Snowballs statistics

[roberto_11]

Right I don't come on this forum very often, but football is more than just statistics, unless you spend your life on football manager.

I have a degree in economics and have done a shitload of work (including a dissertation) on using statistics in every day situations so I know a bit about this sort of thing. I saw a post stating that Kebe and SHunt have scored or assisted 60% of our goals. This fails to take into account other factors, such as form of our other players on the field, who else was in the team, who scored the goals they assisted, who the opposition were and how badly or well they were playing, how many games Kebe and SHunt have had compared to our other creative players, were the games home or away, were they cup games, was the oppostion going through a bad run, does Kebe play better with Harper or Matejovski, when SHunt plays does Stretch Armstrong play shit etc, etc.

Once every possible factor affecting the chosen scenario has been put into the results, then using complicated regression you can come up with a conclusion. For example it may show that SHunts assists all come when playing alongside Cisse with NHunt in the team. But then that may just be coincidence, seeing as they have played most of our games this season. You may find that Duberry has the best clean sheets record out of all our defenders, but then find that it was against out of form teams, or that we only got clean sheets when he was playing with Ivar and not Pearce, or that Coppell played a more defensive formation in most of those games, or that they were all at home, or that Duberry was injured when we were out of form , or that all these were coincidence aswell and the main factor was that the East Stand wasnt full up etc etc.

Basically, in a very roundabout way, Im saying that in football statistics are bullshit the way Snowball is using them.

[juanpablo]

some are quite interesting to read ....

some seem rubbish


but imo he is still good to have posting and i have no idea why people feel the need to harass him and throw a fit when he posts

if you dont like it just ignore it (this isnt fully aimed at thread starter)

reminds me of the schards witch hunt, this place is ROMO

[roberto_11]

Im not throwing a fit, Im just saying that unless you have some sort of a football brain its pretty obvious its all bullshit

[AlexY25]

but imo he is still good to have posting and i have no idea why people feel the need to harass him and throw a fit when he posts

if you dont like it just ignore it (this isnt fully aimed at thread starter)

+1

[Plymouth_Royal]

snowball makes a point and backs it up with stats. im doing a maths degree and i know all about manipulating stats etc. but so what! Its just like doing a history essay and backing it up with part of a quote, its good literature and its how people win arguments. its also makes an interesting read and creates opinion from others. if you wana make a point against snowball and use stats that you've researched then do it, just stop knocking people for making intelligent and well structured arguments.

[weybridgewanderer]

Snowball loves to use stats as facts to back up his point of view

I agree

20% of road accidents are caused by people that have been drinking - fact

that means 80% are caused by sober people -fact

I say ban the sober people

[roberto_11]

intelligent

I beg to differ

[Ian Royal]

intelligent

I beg to differ

That's generally the problem I have as well. That and the suggestion that some statistics prove his opinion above most others. Oh and the consistently inconsistent approach.

[SLAMMED]

Right I don't come on this forum very often.

Oxf*rd off newbie.

[Man Friday]

Right I don't come on this forum very often, but football is more than just statistics, unless you spend your life on football manager.

I have a degree in economics and have done a shitload of work (including a dissertation) on using statistics in every day situations so I know a bit about this sort of thing. I saw a post stating that Kebe and SHunt have scored or assisted 60% of our goals. This fails to take into account other factors, such as form of our other players on the field, who else was in the team, who scored the goals they assisted, who the opposition were and how badly or well they were playing, how many games Kebe and SHunt have had compared to our other creative players, were the games home or away, were they cup games, was the oppostion going through a bad run, does Kebe play better with Harper or Matejovski, when SHunt plays does Stretch Armstrong play shit etc, etc.

Once every possible factor affecting the chosen scenario has been put into the results, then using complicated regression you can come up with a conclusion. For example it may show that SHunts assists all come when playing alongside Cisse with NHunt in the team. But then that may just be coincidence, seeing as they have played most of our games this season. You may find that Duberry has the best clean sheets record out of all our defenders, but then find that it was against out of form teams, or that we only got clean sheets when he was playing with Ivar and not Pearce, or that Coppell played a more defensive formation in most of those games, or that they were all at home, or that Duberry was injured when we were out of form , or that all these were coincidence aswell and the main factor was that the East Stand wasnt full up etc etc.

