MACSTATS

[1871 Royal]

WNG

That's Win Next Game isn't it?

I was going to guess at that as well.

[Franchise FC]

WNG

That's Win Next Game isn't it?

It appears to be working for the time being

[Ian Royal]

I'm certainly in favour of WNG

[1871 Royal]

I'm certainly in favour of WNG

Tis better than DNG or LNG.

[RobRoyal]

Stopped reading this when I got to the bit where it said we would have got three points if Liverpool A had been a league game. It was 1-1 at 90 minutes, and league games don't go to extra time.

So then you missed the bit where we got the stats for league games only.

Yes. I wasn't suggesting that Snowball's misjudgement changes the fact that we're on a great run. Any idiot can see we're on a great run. I'm just tired of his self-serving attitude towards statistics. An approach of integrity would deal with problematic issues like that openly. Snowball picks the only the criteria that best support his case, all the time. It makes little odds in this example, but taken over all of his posts it's wearisome.

Stopped reading this when I got to the bit where it said we would have got three points if Liverpool A had been a league game. It was 1-1 at 90 minutes, and league games don't go to extra time.

Botox! Had we LOST in extra time and I had said it was 1-1 "as a result" you'd've banjaxed me

We won THE TIE.

Actually no I wouldn't, because I would have considered it a valid comparison. If we'd won on penalties, would you still be claiming it was equivalent to a league win? Also, you might want to start combining your replies into one. Posting four times in a row is a bit tiresome for everyone else. On better moderated forums it's against the rules.

[BonBoh]

Here's a challenge for you.

If we discount the FA Cup games and the caretaker games then BMD has a 100% win record since being confirmed as the new Royals manager. I think these are his true stats.
I remember when he was confirmed as manager he said there were 20 games left this season and our season starts here.
20 games means 60 points to be won. So far, we have gained 12 points out of a possible 12.
16 games to go in our mini season with a points per game average of 3!

If a miracle were to happen and we WNG every time, we would accrue a total of 83 points. I think that is definitely a play-off place.

Realistically, I think 35 out of the 60 points are possible. That leaves us to get another 23 points this season. We would finish on 58 points. After the year we had in 2009, I think that would be quite nice - even though it would be very average.

Come on Brian - perform a miracle. I don't like being average!

[papereyes]

Well its not Wank Next Giraffe.

[SLAMMED]

Yes m8

[prostak]

There's many reasons to find fault with this sort of wrongheaded statistical 'analysis', deciding a cup tie involving extra time counts as 3 points being merely the most obvious. That's not to say we're not improving, but you can defend almost any argument using the right numbers and I'm not sure what doing so adds.

Here's a statistic, did you know Reading have never been relegated in a year ending in zero? So you see, Sir John himself could've taken charge and we'd be on course for survival...

[Ian Royal]

There's many reasons to find fault with this sort of wrongheaded statistical 'analysis', deciding a cup tie involving extra time counts as 3 points being merely the most obvious. That's not to say we're not improving, but you can defend almost any argument using the right numbers and I'm not sure what doing so adds.

Here's a statistic, did you know Reading have never been relegated in a year ending in zero? So you see, Sir John himself could've taken charge and we'd be on course for survival...

The frightening things is he claims to be a professional statistician, teach stats at a university and have written books, (and now plays with a footballer).

[Terminal Boardom]

The only statistic I am interested in is the position in the league table after the 46th game has been played as it is the only one that matters.

[prostak]

The frightening things is he claims to be a professional statistician, teach stats at a university and have written books, (and now plays with a footballer).

Brilliant. I live with one of those, whose bugbear is analytical misrepresentation of anything, ever. I'm itching to see what he makes of this.

And I think that's the first time I've agreed with TB...

[PistolPete]

Why do we need statistics to 'back up' something which is so reliant on variables?!

- What if Federici stayed on his line against Watford and Graham didn't score and Reading with renewed belief went on a winning run with Rodgers?
- What if the referee hadn't given the 50/50 penalty decision for Long verses Liverpool and we went without the confidence boost of the FA cup run?
- What if Reading fail to win for the remaining games that McDermott has before equaling the ammount of games Rodgers had?

May I make a statement based on eyesight and interpretation? Reading are playing well at the moment, the squad looks more settled than it did under Rodgers and I really hope the form continues.

[Terminal Boardom]

The frightening things is he claims to be a professional statistician, teach stats at a university and have written books, (and now plays with a footballer).

Brilliant. I live with one of those, whose bugbear is analytical misrepresentation of anything, ever. I'm itching to see what he makes of this.

And I think that's the first time I've agreed with TB...

So I am second lowest in the food chain with only statisticians beneath me? I am flattered

[Mad Dog's Ghost]

Just when it was looking alright again, kiss-of-death Snowball shows up with his inane pile of stats. Just stop it. It's dull. Even my cat knows RFC are improving. Not kicked it for weeks now.

And three consecutive posts to start a thread ... that must be a some kind of statistical record in itself.

Just go away.

[Terminal Boardom]

No, Snowflake or whatever his name is turns up AFTER Shane Long scored his first goal of the season. Funny how you never see Snopake and Royalee at the same time

[Snowball]

There's many reasons to find fault with this sort of wrongheaded statistical 'analysis', deciding a cup tie involving extra time counts as 3 points being merely the most obvious. That's not to say we're not improving, but you can defend almost any argument using the right numbers and I'm not sure what doing so adds.

Here's a statistic, did you know Reading have never been relegated in a year ending in zero? So you see, Sir John himself could've taken charge and we'd be on course for survival...

The frightening things is he claims to be a professional statistician, teach stats at a university and have written books, (and now plays with a footballer).

Ian Royal talking out of his brown hole yet again. I have never claimed to be a professional statistician.

It is, however, true that I taught stats at university. It's also true I once wrote a play with a professional footballer
who went on to be a manager.


You are a clown, and so are many others on here.

I do NOT claim that a cup win is 3 points. That's why the "3 points" are in quotes.

I showed all Mac's games including cup games, and all Mac's games EXCLUDING cup games.

Thus, those few people with IQs over 100 can read and choose whichever set of Mac stats they wish to review.

However, with or without Cup games, taking all 13 or just 9, treating the second Liverpool game as a 2-1 win or a 1-1 draw (idiocy), Mac still comes out as far better statistically than Rodgers.

[cmonurz]

The general point made SB, which is fair, is that you viciously defend your stats, to the extent of using playground language ('brown hole'? seriously?) when people question their validity to the subject to which they are applied, which is in fact exactly the test to which all statistics should be subjected.

It's not simply a case of calling people clowns if they question your methods - stats only mean something with well constructed arguments to flesh them out. In this specific case, there is no argument at all to assigning points to cup games, and then doing so wrongly - or at least you haven't made it. To say 'people can review them how they like' is disenguous, because your stats (and anyone's stats) are naturally presented to show a particular point, in this case, McDermott's success.

You could not have been accused of this on this thread had you presented the league only stats, and as a brief footnote, added McDermott's further success in cup games.

[Royal With Cheese]

Snowball and Ian GET A ROOM

[Cookie]

This is a good stat.

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/february.html