Snowballs statistics

[Plymouth_Royal]

so if football isn't a game that can be broken down in such a way to back up an interesting point, then what the hell are you supposed to use to back up or provide a form of evidence for such an argument?

You use your opinion, reasoning, understanding of what the game involves and how that player fits and performs in relation to the game, maybe annecdotal evidence if you feel that way inclined and potentially some relevant stats if they are suitable (which in my opinion they rarely are). You use your own eyes, mind and brain to form an opinion and then try and get that over in your posts.

Thats a fair and good point.
but what ive been taught, as im sure many others have, is that backing up an opinion with actual facts( stats, quotes, etc.) is better and will get you more plausibility than just writing opinion based on observation or one's own perspective. If I were to write an scout report on a young player and i just said hes good at passing because I saw him never loose the ball. im sure it wouldnt be as plausible as saying out of the 29 passes he made 29 had been successful, meaning he had 100 percent success rate in the 90 mins.

[Ian Royal]

The point i was making is I'm not using statistics, I'm using analysis of observed situations. Clearly this will be coloured by my inherant bias, but that is something I am reasonably good at identifying and taking into consideration.

Yes Prozone does quite a lot of what I was saying, but what I've done in my analysis of my observation is take into account context. There is no one on here who can produce stats to show the same thing any stats that are produced are extremely unlikely to take into account most of those things at all. Unless Coppell or Dillon have usernames.

Harper is an excellent player to discuss, because he doesn't do a lot that is easily evidenced as good from information in the public domain that doesn't just involve watching several games.

[Snowball]

so if football isn't a game that can be broken down in such a way to back up an interesting point, then what the hell are you supposed to use to back up or provide a form of evidence for such an argument?

You use your opinion, reasoning, understanding of what the game involves and how that player fits and performs in relation to the game, maybe annecdotal evidence if you feel that way inclined and potentially some relevant stats if they are suitable (which in my opinion they rarely are). You use your own eyes, mind and brain to form an opinion and then try and get that over in your posts.

Thats a fair and good point.
but what ive been taught, as im sure many others have, is that backing up an opinion with actual facts( stats, quotes, etc.) is better and will get you more plausibility than just writing opinion based on observation or one's own perspective. If I were to write an scout report on a young player and i just said hes good at passing because I saw him never loose the ball. im sure it wouldnt be as plausible as saying out of the 29 passes he made 29 had been successful, meaning he had 100 percent success rate in the 90 mins.

One of the studies I did when I was doing my psychology degree involved throwing in an example to "add weight" to statistics.

The conservative party loves that one. 52% of old people have X... and then wheel out Mrs Tavistock


The thing is (and this has been shown by thousands of studies) people give far too much weight to a single example that they have eyeballed



One paper experiment goes like this:

A guy needs to get a First Class Honours and has two universities to choose from.
University A gives out 5-10 Firsts every year, the second Uni gives 1 First every ten years or so.


When asked, 98% choose University A


But now add in the tiny extra, "You personally know the bloke who got a First from University B"
and the choice changes to 50-50


INCREDIBLE. The stats haven't changed, but KNOWING the person completely alters perception and choice



That's what Keith Hackett means. We get seriously swayed by one horrible mistake or a piece of magic

[Snowball]

The point i was making is I'm not using statistics, I'm using analysis of observed situations. Clearly this will be coloured by my inherant bias, but that is something I am reasonably good at identifying and taking into consideration.

SEMANTICS. You're not formally logging (a) filled a gap left by defender. (b) closed down loose midfielder (c) forced ordinary pass
but you are still DOING it. This is what scientists call "the locked door". Amateurs "sort of" know what they are doing but don't
really analyse their process. When it works it works fine but is easy to manipulate and can go badly wrong.

The professional actually sits down and asks himself, "WHY, do I think Harps is good? What am I doing?"

