Goal contribution of the best players

You are very wrong Isaias. Very very wrong...

Individual output doesnt mean individual ability. We measure individual stats to appeoximate individual ability. What is of interest of every evaluation metric is individual ability - "the hidden quality inherent to player" that we are trying to get to.

You are confusing that fundamentally.

It is under the umbrella of individuality, but it is not individual effort, quality and ability. Proven by the fact it changes the moment environment changes.

It is not individual.

You cant and wont try to understand that.

It is an illusion.

Dont agree?

Explain to me in clear terms, how is "assist" individual stat?

Neither is gosl, but explain how is assist individual? That is a clear and obvious destruction of your position

 

Why just First 2 seasons?because it suits your agenda?and are you sure gullit didn't have even 1 penalty goals among the 24 in his first couple of seasons?

 

Individual output is a product of:

1. Individual ability
2. Cricumstances

What we are interested in when comparing players is getting to the #1 - individual ability.

And we use stats, metrics, methods to extrapolate individual abiloty and compare them based on that.

Because everybody intuitively knows that that is what makes a player player. It is not his individual output in a certain cirucmstance.

You are hiding behind the ambiguity of the word individual to impose validity of G/A over GC%.

But it is wrong. So, so wrong.

And very stupid to be hoenst. Because that logic leads to conclusioms that you would obviously disagree with and have disagreed with. Liek Puskas being twice the player that Van Basten was.

 

He never once scored a penalty.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ac-milan/elfmeterschuetzen/verein/5/plus/0?saison_id=1987
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ac-milan/elfmeterschuetzen/verein/5/plus/0?saison_id=1988

As for why I chose the first 2, it's because Gullit's style and role changed completely, and it wouldn't be fair to compare a player who was 80% playmaking and 20% scoring to a player who was 60% playmaking and 40% scoring, the same way it wouldn't be fair to compare Diego in 1980 (as a scorer) and Diego in, say, 1988.

 

Ruud Gullit - Penalty goals | Transfermarkt


Just to recap

Gullit was very bad in Euro 2002
Gullit was bad in Serie A 1988/89
Gullit possibly scored penalty goals in his first few Serie A seasons


If pranjit was a historian they might confuse Julius Cesar with Cinderella

 

Your guys use of ChatGPT is hilarious. Do you guys know that ChatGPT will simply agree with whatever you ask it? It will simply confirm what you want to hear based on tone you ask it.

AI is a comercial product and people won't use it if it disagrees with them so it doesnt. Ever. It simply echoes your tone

 

Artificial intelligence serves as dancing monkeys for whoever asks the questions. ChatGPT will tell you that Andres Iniesta went to the moon and fought aliens if that was the agenda you wanted.

 

"GC% is better than G/A. Why? Give irrefutable arguments"

Let’s ground this in logic first:

GC% = Goal Contribution % = (Player’s goals+assists ÷ Team goals while on pitch)
G/A = Goals + Assists (absolute number, or per 90 rate)

Now:

Why GC% > G/A (irrefutable logic)

1. GC% measures relative impact, not just volume.
   • A player with 20 G/A in a team scoring 120 goals (≈16.7%) is less central than a player with 15 G/A in a team scoring 30 goals (50%).
   • G/A on its own ignores whether the player was just “along for the ride” in a prolific team.
2. GC% accounts for team context; G/A does not.
   • Team goal output varies massively: playing for Pep’s City vs. mid-table Burnley is not the same environment.
   • Absolute G/A numbers are inflated or deflated by team attacking strength. GC% normalizes this, showing the share of responsibility.
3. GC% captures dependency and responsibility.
   • If a team relies on one player to generate half of its goals, that shows higher burden and irreplaceability than someone contributing a small fraction, regardless of raw totals.
   • This reveals “carrying effect” which raw G/A cannot.
4. GC% filters out “inflated totals” from dominant teams.
   • A winger at City might rack up 25 G/A, but spread across 100+ goals. That’s not the same weight as a forward with 18 G/A in a team that only managed 40 total goals.
   • GC% prevents misinterpretation caused by team strength.
5. GC% is inherently comparative.
   • You can immediately tell how much of a team’s output flows through one player.
   • G/A requires extra context every time (how many goals did the team score? what’s the role?), otherwise it’s misleading.
6. Decision-making value.
   • If you want to know who is truly pivotal, GC% is decisive. Managers, scouts, analysts can identify “systems built on one player.”
   • G/A is only “what happened,” not “how dependent the system was.”
7. GC% better reflects irreplaceability and pressure.
   • Scoring/assisting 40% of your team’s goals means the team collapses without you.
   • Scoring 25 goals in a team that scored 100 is great, but the system still produces plenty elsewhere.

