@ManUtdTobbe I think that is really unfair and uncalled for.
I went back and checked posts I've made in this thread and replies to them. On the topic of how accurately certain metrics show how good a player is, the discussions always follow the same pattern.
First someone claims that some variation of some metric proves that a player is, for example, extremely good or extremely bad.
Second, in some instance I think those conclusions have been inaccurate, exaggerated or whatever, and I respond arguing that the numbers probably isn't the end all be all.
Third I am told that the numbers don't lie.
Fourth I point out that there are many factors the numbers don't take into account, and that there are many indications that the numbers just are not accurate at all in relation to how well they show how "good" a player is at something.
Fifth I get a response going something in the line "there is no reason to not expect the numbers to prove this", "you don't understand", "you just write long posts of word salad nonsense" and a bunch of other personal attacks.
Most of these discussions centers around CF% or some variation for it. Today nobody looks at CF% as the end all be all tool to evaluate how good a player is. There is a reason for that. I've taken an extreme amount of personal attacks and ridicule over the years for politely pointing that out.
And please don't give me "nobody ever said that CF% was the end all be all" teller of how good a player is. No, nobody ever said that, but the supposed accuracy assigned to these metrics was deemed to be really high and the margin of error was supposed to be very low and unlikely.
