Aircraft Prop Polishing

EUROPEAN LEAGUES RATIO TO ASSESS THE BEST EUROPEAN LEAGUES FRONT OF EMERGENCY

First of all I recommend reading this post

emergency Introduction Cost Accounting

to understand the rationale and the process followed. I do not want to read that here escape thousands of circumstances or the like.

PROVISIONAL LIST OF BEST
FRONT (will be completed with you to add)


1. Eto'o 243, 9
2. Van Nistelrooy 238,2
3. Villa                         224,2
4. Milito                       198,5
5. Ibrahimovic             190,0
6. Drogba                    177,1
7. Forlan                      177,0
8. Torres                     160,7
9. Rooney                   150,9 
10.Raul                       116.7 100.7
11.Anelka

THE SEARCH OF SIGNIFICANT STANDARDS

Can you evaluate each and every one of the circumstances that exist in a field to evaluate the quality of a striker? The answer is neither yes nor no, the answer is for what. According to what we have seen in the cost analysis of relevant information is not so much the most comprehensive but that that is meaningful and accessible at once. A forward can shoot 4 times in a game, including 2 bow and 2 remote viewing outside. Of the latter one was sent out by the rejection of a defense, so that was the fault of the front and another not. Could you record this? Of course, but getting to that point of detail involves spending hours and hours to get a story that, ultimately, may not be as important. It is more reasonable from our perspective to assume that for every 100 shots that go out some fault of the front and others, which influences the opposing defense some and not others.

Suppose we want to calculate the weight of a human body if we put in the balance the skin, bones, muscles, viscera, fat and blood we will have a figure, 90% coincide with the full weight. And the tendons, and nerves, and mucous membranes, and bronchi, y. ..? Dozens of other elements have weight, but the first 6 and gave us information relevant enough to be able to abstract the rest (obvious or estimated from those).

The list of the data I used to develop standards are

player

-Goals-Goals

his team-Goals of the top scorers of the 5 major leagues

-Goals of the championship teams in the same league

-Shooting and shots on goal total

player-player Assists

All these data are handled in a time perspective of the past 5 years, which seems a very appropriate fraction of time to evaluate football careers, as most professionals working in about 3 decades, sometimes 2, sometimes 4.

Are there other data that they can grab to complete the calculations? No doubt! Hundreds of them actually: First, second and subsequent goals, number of assigned counsel in their marking, quality associates, quality of the opposition, and so on. But not all of them together would add the importance of those 6 described above and instead would analysis very cumbersome. It is more efficient to consider that either are not as significant, or are circumstances that eventually become compensated in some other occasions.

here is not intended as an exhaustive analysis, but a relevant analysis, which may be questionable but not contentious.

THE INDIVIDUAL VARIATION

Here we focus on trying to unravel the intrinsic quality of the front. We have all known that displayed consistent scorers in different teams (Villa, Ronaldo), but others looked very good in a team and not so good at other (here the examples are legion). Like with the center forward goalie is a different player to the other, for the reason that both are located at both ends of the tactical system.

Rate striker is much easier to evaluate a midfielder or a lateral. His game is to be the first player and make all possible goals. Like any other field player's ability to combine or their defensive strengths are considerable, but no one gets out that a nine to be able to get 30 goals in league and has averages of acceptable shot will always be a fundamental piece and its technical and your colleagues will merecerála penalty offset among all technical and tactical flaws you may have. The first virtue is to have as a forward is the goal. If so good, if it is not is not. Therefore, this data has to directly contribute to the development of the ratio. We therefore propose a standard of goals at an average of 35 games or so those who may aspire to be played in 38 regular season games. The 3 difference circumstances would be to save as substitutions, injuries or penalties.

But of course there are those who put a lot of goals with few shots and you have to waste dozens of attempts before viewing goal. That's why at the individual level we consider as significant a standard of absolute effectiveness defined as the number of shots taken to get a goal, and this factor should contribute to the development of inverse ratio.

propose to relativize value is quite significant as the number of goals scored by top scorer in each of the 5 major leagues over the past 5 years. After the average of these 25 figures is the result of 25.3 goals.

In this way the individual ratio looks like this:

The resulting value of the first ratio has to be around or over 1.0 in the best strikers and the second will move from 0.15 to 0.30.

THE ALTERNATIVE COLLECTIVE

But no player plays alone. Football is a team sport and even though the main function is scoring striker, his job will be even more noticeable if apart from scoring goals to help their peers do, with limited liability in relation to the goals conceded threeLines further back .. Values \u200b\u200bare therefore significant as assists, the number of goals set by the rest of his teammates and in terms of effectiveness, the percentage of shots on goal go for it is they who, through corners or decline, often give second plays. Thus

goals from colleagues and contribute directly assists in the development wing ratio and the number of shots needed for each one that reaches the arc will reverse.

