The Snowball stat thread

[Snowball]

No idea what Shane Long has to do with this discussion.

I do.

[Extended-Phenotype]

What a cliffhanger.

It's like Eastenders. I read the spoilers and it turns out Cmonurz's baby isn't Snowballs after all, but Shane Long's - Snowball has found out, and it's all going to kick off on Xmas day.

Doof doof doof doof doof duh-duh duh-duh nyew-nyew-nyew-nyew, nyew nyew. Nyew-nyew-nyew nyaaw nyaaw, denyew nyew denyea nyew, nyeeewwww.

[LUX]

very good.

the egret story was a bit convoluted though.

[melonhead]

What worries me about the RFC set-up is it clearly doesn't have any MAGIC.

McD is doing brilliantly but the only player we've got who might do something truly extraordinary is Jimmy.

We grind out results based on solid defending but rarely do we look like we can out-class a team.

That kinda worries me.

Madejski can persuade himself we don't need to spend, mainly
because McD can turn water into a cheapish wine.

Gylfi (a man can dream) might be that extra

wtf are you on about now?

[Snowball]

What worries me about the RFC set-up is it clearly doesn't have any MAGIC.

McD is doing brilliantly but the only player we've got who might do something truly extraordinary is Jimmy.

We grind out results based on solid defending but rarely do we look like we can out-class a team.

That kinda worries me.

Madejski can persuade himself we don't need to spend, mainly
because McD can turn water into a cheapish wine.

Gylfi (a man can dream) might be that extra

wtf are you on about now?

What I was trying to say was what worries me about the RFC set-up is it clearly doesn't have any MAGIC.

McD is doing brilliantly but the only player we've got who might do something truly extraordinary is Jimmy.

We grind out results based on solid defending but rarely do we look like we can out-class a team.

That kinda worries me.

Madejski can persuade himself we don't need to spend, mainly
because McD can turn water into a cheapish wine.

Gylfi (a man can dream) might be that extra

[Arch]

So soon after the death of Hitch, it's depressing to see such superstitious thinking, especially from you Snowbs.

[Snowball]

Har, Har!!

[rhroyal]

It always happens doesn't it. The form table means very little IMHO, what matters is the full table, at the moment we are 7th, so for the second season running my view that McD will be gone by xmas is wrong, damn him for doing so well. Much was explained by the loss of players in the summer, the squad have had to adapt, and yet again McD has done wonders within the budget so far.

A good run over the next 6 or so games loks likely, so I could see us move into the top 6.

What we seem to have is belief again, so well done McD.

Generally there's not a lot of point in using a form table in isolation. You use short term and longer term form to put the position in the full table into context, in terms of whether the team is heading up, down or staying pretty much where it is.

Form table does mean something. It's quite easy to deduce that this team has got much better as its gelled and moved on from Long. The opening 6 league games will count at the end of the season, but I'm not sure they're the best indicator of how well we will perform in the coming months.

Our form since the end of September or so is a better indicator there; we're top 6 by those standards. Comfortably. And with 11 of our next 13 games against teams in the bottom half (quote from somebody else on here, not my research) you do fancy us to be in the mix.

Obviously it's possible that we go on an underwhelming run and underline our credentials as an average, mid table side. I don't think this will happen; McD's teams have been pretty consistent once they get going throughout his time here. We're contenders for the play-offs in my view. Great job again McD.

[Hoop Blah]

Form can be quite an interesting thing to look at, if you're looking an individual matches or, as I think IR said, seeing who's moving up the league and who's moving down.

For me form can be measured over quite a moveable time frame because a team's own run of form is usually on a natural run or set of games. In other words it's not a set number of games but it might be since player x came back into the side, or post-international break, or since a formation change.

If we win 4 games on the spin then we're in form. If we lost the 4 before that (in an 8 game form table) we'll look in average form and in the same position as a team who've lost their last 4 but won the 4 before that.

Comparing form is tricky because each team will be in a different 'run' of form over different time frames.

How relevant is form? Not that relevant if you ask me. Time and time again we've seen that generally, apart from a few teams at either end of the division, anyone and beat anyone in this league so it doesn't really matter so much if our next set of opponents are bottom or top half of the league because the margins are so tight.

It's a bit of paralysis by analysis IMO.

[melonhead]

What worries me about the RFC set-up is it clearly doesn't have any MAGIC.

McD is doing brilliantly but the only player we've got who might do something truly extraordinary is Jimmy.

We grind out results based on solid defending but rarely do we look like we can out-class a team.

That kinda worries me.

Madejski can persuade himself we don't need to spend, mainly
because McD can turn water into a cheapish wine.

