Snowballs statistics

[Alan Partridge]

To be honest I'd actually hoped this thread was going to be the one (made by a mod and amde sticky) putting all of Snowball's stats on one thread. It would be nice. It would mean the rest of us who find them about as interesting as a question and answer session with Steve Davis wouldn't actually have to have every single half decent debate and thread ruined by some inane bollocks and numbers being spouted.

[royalguy]

Can't believe I am going to reply on this but I am a student finance officer so will give my ten cents worth. The loan system in this country is heavily subsidised by the tax payer. There is a lot of admin, defaults etc and the amount given out in student loans is dwarfed by the amount returned. There are a wealth of grants,childcare,disabled students allowance etc to take into consideration that gets added to the total bill. Also the rate is supposed to be in line with inflation so people pay back what they borrowed in real terms. If you were an overseas student you can easily pay in the region of 10k fees a year alone.

Anyway back to the original post, I think snowball is entitled to post stats if that's what he wants to do just as everyone else is entitled to pull them apart. Makes a bit of variation on the usual arguments and you don't have to read them after all.

[Royal With Cheese]

I LOVE SNOWBALLS STATS.

I felt strongly I needed to shout that.

LOL at the spelling of a potential graduate.

[West Stand Man]

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.

Pray tell, where else does the government get its money from other than tax payers (ultimately)?

[juanpablo]

To be honest I'd actually hoped this thread was going to be the one (made by a mod and amde sticky) putting all of Snowball's stats on one thread. It would be nice. It would mean the rest of us who find them about as interesting as a question and answer session with Steve Davis wouldn't actually have to have every single half decent debate and thread ruined by some inane bollocks and numbers being spouted.

how pathetic......

[Snowball]

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

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.

The reason I started the stats here is because this board is MORONIC. The idea of debate here is whoever shouts loudest is right. There is never anything testable. It's a joke.

To use Shane as an example. It is a simple, provable fact that he has played 717 minutes of normal time in the league this year. He is recorded with 4 goals in that time.

That is a goal every 179 minutes (2 games). That is normally taken as a mark of a good striker.

On Saturday Doobs was too slow, too old, too thicjk and couldn't pass (according to the majority of this list)
By Tuesday midnight he's almost a God.

You judge defences by goals conceded and Reading are TOP TOP TOP of the form table on goals conceded. ABSOLUTE FACT

34 30 0.88 Reading
35 31 0.89 Birmingham City
33 30 0.91 Cardiff City
34 32 0.94 Sheffield United
35 35 1.00 Queens Park Rangers
35 37 1.06 Bristol City
35 39 1.11 Swansea City
35 40 1.14 Doncaster Rovers
34 40 1.18 Coventry City
34 40 1.18 Crystal Palace
36 43 1.19 Ipswich Town
36 45 1.25 Plymouth Argyle
36 46 1.28 Preston North End
36 46 1.28 Wolverhampton Wndrs
34 45 1.32 Barnsley
36 49 1.36 Blackpool
36 49 1.36 Sheffield Wednesday
34 47 1.38 Derby County
36 50 1.39 Burnley
36 51 1.42 Nottingham Forest
35 51 1.46 Southampton
36 55 1.53 Norwich City
34 55 1.62 Watford
35 58 1.66 Charlton Athletic

YOU JUDGE ATTACKS BY GOALS SCORED AND WE ARE SECOND ON THAT

36 67 1.86 Wolverhampton Wndrs
34 60 1.76 Reading
35 52 1.49 Swansea City
34 49 1.44 Watford
36 50 1.39 Burnley
33 46 1.39 Cardiff City
36 50 1.39 Ipswich Town
34 47 1.38 Sheffield United
36 49 1.36 Preston North End
36 46 1.28 Norwich City
35 44 1.26 Bristol City
34 43 1.26 Derby County
34 42 1.24 Crystal Palace
35 41 1.17 Birmingham City
34 39 1.15 Coventry City
36 41 1.14 Sheffield Wednesday
36 39 1.08 Nottingham Forest
35 36 1.03 Charlton Athletic
35 36 1.03 Southampton
35 35 1.00 Queens Park Rangers
34 33 0.97 Barnsley
36 34 0.94 Blackpool
36 34 0.94 Plymouth Argyle
35 31 0.89 Doncaster Rovers

And yes, we have the best goal difference, 9 clear of second best.

