This Looks Nice

[urz13]

he also does that

But it is understandable why. People seem to want to find as many flaws in the stats as they can instead of appreciating them for what they are and as if he has committed a crime coming up with them, it's ridiculous and painful to read.

[Ian Royal]

Don't see why discounting the first 6 games is such a problem. It's hardly 'current form' and the team since then has been largely consistent in it's selection and results. Plus it makes good reading.

The flaw is that he's chosen the comparison to other teams based on our circumstances and arbitrarily picks six games because that's when our results began to improve. It's not picked out of any methodology which might suggest that the disruption to our start of season can reasonably be expected to be six games. He looks for the pattern picks it and then uses it to try and prove a point he's already decided on. That's a total misuse of statistics.

If his assumption is that we were scuppered by early season disorganisation, he could at least compare our 22 game form to everyone elses 28 game form (or 27 in some cases).

As an example, Birmingham started the season very well, but had a dip later on. It started right around the time they lost to Braga the second time in Europe. Clearly there's a case for the pile up of fixtures they'd been playing causing them problems at that point. It's at least as valid as our early season disorganisation and yet snowball's method gets rid of B'hams good early season form and replaces it with their poor form. Making his comparison to them worthless.

The reason people who can see this challenge it, is exactly the same as the reason why anyone who posts something flawed without statistics is challenged. It's because it's flawed and it should be pointed out to put them right and to prevent those who didn't realise being taken in.

It's his misuse of statistics followed by his refusal to take criticism on the chin and accept the stats are flawed which causes threads to go off like this. No one is anti-stats used in a balanced way, where they are recognised to show only a part of the picture.

[Mr Cinema]

he also does that

But it is understandable why. People seem to want to find as many flaws in the stats as they can instead of appreciating them for what they are and as if he has committed a crime coming up with them, it's ridiculous and painful to read.

Rubbish.

They're just numbers. People are allowed to discuss their interpretation of them.

He's clearly an attention junkie anyway. He loves it and knows exactly what he's doing and what reaction its going to get.

[Snowball]

Don't see why discounting the first 6 games is such a problem. It's hardly 'current form' and the team since then has been largely consistent in it's selection and results. Plus it makes good reading.

If his assumption is that we were scuppered by early season disorganisation, he could at least compare our 22 game form to everyone elses 28 game form (or 27 in some cases).

As an example, Birmingham started the season very well, but had a dip later on. It started right around the time they lost to Braga the second time in Europe. Clearly there's a case for the pile up of fixtures they'd been playing causing them problems at that point. It's at least as valid as our early season disorganisation and yet snowball's method gets rid of B'hams good early season form and replaces it with their poor form. Making his comparison to them worthless.

Wrong on Birmingham, Ian.

Here is the table as you suggested. Our 22 games (From Gorkks' 3rd game onwards)

Compared to the full season for all the other teams.

First thing to notice is it's a much tighter league, no team breaking the 2.0 ppg


Note, on the table suggested by IR we are second to West Ham


1 28 16-05-07 44-29 +15 53 1.89 ppg West Ham
2 22 12-05-05 30-19 +11 41 1.86 ppg Reading (22 Games)

3 28 15-06-07 51-31 +20 51 1.82 ppg Southampton
4 28 13-11-04 45-30 +15 50 1.79 ppg Cardiff City
5 27 13-07-07 46-27 +19 46 1.70 ppg Birmingham City
6 28 12-10-06 33-30 +03 46 1.64 ppg Middlesbrough

7 28 14-04-10 28-25 +03 46 1.64 ppg Hull City
8 28 12-09-07 45-35 +10 45 1.61 ppg Blackpool
9 28 13-04-11 41-33 +08 43 1.54 ppg Burnley

[cmonurz]

The flaw is that he's chosen the comparison to other teams based on our circumstances...

This is key. Snowball at least makes an argument as to why 22 games is a relevant 'form' guide for Reading. The problem is then using that same set of games as a yardstick for everyone else in the division, which makes the comparison biased.

If, and I'm not sure we would, but if we lost three games on the trot, that 20-odd game 'form guide' would I'm sure be dropped for a more favourable statistic.

[Snowball]

The flaw is that he's chosen the comparison to other teams based on our circumstances...

This is key. Snowball at least makes an argument as to why 22 games is a relevant 'form' guide for Reading. The problem is then using that same set of games as a yardstick for everyone else in the division, which makes the comparison biased.

If, and I'm not sure we would, but if we lost three games on the trot, that 20-odd game 'form guide' would I'm sure be dropped for a more favourable statistic.

Utter bollox. I nailed my colours to the mast ten games ago.

I explained why I felt the first 6 games were non-indicative and that
once we had Gorkks settled etc we could see what was happening.

Gorkks played his first game Game 5 of the season, Mills Game 6

Just about every fan knows that it's our DEFENCE that has got us where we are.

