RUMOUR - Tommy Smith

[Ian Royal]

There is absolutely no point in posting statistics without some sort of analysis and conclusion.
There is even less point in posting selective small samples or incomplete statistics.

And generally there is always an implication made by posting statistics, whether it is intended or not. If people then argue with the perceived implication it is useless to just argue that your stats are correct, because it's unlikely anyone is saying the numbers are wrong. They are saying that the implications, or perceived conclusions are wrong.

Statistics (and evidence in general, observations, whatever) are for providing back up to an argument or theory. Not just to be posted and admired.

The point is this is a discussion forum, not a stat love in.

And when a poster repeatedly professes to have only joined in because of all the knee jerk posting and opinion based solely on prejudice and personal baggage, surely it would be reasonable to expect that poster to be making some sort of point with their posts. Rather than just putting up statistics.

Also if the person is only here to put up statistics, it is up to everyone else to interpret them, in which case there should be no (or very few) arguments or follow up posts from the statistician.

And if you're going to use stats, they need to be presented well. It's not a GCSE Maths exam, no need to show your working. We all know where it has come from, and if we're that arsed we can search the source material ourselves, without it needing to be posted all across the boards forcing unnecessary scrolling.

Frankly my finger just can't take that much excercise.

[Norfolk Royal]

+1

[Maguire]

Christ, a good reminder as to why I don't read this board. How to ruin a thread 1.01

How do you know?

How do I know what? How to ruin a thread?

I've studied a population of 34,534 threads in my lifetime and found that 973 of those contained juvenile mudslinging or pages of pointless and personal argument. Of these 973, 973 were considered "ruined" by a majority of HNA poster where "majority" equates to >90%.

PS Shane Long is gash.

[Rawlie19]

[Snowball]

Does posting 1522 posts in just over 6 months make you a professional writer???

You mean as Snowball, of course, not my other twelve pseudonyms?

[Snowball]

Christ, a good reminder as to why I don't read this board. How to ruin a thread 1.01

How do you know?

How do I know what? How to ruin a thread?

I've studied a population of 34,534 threads in my lifetime and found that 973 of those contained juvenile mudslinging or pages of pointless and personal argument. Of these 973, 973 were considered "ruined" by a majority of HNA poster where "majority" equates to >90%.

PS Shane Long is gash.

Quote: "I don't read this board."

[Snowball]

There is absolutely no point in posting statistics without some sort of analysis and conclusion.

"AND THIS IS IN NOW WAY ANY KIND OF ATTACK ON SNOWBALL"


Let's start by blowing your (as usual) inane remark out of the water.

1 A poster of statistics MAY choose to interpret those statistics
2 A poster of statistics may choose to post them for OTHERS to interpret.

Neither method is right or wrong.

The converse (what you do) is to make conclusions on no evidence or flawed evidence or extremely subjective, blinkered opinion which is based on not every incident, not every angle, not every game and through biased eyes.

There is even less point in posting selective small samples or incomplete statistics.

"AND THIS IS IN NOW WAY ANY KIND OF ATTACK ON SNOWBALL"

That's called the "presumed close" and would be thrown out in any decent court. Show me, PROVE to me, that your stats are "pure" or even any purer than my own.

And generally there is always an implication made by posting statistics, whether it is intended or not.

IMPLICIT does not equal EXPLICIT. Just because YOU say it's so don't make it so.

It doesn't make it so if 95% of this board thinks it so.

This is a board which, when it fails to understand why football professionals pick a player like Shane Long (after watching them in training almost every day) decide in their "wisdom" that it's because Shane sucks dick.

If people then argue with the perceived implication it is useless to just argue that your stats are correct, because it's unlikely anyone is saying the numbers are wrong.

You REGULARLY say the stats are wrong, biased, selective. Stop making it up as you go along knee-jerker

They are saying that the implications, or perceived conclusions are wrong.

I am not responsible for the low intelligence of many readers. Implicit does not equal explicit.

Perceive more or less equals "assume" and as the man once said, assume makes an ass of U and me.

[Snowball]

Statistics (and evidence in general, observations, whatever) are for providing back up to an argument or theory. Not just to be posted and admired.

According to Saint Ian Royal

The point is this is a discussion forum, not a stat love in.

And actual evidence, for example goals scored by strikers, or clean-sheets when certain defenders are playing MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS.


