Inconsistency in the player ID's used between different tracking data deserializers

[DriesDeprest]

In our different tracking data deserializers, we are using different approaches to define the ID's of players. Below an overview of some providers to clarify the differences:

• SkillCorner : we set player ID as {ground}_{jersey_no}
• SecondSpectrum : we set player ID as the Opta ID.
• Tracab : we set player ID as {ground}_{jersey_no}.

Is this behaviour intentional or the result of a not agreed upon standard?

I would have expected the provider ID's would be used where possible. Thus, that e.g. in the case of SkillCorner, we would use the SkillCorner player ID.

[DriesDeprest]

@koenvo any thoughts on this? I would like to work on a fix (but first make sure, you are aligned) to integrate it in my project.

[koenvo]

Agree on that provider ID should be used where possible.

What do you think @JanVanHaaren ?

[JanVanHaaren]

I agree. I would also expect that the data providers' identifiers are used. This approach would also improve the interoperability between kloppy and other systems and tools that typically use the data providers' identifiers.

[DriesDeprest]

Fixed with https://github.com/PySport/kloppy/pull/278