Harte Signs

[Maguire]

I don't care about "form" so much as I care about how good the opposition are. I'd suggest that, say, Millwall's record over the entire season to date is a rather truer reflection of their ability than only looking at the first four games.

I'm not even passing comment on whatever it is you guys are all arguing about, merely interjecting to point out that picking and choosing which games to include in your analysis is just blind folly. To do this i've illustrated that you can make eg. the Millwall game look tough or relatively easy depending on which particular set of stats you decide to cherry pick.

So, explain, how, going INTO the game Millwall v Reading, we could do anything but
consider where they were and how they were playing, having W5 of the previous 7 games?

We're not going INTO the Millwall game, we're several games down the line from there. Choosing to weigh up the difficulty of the fixture by picking and choosing which results to look at is ridiculous when you've now got a ten game sample size rather than five. You do this often (ref: analysing our GD from 6 games rather than 10 as it suited your argument to do so). Nobody involved in statistics willfully halves their sample size and thinks it gives them a stronger conclusion.

[Snowball]

We're not going INTO the Millwall game, we're several games down the line from there. Choosing to weigh up the difficulty of the fixture by picking and choosing which results to look at is ridiculous when you've now got a ten game sample size rather than five.

NOT my point. When we traveled to Millwall it looked like a seriously tough game because their record up to then was very good.

If we went to QPR to play, people would say, "They are top and on fire."

If we got a win there and then QPR went on a bad run and dropped down the table, would we REALLY say, "They were in a false position. It wasn't REALLY a big result."?

SECOND POINT. Millwall ARE a good side INCLUDING their recent run because they have had to play some REALLY top sides

1st QPR 0-0
2nd Cardiff 1-2
4th Watford 1-6
5th Ipswich 1-2 (Cup)
6th Burnley 1-1
7th Reading 0-0




You do this often (ref: analysing our GD from 6 games rather than 10 as it suited your argument to do so). Nobody involved in statistics willfully halves their sample size and thinks it gives them a stronger conclusion.

In the case of Reading the 6 v 10 is patently obvious. The first 4 games we had Gylfi
and now we DON'T have Gylfi. If we had won those four games and I included them,
you and others would be up in arms saying it was unrealistic to use results gained with
our start, because he was now not with us. It's 4 v 6 now, and will be 4 v 7, 4 v 8, 4 v 9
as time progresses.

HOWEVER, it is standard practice to quote LAST SIX GAMES when considering form.

If you go to Statto and click current form, it gives a six-game table

[Woodcote Royal]

Woodcote Royal makes a very good point.

It is difficult to "prove" Harte's benefit to Reading altho' we can show improvements
in goal difference, less goals conceded, clean-sheets and Harte's goals.

The argument against is stuff like, "Nah, it's because Williams is not playing..." (etc)


HOWEVER we can look at Reading "Before Harte" and "With Harte"

and ALSO look at Carlisle "With Harte" and "Without Harte"

at least nobody can blame Williams for CARLISLE's results

it's totally obvious that Harte's leaving to join Reading has BOTH benefited Reading AND cost Carlisle.

see next post

But the biggest variable is the opposition, which changes on a match-by-match basis (obvioulsy) - and surely the number of matches played this season both before and after Harte is much to small to give any statistical validity.

No statistical validity is required to see that Harte is a more than capable left back at this level and the fact he cost just 50k makes him an absolute bargain.

However, seeing as you mentioned it; Just how much "statistical validity" is applied and/or posted by our resident Grade "A" twats when they continually rubbish players they've never seen kick a ball, primarily because of the size of the fee being paid and the clubs from which they are being signed?

It it is simply laughable that those who rarely provide any stats whatsoever rubbish those provided by Snowball when they are happy to post their own opinions based on nothing other than their own gut instincts, which have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

[Svlad Cjelli]

No statistical validity is required to see that Harte is a more than capable left back at this level and the fact he cost just 50k makes him an absolute bargain.

