: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:41 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

He's right. Every player has games where they are not so great. If somebody has played more games than the player you are comparing to, then it goes without saying he will have had more of those not so great games than the other.

Therefore average per games for somobody playing 50 games, can not be compared to someone playing 200 games.

What's the alternative measure if you wish to compare players performances?

Fifty or two hundred games shouldn't matter as you're taking the average output per game.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:43 pm  

tvoc wrote:

What's the alternative measure if you wish to compare players performances?

Fifty or two hundred games shouldn't matter as you're taking the average output per game.

Because the avarages diminish (as Gotcha stated) when the player has a lengthier career.

They're useful stats but, like most stats, do not tell anywhere near the full picture.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:47 pm  

G1 wrote:

Because the avarages diminish (as Gotcha stated) when the player has a lengthier career.

They're useful stats but, like most stats, do not tell anywhere near the full picture.

Are Peacock and Senior's averages diminishing?

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:47 pm  

G1 wrote:

Because the avarages diminish (as Gotcha stated) when the player has a lengthier career.

They're useful stats but, like most stats, do not tell anywhere near the full picture.

Neither you nor DISA understand O level maths or the basic principles of a mean average

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:50 pm  

Puig-Aubert wrote:

Neither you nor DISA understand O level maths or the basic principles of a mean average

neither you or TVOC understand how little those areas help in the assessment of a rugby players' qualities.

And how dare you insinuate I am old enough to have done O'levels.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:53 pm  

G1 wrote:

And how dare you insinuate I am old enough to have done O'levels.

He'd have been spot on with me though.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:55 pm  

G1 wrote:

neither you or TVOC understand how little those areas help in the assessment of a rugby players' qualities.

And how dare you insinuate I am old enough to have done O'levels.

I did O level. I passed too.

Maybe averages weren't on the new fangled GCSE syllabus. It'll all have been computer and lasers by then.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:58 pm  

I'm undecided to wether he would be a good signing. Has potential but to me nothing near the potential to be world class, which really is what we need.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:00 pm  

Puig-Aubert wrote:

I did O level. I passed too.

Maybe averages weren't on the new fangled GCSE syllabus. It'll all have been computer and lasers by then.

I'll come clean (no jokes please).

I did O'levels too

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:38 pm  

tvoc wrote:

What's the alternative measure if you wish to compare players performances?

Fifty or two hundred games shouldn't matter as you're taking the average output per game.

But how many of those "average" stats came from Walker in the second row?

I know I ask a question, but I dont expect you to know. But it kind of shows a descrepancy when comparing to an out and out centre.