Much analysis is behind the locked door. if it's allowed to be free and uncontrolled it's "OK" but when
the observer discovers WHAT he does in order to analyse, his analysis leaps in quality

[Ian Royal]

so if football isn't a game that can be broken down in such a way to back up an interesting point, then what the hell are you supposed to use to back up or provide a form of evidence for such an argument?

You use your opinion, reasoning, understanding of what the game involves and how that player fits and performs in relation to the game, maybe annecdotal evidence if you feel that way inclined and potentially some relevant stats if they are suitable (which in my opinion they rarely are). You use your own eyes, mind and brain to form an opinion and then try and get that over in your posts.

Thats a fair and good point.
but what ive been taught, as im sure many others have, is that backing up an opinion with actual facts( stats, quotes, etc.) is better and will get you more plausibility than just writing opinion based on observation or one's own perspective. If I were to write an scout report on a young player and i just said hes good at passing because I saw him never loose the ball. im sure it wouldnt be as plausible as saying out of the 29 passes he made 29 had been successful, meaning he had 100 percent success rate in the 90 mins.

In Hoop Blahs version you can back up your opinion with observed evidence without use of stats.

You're absolutely right you should always try to explain why you have an opinion and back it up. That doesn't mean stats are better or more reliable than opinion based on observed evidence though. It's just as easy to use incomplete out of context statistics as it is to only see what you want to in a game.

ie Royalee only seeing Harper pass sidewise, point and give the ball away. He doesn't see what happens after the sideways pass, doesn't notice the tackles and doesn't see/remember all the balls that actually reach their intended target

[Snowball]

[

In Hoop Blahs version you can back up your opinion with observed evidence without use of stats.

You're absolutely right you should always try to explain why you have an opinion and back it up. That doesn't mean stats are better or more reliable than opinion based on observed evidence though. It's just as easy to use incomplete out of context statistics as it is to only see what you want to in a game.

ie Royalee only seeing Harper pass sidewise, point and give the ball away. He doesn't see what happens after the sideways pass, doesn't notice the tackles and doesn't see/remember all the balls that actually reach their intended target

OK

[Ian Royal]

The point i was making is I'm not using statistics, I'm using analysis of observed situations. Clearly this will be coloured by my inherant bias, but that is something I am reasonably good at identifying and taking into consideration.

SEMANTICS. You're not formally logging (a) filled a gap left by defender. (b) closed down loose midfielder (c) forced ordinary pass
but you are still DOING it. This is what scientists call "the locked door". Amateurs "sort of" know what they are doing but don't
really analyse their process. When it works it works fine but is easy to manipulate and can go badly wrong.

The professional actually sits down and asks himself, "WHY, do I think Harps is good? What am I doing?"

sch analysis is behind the locked door. if it's allowed to be free and uncontrolled it's "OK" but when
the observer discovers WHAT he does in order to analyse, his analysis leaps in quality

That is unspeakably patronising.

The point is the statistics often posted on here are a snapshot of a single element only and are often taken out of context. An opinion formed on intelligent and analytical observation of evidence, for example a random sample of 7 games this season is likely to be much more reflective of reality, than an opinion based on a small and selective sample of specifc statistics.

All statistics are observable evidence, not all observable evidence is statistics

[Snowball]

The point i was making is I'm not using statistics, I'm using analysis of observed situations. Clearly this will be coloured by my inherant bias, but that is something I am reasonably good at identifying and taking into consideration.

SEMANTICS. You're not formally logging (a) filled a gap left by defender. (b) closed down loose midfielder (c) forced ordinary pass
but you are still DOING it. This is what scientists call "the locked door". Amateurs "sort of" know what they are doing but don't
really analyse their process. When it works it works fine but is easy to manipulate and can go badly wrong.

The professional actually sits down and asks himself, "WHY, do I think Harps is good? What am I doing?"

sch analysis is behind the locked door. if it's allowed to be free and uncontrolled it's "OK" but when
the observer discovers WHAT he does in order to analyse, his analysis leaps in quality

That is unspeakably patronising.

