The NSNO Everton Forums

brap2 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:59 pm It's the player at the same age.

Badiashille currently probably undervalued despite being a similar profile to one of the top young defenders in the prem, partly because he's a big black guy.

Shogun wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:12 pm I reckon Michael Keane could play 10 matches for Chelsea and get some decent stats as well.

Matt1878 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:57 pm Why is his passing stat showing inside the 25% ring when its 82%?

Matt1878 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 8:57 pm The various scales looks inconsistent too, suggesting a greater visual disparity than the figures themselves.

brap2 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:43 pm I dunno what this bit means sorry. So the rings are percentiles, lowest 25%, mid 50%, mid upper 75%, top most 100%, wherever the player lands in the data set is where the marker extends to.

brap2 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:43 pm I would imagine most CBs have fairly high pass %s, so despite JBs 82% rate, he still ranks in the lower 25% of records. That said it must be fairly tightly grouped considering where Badiashille is.



I dunno what this bit means sorry. So the rings are percentiles, lowest 25%, mid 50%, mid upper 75%, top most 100%, wherever the player lands in the data set is where the marker extends to.

So I'm not suggesting badiashille is better than JB, and I literally love JB and would be delighted if he captained us for ten years and lead us to glory.

I'm just saying - you know what CBs are hard to judge, even more so these days than in the past. He's a superb player, but I am sure there are £30m players out there who could step in over a year or so and contribute to the day to day performance of the team in the same manner, and maybe leave us with £30-£40m to add to the bank for The Big Rebuild.

They're hard to judge! Badiashille is basically a meme among Chelsea supporters, but at one time he was one of the most highly rated young CBs in Europe. People are out there man.

Cods wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:24 am Just a bit more context...(general analysis, not suggesting all is new information)

Badiashile was trusted against 11 teams in that 22/23 season; 8 teams from the bottom half, (including every one of the bottom 7 teams) and only 3 teams from the top half, 5th, 6th and 10th. 70% were home games. He played against teams who averaged 42pts, well below the league average of 52.6 that season.

In comparison, Branthwaite effectively missed 9 of our first 10 games in 24/25; our relatively easy (but dreadful) start where he could have padded out his stats against all of the bottom four. The teams he missed averaged 44pts, well below the league average of 52.4pts last season.

I'm guessing the possession adjustments (PAdj) stats would have been taken from the team's average possession across the season, as opposed to the games actually featured in, but if not they potentially could be weighted closer to a factor of 2.0, unfairly skewed further towards Badiashile; Chelsea had 65% v Bournemouth, 66% v Fulham, 68% v Everton, 71% v Hammers, 75% v Forest.

We know the stats are also a function of team style, For passing: whilst Chelsea knocked it around easy at the back and into the middle, we long balled it often from CB,... and out of possession Chelsea were arguably exposed relatively more often at the back as they threw more players forward, allowing for interception opportunities, whilst Everton: largely two solid banks to break through...CB tackles and interceptions therefore understated.

Our opposition don't tend to test our CBs heading ability as they know it doesn't bear fruit.

Blocks and clearances were more our style in the first half of the season, yet Branthwaite played more games under Moyes than Dyche this season.


Further criticism of the radar chart…they also show independent stats as a shaded 'area' which gives the impression of a second dimension to data that simply doesn't have one (the area can also be distorted depending upon which stat sits next to which, a totally arbitrary choice) and a scale range that is inconsistent across each statistic. To the untrained eye they're quite misleading.

When it comes to reliability, these sort of analyses wouldn't pass muster even within other sports (due to inherent complexity), let alone in other industries.

They've even been criticised from their creators, specifically in relation to how effective they are for analysing centre backs, below comments from the fella that designed them for Davie Weir:

These were developed later, and to be perfectly honest, they are less valid overall than the other positional templates....They give you a sense of how a centerback plays, but become tricky beyond that.

All added up, the 'visual' represented by the chart when compared with the underlying numbers and context can paint a very different picture.

Cods wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:24 am Just a bit more context...(general analysis, not suggesting all is new information)

Badiashile was trusted against 11 teams in that 22/23 season; 8 teams from the bottom half, (including every one of the bottom 7 teams) and only 3 teams from the top half, 5th, 6th and 10th. 70% were home games. He played against teams who averaged 42pts, well below the league average of 52.6 that season.

In comparison, Branthwaite effectively missed 9 of our first 10 games in 24/25; our relatively easy (but dreadful) start where he could have padded out his stats against all of the bottom four. The teams he missed averaged 44pts, well below the league average of 52.4pts last season.

I'm guessing the possession adjustments (PAdj) stats would have been taken from the team's average possession across the season, as opposed to the games actually featured in, but if not they potentially could be weighted closer to a factor of 2.0, unfairly skewed further towards Badiashile; Chelsea had 65% v Bournemouth, 66% v Fulham, 68% v Everton, 71% v Hammers, 75% v Forest.

We know the stats are also a function of team style, For passing: whilst Chelsea knocked it around easy at the back and into the middle, we long balled it often from CB,... and out of possession Chelsea were arguably exposed relatively more often at the back as they threw more players forward, allowing for interception opportunities, whilst Everton: largely two solid banks to break through...CB tackles and interceptions therefore understated.

Our opposition don't tend to test our CBs heading ability as they know it doesn't bear fruit.

Blocks and clearances were more our style in the first half of the season, yet Branthwaite played more games under Moyes than Dyche this season.


Further criticism of the radar chart…they also show independent stats as a shaded 'area' which gives the impression of a second dimension to data that simply doesn't have one (the area can also be distorted depending upon which stat sits next to which, a totally arbitrary choice) and a scale range that is inconsistent across each statistic. To the untrained eye they're quite misleading.

When it comes to reliability, these sort of analyses wouldn't pass muster even within other sports (due to inherent complexity), let alone in other industries.

They've even been criticised from their creators, specifically in relation to how effective they are for analysing centre backs, below comments from the fella that designed them for Davie Weir:

These were developed later, and to be perfectly honest, they are less valid overall than the other positional templates....They give you a sense of how a centerback plays, but become tricky beyond that.

All added up, the 'visual' represented by the chart when compared with the underlying numbers and context can paint a very different picture.

brap2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:44 am Yeah, they are very hard to judge. I don't think the graph does or intends to, show JB as any less of a player. Just similar players in different systems.

The point being similar template of players are out there and worth the minutes and development rather than jumping to the next one who has had the fortune of playing.

Or for us, similar players are out there if we can find one and bank the change.