Basically, in a very roundabout way, Im saying that in football statistics are bullshit the way Snowball is using them.

To be honest chap, you've let yourself down big time with that subject title. Seems like I wasted my taxes on your university education.

[Ian Royal]

how do you know you're taxes funded it?

[roberto_11]

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

[roberto_11]

Right I don't come on this forum very often.

Oxf*rd off newbie.

This coming from a poster who apparently joined in 2008, when we were at the peak of our success. *Cough* Glory fan *Cough cough*

[Man Friday]

how do you know you're taxes funded it?

Because that's the way the system of public finances works (in this country anyway). Unfortunately you can't opt out (legally).

By the way, it's "your" in this context ("you're" = "you are" and therefore doesn't make sense).

[Man Friday]

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

Unfortunately only a small proportion.

[West Stand Man]

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

Trust me, your student loan only covered marginal costs. If you seriously believe that a university course can be delivered for 3k a year (tuition fees) you are wrong. The balance comes from other sources of income for the uni. Having said that I think it is unfair and inaccurate to suggest that our taxes cover it. Tertiary education is not generally tax payer funded anymore.

As for the balance of your loan - that was to help you to live and did not cover the course costs.

[Fezza]

how do you know you're taxes funded it?

Because that's the way the system of public finances works (in this country anyway). Unfortunately you can't opt out (legally).

By the way, it's "your" in this context ("you're" = "you are" and therefore doesn't make sense).

Thank you for currently funding me through my PGCE and possibly my first degree ten years ago. I can only hope that the rest of your tax money is better spent.

Never a better time to be a student......

[Ian Royal]

how do you know you're taxes funded it?

Because that's the way the system of public finances works (in this country anyway). Unfortunately you can't opt out (legally).

By the way, it's "your" in this context ("you're" = "you are" and therefore doesn't make sense.)

My point was that for all you know he could well have been filthy rich and funded his own time at uni. Not sure if taxes fund student loan, probably, although that (and a whole lot more) gets paid right back. Tuition fees get paid by Gov depending on family income though.

PS I'm aware of the grammar rules.

[poohs pure]

Right I don't come on this forum very often, but football is more than just statistics, unless you spend your life on football manager.

I have a degree in economics and have done a shitload of work (including a dissertation) on using statistics in every day situations so I know a bit about this sort of thing. I saw a post stating that Kebe and SHunt have scored or assisted 60% of our goals. This fails to take into account other factors, such as form of our other players on the field, who else was in the team, who scored the goals they assisted, who the opposition were and how badly or well they were playing, how many games Kebe and SHunt have had compared to our other creative players, were the games home or away, were they cup games, was the oppostion going through a bad run, does Kebe play better with Harper or Matejovski, when SHunt plays does Stretch Armstrong play shit etc, etc.

Once every possible factor affecting the chosen scenario has been put into the results, then using complicated regression you can come up with a conclusion. For example it may show that SHunts assists all come when playing alongside Cisse with NHunt in the team. But then that may just be coincidence, seeing as they have played most of our games this season. You may find that Duberry has the best clean sheets record out of all our defenders, but then find that it was against out of form teams, or that we only got clean sheets when he was playing with Ivar and not Pearce, or that Coppell played a more defensive formation in most of those games, or that they were all at home, or that Duberry was injured when we were out of form , or that all these were coincidence aswell and the main factor was that the East Stand wasnt full up etc etc.

Basically, in a very roundabout way, Im saying that in football statistics are bullshit the way Snowball is using them.

spastistics!

[Man Friday]

how do you know you're taxes funded it?

Because that's the way the system of public finances works (in this country anyway). Unfortunately you can't opt out (legally).

By the way, it's "your" in this context ("you're" = "you are" and therefore doesn't make sense.)

My point was that for all you know he could well have been filthy rich and funded his own time at uni. Not sure if taxes fund student loan, probably, although that (and a whole lot more) gets paid right back. Tuition fees get paid by Gov depending on family income though.

PS I'm aware of the grammar rules.

Jeez!
1. It wouldn't have mattered if he was Abromavich's son. Taxation would have paid for the majority of the costs relating to his "education".
2. Yes, tuition fees do get paid by govt but who funds the govt? Predominantly taxpayers.