LOOK, DUMBO, if we brought in a centre-back and he played 23 consecutive games in which we did not concede a goal, then he stops playing and the only change is his replacement, and in the next 23 games we concede 46 goals, there is a logical conclusion to be made.

I know it's tough, but try. Maybe ask your mummy to help.






And when a poster repeatedly professes to have only joined in because of all the knee jerk posting and opinion based solely on prejudice and personal baggage, surely it would be reasonable to expect that poster to be making some sort of point with their posts. Rather than just putting up statistics.

No. You really shouldn't presume the rest of the world
works at your low standards.

[Ian Royal]

There is absolutely no point in posting statistics without some sort of analysis and conclusion.

"AND THIS IS IN NOW WAY ANY KIND OF ATTACK ON SNOWBALL"


Let's start by blowing your (as usual) inane remark out of the water.

1 A poster of statistics MAY choose to interpret those statistics
2 A poster of statistics may choose to post them for OTHERS to interpret.

Neither method is right or wrong.

The converse (what you do) is to make conclusions on no evidence or flawed evidence or extremely subjective, blinkered opinion which is based on not every incident, not every angle, not every game and through biased eyes.

No, I don't. My opinions are of course informed by my personal baggage and bias, but are always based on the evidence I have available, which isn't exclusively statistics.

There is even less point in posting selective small samples or incomplete statistics.

"AND THIS IS IN NOW WAY ANY KIND OF ATTACK ON SNOWBALL"

That's called the "presumed close" and would be thrown out in any decent court. Show me, PROVE to me, that your stats are "pure" or even any purer than my own.

It's funny, but you seem remarkable by your abscence in any thread I do post statistics. I don't have to post my own statistics, to know when some show a very very narrow view of a very complex situation.

And generally there is always an implication made by posting statistics, whether it is intended or not.

IMPLICIT does not equal EXPLICIT. Just because YOU say it's so don't make it so.

Everyone has personal baggage and bias, this interfers with everything they do. The very act of posting statistics means you have selected those for a purpose. There is always an implication whether it is intended, concious or whatever.

It doesn't make it so if 95% of this board thinks it so.

If 95% of people think something you don't, it would probably be a good idea to consider re-evaluating your opinion

This is a board which, when it fails to understand why football professionals pick a player like Shane Long (after watching them in training almost every day) decide in their "wisdom" that it's because Shane sucks dick.

That's a tiny minority, don't tar all of HNA with it. Especially me, because it just isn't accurate.

If people then argue with the perceived implication it is useless to just argue that your stats are correct, because it's unlikely anyone is saying the numbers Can yare wrong.

You REGULARLY say the stats are wrong, biased, selective. Stop making it up as you go along knee-jerker

Can you not disagree with me without resorting to childish insults? Many people recognise and have pointed out your numbers have sometimes been wrong. Or often incomplete at the very least.

They are saying that the implications, or perceived conclusions are wrong.

I am not responsible for the low intelligence of many readers. Implicit does not equal explicit.

If you think the majority of regular posters on HNA are of low intelligence then you are very wrong. You appear to have some sort of superiority complex, quite wrongly

Perceive more or less equals "assume" and as the man once said, assume makes an ass of U and me.

When you read something it is very very rarely 100% explicit, you have to make assumptions and decisions about meaning and interpret it as best you can. misunderstanding can be easily cleared up with follow up explanations if done in a grown up and civil way. "slippage" is the technical term for the difference between writers intention and the readers understanding. From the number of petty arguments and misunderstandings your posts seem to generate, there is a hell of a lot of slippage in there.

[Ian Royal]

Statistics (and evidence in general, observations, whatever) are for providing back up to an argument or theory. Not just to be posted and admired.

According to Saint Ian Royal

The point is this is a discussion forum, not a stat love in.

So no argument against that point then? Just a silly little dig at me.

And actual evidence, for example goals scored by strikers, or clean-sheets when certain defenders are playing MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS.

Not at all what I or anyone on here has said, keep making it up as you go along.

LOOK, DUMBO, if we brought in a centre-back and he played 23 consecutive games in which we did not concede a goal, then he stops playing and the only change is his replacement, and in the next 23 games we concede 46 goals, there is a logical conclusion to be made.

I know it's tough, but try. Maybe ask your mummy to help.

Again, no one is saying anything that disagrees with this and it bears very little resemblence to anything that has sparked the really really tedious arguing.

