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

Only a person who argues in a bad faith would argue over a definition and choice of words other members use. If someone explains you what they meant by that term or a phrase what is the problem?

It seems you dont even disagree with the underlying meaning of the phrase statistical randomness so what is the point of arguing so harshly against it?

And it is not representitive sample of his career to be very precise. It is good enough but not representitve as "averageness" of those 8 games dont coincide with "averageness" of all of games he has played. But that isnt really that important nor is difference a big deal

 

He knows he is wrong to a degree. You can only run from the truth and what is sensical as far.. that will make him more cautious about what he says in the future so it is a success in a way.

 

No, don't you even try.
I did ask him to explain the phrase. He has not. I asked for a definition of statistical randomness. He has not provided it.
If he has, and I am making a mistake, you can quote me and I will apologize (even if the definition is wrong, impertinent, fake).

Just so you know:
Non-representative does not mean random. If I am looking at the effects of the Pfizer vaccine on the American population, but select a sample of just "White Americans" - that is a non-representative sample. If I take a representative sample, but the sample is small, that sample is "underpowered".

In the case of 8 consecutive matches, the shooting efficiency in those 8 matches cannot. Cannot. Cannot. Be described as "random". Shooting a football is not a "random" phenomenon like a non-weighted dice. These are NOT analogous phenomena under any circumstances.

To analyze the player's shooting efficiency in a 8 game stretch is perfectly VALID. You are DESCRIBING a real phenomenon.

The discussion centred on Neymar's performance during a 2 month stretch without Messi. In this discussion, somebody (not even me) described Neymar's shooting efficiency. At some, point a poster claimed this shooting efficiency is "randomness" which is a falsehood.

With respect to sample size, a random 40 shot sample may actually be sufficient FYI, depending on the error that is deemed acceptable. You would have to run the numbers - which nobody here has - which is why I found his statement about 40 shots positively hilarious.

 

I request you provide a reference to a chapter in a statistics book you studied from pertinent to the discussion, or a screenshot of a relevant course you have undertaken in your studies.
I will not accept that you denigrate me as such because you have an agenda against me.

 

Wait a second.

 

I forgot to address this.

I just want you to be clear and explicit and for everybody here to hear (read):

Do you stand by the statement that a consecutive 40 shot sample constitutes "large random sampling error"?

If no, please modify the statement accurately.


My question is extremely precise, concise, and clear: Do you stand by the accuracy of this statement?

 

"?shut up?"
Ah, you crossed the line. I hope the moderators can see this.
It's one thing to be wrong and obstinate, it's another to be lose your temper and lose your decorum.

For the record, a consecutive 40 shot sample does NOT constitute "random sampling error".
n was defined as the 8 consecutive matches Neymar played without Messi. In no world is this a "random sampling error" since the sample itself is not randomly selected. If you had the most meager working knowledge of statistics, you would have called it "selection bias".

If you would like a source:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/samplingerror.asp

It is absolutely relevant since you claimed Neymar's performance in an 8 game stretch is "statistical randomness" which is a rubbish statement that dismisses the events of those matches as some stochastic happenstance of the universe. I mean how dare you. How dare you. Have a modicum of shame. You stand for anything but the truth.

 

Quite the intellectual you are.
Wake me up when you define "statistical randomness" or explain to us why real-world sporting events are "statistical randomness".
You're lucky I didn't quote you when you claimed the same thing about the 5 CL's Madrid won in recent times.

 

Careful not to confuse yourself too much! We were discussing Neymar's conversion rate in an 8 game consecutive stretch including the totality of the shots during those 8 games. To which you claimed the conversion rate was the product of "statistical randomness" of a sample (ie. a random happenstance) and proceeded to state a sentence that will survive in infamy:
""statistical randomness from the sample being just 40 shots is obviously enormous""
failing to understand that conversion rate is not a dice roll. The "enormous" makes me chuckle to this day.
You then proceeded to use the term "random sampling error" which is completely impertinent to the case since this is a selected sample. Sampling error would arise well... when sampling from the natural population... which is not what we performed. We simply selected a well-defined subgroup of shots which is not representative of the total history of shots Neymar took... but that was not the point of discussion.
Quite frankly, you have gone back and edited your posts, but thankfully I quoted most of yours. Anybody with a shred of understanding of statistics will have a chance to look back and laugh.

 

You're good at this charade. Like I said, anybody who has ever taken an introductory statistics class will read this discussion, and thankfully what you have said lives on in my quotes. So, anybody partial (or impartial) will read what you have to say and chuckle and there is NOTHING you can do about it, because it is set in stone on the internet. forever. Be bored and so long

 

I dont really read all of your posts. I comment on what I see and feel like saying.

I am sure he uses the word random synonymously with the meaning of uncertainty.

Nothing is truly random. Randomness exists only for an observer who lacks adequate information or knowledge about outer phenomena.

Weather for example appears random although it is not.

Regarding Neymar and the statement that shoting efficiency in 8 games is random, i think it is self explanatory, if stated in that way, that he meant that the sample of those 8 games is not enough to extrapolate what he would actually do for longer periods of time.

Sample size is small enough to have a substantial amount of randomness, chance, luck,..invovled.

If you dont believe that is true, test it yourself. Select random 8 games in a row from Ronaldos career and compare it to the next randomly selcted 8 games in a row. You will see enormous difference. So you cant just trust one set of 8 games in a row. That is the point.

But i must admit i dont see how exactly Messis absence, other than psychological one, has any impact on Neymars shoting abilities as that is probably one of the most individualistic skills there are.

Regarding representative sample I still dont understand if you get it.

Lets look at it this way.

One day you decide you want to find out what population of football fans think about who is better: Messi or Ronaldo, so you make a poll.

Lets say there are 100 000 football fans. That is entire population, but you cant ask all of them an opinion. You can ask only 1000 football fans. So how do you estimate what the whole population thinks by asking only 1% of population the question?

Firstly, if the real opinion (that you dont know atm) of population is that Messi is better 60% (that many would vote for Messi), you will not go to the streets of Madrid and ask 1000 football fans there that question, because they will give you biased answers in favor of Ronaldo and that would make the selected sample of that poll NON-REPRESENTATIVE of the whole population of football fans.

If 2% of football fans are Real fans and 1,9% Barca fans, in a population of 100 000 that makes it 2000 and 1900 respectively. For a poll of 1000 votes that would make 20 Real fans and 19 Barca fans. Ideally, representative sample would have the same percantages and ratios of football fans as does population. The same would be done across multiple variables like age, ethnicity, etc.

But in reality you dont manually pick and choose voters to create a perfect balance of voters, the selection process must be random.

That is the issue the word representative deals with and only that.

Also there is an inherent degree of uncertainty about the poll with 1000 votes for a population of 100 000 even if you have a perfectly representative sample of votes. That is actually something that can be calculated in this case.

Neymars 8 games in a row without Messi is not neither representative or big enough sample size to determine anything related to his career (which would be whole population in this case). To actually determine Neymars shoting efficiency in his career without actually measuring it for every game, you would need to randomly select 100 games of his career and see the results.

 

Too long of a text. Didn't read all that since you are arguing witha ghost. Can you quote me sayimg neymar's 8 games is representstive of his career? Go ahead quote me because I never said nor was that the discussion point.

 

Finishing is a non-random phenomenon. Your comment is outrageous. Conversion rate is absolutely not a stochastic natural phenomenon. This is not a dice roll. You are digging yourself deeper in your ridiculous assertion.

 

It is not random sampling either!!!! It is a pre-defined population of consecutive shots when Messi did not play. There is nothing random about this population. This is turning into a clown show.