Counter-arguments debunked:

• “GC% penalizes players in strong teams.”
  That’s not a flaw—it’s reality. Strong teams distribute goals. It tells you individual importance within team, not absolute production.
• “GC% is inflated in weak teams.”
  Yes, and that’s precisely the point: it reveals reliance. It doesn’t mean the player is “better overall,” but it shows he is more essential.

Conclusion
GC% > G/A because it measures share of responsibility, dependency, and contextual value rather than just raw production.
G/A without context is misleading; GC% already includes context in its definition.

G/A = “What did he do?”
GC% = “How much did he matter?”

Do you want me to also write the reverse case—why someone might argue G/A > GC%—so you can dismantle it in debate?

"G/A is better than GC%. Why? Give irrefutable arguments"

Let’s pin this down cleanly. The debate is between G/A per 90 (Goals + Assists per 90 minutes) and GC% (Goal Contribution percentage = share of team’s goals scored/assisted by the player).

You want why G/A is the superior metric — with reasoning that can’t be refuted if definitions and logic are applied consistently. Here’s the breakdown:

1. G/A measures production, GC% measures dependence

• G/A tells you how many goals a player is producing, directly.
  
• GC% only tells you what proportion of team goals he is tied to.
  
• A player’s production doesn’t change if the team scores more or less around him. But GC% can swing up or down purely due to team output even if the player performs identically.
  → This makes GC% unstable and team-dependent.

2. GC% can be misleading with team quality

• If you move the same player from a defensive/low-scoring side to an attacking/high-scoring side, his G/A might stay equal or even rise — but his GC% will usually drop because the team as a whole scores more.
• That does not mean the player suddenly got “worse.”
• Example: Messi at Barça (often 40–50% GC%) vs Messi at PSG (lower GC%). His actual production didn’t collapse, but GC% made it look weaker because PSG scored more from other players.

3. GC% punishes players for good teammates

• In a great team where goals are spread across multiple top players, even world-class production will yield a modest GC%.
• In a weak team, a decent but not elite player can show a huge GC% simply because nobody else scores.
• G/A is player-centered, GC% is skewed by supporting cast.
  → That’s why GC% often overrates “big fish in small pond” players.

4. GC% is a ratio, G/A is an absolute

• Ratios are inherently context-relative; absolutes reflect actual events.
• A player with 0.9 G/A per 90 is producing nearly a goal every game. That fact stands regardless of team environment.
• GC% can tell you interesting context, but it’s not a measure of output. It can’t tell you if the player is truly elite unless paired with absolutes.

5. Edge-case exposure of GC%

• Imagine Player A scores 25 goals in a team with 50 goals → 50% GC%.
• Player B scores 40 goals in a team with 120 goals → 33% GC%.
  Who is better? Clearly the 40-goal scorer is producing more. GC% incorrectly makes Player A look more vital.
• G/A cuts through this distortion.

6. Historical comparability

• G/A allows comparison across eras and contexts — how much did a player produce relative to modern and historic benchmarks.
• GC% is less reliable historically, since scoring environments, tactical structures, and goal distributions vary wildly across eras.