All the discussion, is-isn't, Harper waves his arms too much is just so much bollocks.

[handbags_harris]

I've been watching soccer seriously for 50 years

Any football fan who uses that word should be shot.

And at this thread.

[Rex]

Debate is all about subjective views and involves opinion. Stats just invite debate. A healthy balance between the two is fine, it's just that too much can become mind numbing.

[roberto_11]

For those that were referring to my spelling, I deliberately spelt it spastistics.
For Man Friday, thank you for funding my education. If you are so upset about it, go live in another country where university education isnt funded by taxpayers, or get a degree yourself if you don't already have one.

[Royal With Cheese]

I've been watching soccer seriously for 50 years

Any football fan who uses that word should be shot.

The name Association football was first used when the sport was codified by the Football Association to distinguish it from the numerous versions of football that were around at the time. The word soccer is a colloquial abbreviation of 'Association' and first appeared in the 1880s. The word is sometimes credited to a student at Oxford called Charles Wreford Brown. He is said to have often referred to breakfast as 'brekkers' and rugby football as 'rugger,' etc. He went on to play for the England national side and became vice-president of the Football Association. The term 'Association football' is rarely used today, though some clubs still use Association Football Club ("AFC") in their name.

So, is the association (no pun intended) with an Oxford student that annoys you?

[Royal With Cheese]

For those that were referring to my spelling, I deliberately spelt it spastistics.
For Man Friday, thank you for funding my education. If you are so upset about it, go live in another country where university education isnt funded by taxpayers, or get a degree yourself if you don't already have one.

I agree. Your correct.

[handbags_harris]

So, is the association (no pun intended) with an Oxford student that annoys you?

In part yes, anything that is remotely associated with Oxford deserves contempt. And that includes the River Thames!

Seriously, I was aware of the originations of the word "soccer", but it is now merely an "American" term used by Americans (and Australians also) to distinguish Association Football from their own utter shite versions of the game. These games are predominantly played with the ball in hand, and rarely kicked, and as a result in my opinion do not have any right to be called football. There is only one game of football, the game whereby a ball of air is predominantly kicked, and not carried in hand. Only Association football has the right to be called football. It really irritates worse than chlamydia to hear the beautiful game referred to as "soccer".

[Millsy]

I won't most list my degrees, where they're from or the calibre of people I've worked with because it's irrelevant.

I'm a scientist but most importantly of all I'm a human with a degree of common sense.

You can't rubbish stats just because don't like them. Otherwise everything around us would fall down. Everything we use, everything we go by is based on statistical analysis and what Snowball does is a GODSEND for this board. Why? Because the alterative is neanderthal by comparison: a mishmash of wildly differing opinions based on differing levels of observatio, bias, eyesight etc etc..

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 and you have to go with the worst option imaginable - mere random 'opinion'.

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.

SNOWBALL THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS MATE. A CREDIT TO THE BOARD. (Not that I agree with necessarily with the opinions you derive from them but you appreciate we don't have to if we can justify why)

[LUX]

83.4% of statistics are made up.

[PEARCEY]

83.4% of statistics are made up.

Or in Snowballs case 96.34% with the other 3.66% open to debate.

[seahawk10]

SNOWBALL THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS MATE. A CREDIT TO THE BOARD. (Not that I agree with necessarily with the opinions you derive from them but you appreciate we don't have to if we can justify why)

+1000

I often learn from Snowball's posts. Maybe that's because my experience is so much less than most on the board.

Don't let the detractors slow you down.

[roberto_11]

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.

[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

[Scylla]

The statistics make a nice change from the usual 'Harper is shit. FACT' style of debate.

[Handsome Man]

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!