Injuries aside, was Peak Neymar better than any non-Messi player this era?

That's not evidence, that is your inference
We are talking about a world-class team with world-class midfielders and wingers. Messi plays deep because he is a forward who does not play shoulder-to-shoulder with CBs and cannot play back to goal. His playstyle is reliant on receiving ball at his feet with body position toward the net. I thought you actually knew the player?
The reality is Messi for a long time has been playing deeper than a classic 9, because it is HIS most effective position. Can you imagine a lone Messi stranded up top next to two 6'2 CBs? Give me a goddamn break. So disingenuous.

 

That is not what is meant by representative sample size. It is implied that the chosen subset is suficient in representing a larger set of interest.

Larger set of interest would be Neymar's finishing ability in every possible scenario. How good of a finisher he is..

So the question of representative sample size comes down to if this sample is encompassing situations and scenarios that can be scaled up and seen as the same as that bigger set.

 

No, I am taking issue with you calling that "Statistical randomness". You are dodging.
Neymar performing well in the 8 (consecutive) games he played without Messi is NOT statistical randomness.
Even if the true population is defined as the cumulative amount of shots he took in his career, it is STILL NOT STATISTICAL RANDOMNESS, but a "subgroup" or "nonrepresentative sample".
Walk away from this with dignity, and more knowledge. You're otherwise drowning.

 

We are discussing "statistical RANDOMNESS" which is what the other poster claimed. At no point did we discuss whether this is a "representative sample" which are terms I introduced in my explanation.

 

What does this video prove? This does not disprove anything I said, nor support anything you said. 2015 is obviously an extraordinary player and an all-time dribbler.

 

Messi was farther from the net from 2004 to 2013 than he was in 2014-16.
The difference in the Pep years is he could drive the penalty box and receive the ball there, and he lost a degree of incisiveness over time.

 

Jesus. Talk about being tone deaf. Please provide a link supporting the use of the term "statistical randomness" in an equivalent data sample / scenario.
I am getting second hand embarassment for you - seriously. Data derived from the 8 consecutive matches Neymar played without Messi ... is NOT RANDOM. Under NO circumstances, is it RANDOM. There is no mathematical BASIS for the term you are using. Football is NOT a card game. It is NOT a dice game. 40 shots in 8 consecutive games is NOT the equivalent of throwing a dice. THERE IS NO BASIS for YOUR USE of THOSE TERMS. 40 SHOTS is the ENTIRE POPULATION of shots Neymar took in that 8 consecutive span of matches.

 

"statistical randomness from the sample being just 40 shots is obviously enormous"

Dude. You CANNOT be saying these things. I cannot fathom how an individual can be so wrong. I am so embarrassed for you.

 

I commented on your explaination.

There is nothing dubious with the word statistical randomness. In a small sample size there is a greater degree of uncertainty.

You latch on to straws of uncertainty to make a claim.

If I go outside and shot 10 three pointers to the hoop and by some miracle make 5 of those. Can i retire and claim I am a better three point shooter than Steph Curry with 50% from the three?

10 three pointers are a sample size of a great uncertainty and nothing can be concluded based on that. And if that actually happens, which is unlikely but feasible, that is true, "representitive" sample size but it still would be random in a sense that with 10 shots anything can happen.

I am not a 50% shoter from a three point line and if I continued shoting my success rate would converge towards my true skill level, which is definitely not 50%

 

You are not describing statistical randomness. Again, saying that the 8 matches Neymar played is NOT a representative sample of his career shooting is TRUE. Saying those 8 matches are "statistical randomness" is a NON-MATHEMATICAL TERM and FALSE.

 

Buddy, your post will live in infamy for stating that the 8 match-consecutive sample is "statistical randomness". You can write essays, and paragraphs. But you have said something that is PATENTLY FALSE, and represents non-mathematical rubbish language.

These are the words you typed:
""statistical randomness from the sample being just 40 shots is obviously enormous""
This is no basis in statistics for this statement. This is a fact, and you are unable to understand that betrays that you simply have not managed to understand these concepts on a very fundamental level.

edit:
there is no insulting language in my post. you can cry about imaginary strawmen as is your forte.

 

Like I said, I gave you many outs:
1. The first was to actually provide a definition of the elusive term "statistical randomness". Just explain the term - forget about tying it to the discussion at hand. All I asked was an operating definition you see...
2. Withdraw the term "statistical randomness" and simply focus on the mathematical concept of "Randomness" - but somehow tie that in to the 8 game sample - and explain why real-world events of shooting in football is mathematically "random" (hint: it isn't).
3. Provide backing to the statement: ""statistical randomness from the sample being just 40 shots is obviously enormous"" This a sentence that to me is on mathematical grounds illogical. I need to understand what "obviously enormous means" mathematically. Did you calculate the power of a 40 shot sample? I'm struggling to even formulate rational questions, because the sentence itself is nonsensical...

Lastly, you are mistaken if you think I am interested in "victory". I am interested in truth. In so far as you are concerned, you are meaningless to me, and anything you might misconstrue as a "victory" (I'm assuming demonstrating you being wrong constitutes "victory"?) is therefore completely meaningless to me.

 

I demand proof of your claimed background / expertise in statistics, because nothing you provided is "randomness". You are waffling. I am not quoting the rest of your essay, because I skimmed and saw the words "sophistry" and "semantics". No, we are talking statistics.

I have asked you to provide a definition of statistical randomness or how a sample of 40 consecutive shots is "random". You manage to write essays, and yet this minimal requirement is something you cannot achieve.

Hint: You won't because you made things up.

edit:
Unless, you can explain how a consecutive sample of 40 shots is "random" - by explain I mean mathematically or with reference to a resource, or provide a definition of "statistical randomness" such that we can understand what that even means in the context, I will abstain from a completely fruitless discussion that should not even have occurred had you completed basic prerequisite classes on sampling.

 

See my edit:

Unless, you can explain how a consecutive sample of 40 shots is "random" - by explain I mean mathematically or with reference to a resource, or provide a definition of "statistical randomness" such that we can understand what that even means in the context, I will abstain from a completely fruitless discussion that should not even have occurred had you completed basic prerequisite classes on sampling.

I hope this is a lesson to you not to delve into objective mathematical topics you do not understand.

 

Your evasiveness betrays you.
I rest my case.

In the words of Mourinho, you are exposed and "I have nothing to say"

 

I asked you to back up the (non-mathematical) statement that a consecutive 40 shot sample is statistical randomness. I did so because it's a statement that makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

You've written several essays. Literal mountains of text. And have yet to explain to this community what that is. Or what statistical randomness is point blank.
The only bad faith is yours man, I hope you understand that.

Should you wish to be honest with readers, you can clearly define what that means, and then we can resume discussing it.

The request for clarification is simple, clear, and reasonable. So far you have done nothing but dodge and use terms like "trolling".

Make no mistake. People here are intelligent and educated. You are exposed and we all see through you.