Eden Hazard has today signed a new five-and-a-half-year contract with Chelsea.

The club’s Player of the Year has continued his excellent form this season, scoring 13 times in 36 appearances and helping us to the top of the Barclays Premier League.

'I am very happy to sign a new contract with Chelsea,' Hazard said. 'Since I came here in 2012 I have always felt good and the club has been very supportive to me.

'The manager has helped me improve a lot, the fans have been fantastic and I have an amazing understanding with my team-mates.

'I always try to give pleasure to the supporters with my style of play and it is nice to know they appreciate my work.

'I hope we can repay that support by winning lots of trophies, beginning with the Capital One Cup at Wembley, and after that, we can push hard towards the end of the season.’

Jose Mourinho added: ‘I am very happy that Eden has signed a new contract. It shows he believes in the club’s coaching staff and players to help him become the best player in the world.

'He is already a top player and his evolution has been fantastic. He is still very young and he can become the best.’

Widely regarded as one of the most dangerous attackers in world football, Hazard, 24, has completed more dribbles and suffered more fouls than any other player in the league this season, drawing praise for his sporting manner as well as his technical ability.

The Belgian, pictured above with club director Marina Granovskaia, arrived at Stamford Bridge in 2012 and has since made a total 147 appearances for the Blues, scoring 43 goals.

Hazard was voted Chelsea’s Player of the Year by the club’s supporters for the 2013/14 campaign following an exhilarating second season in west London. He finished as our top goalscorer, netting 17 in all competitions, before representing his country at their first World Cup since 2002. He also lifted the Europa League in his first season as a Chelsea player.

@KTBFFHSWE
your previous comments:"Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception (...)"
"The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here"

your last comment:
"the link you provided, in where it was stated that the per- 90 metric is better to be used (...) Of course it is."

...

and the performance score has nothing to do with per 90 or per game metrics. let's not mix things. also, you asked why they would offer cross-league comparison if it can't be taken seriously; it's for the same reason Goal.com writes bullsh*t articles and analyses.

for the last time, stats are useful to value players into well defined contexts, example: see if a player is improving in certain areas, see how a player is doing within a league/club/season. and stop. this is how football professionals use stats. we can use stats to enrich and bring some trivias into a debate, but using stats in general as absolute definitive measure it's a terrible mistake. also, stats are not supposed to make up for poor football knowledge. stats can reveal you some things that happen in the game, but they cannot reveal all the things that happen in the game.

from an interesting article i found on the matter, it uses the well known Stam anedocte:

"(...) As soon as data becomes available in any industry, some people will use it – but they often use it wrongly. As the American baseball analyst-turned-master psephologist Nate Silver says of the new Big Data: “Most of the data is just noise, as most of the universe is filled with empty space.” Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, discovered this after he sold his defender Jaap Stam in 2001 because Stam’s number of tackles was decreasing. Ferguson thought Stam was in decline. Stam went on to play several more years for big clubs.

It turned out that tackles were a poor measure of a defender’s worth: they were just noise. We now know that great defenders such as the Italian Paolo Maldini barely tackle. Maldini stopped attacks from happening by positioning himself to close holes. Yet, as Anderson and Sally point out, that kind of negative event – the attack that doesn’t happen, the dog that doesn’t bark – is often hard to spot in match data. (...)"

please don't look at Opta like it's an Oracle ok? watch, learn from direct experience and most importantly enjoy the game.

@KTBFFHSWE

your previous comments:"Using a per 90 metric definitely gives the wrong perception (...)"
"The per Game metric is in fact the best to use here"

your last comment:
"the link you provided, in where it was stated that the per- 90 metric is better to be used (...) Of course it is."

...

and the performance score has nothing to do with per 90 or per game metrics. let's not mix things. also, you asked why they would offer cross-league comparison if it can't be taken seriously; it's for the same reason Goal.com writes bullsh*t articles and troll-feeding analyses.

for the last time, stats are useful to value players into well defined contexts, example: see if a player is improving in certain areas, see how a player is doing within a league/club/season. and stop. this is how football professionals use stats. we can use stats to enrich and bring some trivias into a debate, but using stats in general as absolute definitive measure it's a terrible mistake. also, stats are not supposed to make up for poor football knowledge. stats can reveal you some things that happen in the game, but they cannot reveal all the things that happen in the game.

from an interesting article i found on the matter, it uses the well known Stam anedocte:

"(...) As soon as data becomes available in any industry, some people will use it – but they often use it wrongly. As the American baseball analyst-turned-master psephologist Nate Silver says of the new Big Data: “Most of the data is just noise, as most of the universe is filled with empty space.” Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, discovered this after he sold his defender Jaap Stam in 2001 because Stam’s number of tackles was decreasing. Ferguson thought Stam was in decline. Stam went on to play several more years for big clubs.

It turned out that tackles were a poor measure of a defender’s worth: they were just noise. We now know that great defenders such as the Italian Paolo Maldini barely tackle. Maldini stopped attacks from happening by positioning himself to close holes. Yet, as Anderson and Sally point out, that kind of negative event – the attack that doesn’t happen, the dog that doesn’t bark – is often hard to spot in match data. (...)"

please don't look at Opta like it's an Oracle ok? watch, learn from direct experience and most importantly enjoy the game.

