Harte Signs

[Snowball]

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-u ... e-1.764198?

[Wycombe Royal]

I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.

The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.

He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg

Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.


Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games

Nice spin on it, but your extrapolation of Harte's points doesn't include exptrapolating the points of all the other players who have not played in every match, so I can say with 100% certainty that Harte would not be 20th.

[Snowball]

I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.

The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.

He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg

Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.


Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games

Nice spin on it, but your extrapolation of Harte's points doesn't include exptrapolating the points of all the other players who have not played in every match, so I can say with 100% certainty that Harte would not be 20th.

Unfair Wyck, cos you get marks for playing every game

Harte HAS played every game, but 4 of his were in League 1

Those other guys you mention weren't picked either because they were injured or consider not-so-good.

get it?

[Snowball]

Here's a bet, then.

If Harte is first-choice for the rest of the season he'll finish in the top 30 on Actim

The reason he might not make the top TWENTY is he'll always be short of the 53
points he could have earned if he hadn't played those games for Carlisle


Now, seeing as most of you seem to be saying Harte is shite, what odds will you give me? 50-1 seem fair?

After all he's way down in 86th, and I am saying 30th or higher.

50-1?
40-1?
33-1?
20-1?


At what point do you feel safe.

Happy to bet £100 per better if I get decent odds.

[Wycombe Royal]

I note that Ian Harte is now 86th best player in The Actim Index.

The Actim Index does not make allowances for games not played, so Harte, starting in game 5 is disadvantaged.

He has amassed 160 points in 12 games. A rate of 13.33 ppg

Had he played all 16 Championship games, and picked up the same ppg he would be on 213 points or 214 points, 20th in the table.


Millsy has crept into the table, too, in 94th place. Jobi is 61st but Jimmy Kebe has dropped to 46th after missing the last few games

Nice spin on it, but your extrapolation of Harte's points doesn't include exptrapolating the points of all the other players who have not played in every match, so I can say with 100% certainty that Harte would not be 20th.

Unfair Wyck, cos you get marks for playing every game

Harte HAS played every game, but 4 of his were in League 1

Those other guys you mention weren't picked either because they were injured or consider not-so-good.

get it?

LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?

Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.

[Snowball]

LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?

Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.

Just be FAIR, Wyck.

I would argue, like you that an average mark might seem fairer, but then we both know that can cause
anomalies. A player might play one game in a season, score a hat-trick, DIE, but still win Player of the Year.

But Actim argues that playing every week is an important part of "how good you are"
(doesn't matter if we agree or not with that, that is how they do it, end)

Harte's case is NOT a case of not being selected, but being selected by another club in a different league.

In the case of Top Scorers, GOALS are carried over from league to league (iffy IMO, but they do it)

[Snowball]

LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?

And why did CUMMINGS not play when Griffin was fit?

Because he was --------- (Something rhyming with SNAP or RASH)

Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.

Sounds like fun.

Would you like to put some money on the result? Will you give me odds of 33-1?

After all he has zero chance...

[Wycombe Royal]

LOL. So it is OK to extrapolate one players score to a full compliment of matches but not everyone elses (the reason they didn't play is irrlevant). This is why an average based system is so much fairer. Get it?

And why did CUMMINGS not play when Griffin was fit?

Because he was --------- (Something rhyming with SNAP or RASH)

The reason is irrelevant because a player should be judged only on the games he has played and not on the ones he hasn't. The actim index basically says a player who doesn't play has a performance rating of zero. Is that fair? No of course it isn't.

Total points divided by matches played. So come on then you like spending hours with stats so do it for the top 100 and see where Harte is placed.

Sounds like fun.

Would you like to put some money on the result? Will you give me odds of 33-1?

After all he has zero chance...

OK for the umpteenth +1 time I will say it again. I couldn't care less whether this shows him in a better or worse light. I just want accurate and fair stats, which is something you seem unable to do.

I just hope that this time maybe that sinks in to your head.

[Wycombe Royal]

I would argue, like you that an average mark might seem fairer, but then we both know that can cause
anomalies. A player might play one game in a season, score a hat-trick, DIE, but still win Player of the Year.

But Actim argues that playing every week is an important part of "how good you are"
(doesn't matter if we agree or not with that, that is how they do it, end)

In the case of someone playing one game and scoring a hattrick and winning POTY that obviously wouldn't happen as there would be a threshold mininum number of games that would have to be played to qualify for a ranking. I can't believe that someone of your supposed expertise in stats would think otherwise.

