Jordan Rhodes value plummets

[DJMortimer]

1 minute ago, Emilianenko said:

I see a striker with great movement finding space and getting increasingly frustrated when a cross or pass doesn't arrive. We all know he needs supply but if it doesn't come he is pretty irrelevant. So why not try playing to his strengths ala the Forest game and play him with a decent big man as he always has done when he's scored regularly. No surprise we looked good with him and Fletcher together briefly.

You wouldn't sign Lee Chapman and constantly play through balls for him to chase would you? No you'd play to his strengths and constantly supply crosses.

 

I put that down to confirmation bias. Some people can't let go of the idea that he's a special talent despite the torrent of evidence to the contrary in the last four years or more. That amazing first half at Forest gave his backers hope of a second coming and a new narrative has been formed about what it represented. But if you look at it, only one of those goals came from the kind of service we're told he needs, and even that was a pretty simple chance that anyone could have taken.

[daleblue]

15 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I put that down to confirmation bias. Some people can't let go of the idea that he's a special talent despite the torrent of evidence to the contrary in the last four years or more. That amazing first half at Forest gave his backers hope of a second coming and a new narrative has been formed about what it represented. But if you look at it, only one of those goals came from the kind of service we're told he needs, and even that was a pretty simple chance that anyone could have taken.

 

Did he not miss a sitter that day.

[shandypants]

5 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

 

A reminder that Fletcher-Rhodes works brilliantly as a partnership:-

 

16/17 - 245 minutes - 7 team goals - goal every 35 minutes

 

17/18 - 101 minutes - 3 team goals - goal every 34 minutes

 

19/20 - 266 minutes - 8 team goals - goal every 33 minutes

 

 

Aren’t there eight other outfield players that potentially contributed to those goals? Are you aware of the concomitant variable aka the covariant. In very very simple terms the concomitant variable is the thing that has an effective on an outcome but is not consider when it should be. The concomitant variable in your stats is the eight other players that contributed to the plays that resulted in the goals you refer to but are not considered in your analysis. 
 

Also, take out the outliers and you’ll get a different result. For your information an outlier is an instance in a series that is out of the ordinary and not seen regularly enough to be considered as a true representation of the norm. Outliers are removed because they skew results. Example: my golf handicap is being calculated using my scorecard from last year’s games. In the 10 rounds I played, I typically finished 8 over par but I finished 24 over par in one of those rounds - this one round is the outlier and should be removed because if included, my handicap would be calculated using and average of 9.6 over par and not an average of 8 over par (where 8 over par is the score I would typically finish a game with). If we follow this FUNDAMENTAL principle of statistical analysis, we can see that Rhodes’ four goal against Forest is the outlier in the series and should be removed. 
 

Stats are great if used correctly but damn lies if not. Dig a little into the stat and you’ll see you’ve been misled. 

[Holmowl]

2 minutes ago, shandypants said:

Aren’t there eight other outfield players that potentially contributed to those goals? Are you aware of the concomitant variable aka the covariant. In very very simple terms the concomitant variable is the thing that has an effective on an outcome but is not consider when it should be. The concomitant variable in your stats is the eight other players that contributed to the plays that resulted in the goals you refer to but are not considered in your analysis. 
 

Also, take out the outliers and you’ll get a different result. For your information an outlier is an instance in a series that is out of the ordinary and not seen regularly enough to be considered as a true representation of the norm. Outliers are removed because they skew results. Example: my golf handicap is being calculated using my scorecard from last year’s games. In the 10 rounds I played, I typically finished 8 over par but I finished 24 over par in one of those rounds - this one round is the outlier and should be removed because if included, my handicap would be calculated using and average of 9.6 over par and not an average of 8 over par (where 8 over par is the score I would typically finish a game with). If we follow this FUNDAMENTAL principle of statistical analysis, we can see that Rhodes’ four goal against Forest is the outlier in the series and should be removed. 
 

Stats are great if used correctly but damn lies if not. Dig a little into the stat and you’ll see you’ve been misled. 

Oooh I love a chat about stats.

 

Go on then. Let’s take out your outlier (though in doing so we should also take out the game when they were paired and we didn’t score - but I won’t).

 

With Forest 612 minutes - 18 goals - goal every 34 minutes

 

Without Forest  532 minutes - 14 goals - goal every 38 minutes

 

You can twist and turn all you like. Fletcher-Rhodes works. It’s totally understandable that fans have given up with Rhodes, but they should view the Rhodes-Fletcher partnership fairly and fondly.

[Emilianenko]

2 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Oooh I love a chat about stats.

 

Go on then. Let’s take out your outlier (though in doing so we should also take out the game when they were paired and we didn’t score - but I won’t).

