Taka and MLSNext QoP ratings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

From what the links (goal.com) above say, there are people watching the videos. Apparently some people in Eastern Europe.

Whether watching videos or attending games live, someone has to make observations and assessments. Highly doubt they’ll do this for free. Which means more money out of parents’ pockets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

From what the links (goal.com) above say, there are people watching the videos. Apparently some people in Eastern Europe.

Whether watching videos or attending games live, someone has to make observations and assessments. Highly doubt they’ll do this for free. Which means more money out of parents’ pockets

Bur they already are (see cut and paste from article below). Are you saying they will increase their rates?



“Taka is the group responsible for doing all of this. An Irish company who have consulted for Premier League clubs in performance models, they were the perfect match. They applied for MLS's request for proposal a year ago, and brought their technology to the league.

Taka, in short, is an in-depth data platform that "grades" actions of play on a soccer pitch. All of this is done by real humans, remotely. After every game, employees in Eastern Europe scour game film, and score every pass, every dribble, every shot, every tackle. Those "actions" are then evaluated - admittedly subjectively - as either positive or negative. The results are subsequently uploaded to a platform that players and coaches alike can access. The whole process takes about four hours.

Crucially, Taka employs soccer people, not mathematicians. Every summer, the company advertises the job, asking would-be applicants to, effectively, grade a soccer match. They then take the top 15 percent, and put them through their paces to test their game understanding. Those who are deemed to have the right amount of knowledge to break down thousands of individual instances - from first touches to 30-yard screamers - are then brought on.

"If you ask a mathematician to look at a soccer game, they won't understand," CEO Mark Shields said. "They are soccer people. And then the mathematicians are in the sort of modeling process."

And every year, there's widespread interest - yes, even if it means watching hours of occasionally low-quality youth soccer.

"We get loads of people applying because we're talking about a job, basically as a video scout for soccer," he said.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

From what the links (goal.com) above say, there are people watching the videos. Apparently some people in Eastern Europe.

Whether watching videos or attending games live, someone has to make observations and assessments. Highly doubt they’ll do this for free. Which means more money out of parents’ pockets

Bur they already are (see cut and paste from article below). Are you saying they will increase their rates?



“Taka is the group responsible for doing all of this. An Irish company who have consulted for Premier League clubs in performance models, they were the perfect match. They applied for MLS's request for proposal a year ago, and brought their technology to the league.

Taka, in short, is an in-depth data platform that "grades" actions of play on a soccer pitch. All of this is done by real humans, remotely. After every game, employees in Eastern Europe scour game film, and score every pass, every dribble, every shot, every tackle. Those "actions" are then evaluated - admittedly subjectively - as either positive or negative. The results are subsequently uploaded to a platform that players and coaches alike can access. The whole process takes about four hours.

Crucially, Taka employs soccer people, not mathematicians. Every summer, the company advertises the job, asking would-be applicants to, effectively, grade a soccer match. They then take the top 15 percent, and put them through their paces to test their game understanding. Those who are deemed to have the right amount of knowledge to break down thousands of individual instances - from first touches to 30-yard screamers - are then brought on.

"If you ask a mathematician to look at a soccer game, they won't understand," CEO Mark Shields said. "They are soccer people. And then the mathematicians are in the sort of modeling process."

And every year, there's widespread interest - yes, even if it means watching hours of occasionally low-quality youth soccer.

"We get loads of people applying because we're talking about a job, basically as a video scout for soccer," he said.”

Again, I’m not skeptical of the benefits nor the efficacy. The question I have is how does Taka get paid? I would guess it’s a paid service and that would mean for us parents it comes with added fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

From what the links (goal.com) above say, there are people watching the videos. Apparently some people in Eastern Europe.

Whether watching videos or attending games live, someone has to make observations and assessments. Highly doubt they’ll do this for free. Which means more money out of parents’ pockets

Bur they already are (see cut and paste from article below). Are you saying they will increase their rates?



“Taka is the group responsible for doing all of this. An Irish company who have consulted for Premier League clubs in performance models, they were the perfect match. They applied for MLS's request for proposal a year ago, and brought their technology to the league.

Taka, in short, is an in-depth data platform that "grades" actions of play on a soccer pitch. All of this is done by real humans, remotely. After every game, employees in Eastern Europe scour game film, and score every pass, every dribble, every shot, every tackle. Those "actions" are then evaluated - admittedly subjectively - as either positive or negative. The results are subsequently uploaded to a platform that players and coaches alike can access. The whole process takes about four hours.