Conclusion

• GC% = dependent variable (how much team needed you).
• G/A = independent variable (what you actually did).
• You can only compare players across teams and eras meaningfully with G/A, because it isolates the player’s real output.
• GC% is at best a supplementary stat to highlight reliance, never a primary measure of performance.

Irrefutable core:
A player cannot control how many goals his team scores in total. He can only control how many he produces. That’s why G/A > GC%.

Do you want me to also build the steelman of the opposite case (why GC% looks appealing at first glance) so you can crush it systematically? That would make your argument airtight in debate.

 

Tha

Repeating the same delusion over and over again is not changing facts.and yes gullit was still bad in1988/89 serie a.

 

Absolutely agree. It is useful if you know how to use it and you don't trust it. Essentially, it is not a substitute for critical thinking.

 

....
...


Don Alfredo Di Stefano younger ....played ..the similar competition ....yes


..

Classificação final

Partida entre Vasco da Gama e River Plate.
Pos. Equipe Pts J V E D GP GC SG


1 Vasco da Gama 10 6 4 2 0 12 3 +9
2 River Plate 9 6 4 1 1 12 4 +8

Campeonato Sul-Americano de Campeões de 1948

...
..

The young Di Stefano...
was highly praised in Brazil and by journalists who saw this competition live
in that age .

Di Stefano
was called

a global phenomenon...

also by Brazilian newspapers of the time.

 

yes, Of course . !


I'm not Ruud Gullit's lawyer...

I don't get paid to do this work.


As a kid, I was a huge fan of Diego Maradona, Bebeto and Jorge Burruchaga, even more so than Gullit in that age .


I agree with you... on Diego from being the most iconic player of the 80s, yes... mainly for the 1986 World Cup and the 1990 World Cup as well.

no doubts about it .

Most iconic...

Doesn't mean He was the best or the greatest...of the 80's always

are different worlds my friend .

...
..

Be the greatest

You need to be consistent and regular throughout every match and in All the professional metrics as well .

 

You're strawmanning me. I never said "individual output means individual ability" lol in fact i agree and always argued in favor of what youre saying.

On your last question, I'll leave opta answer for you: "The final touch from a teammate, which leads to the recipient of the ball scoring a Goal". This stat shows how many times an individual gave the final touch for a teammate to score a goal. A player with a great number of assists is a strong evidence that he's giving a lot of passes that are likely to become goals. Especially if he's having more assists than anyone else of his own era. That can be boosted by better finishes of course but if he mantains a great number over a larger sample size and with different strikers, that strenghtens even more that evidence.

Now, I never denied that G/A can be influentied by teammates. in my last posts you can read I'm explicitly arguing in favor of it. What I'm saying is G/A% doesn't solve this problem cause in essence this stat shows how many independent goals a player's teammates score. Only this

 

bad in the Serie A Calcio 1988-1989 season ??????

hahaha ... no way man !


Ruud Gullit was the player of the Match ...against Hellas Verona ..Claudio Caniggia... away-game ..

Gullit played 31 minutes only ... in the first half of the Match ...

received a standing ovation from the fans of Ac Milan and Hellas Verona.


1988-1989...season


Ruud Gullit was the player of the Match ...against Hellas Verona ..Claudio Caniggia... away-game ..
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against As Roma .. away-game ..
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Juventus .. Home-game ..
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Lazio .. away-game ..... against Ruben Sosa
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against L'Ascoli .. away-game ..... shared with Franco Baresi .... more to Baresi ...on this match here
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Juventus .. away-game .....
... the famous game ..that Gullit gives ...las bicicletas fintas ... in the left winger ...
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Como .. home-game .....
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Pisa .. home-game .....
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Fiorentina .. away-game .....
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Pescara .. Home-game .....
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Hellas Verona .. Home-game ...
Gullit was the player of the Match ... against Bologna .. Home-game ...