Here comes the relativity of all goals scored for the last 5 winners of the 5 strongest leagues in Europe. The average of these figures is 77.4 25 goals

The collective ratio looks like this:

However, the second ratio could artificially inflate the collective value of a player in those cases in which the striker dispute a sufficiently high number of parties and military equipment specially scorer. To avoid adding a correction factor to the goals the rest of the team and the team total in the first factor, while leaving out this correction the number of assists, for being an absolute value, based on the desirable 35 games per season:
parties Cor = ---------

35x5
Collective The final ratio is:

The resulting value of the first factor has to approach 1.0 at very asistidor players whose teams are also very scorers. The second ratio is usually around the 0.5 inthe elite players.

the summit of RELEVANCY: THE GLOBAL FACTOR

When dealing with elements that are added must be weighed each of them to ensure that the overall result is not suffering from the overvalued any of its components. Not so when the issue is to use factors. Caution spare for if we understand that a striker is better the higher the RI and RC, taken independently, the multiple of both grows with each one of them.

We have by convention that even in the case of the most selfish players on the collective factor has to be equally significant to the individual, but each one can weigh each of them as you deem appropriate.

Thus the resulting overall ratio, the rating of how important the quality of a forward both individually and collectively on the basis of calculating the most significant would be:

RG = IR x CR x 100

As a multiple of amounts less than 1.0 usually yield very small numbers, has added 100 so that the resulting number is a number easier to retain.

OBJECT MATHEMATICS

While the process continued to produce a relevant and efficient ratio based on information brief but highly significant, the end result suffers from a certain imbalance due to the multiplicative nature of the factors . The order of the final results may seem consistent, but not differences in size.

Descriptive statistics provides us with a simple tool to adjust these deviations, which is the geometric mean. While the arithmetic mean is the average of N numbers by dividing the total combined N, the arithmetic mean is an average of quantities multiplied, but not the average ratio is used (which would have relevance proportional), but the square root or if the root N.

The final ratio would therefore like this:

HISTORICAL OBJECT

This is the end of the process.

Yes, we took into account the individual and collective skills of the forwards to get a number, a single number, as you indicate, play more and play less. We can say that this ratio tells us in general, which forwards are better and which worse, even with some proportionality.

But when we have to choose between the best players in a given period, not fetched until the last corner to find the most valuable, but we choose from among those that we come to mind, say that among the most prominent. And is that history is history, and to be the best in a given period must be during that period, and nothing would work better than using our ratio is not the end result, but as a ratio to actually implement what has been.

is why when the final list to multiply the final ratio by the actual figure marked by such forward in their league for the past 5 years. Thus players by injuries or other reasons have been less involved in goal-scoring figures suffer the penalty had not been able to show their quality, giving way to those who in one way or another, ended up punching the opponents' goal more consistently .

CASE STUDIES (will be added gradually)

DIDIER DROGBA ---5.29

          22,23       77

RI =  -------- x ------- = 0,1436

          25,3        471 

          204 + 35    194

RC = ----------- x ----- = 0,3686

               267       471

RG = 0,1436 x 0,3686 x 100 = 5.29

DAVID VILLA --- 4,31

         23,4     108
RI = ------ x ------ = 0,1836
         25,3     544

           168 + 26     235
RC =  ------------ x ----- = 0,2347
               357         544

RG = 0,1836 x 0,2347 x 100 = 4.31

DIEGO FORLAN --- 3.47


          20,4      95
RI =  ------ x ----- = 0,1408
          25,3    544


          192 + 23     225
RC = ----------- x ------- = 0,2463
              361         544


RG = 0,1408 x 0,2463 x 100 = 3.47

DIEGO MILITO --- 4,02


          20,5      99
RI =  ------ x ------ = 0,2021
          25,3     397


          169 + 20     156
RC = ------------ x ------ = 0,1991
              373         397 


RG = 0,2021 x 0,1991 x 100 =4.02

ZLATAN IBRAHIMOVIC --- 5,64

         20,4      80

RI = ------ x ------ = 0,1514

         25,3     426

           242 + 26      180

RC =  ------------ x ------- = 0,3725

               304          426

RG = 0,1514 x 0,3725 x 100 = 5.64

WAYNE ROONEY --- 3,56

         18,5      80
RI = ------ x ------ = 0,0859
         25,3     681

          268 + 44      304
RC = ------------ x ------- = 0,4145
            336            681

RG = 0,0859 x 0,4145 x 100 = 3.56

SAMUEL ETOO --- 6,59

        25,0     95
RI= ------ x ----- = 0,1823 

        25,3    515
         
         243 + 25     205
RC= ------------ x ----- = 0,3616
            295          515


RG= 0,1823 x 0,3538 x 100 = 6,45

NICOLAS ANELKA ---3.36


        14,1     52
RI= ------ x ------ = 0,0852
        25,3     339


         +24 200 171
RC = ---------- x ----- = 0.3937
, 287 (1) 339
(1) Average of 4 seasons here


RG = 0.0852 x 0.3936 x 100 = 3.36

FERNANDO TORRES --- 3.75

20.2 83
RI= ------ x ----- = 0,1544
        25,3    429


         175 + 17     172
RC= ------------ x ------ = 0,2429
             317 429


RG = 0.1544 x 0.2429 = 3.75

Ruud van Nistelrooy

23.9 70

RI = ------ x ------ = 0.2534

25.3 261

          170 + 18      144

RC= ------------- x ------ = 0,4569

           227             261

RG= 0,2534 x 0,4569 = 11,58 

Raul


13,3 53 RI = ------ x ----- = 0.1119
249 25,3


: 280 + 17 112
RC = ------------ x ----- = 0.4337
308 249


RG = 0.1119 x 0.4337 x 100 = 4.85