However, seeing as you mentioned; Just how much "statistical validity" is applied and/or posted by our resident Grade "A" twats when they continually rubbish players they've never seen kick a ball, primarlity because of the size of the fee being paid and the clubs from which they are being signed?

It it is simply laughable that those who rarely provide any stats whatsover rubbish those provided by Snowball when they are happy to post their own opinions based on nothing other than their own gut instincts which have shown to be wrong time and time again.

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible.

So I don't accept that anyone is failing by failing to provide enough statistics - on a board like this which is made up of countless individual and differing opinions it's those who try to find statistics which somehow justify their own individual opinions that I have no time for.

[Woodcote Royal]

And you are missing my essential point that YET AGAIN a player who has already shown himself to be an absoute bargain was rubbished on his arrival by those with little undestanding of the game and no statistics whatsover to back up their blinkered opinions

[Maguire]

It it is simply laughable that those who rarely provide any stats whatsover rubbish those provided by Snowball

It's not the stats that get rubbished, it's the fact that he has no idea how to apply them.

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible

Spot on.

[Woodcote Royal]

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible

Most statistics can be bent to help support the views of those who choose to employ them but to suggest it's impossible to illustrate the impact one player has on a team is utter nonsense. Snowballs stats are not perfect but they've been more than good enough on a number of occasions to make mugs out of those who never tire of posting unsubstantiated rubbish and that's what many don't like.

HINT

Why don't some of you change the habit of a life time and actually watch a player for a few games, give him a while to settle and THEN offer an opinion based on some first hand knowledge?

[Snowball]

The same people who say one player can't make a difference
are also saying that "all we need is a good striker"

[Snowball]

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on
such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible.


So, for the sake of argument, Harte plays the next four games and we win all four 2-0 with Harte getting 2 of the eight goals

P10 W7 D2 L1 17-4 23 points @ 2.3 Points per Game = 106-Point Season


Then Harte is injured and MISSES ten consecutive games. We lose six, draw 2, win 2

P10 W2 D2 L6 6-12 = 08 Points @ 0.8 Points per Game = 037 Point Season


but it's still not the Harte effect?

P10 W7 D2 L1 17-04 = 23 points @ 2.3 Points per Game = 106-Point Season
P10 W2 D2 L6 06-12 = 08 points @ 0.8 Points per Game = 037 Point Season





So I don't accept that anyone is failing by failing to provide enough statistics - on a board like this which is made up of countless individual and differing opinions it's those who try to find statistics which somehow justify their own individual opinions that I have no time for.


That suggests ("try to find") that I or anyone else consciously looks for "supporting statistics"
and chooses to ignore stats that don't support my case.


I DON'T.

I just look for the facts (the stats) and consider what they suggest.

Harte has clearly been involved in a good run, three clean sheets, only one defeat.
He has scored two goals and gone close a few times. he has not been directly responsible
for a conceded goal, nor has he yet been given a torrid time by a winger. He has also
played a lot of solid balls from defence and midfield, and a few near-brilliant passes
out to Kebe, which some have called "pass of the season".

[Hoop Blah]

The same people who say one player can't make a difference
are also saying that "all we need is a good striker"

Has anyone said one player can't make a difference? Or have they said your stats couldn't really prove anything because football isn't a game that lends itself to stats because of the number of variables?

[brendywendy]

of course the stats mean something.
and i never though SB was offering them up as a definitive answer to all questions, just as a point fo interest, and to challenge certain tightly held preconceptions on this list

[Svlad Cjelli]

You're missing my essential point, which is that trying to prove anything about the effect of one individual player on such a complex, inter-connected and multi-faceted game as football with statistics is virtually impossible

Most statistics can be bent to help support the views of those who choose to employ them but to suggest it's impossible to illustrate the impact one player has on a team is utter nonsense. Snowballs stats are not perfect but they've been more than good enough on a number of occasions to make mugs out of those who never tire of posting unsubstantiated rubbish and that's what many don't like.