 

19 Matches

with 11 the player of the Match Awards .. !

 

Exactly. He was a character and a pop culture icon. He came to Europe with the "Best player in the world" label already attached, and no one questioned that much. There used to be no sat tv, no internet. Even pundits and football journos had seen him playing only a few times before, had no clear understanding of his value (that was world-class of course, don't get me wrong). Saying Maradona was the greatest in the world, or even the greatest ever ("Maradó émmegl' e Pelé!") became quite a cliché. Like saying Beatles have been the greatest band ever (great band indeed, but we all know the Stones, The Velvet Underground, Jimi & The Experience, The Doors, The Stooges have likely been a bigger deal, considering their contemporaries only). Then of course one can very legitimately have him as his favorite player ever. But having someone else is at least as legit.

 

The emphasis on the word individual for ga and relative for gc% is heavily implying that individual output is individual ability. If you are not saying that it means that the entire piece about ga being direct measure of INDIVIDUAL perofrmance is nonsense. It holds zero relevance. It only hold relevance if "individual " here is bringing us closer to true individual ability.

So you are just spamming words left and right to associate ga with relevant "individual" things and gc% with irrelevant "non-individual" things.

Emphasis on individual holds zero wieght if it doesnt gets us closer ot individual ability.

...

How many independent goals teammates score is important metric that gc% is normalizing against.

You go from open mind not knwoing if it is relevant or not. It is a hypothesis, then you run numbers by normalizing for it, and math/statistic shows unequivocally that there is a strong correlation between how many goals player in question contributes to and how many his teammates independently of him.

Rationalozation is simple and you agreed with this, over time every player converges to their true contribution value (with large enough sample size) for any given context. So independent contribution of teammates is an information that basically tells us one thing: how easy it is to contribute while playing for that team against those opponents.

It is a proxy for team attacking strength. And palyer in question is normalized against it.

This yields much stable results than just ga meaning that there is a strong positive correlation between independent teammate contribution and player's in question contribution.

You simply cant accept that. It is empirical evidence from actual dataset. No need for theorizing. The correlation exists and it is meaningful.

 

At the time van Basten played at serie A was there a player who scored more non penalty goals per 90 than him (with comparable minutes played)?

 

Correlation does not imply causation

 

Careca was on par. Due to injuries and other issues, only seasons they can be compared one-to-one are 88-89 and 91-92. Careca was 4 years older (born 1960), a non irrelevant detail.

 

Yes, although it is extremely close.

1987/88 - 0 in 2 full 90s (0.00)
1988/89 - 14 in 28 full 90s (0.50)
1989/90 - 14 in 24 full 90s (0.58)
1990/91 - 8 in 29 full 90s (0.27)
1991/92 - 16 in 25 full 90s (0.64)
1992/93 - 11 in 13 full 90s (0.84)
Total - 63 Goals in 121 full 90s (0.52)

Careca directly outscores him, with 2 more goals but with a worse ratio by .3.

1987/88 - 13 in 20 full 90s (0.65)
1988/89 - 18 in 26 full 90s (0.69)
1989/90 - 8 in 16 full 90s (0.50)
1990/91 - 7 in 27 full 90s (0.25)
1991/92 - 13 in 28 full 90s (0.46)
1992/93 - 6 in 15 full 90s (0.40)
Total - 65 Goals in 132 full 90s (0.49)

 

But indeed you can directly compare G/A only within a limited timeframe. As to GC%, I suspect its stability is much less an indicator of meaningfulness than you think. I suspect that a just good but not outstanding attacking midfielder of a not so good team can easily get close to Baggio's GC% values. At the end of the day you just can't dodge differences of hundreds of goals: you can't dismiss G/A completely

 

You were much more accurate than me but in fact confirmed my claim. Let me add that if you go take a look to footages you'll recognize quality-wise on average 1 Careca goal = 2 MVB's ! So the weighted difference is indeed large ;-)