredible capacity to stoop any level in order to demean maradona.
My guy really thought that by adding a “Jit” at the end of his name he’d camouflage his burner account You fuc*ed up at exact moment you mentioned my name The obsession is real Was Maradona Overrated | Page 21 | BigSoccer Forum
What G/A per 90 should Maradona have in order to be at the level of Pelé or Messi? Also tell me how many goals per game his team should score and what Maradona’s GC% would be. Give me a hypothetical case, remember we are talking about Serie A in the 80s.
This guy is drunk IN THE 1980s DIEGO MARADONA COULDN’T EVEN SCORE 20 GOALS IN A SERIE A SEASON LIKE MICHEL PLATINI AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT “WHAT CAN HE DO TO REACH PELÉ’S LEVEL IN GOALSCORING” WHAT CAN HE DO? He can smoke ayahuasca and hallucinate that he was ever as good a goalscorer as Pele And your obsession with how many goals Maradona should’ve scored to be deemed comparable to a more prolific player is telling Fontaine scored more than 3x as many legal goals In 1958 as Maradona did in 1986(that is 13 goals vs 4 goals) Yet Maradona 1986 is widely considered to be in a higher echelon of greatness as Fontaine 1958 You being the biggest fan of Maradona on planet earth turned into a full blown extremist when you realised he couldn’t compare to other top 10 all timers in raw goals or assist output So instead of concentrating and highlighting what actually made him great(his unique relationship with the ball,artistry and ball retention) you went the other way and fabricated a methodology with no grounding in reality that put Maradona on par with Pelé as some statistical anomaly. For half a century nobody even dreamed of suggesting Maradona at Napoli was producing like Pelé not fans, not journalists, not historians because the gap in output was too obvious. Pelé averaged 50 goals a season in all comps for several years Maradona never even hit 20 Serie A goals once and there was a midfielder who played even deeper than did who actually did that and his name was Michel Platini.
So what logic is that? That if Maradona has a low goal total in international club competitions, that gc% is flawed? In what way? So what if Maradona scored few goals? That means that percantages dont work anymore as a mathematical tool?
Like a 2 year old kid seeing yellow wall and shouting "Pikachu", because 2 year old can not differentiate between color "yellow" and pokemon "Pikachu". You do realize that: Maradona = a player GC% = a metric Trachta = a provider of GC% data,..... plus has his opinion on the side like everyone else.
Match winning goals is a metric too(the way transfermarket defines it) One that is actually used in the real world and you are on record calling it shit and anyone who uses it stupid Don’t force me to pull up your own quotes of you saying this I defy you to find me a person anywhere who weaponised goal contribution statistics in this way before badabing and after him his student trachta10 His stolen methodology is fringe, fabricated and without legitimacy. Not analysts not historians not journalists nobody outside your little echo chamber ever used it. Because it’s not analysis it’s fan fiction
Thanks for the acknowledgement in the opening sentence. Re: the final sentence/paragraph and it's question I would say that feels to me too conclusive in the direction of high output trumping everything else by definition (even though I see the point that goal contribution % can be kinder to players without prolific team-mates if anything, and even though my inclination would be to think Pele was better/greater than Maradona...which goal contribution wouldn't actually 'refute' anyway though I suppose but it puts that idea more in the balance in theory....and prowess in scoring would be probably significant in that comparison if that would be the right conclusion). The other 'metric' that might be favourable to Maradona is 'over-achieving' with less stellar teams, even though I think that can be over-stated (I think Argentina 1986 was a cohesive team with assured footballers throughout even if only one superstar, and I think Napoli became a team with pretty high level players in each area of it by the time they won their trophies even if the squad without Maradona or even with him wasn't the number 1 most stacked in Serie A at the time). Messi's team scoring 14 in 5 games without him (not that that means they would have won the CL necessarily without him too of course) can show on one side of the equation that he wasn't raising a mid-table team or outsider team to extreme heights, even if as you say the output/involvements in goals shows him as number 1 star of several on their books and specifically in the attack (which can also apply going back to the team with Eto'o and Henry, albeit declined Henry stationed mainly on the left, ahead of Xavi-Iniesta etc).