@shpalman Are you misunderstanding me on
purpose? I find it ironical how your arguments changes when I've explained to
you that the metric used in the first place was the right one which I hope you
understand by now and also I hope you understand the reasons to why. I really
don't use "stats in general as absolute definitive measure" at all.
Please read my pasts post thoroughly again if you don't get that. I know those
are only stats, but a lot of sources tell the same story. That's when
statistics get interesting and it's worthwhile to dig deeper into other
factors. STILL, I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments
regarding Hazard being among the top football players in the World today.

Thus, it's not as I don't agree with you that the ultimate scenario would be
comparing stats for the same player, or with players in exactly the same
position who plays in a team that has the same tactics etc.

As to the comparison between the per-90 metric and the raw stats example you
provided. Yes per-90 is THEN a much better way to compare stats but compared to
the opta ranking that uses advanced algorithms to compensate for that, it's
NOT. What is it you don't understand?

I find it funny how you try to downplay the most comprehensive stat analyzer
that exist and instead thinks that bullshit posts which was based on loose
presumptions and personal opinions "is the way to do it".
Still, I provided lots of other sources, indexes and stats as well as personal
opinions to show the progress of Hazard and to respond to comments like 'it's
laughable to compare Modric to hazard' without any reasons to why that
would be the case at all. Furthermore, have a look at the last seasons top 10 opta ranking. I’d say it’s
pretty accurate or at least not miles off.

And as a response to your randomly selected 'people-use-stats-the-wrong-way
chapter', I'd say look at what Billy
Beane did for the Oakland Athletics in 2002 (<- Yes, it's American
football).

Once again, I work with this kind of stuff. I realize that there's much more to
everything than only stats but also realize it can provide a valuable hint for
discussions. For example, I get paid to write a betting blog at Swedens biggest
football community, in where stats provide a tremendous help in getting
profitable. Without them I probably wouldn't be , so please stop implying that I don’t know
anything of football only because I take the time to check up things in regard
to this discussion.

@shpalman Are you misunderstanding me on purpose? I find it ironical how your arguments changes when I've explained to you that the metric used in the first place was the right one which I hope you understand by now and also I hope you understand the reasons to why. I really don't use "stats in general as absolute definitive measure" at all. Please read my pasts post thoroughly again if you don't get that. I know those are only stats, but a lot of sources tell the same story. That's when statistics get interesting and it's worthwhile to dig deeper into other factors. STILL, I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments regarding Hazard being among the top football players in the World today.

Thus, it's not as I don't agree with you that the ultimate scenario would be comparing stats for the same player, or with players in exactly the same position who plays in a team that has the same tactics etc.

As to the comparison between the per-90 metric and the raw stats example you provided. Yes per-90 is THEN a much better way to compare stats but compared to the opta ranking that uses advanced algorithms to compensate for that, it's
NOT. What is it you don't understand?

I find it funny how you try to downplay the most comprehensive stat analyzer that exist and instead thinks that bullshit posts which was based on loose presumptions and personal opinions "is the way to do it". Still, I provided lots of other sources, indexes and stats as well as personal opinions to show the progress of Hazard and to respond to comments like 'it's laughable to compare Modric to hazard' without any reasons to why that would be the case at all. Furthermore, have a look at the last seasons top 10 opta ranking. I’d say it’s pretty accurate or at least not miles off.

And as a response to your randomly selected 'people-use-stats-the-wrong-way chapter', I'd say look at what Billy Beane did for the Oakland Athletics in 2002 (<- Yes, it's American football).

Once again, I work with this kind of stuff. I realize that there's much more to everything than only stats but also realize it can provide a valuable hint for discussions. For example, I get paid to write a betting blog at Swedens biggest football community, in where stats provide a tremendous help in getting profitable. Without them I probably wouldn't be , so please stop implying that I don’t know anything of football only because I take the time to check up things in regard
to this discussion.

@shpalman Are you misunderstanding me on purpose? I find it ironical how your arguments changes when I've explained to you that the metric used in the first place was the right one which I hope you understand by now and also I hope you understand the reasons to why. I really don't use "stats in general as absolute definitive measure" at all. Please read my pasts post thoroughly again if you don't get that. I know those are only stats, but a lot of sources tell the same story. That's when statistics get interesting and it's worthwhile to dig deeper into other factors. STILL, I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments regarding Hazard being among the top football players in the World today.

Thus, it's not as I don't agree with you that the ultimate scenario would be comparing stats for the same player, or with players in exactly the same position who plays in a team that has the same tactics etc.

As to the comparison between the per-90 metric and the raw stats example you provided. Yes per-90 is THEN a much better way to compare stats but compared to the opta ranking that uses advanced algorithms to compensate for that, it's NOT. What is it you don't understand?