Gylfi (a man can dream) might be that extra

wtf are you on about now?

What I was trying to say was what worries me about the RFC set-up is it clearly doesn't have any MAGIC.

McD is doing brilliantly but the only player we've got who might do something truly extraordinary is Jimmy.

We grind out results based on solid defending but rarely do we look like we can out-class a team.

That kinda worries me.

Madejski can persuade himself we don't need to spend, mainly
because McD can turn water into a cheapish wine.

Gylfi (a man can dream) might be that extra

thanks for clarifying your mentalness

[Extended-Phenotype]

A genuinely interesting stat for strikers would be a goals / chances ratio.

But it ain't an easy one to trace unless your only other activity in life is sobbing in bed.

[Vision]

A genuinely interesting stat for strikers would be a goals / chances ratio.

But it ain't an easy one to trace unless your only other activity in life is sobbing in bed.

About this time last year Snowball posted a list of goals/attempts mainly in an attempt to show how Shane Long's finishing was improving. Sadly it only showed this if you included free hits from 12 yards. In fact taking those attempts out, at the time he had a worse conversion rate than Jobi McAnuff which is pretty much saying it was worse than Stephen Hawking. Or Nicklas Bendtner.

It was almost immediately after that Long made a complete mockery of anything that went before.

So in the spirit of that Simon Church has 6 goals from 22 attempts (16 on target). Of course how many of those were actual genuine chances I've no idea but i suspect there's a bedsobber somewhere whose job it is to compile that titbit. Now it's official we can expect him to go on and get 20+ goals this season.Its how these things work.

As an added stat bonus, McAnuff has had more shots off target (15) than anyone else and has also hit the woodwork more times (5) than anyone else.

[Hoop Blah]

I'd also love to see a stat for the number of times Church has fallen over in front of goal and totally wasted a decent chance before even getting it on or off target.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Good stuff, Señor Vision.

Though rather than use it to spot the form of a striker, I was more interested in using it to perhaps excuse them. Our strikers aren't scoring regularly, but many suggest this is because they are lacking service - maybe there is a stat out there to back that up?

Still rather tricky, now I think about it. Not getting many chances could equally be down to poor positioning of the striker.

Yeah, I've changed my mind again. Stats are pigshit.

[Vision]

I'd also love to see a stat for the number of times Church has fallen over in front of goal and totally wasted a decent chance before even getting it on or off target.

LOL. I vividly remember the Doncaster game last season when Long got in behind the back 4 on several occasions yet never once managed to get a shot away because he stumbled/miscontrolled or was hesitant due to lack of confidence in front of goal. He was taken off at 3-1 down I think and then we came back to win 4-3. Think it was a real turning point for him personally.

[Royal Rother]

Good stuff, Señor Vision.

Though rather than use it to spot the form of a striker, I was more interested in using it to perhaps excuse them. Our strikers aren't scoring regularly, but many suggest this is because they are lacking service - maybe there is a stat out there to back that up?

Still rather tricky, now I think about it. Not getting many chances could equally be down to poor positioning of the striker.

Yeah, I've changed my mind again. Stats are pigshit.

But they are more reliable than most people's observational skills.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

It's a bit of paralysis by analysis IMO.

I like this analogy

[melonhead]

Good stuff, Señor Vision.

Though rather than use it to spot the form of a striker, I was more interested in using it to perhaps excuse them. Our strikers aren't scoring regularly, but many suggest this is because they are lacking service - maybe there is a stat out there to back that up?

Still rather tricky, now I think about it. Not getting many chances could equally be down to poor positioning of the striker.

Yeah, I've changed my mind again. Stats are pigshit.

But they are more reliable than most people's observational skills.

they are useful in tandem with observation, to ensure that your observations arent coloured by preconceptions, and personal predjudice

[Svlad Cjelli]

Quite apart from individual performances, which are so dependant upon countless factors, what is interesting (IMHO) is just how similar the progress has been across the two seasons :

[Royal Rother]

Good stuff, Señor Vision.

Though rather than use it to spot the form of a striker, I was more interested in using it to perhaps excuse them. Our strikers aren't scoring regularly, but many suggest this is because they are lacking service - maybe there is a stat out there to back that up?

Still rather tricky, now I think about it. Not getting many chances could equally be down to poor positioning of the striker.

Yeah, I've changed my mind again. Stats are pigshit.

But they are more reliable than most people's observational skills.

they are useful in tandem with observation, to ensure that your observations arent coloured by preconceptions, and personal predjudice

Well yes, fine in theory but most people are unable / unwilling to set aside personal prejudice and preconceptions even when presented with the stats and will search for any (even the most tenuous) reason to discredit them.