The conclusion is indeed logical, and probably fairly accurate. But logic does not equal correct and there are very many other factors involved that affect this. It is not possible for the only change to be that players replacement. I take it the games aren't against the same team? In the same weather conditions? With the same ref? I think you get my point. It is ALWAYS more complicated than the statistic. Although good, complete statistics help you make an informed and balanced judgement.

And look, yet more childish insults

And when a poster repeatedly professes to have only joined in because of all the knee jerk posting and opinion based solely on prejudice and personal baggage, surely it would be reasonable to expect that poster to be making some sort of point with their posts. Rather than just putting up statistics.

No. You really shouldn't presume the rest of the world
works at your low standards.

Another dig. Are you honestly saying that your posts don't put forward an opinion and are just pure stats for others to be interpreted? Or are you just making a 'clever' comment for no real purpose other than to be contrary and argue?

I'm sorry to all the other posters, but I don't see why I should just sit quietly by and let snowball bad mouth me and make things up and put them in my "mouth".

[Terminal Boardom]

Blah blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks blah blah blah bollocks

[Jimbo]

God this thread is boring now

[Snowball]

After your timed post yesterday...

I am very impressed at how hard you work to avoid arguments, J.

[Mike Hunt]

oxf*rd me...

Grow a dick both of you...

Moderators really should do that... moderate this rubbish...

Offtopic anyone....

[Agent Balti]

1 A poster of statistics MAY choose to interpret those statistics
2 A poster of statistics may choose to post them for OTHERS to interpret.

Neither method is right or wrong.

Now please don't abuse me for commenting on the above, it's just an observation...no more, no less.

If the above is true, then what is the actual point of posting them if it's neither view is right nor wrong. The statistics have to be completely transparent as to what you're trying to prove or disprove. If neither point is particularly clear, it's easy to see why Snowball is not quite revered on the board.

Again, please don't rant at me...I am merely saying. If the stats can be interpreted in any way you wish...then people will do just that and then bombs go off.

[Rawlie19]

Ian, just block him already. Best thing I did. 4 versions of

This post was made by Snowball who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

in a row numerous times and I have NO interest to see what it is he has said.

Are we any closer to signing Tommy Smith anybody? Interesting that he's not involved in any of the Watford friendlies today. What do we think about that and do we think he'll recover from his injury to pass a medical?

[Snowball]

1 A poster of statistics MAY choose to interpret those statistics
2 A poster of statistics may choose to post them for OTHERS to interpret.

Neither method is right or wrong.

Now please don't abuse me for commenting on the above, it's just an observation...no more, no less.

If the above is true, then what is the actual point of posting them if it's neither view is right nor wrong. The statistics have to be completely transparent as to what you're trying to prove or disprove. If neither point is particularly clear, it's easy to see why Snowball is not quite revered on the board.

Again, please don't rant at me...I am merely saying. If the stats can be interpreted in any way you wish...then people will do just that and then bombs go off.

Look at your (accidental) sleight of hand. (In the case of Ian Royal these 'slips are not accidental)

You say (implying that I mean this) "If the stats can be interpreted in any way you wish"

BUT I DO NOT SAY THAT.

What I said was that someone can posts stats and follow up those stats with an interpretation
or s/he can posts stats for others to interpret. That does NOT mean that all interpretations are valid.


Just to be clear, with a clear example. Not that it will happen, but imagine Shane Long played the next 20 consecutive league games
and scored a hat-trick in every game.

I post the following.

Season 2009-10 LONG 20 Starts = 60 goals. End of.

I might choose not to "expand" on the stats, believing they speak for themselves, BUT

it's POSSIBLE that some idiots would post "And he's utter gash."

Just because I may or may not choose to expand on stats with a narrative conclusion doesn't mean there isn't one. When Long wasn't scoring lots of goals one of the criticisms was "Long doesn't score lots of goals". Now he DID score "lots" of goals (season 2008-9 = 9 goals in less minutes than equals 18 full games) the criticism changes to he doesn't do enough in other ways.

That of course is not true. He did some brilliant chasing-down in the last games last season, one, in particular "hopeless chase" that won us the ball and a chance.


There are people on this list who would find a way to criticise Shane if he got 25 goals this season.

[Royal Rother]

[Hampshire Royal]

So you've made your living out of professional writing. What have you had published, and where can I find it?

[The Surgeon of Crowthorne]

If we do ever finally sign Tommy Smith can we please have a new thread instead of merging it with this pile of crap.