Nothing to do with "patronising" and on footie-matters I'm not ranking myself on the expert side.

The statements are simple fact and there's an excellent book out on the subject right now, mentioned earlier in the thread.

It's funny, but I have to teach analysis of writing in a "get behind the locked door" way, because "gut-feel" and intuition
is fine for liking/disliking, but you need to understand WHY you like/dislike and to measure prejudices against writing-types
as opposed to quality of craft. There are some excellent examples of expert v lay-person in analysing things which SEEM
to be "unquantifiable" but ARE, in fact, quantifiable.

The point is the statistics often posted on here are a snapshot of a single element only and are often taken out of context. An opinion formed on intelligent and analytical observation of evidence, for example a random sample of 7 games this season is likely to be much more reflective of reality, than an opinion based on a small and selective sample of specifc statistics.

That is a mere assertion with absolutely no evidential support

All statistics are observable evidence, not all observable evidence is statistics

No, all observable things can be measured. They are measured by the observation itself.

The difficulties are coding the measurements or distinguishing component parts

[roberto_11]

Oh dear, even though I agree with Ian Royal, you both need to get out more!

[Horsham Royal]

[Woodcote Royal]

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.

Well said. An excellent counter to the garbage contained in the opening post which has gone some say to restoring this old duffers faith in modern education.

[Mr Angry]

Statistics prove nothing; and relying on them is foolish.

I'll give an example - if a team scored 46 goals in the whole season, they would, statistically at least, be towards the bottom of the goal scoring charts BUT if those 46 goals had resulted in 46 1-0 wins, that makes a mockery of that statistic.

In other words, its about context. A final thought - knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing that you don't put tomatoes into a fruit salad.

No, you are wrong. Goal-scoring is NOT a good predictor. It's goal SUPERIORITY that predicts.

So you've created a straw man to demolish.

Reading last night slipped from top to second in the best-defence table, and are second in the best attack table

But they are miles clear in the goal superiority table because Birmingham don't score enough and Wolves have a shit defence.

I know and totally agree; I was merely being highloy selective and subjective about which stats I used in order to back up my own opinion...............

.......................can't think of ANYONE else who does that on this board!!

[The whole year inn]

a hell of a lot of work has obviously gone into Snowballs posts, so for that reason he can post what he likes.

He enlightened me about Long's impact as a sub this season in the form of goals scored, penalties won and assists.

[Snowball]

Statistics prove nothing; and relying on them is foolish. I'll give an example - if a team scored 46 goals in the whole season, they would, statistically at least, be towards the bottom of the goal scoring charts BUT if those 46 goals had resulted in 46 1-0 wins, that makes a mockery of that statistic. In other words, its about context. A final thought - knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing that you don't put tomatoes into a fruit salad.

No, you are wrong. Goal-scoring is NOT a good predictor. It's goal SUPERIORITY that predicts.
So you've created a straw man to demolish.
Reading last night slipped from top to second in the best-defence table, and are second in the best attack table
But they are miles clear in the goal superiority table because Birmingham don't score enough and Wolves have a shit defence.

I know and totally agree; I was merely being highloy selective and subjective about which stats I used in order to back up my own opinion...............

.......................can't think of ANYONE else who does that on this board!!

Not the same thing at all, Mr A. You invented a hypothetical and very extreme case.

I use actual playing statistics.

It's THEORETICALLY possible for a side to win 50-0 in their first game, lose all the rest of their games 1-0 and be bottom of the league with a positive goal difference. It is theoretically possible that Aliens will land on the pitch at half-time.

[Snowball]

a hell of a lot of work has obviously gone into Snowballs posts, so for that reason he can post what he likes.

He enlightened me about Long's impact as a sub this season in the form of goals scored, penalties won and assists.

Cheers!