I find it funny how you try to downplay the most comprehensive stat analyzer that exist and instead thinks that bullshit posts which was based on loose presumptions and personal opinions "is the way to do it". Still, I provided lots of other sources, indexes and stats as well as personal opinions to show the progress of Hazard and to respond to comments like 'it's laughable to compare Modric to hazard' without any reasons to why that would be the case at all. Furthermore, have a look at the last seasons top 10 opta ranking. I’d say it’s pretty accurate or at least not miles off.

And as a response to your randomly selected 'people-use-stats-the-wrong-way chapter', I'd say look at what Billy Beane did for the Oakland Athletics in 2002 (<- Yes, it's American football).

Once again, I work with this kind of stuff. I realize that there's much more to everything than only stats but also realize it can provide a valuable hint for discussions. For example, I get paid to write a betting blog at Swedens biggest football community, in where stats provide a tremendous help in getting profitable. Without them I probably wouldn't be , so please stop implying that I don’t know anything of football only because I take the time to check up things in regard
to this discussion.

@KTBFFHSWE
mate i am actually reading Soccernomics, i'm not one of those who repel stats, absolutely. did i say that statistics are not interesting? no. did i say that statistics are not accurate? no. did i say statistics are not useful? no. did i say that using statistics in certain ways can lead to wrong assumptions? yes.

on the 1st page of this thread you strongly claimed that Hazard is TOP 3, because stats say so. if no one would tell you anything, you would still be convinced about that, and convince a lot of other readers about that... which is the reason why i entered this discussion. on page #3 you were still writing stuff like:

"I did argue for Hazard being #3 in the world because the stats said so (Yes I trust OptaSports way more than even the most knowledgeable of you guys as it isn't biased at all)."

why are you even on here debating then, stats provide you all the answers you need... /irony
in every post your bottom line is: "i speak stats, i have the universal truth in my pocket". that's all you do, provide stats. stats are your only source and base for the debate. you still write it in your last post: *"*I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments". that's exactly the problem...! you may work with this stuff, me i breathe football since 29 years, using an analogy i'd say for you the stats are the cake, and football is the cherry on top. all i did is try to make you look at it in the right perspective: football is the cake, stats are the cherry on top. and that's not because i say so, it's because it's just how it is, objectively.

@Dynastian
this thread teaches some interesting stuff, better than seeing the usual Ronaldo VS Messi or LeagueX VS LeagueZ flamewar. gotta admit it was a bit protracted tho' :P

@KTBFFHSWE
mate i am actually reading Soccernomics, i'm not one of those who repel stats, absolutely. did i say that statistics are not interesting? no. did i say that statistics are not accurate? no. did i say statistics are not useful? no. did i say that using statistics in certain ways can lead to wrong assumptions? yes.

on the 1st page of this thread you strongly claimed that Hazard is TOP 3, because stats say so. if no one would tell you anything, you would still be convinced about that, and convince a lot of other readers about that... which is the reason why i entered this discussion. on page #3 you were still writing stuff like:

"I did argue for Hazard being #3 in the world because the stats said so (Yes I trust OptaSports way more than even the most knowledgeable of you guys as it isn't biased at all)."

why are you even on here debating then, stats provide you all the answers you need... /irony
in every post your bottom line is: "i speak stats, i have the universal truth in my pocket". that's all you do, provide stats. stats are your only source and base for the debate. you still write it in your last post: *"*I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments". that's exactly the problem...! you may work with this stuff, me i breathe football since 29 years, using an analogy i'd say for you the stats are the cake, and football is the cherry on top. all i did is try to make you look at it in the right perspective: football is the cake, stats are the cherry on top. and that's not because i say so, it's because it's just how it is, objectively.

@Dynastian
this thread teaches some interesting stuff, better than seeing the usual Ronaldo VS Messi or LeagueX VS LeagueZ flamewar. gotta admit it was a bit protracted tho' :P

@KTBFFHSWE
mate i am actually reading Soccernomics, i'm not one of those who repel stats, absolutely. did i say that statistics are not interesting? no. did i say that statistics are not accurate? no. did i say statistics are not useful? no. did i say that using statistics in certain ways can lead to wrong assumptions? yes.

on the 1st page of this thread you strongly claimed that Hazard is TOP 3, because stats say so. if no one would tell you anything, you would still be convinced about that, and convince a lot of other readers about that... which is the reason why i entered this discussion. on page #3 you were still writing stuff like:

"I did argue for Hazard being #3 in the world because the stats said so (Yes I trust OptaSports way more than even the most knowledgeable of you guys as it isn't biased at all)."

why are you even on here debating then, stats provide you all the answers you need... /irony
in every post your bottom line is: "i speak stats, i have the universal truth in my pocket". that's all you do, provide stats. stats are your only source and base for the debate. you still write it in your last post: *"*I only uses these stats for creating a base for my arguments". that's exactly the problem...! you may work with this stuff, me i breathe football since 29 years, using an analogy i'd say for you the stats are the cake, and football is the cherry on top. all i did is try to make you look at it in the right perspective: football is the cake, stats are the cherry on top. and that's not because i say so, it's because it's just how it is, objectively.

@Dynastian
this thread teaches some interesting stuff, better than seeing the usual Ronaldo VS Messi or LeagueX VS LeagueZ flamewar. gotta admit it was a bit protracted tho' :P