 

With Forest 612 minutes - 18 goals - goal every 34 minutes

 

Without Forest  532 minutes - 14 goals - goal every 38 minutes

 

You can twist and turn all you like. Fletcher-Rhodes works. It’s totally understandable that fans have given up with Rhodes, but they should view the Rhodes-Fletcher partnership fairly and fondly.

To be fair DJ Mortimers and Shandypants love of Nuhiu and hatred of Rhodes is well documented on this site. You aren't gonna get any logic from either.

[Emilianenko]

46 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I put that down to confirmation bias. Some people can't let go of the idea that he's a special talent despite the torrent of evidence to the contrary in the last four years or more. That amazing first half at Forest gave his backers hope of a second coming and a new narrative has been formed about what it represented. But if you look at it, only one of those goals came from the kind of service we're told he needs, and even that was a pretty simple chance that anyone could have taken.

Goal number 1 a flick on from Fletcher ( a quality big striker alongside him) and a deadly finish on the spin, arrowed into the bottom corner.keeper totally helpless.

Goal number 2 a cross from Reach and JR had moved into space , read the flight and places his header into the net with much aplomb.

Goal number 3 a corner into the box which causes panic and guess who's in the right place and reacts with a superb overhead kick.

 

Not sure which one was the simple one anyone could have finished but feel free to clarify.

[DJMortimer]

Just now, Emilianenko said:

To be fair DJ Mortimers and Shandypants love of Nuhiu and hatred of Rhodes is well documented on this site. You aren't gonna get any logic from either.

 

Misrepresenting the argument and making it personal does you no credit.

 

But given the respective reputations of the players you mention and that one of them "guarantees goals" TM, surely you have to be slightly chastened by their respective returns whilst they've been in the same squad? And that's without getting into the less glamorous and obvious elements of the role in which the supposedly inferior comprehensively outperforms the other.

 

 

[Emilianenko]

3 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Misrepresenting the argument and making it personal does you no credit.

 

But given the respective reputations of the players you mention and that one of them "guarantees goals" TM, surely you have to be slightly chastened by their respective returns whilst they've been in the same squad? And that's without getting into the less glamorous and obvious elements of the role in which the supposedly inferior comprehensively outperforms the other.

 

 

As stated previously it is well documented , anyone can read your posts and see this. No misrepresentation at all.

[DJMortimer]

1 minute ago, Emilianenko said:

Goal number 1 a flick on from Fletcher ( a quality big striker alongside him) and a deadly finish on the spin, arrowed into the bottom corner.keeper totally helpless.

Goal number 2 a cross from Reach and JR had moved into space , read the flight and places his header into the net with much aplomb.

Goal number 3 a corner into the box which causes panic and guess who's in the right place and reacts with a superb overhead kick.

 

Not sure which one was the simple one anyone could have finished but feel free to clarify.

 

 

Good to see you're sticking to logic only and not resorting to such cheap tricks as hyperbole or bias.

 

But to answer your question, a free header seven yards out in the centre of the goal like this one required not much more than simply making sure it didn't go straight at the goalkeeper. If you choose to ascribe that to some unusual brilliance then that's up to you, but I'm sure the large majority wouldn't.

 

 

[Emilianenko]

1 minute ago, DJMortimer said:

 

 

Good to see you're sticking to logic only and not resorting to such cheap tricks as hyperbole or bias.

 

But to answer your question, a free header seven yards out in the centre of the goal like this one required not much more than simply making sure it didn't go straight at the goalkeeper. If you choose to ascribe that to some unusual brilliance then that's up to you, but I'm sure the large majority wouldn't.

 

 

But why was it a free header?

[shandypants]

11 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

To be fair DJ Mortimers and Shandypants love of Nuhiu and hatred of Rhodes is well documented on this site. You aren't gonna get any logic from either.

I don’t hate Rhodes but don’t rate him as much as some do

 

I don’t love Nuhiu but rate him more than some do 

 

...but we’re not discussing Nuhiu are we? I’ve never mentioned him.  Aren’t we discussing the Fletcher/Rhodes combination stats?  

[DJMortimer]

1 minute ago, Emilianenko said:

But why was it a free header?

 

Watch the video. He does absolutely nothing remarkable. The defenders should be asking themselves questions though, just ambling back idly like that.

 

 

[DJMortimer]

18 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

As stated previously it is well documented , anyone can read your posts and see this. No misrepresentation at all.

 

As I stated earlier, endlessly we heard how Rhodes would give us the goals Nuhiu could not. Aren't you at all humbled that the opposite actually happened to some degree? And that is the only thing he was supposed to be bringing. When you introduce all the other aspects of the role of a forward, one needs binoculars to discern the gap between the two. 

 

Nuhiu is a reasonable reserve option for us, and no more than that; unfairly lambasted by those with a primary school level understanding of strikers that doesn't go much beyond numbers. If we can get better in the summer, then I have no problem with him being released.