As for the actim stats doing it the way they do, does that mean we have to accept it as right and the best way to do it? You seem to imply it does/ maybe that is why most of your stats are innacurate.

Me, I prefer to think for myself and look for flaws in analysis rather than just accepting it as correct. That is also part of being good at statisitcs.

[Snowball]

As for the actim stats doing it the way they do, does that mean we have to accept it as right and the best way to do it? You seem to imply it does/ maybe that is why most of your stats are innacurate.

Not at all. Their (reasonable) belief is that a player's "worth" to a club
increases the more he's relied on. McAnuff for Reading for example,
and Karacan (why he's not in the 100 God only knows)

I think that's a perfectly valid way to look at things. A world-class but injury prone
player who only plays six games a season is probably less value than a McAnuff
who is out on the pitch for 46/46 games.

[Snowball]

OK for the umpteenth +1 time I will say it again. I couldn't care less whether this shows him in a better or worse light. I just want accurate and fair stats, which is something you seem unable to do.

This is ACTIM, but adjusted for games played as you asked.

Note: I DON'T agree with this table (as adjusted) except for players who have, say 10 games at club X, 6 at club Y

Your way, Jimmy is 23rd, Ian Harte is now up to 46th



390 01 Bothroyd Cardiff
368 02 Somma Leeds
366 03 Gradel Leeds
358 04 Turner Coventry
327 05 McGugan Forest
303 06 Lawrence Portsmouth
288 07 Sordell Watford
285 08 Taarabt QPR
282 09 Sinclair Swansea
279 10 Naylor Cardiff
276 11 Alexander Burnley
262 12 Parkin Preston
262 13 Howson Leeds
261 14 Graham Watford
261 15 Mackie QPR
257 16 Coppinger Doncaster
255 17 Helgusson QPR
254 18 Gyepes Cardiff
250 19 Stead Bristol
248 20 Iwelumo Burnley
247 21 Cywka Derby
245 22 P Green Derby
244 23 J Kebe Reading
243 24 Cowie Watford
242 25 Gorkss QPR
237 26 Platt Coventry
236 27 Hoolahan Norwich
233 28 Robson Middlesbro
232 29 OLOfinjana Cardiff
231 30 Dobbie Swansea
228 31 Taylor Watford
225 32 O'Connor Scunthorpe
224 33 King Leicester
223 34 Pratley Swansea
222 35 Bechio Leeds
221 36 Smith Ipswich
220 37 Sharp Doncaster
219 38 Ephraim QPR
219 39 Commons Derby
217 40 Kenny QPR
216 41 Edwards Ipswich
215 42 Byrne Scunthorpe
214 43 Mirfin Scunthorpe
214 44 Burke Cardiff
214 45 Connolly QPR
213 46 Harte Reading
212 47 Crofts Norwich
212 48 Brayford Derby
212 49 Dyer Swansea
211 50 Kitson Portsmouth

179 76 Mills Reading
173 85 McAnuff Reading
172 87 Federici Reading

[Snowball]

Adjusting Harte up to 16 games (Came in to RFC for Game 5)

317 Bothroyd Cardiff
313 Turner Coventry
285 Taarabt QPR
262 Howson Leeds
261 Mackie QPR

245 Graham Watford
242 Gorkss QPR
241 Coppinger Doncaster
234 Sordell Watford
230 P Green Derby

229 Sinclair Swansea
228 Taylor Watford
227 Lawrence Portsmouth
227 Naylor Cardiff
225 McGugan Forest

222 Gyepes Cardiff
221 Hoolahan Norwich
217 Iwelumo Burnley
217 Kenny QPR
213 HARTE Reading (20TH)

212 Brayford Derby
212 Dyer Swansea

[Snowball]

The reason is irrelevant because a player should be judged only on the games he has played and not on the ones he hasn't. The actim index basically says a player who doesn't play has a performance rating of zero. Is that fair? No of course it isn't.

The Actim Index bases itself on the (reasonable) principle that if a player is an ever-present he is more valuable to the club

So a player who gets suspensions, or is often injured, or loses form and is dropped, is LESS useful.

THUS Actim chooses to reward appearances and minutes on the pitch.

