That is why I argue that game resume doesn't consider time and my claim before it was that while you don't consider that variable your analysis will provided poor(and maybe misleading) information.
if you remember i have proposed 2 possibilities by looking at the results..
1. random factor is huge..
2. match-up ratings are nonsense..
you don't accept that my analysis method is right but you don't propose another analysis method..
i mean, you say that you totally don't care about those match-up ratings..
that means you go with the second option; match-up ratings are nonsense..
if you think that they are worth looking at, please tell me your method of evaluating those numbers..
I believe there is something we can agree: the game resume is not z}a perfect tool to understand a game. Like any tool designed to resume, a lot of info is lost on the process.
My claim about the method you empleyed, in fact, did not provide you with another (hopefully better) tool. What I can do is to try to enforce you the approach and importance of the live game when evaluating a result.
Personally, I believe this was intentionally designed this way. There are clues you can fin watching the game that are not captured in the resume. You can still use tools like the performed distribution to weight the matchups, but you have to consider the limitations of your method.
How do I read them? Work in progress. I don't feel comfortable by releasing something I know have flaws. So I will pass on this one...
BTW, How much important do you think it might be the most common training patterns for inside/outside players in the discussion about tactics?
Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 1/30/2010 6:43:52 PM