Crucially, Taka employs soccer people, not mathematicians. Every summer, the company advertises the job, asking would-be applicants to, effectively, grade a soccer match. They then take the top 15 percent, and put them through their paces to test their game understanding. Those who are deemed to have the right amount of knowledge to break down thousands of individual instances - from first touches to 30-yard screamers - are then brought on.

"If you ask a mathematician to look at a soccer game, they won't understand," CEO Mark Shields said. "They are soccer people. And then the mathematicians are in the sort of modeling process."

And every year, there's widespread interest - yes, even if it means watching hours of occasionally low-quality youth soccer.

"We get loads of people applying because we're talking about a job, basically as a video scout for soccer," he said.”

Again, I’m not skeptical of the benefits nor the efficacy. The question I have is how does Taka get paid? I would guess it’s a paid service and that would mean for us parents it comes with added fees.

My cynical take is that clubs and scouts will want access to it and will pay for it. If the kids who are getting noticed without Taka, happen to also be scoring high in Taka, then at minimum, it could be used as some sort of screening tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

Guess you didn't read the earlier posted articles that said Taka has hired large and growing staff to review games and players

[Anonymous]

This is a slippery slope from a privacy perspective.

If player stats and vides are posted somewhere without parents awareness or ability to control visibility and/or who can watch their kid or see their stats, that is a problem.

Nobody is talking about this but they should be. Taka can say whatever they want but what legal recourse is there for a players stats not to be published to people who pay Taka?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

Guess you didn't read the earlier posted articles that said Taka has hired large and growing staff to review games and players

Okay. So who pays for all these “large and growing staff to review games and players”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

Guess you didn't read the earlier posted articles that said Taka has hired large and growing staff to review games and players

Okay. So who pays for all these “large and growing staff to review games and players”?

Clubs and player subscribers

The fact it costs money doesn't mean it's a useless scam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

Not to be a pessimist here (especially because I believe a QoP would indeed be better for development sake), but this would involve a comprehensive assessment throughout the game. Someone will have to watch the whole game and go through all of the player actions and assess whether their actions qualify as "making the correct runs", whether a pass was truly an "assist", whether or the defenders' positioning caused the offense to redirect, etc. This would likely required dedicated staff. This would likely require higher fees for parents. See what I'm getting at?

Guess you didn't read the earlier posted articles that said Taka has hired large and growing staff to review games and players

Okay. So who pays for all these “large and growing staff to review games and players”?

Clubs and player subscribers

The fact it costs money doesn't mean it's a useless scam

Okay. Then I don’t understand why there is a back and forth on this. I clearly stated that I think this is a useful and effective way to monitor development. I expressed concerns that it will come with additional costs to the parents (which you just confirmed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:in MidAtlantic U13
Achilles is 18th in standings and 9th in QoP (+9)
TSF Academy is 5th in standings 10th in QoP (-5)

Does this track for people who have watched these teams?

Any other outliers?

Weirdly specific question. I hope you don’t own an ice cream truck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in MidAtlantic U13
Achilles is 18th in standings and 9th in QoP (+9)
TSF Academy is 5th in standings 10th in QoP (-5)

Does this track for people who have watched these teams?

Any other outliers?

Weirdly specific question. I hope you don’t own an ice cream truck.

Oh, wait, is the Achilles stalker? If yes, I know this one’s gotta burn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

I think there are other factors looked at besides individual players. If individual players were the main thing scored by the algo, teams like Bethesda would have been rated much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

I think there are other factors looked at besides individual players. If individual players were the main thing scored by the algo, teams like Bethesda would have been rated much higher.

Bethesda is a club, not a team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

I think you are reading too much into the QoP ratings. Maybe if a team performs poorly, but has a few good players, the QoP ratings will be higher, but that doesn't mean that the club is doing a good job of developing kids. There are too many variables regarding why some individual players perform well. Of course, the club will be happy to claim that their great coaching developed the kid.

I think there are other factors looked at besides individual players. If individual players were the main thing scored by the algo, teams like Bethesda would have been rated much higher.

Bethesda is a club, not a team

I meant their U13 team. Their rating is surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can see which teams are developing players the right way in MLS/Taka's eyes.

Teams that are doing better in the standings than in the QoS Rankings are winning through size, physicality, kickball approach.

Some teams may not be winning but are developing players the "right" way.

Couldn’t have said it any better than that. Thank you.