Snowballs statistics

[bcubed]

I'd be happy if Snowball could perhaps summarise his points at the start of his posts, then follow with as much stats as he likes.
Then people could ignore them (if like me they find them tedious) or read through them and inwardly digest them, if they particularly want to comment on the detail

[Ian Royal]

I am trying to decide whether to delete this thread or not......

But anyway, Snowball, you go ahead and post your statistics. I think most people are aware that mathematics and statistics aren't what decides a football match, or the quality of a player, however, they are a perfectly reasonable for a discussion, or to back up an opinion that you have.

As for those that who seem to have a problem with the stats, well, don't read them - although I suspect the reason you have a problem, is because his numbers contradict your opinion.... but hey, that's yet another discussion

I'd have less of a problem if they didn't take up so much room. He could easily summarise them rather than listing every single game he is using. Exhibit A up the thread.

A simple top 5 would easily have sufficed. But no, he has to over cook it.

[John Peel]

Did your taxes REALLY fund it? I think you will find my student loan funded it

The government pay for most of your education. Your student loan only pays for a fraction. Compare what you pay with what international students pay: the government is making up the difference through money they have obtained by taxing me.

And very good value it is too!

Actually the Government doesn't fund most of higher education (secondary etc yes). Depends what uni this guy went to. If he went to a 'top' uni then the majority of their funding comes from sources other than Govt e.g. Oxford gets only 15-20% public funding. Also depends on the course. If you did a science then it costs a sh*t load. If he did economics it costs a lot less.

Anyway, can't believe how highbrow this forum has got tonight. Can't we go back to pessimistic mindless comments? Birmingham and Sheffield Utd both won, last night means nothing, Reading aren't even going to make the f*cking play-offs.

And I have to disagree with the comment that stats are worthless. Hunt has scored or set up a s*it load of goals whatever people say. Just a pity he's turned into a pile of sh*te recently. Keep it up Snowball.

[Fezza]

Not loving the title of the thread, or indeed the sentiment, he should be able to post whatever he likes no matter how utterly tedious and incorrect it is.

Whilst I appreciate that the UK has become a touch over PC we must make a stand against the blatant and unnecessary comparisons that can be drawn from the title.

[Rex]

Agreed.

[Don Finch]

Whilst I appreciate that the UK has become a touch over PC we must make a stand against the blatant and unnecessary comparisons that can be drawn from the title.

Indeedy, no need for it. But this Roberto is some kind of genius, I mean he's doing a degree and everything. Probably at some ex-poly mind. They call him Mr Statistics there, or Barry Bernoulli to his close friends.

If you don't like the stats either ignore them or argue against, it's not hard.

[John Peel]

Probably at some ex-poly mind.

Agreed that the sentiment of the title is harsh.

No need for that either though mate. Just shows your ignorance.

[tlcs]

Fair cop to Snowball , but just one thing for those who dont like stats can we have like a HNA warning that a thread may contain stats.

By doing this nobody can moan !!!

P.S stats or no stats watching Kebe with my eyes..i still think he is shite

[rhroyal]

Everything about this thread is petty and pointless......interesting read though.

[Royal Yank]

I am trying to decide whether to delete this thread or not......

But anyway, Snowball, you go ahead and post your statistics. I think most people are aware that mathematics and statistics aren't what decides a football match, or the quality of a player, however, they are a perfectly reasonable for a discussion, or to back up an opinion that you have.

As for those that who seem to have a problem with the stats, well, don't read them - although I suspect the reason you have a problem, is because his numbers contradict your opinion.... but hey, that's yet another discussion

I'd have less of a problem if they didn't take up so much room. He could easily summarise them rather than listing every single game he is using. Exhibit A up the thread.

A simple top 5 would easily have sufficed. But no, he has to over cook it.

Ian, I don't get why you would have a problem with statistics about Reading Football Club, being posted on a Reading Football Club discussion board. You know, and I know, and I suspect Snowball knows that the only statistics that matter is who scores more goals over 90 minutes, and who has the most points at the end of 46 games - but if he want to analyse other data, and present it on this forum, then why shouldn't he? If you don't like it, then ignore it, or provide additional data to support your argument. At the very least, Snowball's numbers have provided another insight to our season, and they are most certainly relevant to this forum. I am pleased to see that there are others who agree.

I agree with others about the thread title, and I will edit it.

[Ian Royal]

As I've said I disagree quite fundamentally with his analysis, I think it's terrible. That's not so much a problem, as I'm happy to debate/argue with him.

It's the post after post in a row responding to the same thing and the endless unnecessary fluff in his post. He doesn't need to list every game from his sample. He could just post the actual statistic. As I said, just look at the size and content of his post a couple of pages back. It's massively larger than it needs to be.

What we get is very little analysis to start, some dodgy stats and then half a page of fluff with the occasional comment mixed in.

[roberto_11]

I feel i should apologise about the spelling of statistics on this thread. I saw platypuss use it in a thread recently which was my inspiration, as it were. But in hindsight was bang out of order I don't have a problem with anyone giving their view, but it is my view that the only stats that matter are who scores most goals in 90 minutes. Anything else is just irrelevant and pointless, and I find his posts annoying.