 

Had Rhodes been an unheralded signing from a non-league team, he would have been rejected a long time ago. Only the financial burden and that historic reputation has saved him from the volume of abuse that his colleague has received. But if you don't believe me, ask why every manager we've had has not played him much (even getting rid of him altogether for one season) or why other clubs have shown little interest in picking up someone we are obviously desperate to get rid of.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by DJMortimer

[shandypants]

11 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

As I stated earlier, endlessly we heard how Rhodes would give us the goals Nuhiu could not. Aren't you at all humbled that the opposite actually happened to some degree? And that is the only thing he was supposed to be bringing. When you introduce all the other aspects of the role of a forward, one needs binoculars to discern the gap between the two. 

 

Nuhiu is a reasonable reserve option for us, and no more than that; unfairly lambasted by those with a primary school level understanding of strikers that doesn't go much beyond numbers. If we can get better in the summer, then I have no problem with him being released.

 

Had Rhodes been an unheralded signing from a non-league team, he would have been rejected a long time ago. Only the financial burden and that historic reputation has saved him from the volume of abuse that his colleague has received. But if you don't believe me, ask why every manager we've had has not played him much (even getting rid of him altogether for one season) or why other clubs have shown little interest in picking up someone we are obviously desperate to get rid of.

 

 

Nail on head. 

[Holmowl]

40 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

To be fair DJ Mortimers and Shandypants love of Nuhiu and hatred of Rhodes is well documented on this site. You aren't gonna get any logic from either.

Interesting though that Fletcher-Nuhiu is also a highly effective partnership. Goal every 40 minutes.

[DJMortimer]

This thread has been derailed somewhat, so I'll leave this as my final word on the Rhodes v Nuhiu cul de sac.

 

In my opinion, as all around players, the Kosovan has been far superior. When it comes to value for money, the gulf is truly enormous. Even some of Rhodes' most enthusiastic supporters conceded from the outset that he simply wasn't the kind of player to be expecting to be retaining possession, winning headers, beating opponents with the ball, intelligently playing in teammates or any of those kinds of things. This was about goals and nothing else as far as they were concerned.

 

So...

 

Rhodes (entire Wednesday career in all competitions) : 39+31 appearances, 13 goals.

Nuhiu (16th January - 6th May 2018) : 16+6 appearances, 13 goals.

 

[Holmowl]

2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

This thread has been derailed somewhat, so I'll leave this as my final word on the Rhodes v Nuhiu cul de sac.

 

In my opinion, as all around players, the Kosovan has been far superior. When it comes to value for money, the gulf is truly enormous. Even some of Rhodes' most enthusiastic supporters conceded from the outset that he simply wasn't the kind of player to be expecting to be retaining possession, winning headers, beating opponents with the ball, intelligently playing in teammates or any of those kinds of things. This was about goals and nothing else as far as they were concerned.

 

So...

 

Rhodes (entire Wednesday career in all competitions) : 39+31 appearances, 13 goals.

Nuhiu (16th January - 6th May 2018) : 16+6 appearances, 13 goals.

 

a neat swerve away from Rhodes-Fletcher.

 

Rhodes has been a disaster overall, but this partnership is an off the scale success. 

[Blue and white]

1 hour ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I put that down to confirmation bias. Some people can't let go of the idea that he's a special talent despite the torrent of evidence to the contrary in the last four years or more. That amazing first half at Forest gave his backers hope of a second coming and a new narrative has been formed about what it represented. But if you look at it, only one of those goals came from the kind of service we're told he needs, and even that was a pretty simple chance that anyone could have taken.

I honestly see your point, for me I think we as a team do not play to his strengths, he is very ineffective in our set up and was a complete waste of money.

He is class on his day but his day's for Sheffield Wednesday have been very far and few between and this has to be bang up there with the Abdi transfer as the worst signing in the Chansirir era.

[shandypants]

42 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Oooh I love a chat about stats.

 

Go on then. Let’s take out your outlier (though in doing so we should also take out the game when they were paired and we didn’t score - but I won’t).

 

With Forest 612 minutes - 18 goals - goal every 34 minutes

 

Without Forest  532 minutes - 14 goals - goal every 38 minutes

 

You can twist and turn all you like. Fletcher-Rhodes works. It’s totally understandable that fans have given up with Rhodes, but they should view the Rhodes-Fletcher partnership fairly and fondly.

You’re that one using stats to back your argument and you’re not even using stats legitimately. You’d get lambasted by your peers if you were a statistician and if you were using those stats in a court case, you’d be instructed to remove them. 

[DJMortimer]

2 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

a neat swerve away from Rhodes-Fletcher.

 

Rhodes has been a disaster overall, but this partnership is an off the scale success. 

 

As I have said numerous times, it's no more than a statistical outlier that you've invested far too much in.