[The rules of this thread are simple: write what you want, reply if you
want, ignore if you have to.]

---

Rule proposal: the score of a player is the minimum between:
- the number of UEFA Champions League won
- the number of Copa Libertadores won

(For context: only 14 players ever have won both trophies, and 3 have
been picked by me in Fantasy Scout: Bayern and Sao Paulo's Rafinha,
David Luiz, Marcelo.)

((Futbolmetrix, please don't tell your line.))

--
Cheers
milivella

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 2:58:03 PM UTC-5, milivella wrote:
> (For context: only 14 players ever have won both trophies, and 3 have
> been picked by me in Fantasy Scout: Bayern and Sao Paulo's Rafinha,
> David Luiz, Marcelo.)

In the analytics community, somebody once coined the Messi rule: "if you have a new measure of attacking output, and Messi comes out on top, it's probably a good measure."

We can paraphrase that and say that if the list of players who achieved some accomplishment includes David Luiz and Marcelo (and few others), then that accomplishment is probably pretty meaningless.

>
> ((Futbolmetrix, please don't tell your line.))
>

Which line? The one about the two players most directly responsible for the most humiliating and embarrassing defeat in the history of the best national team ever? oh, ooops...

Futbolmetrix:
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 2:58:03 PM UTC-5, milivella wrote:
>> (For context: only 14 players ever have won both trophies, and 3 have
>> been picked by me in Fantasy Scout: Bayern and Sao Paulo's Rafinha,
>> David Luiz, Marcelo.)
>
> In the analytics community, somebody once coined the Messi rule: "if you have a new measure of attacking output, and Messi comes out on top, it's probably a good measure."
>
> We can paraphrase that and say that if the list of players who achieved some accomplishment includes David Luiz and Marcelo (and few others), then that accomplishment is probably pretty meaningless.
Statistics should correct prejudices, not reinforce them!
>> ((Futbolmetrix, please don't tell your line.))
>>
>
> Which line? The one about the two players most directly responsible for the most humiliating and embarrassing defeat in the history of the best national team ever? oh, ooops...
He told the line.
--
Cheers
milivella

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:58:03 PM UTC+1, milivella wrote:
> [The rules of this thread are simple: write what you want, reply if you
> want, ignore if you have to.]
>

A question that crossed my mind when I read that Nagelsmann had called up
Marvin Ducksch and Janis Blaswich for the first time to the German NT, at the
respective ages of 29 and 32 - what's the percentage, roughly, of players that
have actually been capped to a FS national team, but had never been selected
by any scout?

Ciao,
Werner

Werner Pichler:

> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:58:03 PM UTC+1, milivella wrote:
> > [The rules of this thread are simple: write what you want, reply if you
> > want, ignore if you have to.]
> >
> A question that crossed my mind when I read that Nagelsmann had called up
> Marvin Ducksch and Janis Blaswich for the first time to the German NT, at the
> respective ages of 29 and 32 - what's the percentage, roughly, of players that
> have actually been capped to a FS national team, but had never been selected
> by any scout?

Great question! Here is a quick, totally unscientific answer. Non-FS players who have played in the last match of each NT:
- ARG: 1/15: Acuna (I did not count in either group Messi, who was never pickable)
- BRA: 1/16: Carlos Augusto
- ENG: 2/14: Trippier, Rice
- ESP: 3/16: David Garcia, Pedraza, Joselu
- FRA: 1/17: Clauss
- GER: 4/17: Ruediger, Gross, Hofman, Behrens
- ITA: 1/16: Acerbi
- NED: 2/16: Weghorst, De Roon

If you analyze more than one match for each NT, I expect more low-scoring players to be added to the count than high-scoring ones, and low-scoring players are less likely to have been picked in FS (consider that if a player doesn't get at least 10 caps+goals, he makes the scout lose points). So, if these data are something like 2 non-FS players for every 16 capped players, the answer to your question is probably more than that, that is to say, more than 12.5%.

--
Cheers
milivella

Reflecting on the idea of counting only goals:
https://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/19/counting-only-goals/

--
Cheers
milivella

On 2023-11-18 19:54, milivella wrote:
> Reflecting on the idea of counting only goals:
> https://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/19/counting-only-goals/

seems to me there would be a gross distortion in favour of players who
take penalties, especially given that penalties, especially for
handball, are so much more frequent now with new rule interpretations
and VAR.

Is Lukaku really a better pick than De Bruyne ? A LOT better ?

Is it worth distorting the game in favour of goal-scoring machines who
are not even the best players in their respective teams?

Is there not skill and acumen involved in correctly deciding who is
going to be a long term fixture in goal for teams like (random examples)
England or France ?

>
> --
> Cheers
> milivella

Idea: abolish cycles, have seasonal competitions, count only goals:
https://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/22/idea-abolish-cycles-have-seasonal-competitions-count-only-goals/

I would explore this idea further before even considering to propose a
reform, but I'd like to hear your opinion about it.

(Above all, I have to reply to MH about the part I had already posted!
For the time being, thanks, Michael, for your very important feedback.)