I'd analyze data multiple ways before trying to infer pattern One way is what you did, which is to see how gc% changes in certain scenarios (1-2 goals, 3+ goals, etc.). But i would also differentiate this further like: When team score 1 goal separately When team scores 2 goals 3 goals, 4 goals. Rather than grouping it into 1-2 goals and 3+ goals. The other way I can think if is a different approach. It is plotting om a graph each season gc% and team's goals per game data. So each point on the graph is one season. This is a slightly different approach than differentiating per match scenarios and I have a hunch this would yield a slightly different results. The problem, especially with the second approach is that player's roles change season by season so there will be nosie all the time. It would have to be analyzed for many players, and here I would analyze non-great players as well, as they are exceptions per definition. It makes it less feasible. One thing that nobody mentioned is that type of goals team scores plays a difference in all of this. I think that in realoty, set piece situations, for example, goals from corners are more stable across differenr quality of teams and eras. It sounds right to me based on football intuition that rates of scoring set piece goals across different quality of teams is more stable. For example, the worst attacking teams in epl will not have significantly lower scoring rate of set pieces than the best attacks in the world. So when team scores lower amount of goals per game it is typically because of certain open play type goals that are very scalable, not because of goals from corner for example. Corner goals are less scalable. This plays a difference in teams that score low amoutn of goals because for them, set piece goals will take a bigger chunck of percantage of their goals. If that makes sense? And i intuite that this is true across eras. That even in 80s, where there is low amoutm of goals, I dotn thinks et piece goals in absolute amoutm are that mich different than other eras. This plays a role for a player who is a set piece taker for example, as their role as a set piece take in a lower scoring team, due to robustness of such goals, will yield high percantage. So this is again something where role of a player will play a significant role on whether their involvment is high or not. I dont think differentiating per match outcome scenario accounts for whether team scores from set piece or certain open play goals as it is possible to score 3 set pieces in oen match and not in the other. Id tackle it multiple ways for multiple non-great players before having confidence to say soemthing more. In principle, it is true that if a greta player plays along side other great players that his percantage will be lower because indenpendently of him, other great players will add to goal tally. I am not sure if per match outcome differentiation accounts for that
One point I thought of re: high/low scoring teams @Trachta10 though is that I'd feel it's not quite the same to look at games where a team scores 3+ as opposed to 1 or 2 (even though as I said, looking at more players, and adding a category for 4+ or 5+ goals might start to show more of a pattern anyway) as to look at overall seasons for teams that score 100 or 120 goals as opposed to ones that scored significantly less than that. There will be games where the team (that scores 100+ goals overall) scores once or twice and the high output player in question doesn't get any goals or assists potentially (while there are also games where they score 4-6 goals and he gets around 50% contribution in goals and OPTA assists say). But in a lower scoring team such as Batistuta's Fiorentina (not to say they were particularly low scoring in that league at the time, but I'm using an example of a high contribution player scoring a majority of a team's goals) it can be that several times in a season when the main goal contributor doesn't score the team can be losing games without scoring any goals (not always, but a few times it can happen). So it's not so much that a player will not be bothered to score against lower opposition or in generally prolific games of the team (especially 'record chasing' players like Messi/CR7 - but in general it can also be that if a major player including the likes of Maradona and Cruyff have a particularly influential game including with end product a high tally of goals can be more likely to occur anyway) and always be the main contributors in tighter games; it's more that over whole seasons a team with many very capable end product contributors will score more goals and rely less on their number 1 star (even if he may well have a very high rate of contributions, and that can be helped significantly by the team-mates even if they perhaps restrict the share of output in % terms also). There are two sides of the coin I suppose anyway, like I was just saying in the reply to Isaias - high end product in a team that would be a top team without the star player and less high end product in a team that would fall short of contending for trophies without that player - so the player might be showing up with a very positive +/- value in the kinds of models that focus on team results (maybe in some cases it would be grey area between these two - it's also true that high output players in generally high scoring and top level teams can still show a pretty positive result in these +/- formulas I suppose too but like I said before the sample sizes for missed games can be pretty small and pretty random anyway and it can depend if the model would factor in team ELO ratings etc I guess for example....). Obviously goals totals also depend on some general factors for specific leagues and competitions in specific eras and suchlike too though, as you know.
Great example, thank you. Because matchwinning is semantically poorly defined. It attaches a label onto a statistical pattern that doesnt check with reality. None of that is present in GOAL CONTRIBUTION % If gc% was called greatness percantage or somethinf like that, it would fall intot he same boat. It is not called that tho, is it? It is clearly and sensically defined. Who uses transfermarkt's matchwinning goals in "real world" haha?
What's happened here mate? I feel like ChatGPT may have produced a counter-argument to your points or something (that argues more in favour of Trachta's side of the debate) that maybe you didn't double check before posting? Unless I am mis-understanding something of course.