[Hoop Blah]

so if football isn't a game that can be broken down in such a way to back up an interesting point, then what the hell are you supposed to use to back up or provide a form of evidence for such an argument?

You use your opinion, reasoning, understanding of what the game involves and how that player fits and performs in relation to the game, maybe annecdotal evidence if you feel that way inclined and potentially some relevant stats if they are suitable (which in my opinion they rarely are). You use your own eyes, mind and brain to form an opinion and then try and get that over in your posts.

So PLEASE explain why there are such polarised opinions over, for example, Harper.

Are we not all capable of watching a game and thinking a player played well (or didn't)

Actually we are NOT that good, and thousands of experiments have shown that

As Keith Hackett has said, "perception and actuality are not the same."

And that's why we have debate, because opinions can vary on the same subject.

Your endless stats don't change that, they just give some further 'evidence' to try and support those opinions. Personally I rarely find your stats give any insight into how a player has played, what they can or can't do, or how they might perform in the future. Mainly that's because footballl is a game with far too many variables to quantify with statisitcs but ait also comes down to the fact that your stats do not paint the whole picture of the events the stats represent.

As for Harper, and the debate surrounding his performances, I don't think the fact that views on Hobnob vary is much of a supporting arguement that stats are the way forward. Plenty of people on here post rubbish, plenty post a lot of sense, and so you have to be able to filter out the rubbish in order to focus in on the interesting stuff, if you can't do that you end up getting blinded by drivel.

Harper also plays a role in the team that some either don't appreciate or don't want to see in the side. Even when he's playing well Harper then gets slated for doing what's asked of him by the managment. When he's playing badly that criticism gets louder and harsher.

That's life though, and football has also been a game that polarises opinion.

[The whole year inn]

amongst the tripe on this board a few statistics are the least of the moderators worries, seriously

We can start with the Coppell out thread. Load of bollocks when we are 3rd with two games in hand with a dozen games to go!

oxf*rd absurd.

[Snowball]

amongst the tripe on this board a few statistics are the least of the moderators worries, seriously

We can start with the Coppell out thread. Load of bollocks when we are 3rd with two games in hand with a dozen games to go!

oxf*rd absurd.

The BBC Sport website today

Birmingham managing director Karren Brady has told boss Alex McLeish his job is safe, despite fans' unrest. (Daily Mail)


Be fair, second is shockingly bad.

[loyalroyal4life]

Andy Hughes put effort in but couldnt cross a ball for shit.

andy hughes got paid for his effort and shit results at the end of it, snowball does what he does without any...donations

[Skyline]

Goal superiority predicts nothing. It's a reasonable guide to which is the better team, but not a predictor by any means.

Imagine a team that wins half its games 3-0 and loses the other half 1-0. GF=69, GA=23. GD=46. Points = 69. Identical goal diff to Mr Angry's hypothetical team, but 23 points fewer.

Oh I DO so love it when people spout without thinking or checking their facts

The correlation in this year's Championship between goal-superiority and points per game is .9939

That is 99.39% totally predictive

Even if you don't bother to allow for the fact of different numbers of games played and just
look at goal superiority, the prediction is a staggering 91.3%

That's not 'predictive' though, is it? All you're saying is that teams with better goal differences will tend to be higher up the table than those with poorer GDs. But the two things are not independent variables. A team with a good goal difference will tend to have won more games than they've lost, which means they will tend to have a high points total, and so a higher position in the table than a team with a poor goal difference. As you've no way of knowing, at the start of the season, what a team's goal diff is going to be, you can't predict a team's final position based on that.

It's like if you were to bet on a double of Portugal winning the next World Cup and Christiano Ronaldo being the tournaments top scorer - the odds you'd get wouldn't be the same as you would get if you multiplied the two seperate odds together, because they aren't independent of each other.

What would indicate some predictive ability in GD is if one could go back over past seasons and see if the teams with the better GDs going into matches tended to win a high proportion of them. If I'm really bored this Sunday I might have a go at that.