--
Cheers
milivella

MH:
> On 2023-11-18 19:54, milivella wrote:
>> Reflecting on the idea of counting only goals:
>> https://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/19/counting-only-goals/
Thanks again for your feedback.
> seems to me there would be a gross distortion in favour of players who
> take penalties, especially given that penalties, especially for
> handball, are so much more frequent now with new rule interpretations
> and VAR.
This is a very good point. A solution may be to exclude goals from
penalties from the score.
> Is Lukaku really a better pick than De Bruyne ?  A LOT better ?
No, it is not. Of course, if we started counting only goals, the game
would not be about the best players overall, but about the highest
scoring players for their NT.
"Then it would be a different game, and it makes no sense to consider it
a continuation of Fantasy Scout" would be a totally reasonable opinion
IMO. As it would be "then it would be a worse game" (right now, I am 50%
of this mind).
And Fantasy Scout is almost a vetocracy, so if at least two people
dislike a reform proposal, it is almost certain that it will not
pass---that things won't change.
> Is it worth distorting the game in favour of goal-scoring machines who
> are not even the best players in their respective teams?
This is the (non-rhetorical) question, IMO (albeit I would maybe say
"radically changing" instead of "distorting"). We would trade the score
measuring overall quality (roughly) with us having more fun in checking
updates (hopefully). Is it worth it?
> Is there not skill and acumen involved in correctly deciding who is
> going to be a long term fixture in goal for teams like (random examples)
> England or France ?
LOL at the examples. :D
Yes, of course there is skill and acumen in this. As there is skill and
acumen in correctly predicting who will get many caps for the Croatian
national team. Fantasy Scout currently does not reward the latter skill,
and it is OK. If the rules changed, from that moment on, Fantasy Scout
would reward a different kind of prediction.
Summing up, I think we agree that counting only goals (for determining
the scores of new cycles) would be a radical change for the game, one
that would reward picking the best overall players less, even if we only
consider forwards. My question is whether this would be worth it,
assuming following the updates of the ranking became more fun*. I am not
sure about the answer, whereas you seem to think that it would not be
worth it.
* Another question is whether following the updates of the ranking would
actually become more fun.
--
Cheers
milivella

Post scriptum:
I think that the following question would be similar to the ones you asked:
QUESTION
Imagine the following scenario:
- Scout B picks Lasogga in 2011 and Morata in 2012
- Scout D picks Casemiro in 2011 and Pogba in 2013
- Scout M picks Giroud and Yesil in 2012
Is it fair that scout M and B win one trophy each and scout D does not
win any trophy?
And I guess that we would agree on the following answer:
ANSWER
It is not fair, but setting up cycles was necessary to make the game
enjoyable (first of all, to allow us to change the scoring rule, which
in turn created an incentive to pick players---i.e., to play).
Now, my answer to your questions (except the one about penalties) is
similar: you are of course right, if we counted only goals, we would
lose rewarding picking the best players overall, but this is useful to
make the game more enjoyable [1].
In other words: so far, we have treated Fantasy Scout not only as a
measure of our ability to predict which players would be successful, but
also as a game to enjoy. Of course the problem is how to balance these
two sides. I wonder whether limiting the scope of the prediction (to
goalscoring) would be worth it, if compensated by a significant increase
in the fun of playing (more precisely, of checking how the standing evolve).
[1] Notice the changes: "necessary"->"useful", "enjoyable"->"more
enjoyable"...
milivella:
> MH:
>
>> On 2023-11-18 19:54, milivella wrote:
>>> Reflecting on the idea of counting only goals:
>>> https://fantasyscoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/19/counting-only-goals/
>
> Thanks again for your feedback.
>
>> seems to me there would be a gross distortion in favour of players who
>> take penalties, especially given that penalties, especially for
>> handball, are so much more frequent now with new rule interpretations
>> and VAR.
>
> This is a very good point. A solution may be to exclude goals from
> penalties from the score.
>
>> Is Lukaku really a better pick than De Bruyne ?  A LOT better ?
>
> No, it is not. Of course, if we started counting only goals, the game
> would not be about the best players overall, but about the highest
> scoring players for their NT.
>
> "Then it would be a different game, and it makes no sense to consider it
> a continuation of Fantasy Scout" would be a totally reasonable opinion
> IMO. As it would be "then it would be a worse game" (right now, I am 50%
> of this mind).
>
> And Fantasy Scout is almost a vetocracy, so if at least two people
> dislike a reform proposal, it is almost certain that it will not
> pass---that things won't change.
>
>> Is it worth distorting the game in favour of goal-scoring machines who
>> are not even the best players in their respective teams?
>
> This is the (non-rhetorical) question, IMO (albeit I would maybe say
> "radically changing" instead of "distorting"). We would trade the score
> measuring overall quality (roughly) with us having more fun in checking
> updates (hopefully). Is it worth it?
>
>> Is there not skill and acumen involved in correctly deciding who is
>> going to be a long term fixture in goal for teams like (random
>> examples) England or France ?
>
> LOL at the examples. :D
>
> Yes, of course there is skill and acumen in this. As there is skill and
> acumen in correctly predicting who will get many caps for the Croatian
> national team. Fantasy Scout currently does not reward the latter skill,
> and it is OK. If the rules changed, from that moment on, Fantasy Scout
> would reward a different kind of prediction.
>
> Summing up, I think we agree that counting only goals (for determining
> the scores of new cycles) would be a radical change for the game, one
> that would reward picking the best overall players less, even if we only
> consider forwards. My question is whether this would be worth it,
> assuming following the updates of the ranking became more fun*. I am not
> sure about the answer, whereas you seem to think that it would not be
> worth it.
>
> * Another question is whether following the updates of the ranking would
> actually become more fun.
>
> --
> Cheers
> milivella

milivella:

> Post scriptum:

[snip]

I was also thinking that we could have two rankings:
- the usual one, counting the caps and goals of all the players one picks
- the one based on goals only, specifically on the goals scored by a
selected subset of one's picks (the forwards)
But when would one specify who are the picked players to count for the
second ranking? At the end of the season? (I am assuming the seasonal
standing reform.)

--
Cheers
milivella