It's the same as the Elwood effect last season.*

I strongly suspect that Connolly, if fit, will come in at LB and we'll IMPROVE our ppg further

Le Fondre's first game was Game 6 partnering MANSET, err, right...

The seventh game we played

Reading (4-4-2): Federici; Cummings, Mills, Gorkss, Pearce; Tabb, Leigertwood, Kebe (Le Fondre 41), McAnuff (c); Hunt, Church.


and that has been a very stable outfit ever since with Karacan mostly replacing Tabb, and LB being a bit changeable

but the absolute KEY has been the CB pairing


* and Elwood. He held us together last year and the stats made it screamingly obvious.

He got married in the summer, came back in and was way off his best. Our upturn in form
coincides with Gorkks settling in, but also with Elwood returning to about 90% of his 2010-11 form

[Snowball]

The flaw is that he's chosen the comparison to other teams based on our circumstances...

This is key.

Keep up, Munchkin

Ian Royal said it was reasonable to judge our form removing the opening six games
as we lost vital players and brought in Gorkks, Mills, Le Fondre

But that we should compare that 22 games (and increasing) to the other clubs FULL season
as they started and got a run on us.

I DID THAT

And here it is again



Note, on the table suggested by IR we are second to West Ham
and the ppg difference would be 1.38 points in a 46-game season

1 28 16-05-07 44-29 +15 53 1.89 ppg West Ham (28 Games)
2 22 12-05-05 30-19 +11 41 1.86 ppg Reading (22 Games) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

3 28 15-06-07 51-31 +20 51 1.82 ppg Southampton (28 Games)
4 28 13-11-04 45-30 +15 50 1.79 ppg Cardiff City (28 Games)
5 27 13-07-07 46-27 +19 46 1.70 ppg Birmingham City (27 Games)
6 28 12-10-06 33-30 +03 46 1.64 ppg Middlesbrough(28 Games)

7 28 14-04-10 28-25 +03 46 1.64 ppg Hull City (28 Games)
8 28 12-09-07 45-35 +10 45 1.61 ppg Blackpool (28 Games)
9 28 13-04-11 41-33 +08 43 1.54 ppg Burnley (28 Games)

[leicsRoyal]

I have no problem at all with Snowball and stats, each to their own.

I manipulate stats all day every day to make them show what I want to see!

[West Stand Man]

The negative attacks on the use of a stat showing us from game 7 onwards is more indicative of a lack of understanding by the attackers than it is an indication of a weakness in the stat.

It is perfectly fair to quote these figures and to justify them as evidence that we have been the form team in the league since that point. It doesn't say that we are the overall best team - we'd be top of the league if we were - but it does show that our form is much better than intimated by a lot of people.

Essentially, our league position is being skewed by a poor start as Snowball has shown. That doesn't change that early form it just makes an allowance for it. You can read into it what you want, of course, but it is a simple representation of the facts. Stats generally are just that - how they are (or are not) interpreted is the issue. Knocking the statistician is pointless (unless he/she tries to force a point on you by misinterpretation - and I see no sign of that here).

[cmonurz]

The flaw is that he's chosen the comparison to other teams based on our circumstances...

This is key.

Keep up, Munchkin

Ian Royal said it was reasonable to judge our form removing the opening six games
as we lost vital players and brought in Gorkks, Mills, Le Fondre

But that we should compare that 22 games (and increasing) to the other clubs FULL season
as they started and got a run on us.

I DID THAT

And here it is again



Note, on the table suggested by IR we are second to West Ham
and the ppg difference would be 1.38 points in a 46-game season

I'm not bothered if it is your table or IR's or my Mum's. It is flawed to set out reasons why the current 22 games 'form guide' is relevant to us (as you have done again two posts above), and then use it to compare to other sides, who may or may not have started their own hot streak, good run, settled set of results etc at the different point in time.

[Snowball]

The negative attacks on the use of a stat showing us from game 7 onwards is more indicative of a lack of understanding by the attackers than it is an indication of a weakness in the stat.

It is perfectly fair to quote these figures and to justify them as evidence that we have been the form team in the league since that point. It doesn't say that we are the overall best team - we'd be top of the league if we were - but it does show that our form is much better than intimated by a lot of people.

Essentially, our league position is being skewed by a poor start as Snowball has shown. That doesn't change that early form it just makes an allowance for it. You can read into it what you want, of course, but it is a simple representation of the facts. Stats generally are just that - how they are (or are not) interpreted is the issue. Knocking the statistician is pointless (unless he/she tries to force a point on you by misinterpretation - and I see no sign of that here).

Exactly. Thank-you.

Try reversing it.

Say Shane Long had STAYED for six games and we had won five after the draw versus Millwall

Compared to what actually happened we'd have had a 12-point better start 0.43 ppg over the 28 games

Then he left and we floundered badly, losing a few badly until recovering to low-mid-table form...