We don't have to AGREE WITH IT to understand that it's a reasonable and valid judgment.


Do you think the panel of experts didn't debate whether to have cumulative totals rather than per-game averages? They obviously decided, in their wisdom, that, on balance, that the way they did it was the best.


Such an Index will always be "unfair" from one perspective or another. A McAnuff (ever-present, solid to good) might be pissed if an injury-prone genius played matches 2-18-33-45 and got monster scores, but was out for the other 42 games.

A great player in a bad side (or an OK side in bad form) gets his personal mark lowered. I think that's wrong (IMO) but I can see that TEAM RESULTS should be a factor in an individual's scores. For example if I score 3 goals in a side losing 5-3 that is surely not as good as scoring 3 goal and my third wins the game for us in the 89th minute, and, despite the dramatic effect, surely 3-0 (my hat-trick) is better still?


Now, given that Actim does what it does, to its rules, this is why I say it is FAIR (under Actim's rules) to argue that Harte's scores could be elevated. WHY, because he HAS been picked every game this season, has never been dropped, has never been out because of injury or suspension or dropped because of form.


The other players on the list who have not played all 16 games have failed to play 100% for many reasons.


Bothroyd missed a crucial game for Cardiff (One-match suspension for 5 yellows) and they LOST 0-1 to Swansea. Is it not more than likely that with Bothroyd in the side Cardiff might well have WON? But your "adjustment of all players not playing 16 games" forgives Bothroyd maybe costing his side 3 points, and even possibly, at the end of the season, automatic promotion.

[cmonurz]

Simply, no.

Actim is a statistical analysis of performance, you can't then bring qualitative reasoning into the debate to justify elevating one player's scores and not another's. You can't pre-judge the impact that a player would have in a game in which they didn't play, simple as that.

[Wycombe Royal]

This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.

You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.

[Victor Meldrew]

This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.

You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.

Can't agree WR.
I have a 9 year old grand-daughter who I would back every time to out debate Snowball and both her maths and statistical analysis prowess I would suggest are already superior.

[Snowball]

This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.

You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.

Listen VERY carefully.

(a) The Actim rules state that they don't allow for games where players are out due to not being first choice, or being injured, or being suspended.

Now take a big breath.

Did you get (a)?

You and I or You or I, do not have to agree with that fact (as stated in (a) ) for it to nevertheless be the case.

BREATHE.

(b) All or most of those players in The Championship and having NOT played the full complement of games have "under-played" because

either

(i) They were not considered good enough and another player played in their place. ie not first-choice that week
or
(ii) They were injured
or
(iii) They were unfit
or
(iv) They were suspended.

Now sit down, take seven slow deep breaths and listen

NONE-OF-THE-ABOVE-APPLY-TO-IAN-HARTE


Ian Harte has been considered (i) Good enough (ii) fit enough (iii) uninjured (iv) not serving a suspension AND HAS BEEN SELECTED TO START EVERY SINGLE GAME FOR HIS CLUB.

Do you or do you not see the difference between a player being DROPPED or SUSPENDED or INJURED
and a player PLAYING, but in another league? Please tell me you have enough brain to see that?

[Snowball]

PS

06 League Goals Harte <<<<<<<<<<<<<
04 League Goals Long
04 League Goals Kebe
03 League Goals Mills
02 League Goals Karacan
02 League Goals Hunt

[Snowball]

Simply, no.

Actim is a statistical analysis of performance, you can't then bring qualitative reasoning into the debate to justify elevating one player's scores and not another's.
You can't pre-judge the impact that a player would have in a game in which they didn't play, simple as that.

Why not? It's done for goal-scoring charts.

Harte's goals for Carlisle this season count in the scorer's charts


If a player is top of the Championship Actim and then transfers to the Premiership in January do
you think it's right that by the end of the season he should be bottom of the Actim for both leagues?

[Snowball]

This is hilarious. You move the argument on to this issue of not all players having played the same number of games by extrapolating Harte's score and no one elses. Then when it is pointed out that that is not fair because you haven't extrapolated all the other players, you then argue why the scores shouldn't be extrapolated.

You couldn't make it up. You have the reasoning and debating skills of a nine year old.

Incidentally, you may not have noticed due to the red mist descending
but I posted the adjust Actim for ALL players adjusted to 16 games.

But don't notice that. It might make you look silly