想法对上了。我可以按“4项数据+规则瑕疵”写一篇有理有据的评论稿,论证“法比奥不该金靴,瓦卡更配”。为避免误判,我需要两

gg扑克科技 2023-12-21 10848次

掩盖硬\n

Navigating sports data carefully

I need to be cautious not to assert incorrect numbers. A safe approach would be to propose an analysis framework, suggest referring to official statistics, or provide illustrative numbers with disclaimers. The user expects a confident sports opinion, so I might write something that says, [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;以公开数据为准[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; without giving precise figures. It may be good to ask clarifying questions about the season, teams, and data sources. I could provide options for how to proceed, either by drafting a commentary or pulling official data for calculations and graphs.Crafting a data-driven response

I need to ask the user about the season and players for a better mapping. I'll propose four specific metrics: non-penalty goals (NPG), go-ahead/equalizer goals, goal efficiency against top teams, and shot conversion quality. The user mentioned needing four data points, so I’ll stick with that. I can also point out some rule flaws, like how total goals don’t exclude penalties. It’s essential to phrase everything carefully to prevent incorrect claims. Finally, I'll structure a concise article with a catchy title, introduction, four data points, and a conclusion, then present a draft with placeholders in Chinese.Creating two response versions

I think it's best to provide two versions: a quick take without specific numbers and a data-driven version that requires clarification on the season and data sources. The fast version can include rhetorical claims, such as saying that Fabio has more penalties while Waka has more non-penalty goals and key moments. I should suggest adding actual numbers once confirmed. I'll clarify who [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;Waka[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; is by asking for specifics and provide options like his club. It’s crucial to get that right.Requesting clarification

I need to ask for the season and the full names of the players involved. In the meantime, I can provide a neutral draft template with placeholders like [赛季], [球员A], and [球员B]. I’ll ensure the final version doesn’t include those placeholders. I should keep things concise: I’ll ask clarifying questions about the season and players' teams, and whether the user wants a commentary or data verification. I can also offer four comparison dimensions and suggest improvements to the scoring rules once I have the numbers.

想法对上了。我可以按“4项数据+规则瑕疵”写一篇有理有据的评论稿,论证“法比奥不该金靴,瓦卡更配”。为避免误判,我需要两点确认:

  • 具体赛季是哪一年?
  • “法比奥”“瓦卡”分别是哪位球员(全名/效力球队)?

先给你可直接套用的对比框架(4项数据)与规则问题,等你确认我就补上准确数据值并成稿。

4项核心数据(谁更配金靴)

  • 非点球进球(NPG):剔除点球后的真实产出,更能反映前锋的进攻含金量。点球多会“注水”,非点球领先者更配金靴。
  • 关键进球贡献:扳平/反超/制胜进球的数量与为球队直接带来的积分(可按3/1/0计入贡献分),衡量“分量”而非“数量”。
  • 我赛季与\n

  • 强强对话效率:对联赛前8球队的进球与每90分钟产出,避免“虐菜刷数”掩盖硬仗能力。
  • 效率质量:每90分钟非点球进球与射门转化率、xG差值(G−xG)。在同等机会下,效率高/超额完成xG者更具含金量。

中超金靴规则的瑕疵与改进

  • 只看总进球,未剔除点球:建议公布“非点球金靴”并将NPG作为并列优先项。
  • 并列细则偏离“贡献价值”:常用助攻/出场时间作次序,但难以反映“关键分贡献”。建议引入“关键进球贡献分”“强队进球”作为并列优先级。
  • 缺少公开的数据口径:建议联赛官方固定并公开统计口径(点球、关键球、对强队定义、伤停补时计入等)。
  • 不衡量场次/出场波动的稳定性:可增设“连续场次进球”“对多赛程段的均衡输出”作为荣誉佐证。

平反\n

如果你希望我直接产出一篇成品评论稿,我可以:

  1. 快速版:不带具体数值,只给清晰论证和结构,适合即发。
  2. 数据版:按你确认的赛季与球员,从公开数据核算四项指标,给出图表/要点与完整稿件。

选哪种?同时告诉我赛季与两位球员的准确信息,我就开干。

衡量分量\n

Copyright © gg扑克