HINT

Why don't some of you change the habit of a life time and actually watch a player for a few games, give him a while to settle and THEN offer an opinion based on some first hand knowledge?

I do hope that's not aimed at me - all I'm arguing against is the validity of stats on how a team does to judge the worth of an individual player. I don't think you'll ever find a premature judgement or a generalisation about players from me.

[Hoop Blah]

of course the stats mean something.
and i never though SB was offering them up as a definitive answer to all questions, just as a point fo interest, and to challenge certain tightly held preconceptions on this list

Who said they don't mean something?

I think the ascertation is that they don't prove anything, especially with the way snowball throws them out.

[Snowball]

of course the stats mean something.
and i never though SB was offering them up as a definitive answer to all questions, just as a point fo interest, and to challenge certain tightly held preconceptions on this list

PRECISELY!


I have subjective opinions, intuitions and gut-feelings like the next fan.

But they are VERY fallible.

Stats are EVIDENCE.

It's a fact that Carlisle have fallen away since Harte left and Reading have improved since Harte arrived.

I do NOT say and never have said that Harte is the ONLY reason.

But others wrote Harte off without even watching him!

[Snowball]

Who said they don't mean something?

I think the ascertation is that they don't prove anything, especially with the way snowball throws them out.

Of COURSE they don't PROVE a Harte-Effect.

Where have I ever said they do?

They are supportive evidence, suggestive evidence, circumstantial evidence.

They are evidence, incomplete, not yet extensive enough, that simple logic should tell us, "Harte's presence on the pitch SPECIFICALLY, has made us a better side."

Anyone who argues AGAINST that is just plain obstinate.

[From Despair To Where?]

No more obstinate than someone who goes out of their way to avoid considering the non appearance of Marcus Williams in the team as an equally valid factor in making us a better side.

[ZacNaloen]

Bit of a chicken and egg thing with Long's touch and confidence isn't it?

Generally not quite good enough, but on his day, like Saturday, can be very effective.

Not necessarily, he could have been working on his ball skills all week in training and thinking "yeh i can do this", then he wins a penalty scores a goal and all that training pays off and his muscle memory does the rest. I.e he stops thinking about it.


When he's unconfident he could be thinking "gotta got this touch right" but because he was thinking his mind wasn't on the task and bang, he cocks it up.

It's the same with a lot of mediocre players, it's all about confidence in ones ability. It's no shock really that so many premier league players have massive ego's, self belief is part of why they are where they are.

So it is chicken and egg then...

His touch is good because his confidence is up after working on it, or his confidence is up because his touch has been good.

Just found this again.


No it's not chicken and egg. You can't get good touch from confidence alone, you have to have done the work. The muscle memory has to exist. Lack of confidence can cause you to override that muscle memory, the muscle memory with high confidence = player on the top of their game.

[Platypuss]

No more obstinate than someone who goes out of their way to avoid considering the non appearance of Marcus Williams in the team as an equally valid factor in making us a better side.

[Hoop Blah]

So it is chicken and egg then...

His touch is good because his confidence is up after working on it, or his confidence is up because his touch has been good.

Just found this again.


No it's not chicken and egg. You can't get good touch from confidence alone, you have to have done the work. The muscle memory has to exist. Lack of confidence can cause you to override that muscle memory, the muscle memory with high confidence = player on the top of their game.

Having the basic technique is a given though, it's the changes in that technique being applied (the confidence in many cases) that dictate one week to the next not the learning of how to control the ball by doing it in training. Those basics are learnt years before.

[Snowball]

No more obstinate than someone who goes out of their way to avoid considering the non appearance of Marcus Williams in the team as an equally valid factor in making us a better side.

That is such a dumb argument!

(a) I think Harte has improved the side.

versus

(b) I think getting rid of Williams has improved the side.


BUT BUT BUT Harte REPLACED Williams.


Therefore, by your argument, Harte is better than Williams

Therefore HARTE HAS IMPROVED THE SIDE