We'd then maybe be 8th, because our 22 game form started terribly and crept back to maybe 1.4 ppg,
but, because we had those 16 points from our first six games and were top on GD above Middlesboro,
we would now have a distorted view of our CURRENT (overall) worth.

Aren't we seeing that with Saints and Brighton?

[melonhead]

he also does that

But it is understandable why. People seem to want to find as many flaws in the stats as they can instead of appreciating them for what they are and as if he has committed a crime coming up with them, it's ridiculous and painful to read.

it is not understandable why he stamps on babys heads!
i dont understand why you understand it.



the stats are interesting.
i just h8b the fact it always turns into the same thread

[Snowball]

I'm not bothered if it is your table or IR's or my Mum's. It is flawed to set out reasons why the current 22 games 'form guide' is relevant to us (as you have done again two posts above), and then use it to compare to other sides, who may or may not have started their own hot streak, good run, settled set of results etc at the different point in time.

CURRENT FORM tables have to come up to the most recent game. Our does.
Brighton look better over the last 8, poor over the 22, even better over the 28 because of their great start
Saints look BAD over the last 8, the last 11, the last 12 but decent over the 28.

Take ANY significant number of games which finishes this week and Reading look totally fine on it

Their WORST case view (all 28 games) is 8th, just ONE POINT off fourth place,
and from game 7, 8, 9, 10 it doesn't matter, we are up there, accruing points
like an automatic-promotion side.


Do they publish 06 game form tables? Why?
Do they publish 08 game form tables? Why?
Do they publish 12 game form tables? Why?
Do they publish 18 game form tables? Why?

A form table tells us who is CURRENTLY doing best, based on

Last 5 Games Home
Last 5 Games Away
last 8 Games

Whatever.

It DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL that I have taken an arbitrary start-point.

ALL that matters is whether FROM that start point, there are no gaps.

It's a 22-Game run and has put us to the top of the form table.

We are also top of the form table on the last 11 Games (8 wins) and if we
were to maintain that last 11-games form we would finish on 84 or 85 points

And NO, I didn't pick that statistic, McDermott and various pundits did.

And when Bristol came to The Madejski THEIR stat was "They have won 3 of their last 4 games"



You can bleat and moan like you always bleat and moan but it will not make this 22-game stat any less absolutely factual.

[themadstad]

So if we can maintain our form of the last 22 can we pick up the points to compensate for the poor start. That will be interesting to see.

[Snowball]

the stats are interesting.
i just h8b the fact it always turns into the same thread

Read The History of Bear-Baiting

It's my turn in the barrel, but don't worry they can slag off a player soon

[Snowball]

So if we can maintain our form of the last 22 can we pick up the points to compensate for the poor start. That will be interesting to see.

Well yes. IF we exactly main the form of this 22-Game run we end up on "78.35" points

That is (because some muppet will point out you can't get .35 of a point) either 78 or 79 points

Last year we had 77 for 5th. 75 was good enough for 6th


Note we only need to MARGINALLY improve (one draw turned into a win) to have a serious chance of automatic.


But the overall averages might be seriously damaged by single games. eg losing at Birmingham or Boro if they come back to form



and remember we have played Hull twice and Cardiff twice. The other top 8 clubs will hurt each other

[melonhead]

the stats are interesting.
i just h8b the fact it always turns into the same thread

Read The History of Bear-Baiting

It's my turn in the barrel, but don't worry they can slag off a player soon

[Snowball]

It is perfectly fair to quote these figures and to justify them as evidence that we have been the form team in the league since that point. It doesn't say that we are the overall best team - we'd be top of the league if we were - but it does show that our form is much better than intimated by a lot of people.

Essentially, our league position is being skewed by a poor start as Snowball has shown.

Yup

The reverse of the year we lost out to Birmingham on the final day
and then lost to Burnley in the POs

Then a good start covered up a terrible Jan-April (12th in the table for 2009).

Despite being in with a chance of automatic, we were an out of form outfit and duly lost

[Vision]

It is perfectly fair to quote these figures and to justify them as evidence that we have been the form team in the league since that point. It doesn't say that we are the overall best team - we'd be top of the league if we were - but it does show that our form is much better than intimated by a lot of people.

Essentially, our league position is being skewed by a poor start as Snowball has shown.

Yup

The reverse of the year we lost out to Birmingham on the final day
and then lost to Burnley in the POs

Then a good start covered up a terrible Jan-April (12th in the table for 2009).

Despite being in with a chance of automatic, we were an out of form outfit and duly lost

Last 8 games going into that final match.

Reading Pl8 W3 D4 L1
Brum Pl8 W3 D4 L1

Stats. Dontcha just love 'em

[Snowball]

Last 8 games going into that final match.

Reading Pl8 W3 D4 L1
Brum Pl8 W3 D4 L1

Stats. Dontcha just love 'em

Don't see that the above proves much. What were the opposition teams?

Two sides with 13 points from 8 (approx a 74 point season) so neither doing particularly well

The game had 1-1 written all over it (which it should have been)