[rhroyal]

As for the original post on the thread, I'm doing an econometrics module which has a lot on regression this semester and I had a mid term exam on it yesterday, so I'm quite knowledgeable at the moment. Whilst leaving variables out of the OLS estimator (regression line) can result in omitted variable bias and make results less accurate, the change is very rarely significant enough to reverse the trend that the current regression line is showing. Including more relevant variables which are correlated with the currently included variables will normally just show that X1 is not solely responsible for values of Y, and the coefficient of X1 will decrease.

In non-economics speak, the stats on Hunt and Kebe accounting for a lot of assists fails to take into account factors such as form, opposition and surrounding players. These factors, if included, could take some of the credit away from Hunt and Kebe. However an Economics graduate should know that these omitted variables are highly unlikely to have such a great impact that the initial findings that we can discredit the fact that Hunt and Kebe are simply two of our most creative players and best options on the wing. Even if the coefficient, i.e. the level to which Kebe and Hunt are responsible for creating our goals, is considerably lower than it was initially when we include all variables, so long as it is still positive there is evidence that they have been our two most creative players this season. I imagine the value would even be large enough that it could pass a test at the 1% significance level that it was accurate (i.e. we could be 99% sure that Hunt and Kebe had been our most creative players so far this season.)

Snowball's statistics cannot be written off on the basis of omitting certain factors. The truth is this is a football board, do you expect people to come up with a load of complicated equations and formulas before going into hypothesis testing? Of course bloody not. Keep up the stats Snowball. They don't tell the full story, but they certainly tell a significant part of it and start debate.

[Ian Royal]

But that's a bit of guff really, because you have no way of comparing what Henry may have done had he been playing in those games. Nor does it take into account anything other than the final ball. a goal is rarely created by a single action of one player. Even in the example of a corner other players movement has a massive impact on whethere a goal may or may not be scored.

Like I've said before. Useful indicators. Nothing more.

[Millsy]

I won't most list my degrees

You can't rubbish stats just because don't like them.

Because YOU don't like them

Stats aren't rubbish but you have to take them with a pinch of salt. However taking them with a pinch of salt doesn't mean they're rubbish

contradicting yourself like a retard

So what if our form was good when Kebe and Hunt did their assists? Was that not the same for everyone else? Was that perhaps *why* our for was good - because they were playing well? It's fine to analyse the numbers but to question their validity altogether is not fair. At least we have something to analyse thanks to Snowball.

Asit happens Snowballs stats proved qute right with regard to Lita (who I was a massive fan of) and Long (who I disliked). Goig by stats Lita should've been dropped and Long introduced. Lo and behold, much as I was proven totally wrong on both counts Lita is not involved and the frontline manages 2 goals in one game. And Long scores within inutes of coming on.

Having said that of course you're right in taking stats with a pinch of salt and I think the problem is the people here aren't hardcore neuroscientists or economists like you or I. Of course one has to think laterally for confounding factors etc when interpreting results of stat analysis. Eg bozos were saying Lita is rubbish because he hadn't scored in the last 18 months. Well, hello - neither had anyone else as the whole team was rubbish in relegation season! So I'm not against stats jsut realise they have to be looked at carefully.

You obviously havn't got a degree judging by your grammar, but that doesn't matter anyway. My point is that if used correctly, which in Snowballs case they are not, then they stil only provide a snapshot of the past and don't actually predict the future. They are just an indicator.

@ roberto

[roberto_11]

for 2 world wars, 1 world cup

[Plymouth_Royal]

Did your taxes REALLY fund it? I think you will find my student loan funded it

The government pay for most of your education. Your student loan only pays for a fraction. Compare what you pay with what international students pay: the government is making up the difference through money they have obtained by taxing me.

And very good value it is too!

as i said earlier, i study maths.

roberto_11 + 5 years of sh1te + X(posts) = murkage worldwide

[Starfish]

The idea of debate here is whoever shouts loudest is right.

And yet on the Shane Long thread, you have spent the last day or two telling people they are (and I quote) 'THICK' and that their information is (and I quote) 'WRONG'.

You're blending in very well. By your own standards.

[Snowball]

The WRONG was categorical. The poster was wrong, end of. No "interpretation" involved,
a simple fact. The poster said Long had not scored in a game he started this season, and
that was categorically wrong.

Wot u fink I should post, "I think one might have made an error"?



The thick was a judgment call based on reading too many stalker posts

[CMRoyal]

I played until I was 38. I've captained and coached (admittedly at a low level)

I've been watching soccer seriously for 50 years

I'm a season-ticket holder. I have been mates with two non-league managers, both ex league pros.

I just about EAT football.

Alan Ball won the World Cup, but when it came to anything other than actually playing the game, he was a footballing ignoramus. Arsene Wenger was a lanky footballing failure, but when it comes to theory and coaching: top notch. I'm not sure your CV gives you any right to think your use of statistics gives you any more weight than those who sling in the odd one-liner.